nrlm wokrsho aug2011

REPORT AND PROCEEDING OF WORKSHOP STATE LEVEL CONSULTATION WORKSHOP ON NATIONAL RURAL LIVELIHOOD MISSION (NRLM)

26-27 AUGUST 2011

ORGANISED BY

JHARKHAND STATE LIVELIHOOD PROMOTION SOCIETY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND

1

JSLPS/Arif Document/Report/Workshop NRLM

TABLE OF CONTENT

S.No. Content Page No.

1. Inaugural Session 2

2. Group Work 2-13

3. Presentation

3.1 Presentation on POTENTIAL CONVERGENCE OPPORTUNITY IN NRLM 4-7

3.2 Presentation on POTENTIAL ROLE OF NGOS, CIVIL SOCIETY IN NRLM 8-10

3.3 Presentation on POTENTIAL ROLE OF PRIVATE SECTOR IN NRLM 11-13

4. Deliberation by Mr. T. Vijay Kumar on inception of NRLM 14-17

5. Question Answer Session 17-19

6. Annexure:

6.1 List of Participant 20

6.2 Acronyms 21

2


The Programme started with welcome note of Mr. S.N. Pandya, SPM, Jharkhand State

Livelihood Promotion Society. Later a bouquet was presented to Mr. Debasish Gupta,

Development Commissioner, Mr. R.S. Poddar, Principal Secretary Rural Development

Department and Mr. Vishnu Kumar, Secretary Labour and Welfare Department.

INAUGURAL SESSION

Dignitaries like Mr. Debasis Gupta, Development commissioner, Principal Secretary, RDD,

Mr. Vishnu Kumar, Secretary, Labour and welfare Govt of Jharkhand have contributed in the

inaugural session. Their contribution in the workshop is given in brief as follows:

Mr. Poddar brought to attention of the house the importance of conducting workshop in order

to meet deadline of submitting SPIP (State project implementation plan) by Sept 30, 2011. He

introduced the concept of National Rural

Livelihood Mission (NRLM) and explained

the rich background Jharkhand state, though

Jharkhand is suffering from poverty the

present times. He reiterated that JSLPS, a

functional society under RDD will be the

nodal agency to implement NRLM. Mr.

Poddar explained how grass root level

institutions will be involved in NRLM and

what would be their role in preparation of

SPIP.

Describing about the journey of poverty alleviation programmes in India, Mr Poddar said that

IRDP was launched and completed its 15 years of project period. Later, IRDP was replaced by

SGSY under which a community institution (SHG) formed and it was linked with banks. Now,

NRLM is going to be launched. The basic feature of NRLM is to enable community institution

to carry on with livelihood activity on their own and govt role should be minimal.

Mr. Bishnu Kumar said about the offers of 22 ITIs in Jharkhand to promote skill to the rural

poor. He informed the house that National Council for Vocational Training has recognised 125

industrial centres.

Mr. Debashis Kumar Gupta shared with the house his dismal past experiences, when poverty

alleviation program confined to just asset distribution.

GROUP EXERCISE SESSION

This session started with brief introduction about the workshop by Mr. Pandya. He threw light

on the reasons of conducting the workshop. Describing the importance of workshop, he said

that JSLPS, being a nodal agency for implementation of NRLM in the state has the

responsibility to prepare quality SPIP and hence this workshop is a road in the making of SPIP.

And for this purpose, two competent consultants have been working rigorously for the last two

months for JSLPS.

3


Further about group exercise, he reiterated that this session is purely technical session. Groups

will be formed for the discussion

1. Role of NGO, how we want to integrate, role for better implementation,

2. What would be the convergence,

3. Role of private sector, what exact role for skill training and skill development.

Subsequently Mr. Pandeya Invited

Mr. Manish Dubey, consultant JSLPS for

SPIP to acknowledge the house about

group exercise

Mr. Manish Dubey greeted house to join

the workshop and explain as to why their

role is important in making SPIP. He

reiterated that shaping of programme is

rolling process and similarly rural

livelihood promotion is also taking its

shape right from IRDP then SGSY to NRLM in terms of the perspective and view replaces in

the issue on rural livelihood e.g how the role of implementers, how the programme has

changed, What would be whole range of stakeholders (Civil society, Pvt. Sector, various Govt

support institution like financial institution and line department) and their potential role, How

the partnership should be happen, anticipate the challenges, how to address the entire

programme.

He throws a big question to the house that how we can together mobilize and strengthen the

institution of the poor to make sure that the range the livelihood actually reach to the poor, who

ensure poor better access to the services, to entitlement, to right & so on and to strengthen

policy and governance in terms of livelihood concern, programme management of NRLM.

What are the enable arrangement, structure, instrument and people will live for this to happen.

How we will planning for partnership work. How it will actually be operationalize.

Moreover, he briefed about the formation

groups, for exercise and told that three

groups will be formed to discuss on three

different topics as follows:

1. Potential role of NGOs, Civil society in NRLM

2. Potential convergence opportunity in NRLM;

3. Potential role of private sector in NRLM;

Before starting group exercise, a brief

presentation to the house on NRLM

guidelines & implementation framework

given by Mr. Manish Dubey. After this

presentation, Mr. Dubey briefed the house about the topic on which groups will have to work

out.

4


PRESENTATION ON POTENTIAL CONVERGENCE OPPORTUNITY IN NRLM

5


6


7


8


PRESENTATION ON POTENTIAL ROLE OF NGOS, CIVIL SOCIETY IN NRLM

9


10


11


PRESENTATION ON POTENTIAL ROLE OF PRIVATE SECTOR IN NRLM

12


13


Exercise of group 3 is presented by Mr. Deepak Upadhyay

Addition/queries

1. If beneficiary gets skill training and is positioned in a far flung place, 50 km away from the

village. Will it be worthwhile, when hostel in the same city can be provided at least during

the probation period, so that they can save money which can be spent on the journey

between village and town.

2. Participant from DBtech assured that L & T provides accommodation also.

Mr. T Vijay Kumar answered that this is a valid point. The employers should provide the

accommodation facilities. State Livelihood Mission with a dedicated setup can start facilitation

centres, and the remuneration for this can be part of their own salary structure. He indicated at

the kind of facilitation centres D Btech & L & FS and have provided, and that this should be

responsibility of SLM and private sector.

Mr. Pandya was facilitating the programme and summed up the gist of all the three

presentations. Mr. Pandya called the house for their queries, confusions, suggestions and

comments regarding operational issues, implementation framework, and policy to be formed at

state level.

Mr. Pandya pointed at the

commendable contribution of Mr.

T.Vijay Kumar as a key planner of

NRLM & extended his gratitude for

his commitment towards the

programme, as he could make his

presence in the programme a very

short notice.

Mr. Pandeya invited P Secretary

RDD Mr. R.S Poddar, J.S MORD

Mr. T. Vijay Kumar and special

secretary RDD Mr. Paritosh

Upadhyay to be with members on the dais and called on the participants to clear their doubts

and queries in the open session and expressed his confidence that this session would definitely

give the whole house a very good insight of the programme.

14


DELIBERATION OF MR. T. VIJAY KUMAR ON INCEPTION OF NRLM

Mr T. Vijay Kumar described about how this programme came into inception and how it

differed from the earlier programmes. He said that IRDP’s focus was on asset and over the

years, different initiatives, many of them from NGOs have been taken. Several interventions

came from the report which was submitted to the SAARC summit in Dhaka in 1993. Where the

first independence of South Asia commission of poverty eradication consisting of eminent

experts from South Asian Countries took close to two years 91-92 to look at large scale poverty

eradication initiatives in countries like India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Maldives,

Nepal, Bhutan. They looked for those initiatives of poverty eradication which had worked and

those which had failed. The

challenge before the

commission was that most of

the world had eradicated

poverty. Many countries

which had become

independent when India had

come out of the colonial rule,

experienced tremendous

economic growth and also

were able to abolished

poverty.

The world largest numbers of poor are in South Asia, and naturally in South Asia, India. So the

attempt of this commission was to understand why poverty is endemic and why poverty has not

been eradicated in these areas, compared to the similar countries which attained independence

at same time, e.g. China, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Philippines. India was represented by Mr.

Hashim & Mr. Venugopal was secretary to PM at that time. They said what we should have a

model, unique to south Asia. South Asia also has its strengths, be it institution of the family,

being community, the village community so looking into this they saw mostly failure. The

interventions, in which poor had a very active role right from beginning, were successful.

There didn’t come at the end of all the planning method done for them. That’s why the

paradigm shift from seeing poor as passive object, to basically subject people who are thinking,

people who have capabilities. So, they said those programme which had taken this into account

and there was active role for the poor members in all stages of the programme, those

programme was successful. The second thing they said, poor suffers from multiple deprivations

so, economic poverty eradication will not do so there are multiple deprivations. Poor face many

obstacles even though they have tremendous capabilities. So, what is that secret, what is that

mechanism, which has enabled the poor to come out from poverty in spite of so many

obstacles. And that they said to when you, when institution of the poor. When people were

organised and when they build their own institutions and here we must be clear the meaning

institution of the poor as compared to institution for the poor, so institution for the poor will

include NGOs Govt, Bank etc. They still external to the poor. The institutions of the poor will

include SHGs, Farmer group, Labour association. These groups are formed by the poor

themselves, and hence there is sense of ownership in decision making. So, the institution of the

15


poor are typical building blocks for any poverty eradication programme that was the very

important lesson, very important finding and they found wherever poor were encouraged,

poverty eradication was possible. They also said that these are not, they also look at to correct

the institution of the poor so generic institutions which are based on affinity, based on bonding.

These are the worth which is capable of being with sovereignty of deprivation. They also said

that this has not happened automatically so there is need to induce this. And that is the role of

institution for the poor. A sensitive

support system for the poor that is

provided by local govt, NGO,

Govt. Now, based on the

recommendation of commission,

UNDP funded a pilot in each of

the SACs. So the pilot in India was

implemented in AP from 95 to

2000. Similarly there is pilot in

Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

Incidentally it may come as

surprise that in Independence

south Asia commission recommendations were based on very successful programme that was

run in Pakistan by a very eminent person who was from the Civil Service of Pakistan govt, who

resigned and joined AGA Khan rural support programme Mr. Shoyeb Sultan Khan. So the Pilot

in AP was most the successful one among pilots in South Asia. And then the idea of the

SAARC secretariat at the time was that similar programme should be run in various states and

some more that didn’t happen. But within AP the lesson learnt for UNDP pilot from 95-2000,

was scaled out. The state govt itself took a loan from World Bank and this was scaled up in two

phases which ran from 2000 and it will be over in 2011. So for about 11 years of this

programme based on success of the first UNDP pilot was scaled up in our state. I have

privilege to be associated with the Andhra Pradesh govt for about 10 years right from the

beginning when I came here at New Delhi. Meanwhile the planning commission & MORD

looked at what was the large scale initiative throughout the country and therefore how to

restructure SGSY programme and so as a result of this based on Kudubashree, SERP based on

Tamilnadu experience, Pradan, various NGOs, and Myrada etc. Idea was how to do we scale

up without losing of quality and that is how NRLM was formed based on assessing what

happened within the country and plugging the missing areas in various programme.

Therefore the programme has been conceived based on practical appreciation of situation on

ground it’s not theatrical. There are some generic principles common to and across the country

but exact shape which naturally which NRLM will take in any state naturally depend upon

local circumstances, local geography and local history. There are some generic principle those

are believe in the capabilities of poor, organising of the poor, building institution of the poor,

nurturing them and so institution is poor has independent investment on its own and then

having a sensitive support structure. So whenever you have all these three then it’s possible to

work with the NRLM and each state should learn what are the best practices within the state is

and Jharkhand itself has many best practices. So, my request to the SPIP team, state govt which

is at planning phase is all to take stocks of which are the best practices within the state of

16


Jharkhand. And I have very interest to the last presentation I saw the lots of corporate have

expressed interest to do a bull’s tick model and that is something which I have not heard in

other states. When I saw the agenda of the govt body come out of the corporate partnership but

we look surprise and I am very impressed the group recommended that we would we will to

take up certain block, certain geography in bull stick model. So I think we should take stock of

whatever work has Jharkhand but not quick results there have been in operation for reason time

for us to learn lessons. So I think the first thing to recommend to SPIP team is to take stock of

this so whether best practice of institution building, livelihood promotion, financial inclusion,

around social issues. Poverty is not based on income power; go around health, around issues of

trafficking. So this state’s of yours best practices and how the lesson to be learnt from that. We

also do that failure, what is not work why it is not work. So we should be very honest we

should do infrastructure. It’s not the question of blaming but at least we should not repeat

mistakes. So that gives us, then we should look at what are happened outside of state or can we

learn from there. So we should have home grown model which is built on your strength. Which

is based on your unique opportunities, so this is I thought is the framework for the SPIP

planning for you to do a planning and one very serious problem I do see in Jharkhand is about

Financial Inclusion. The performance is very poor, I really don’t know even though Mr.

Pandeya has been saying that I have all answers but this something which bits me. So, we

really have to figure out what is the solution for financial inclusion but at affordable cost. So, I

also need to worry when people say that we should have MFIs. So what is the affordability to

the poor? For this we need private sector. MFI unfortunately have been looking at whatever

affordable potentials. So, poor their own viability should be there. So this again we have to

look at various alternatives. In fact one of the states realises that PACS is working well. So, I

advice to the state why can’t you do financial intermediaries through your PACS. States like

Chhattisgarh where PACS are doing wonderful work around procurement for Paddy & etc.

My request to GM NABARD, please you should constitute today team which looks at financial

input it is matter which is you know being discussed at all level actually in Delhi we have so

many meetings where the moment we talk about Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Orissa and then

the issue of Financial Inclusion. If you see the history of Jharkhand, many tribal worlds suffer

exploitation by the middleman. Where the poor there, Mahajan are there. Government will not

be there, Mahajan is there. So, Financial Inclusion we need to have a unique solution. One of

the solutions which Jharkhand should look at the Karnataka Govt experience with NABFINS

that Mr. Al. Fernandez is also closely involved with work done in Jharkhand that something

you should have seen. Third piloting with commercial banks in Bihar to basically address the

problem faced by Branch Manager. Because at corporate level CMDs & all they says yes yes

we look for the poor but finally BM is the person who decides he the chairman for me. Unless

he signs cheque, credit will not be given to the beneficiary. There are some experiences in

Jharkhand, where NGOs have worked with branch managers. For financial inclusion, I would

request all of you apply your mind; this is very serious bottleneck so far as NRLM is concern.

We know the fact that poverty can be defeated. It is shame that poverty is still there.

One of the important learning from AP. Turning point in NRLM will be also in Jharkhand

when you develop social capital among the poor. So the women come out of poverty, became

17


the trainer, we have this is concept of Community Resource person. These pools of resource

persons really change the picture. We realise that when you build SHG & SHG federation,

federations you know this worked out institution of the poor but when you transform them into

Institution support the poor then your job is that. NRLM success depends upon how well you

nurture the social capital of the poor and it is highly doable. It is highly doable, 8 years ago we

started requesting women who had come out with poverty to go to neighbouring village,

neighbouring district and to do the training them and they responded very well and result was

outstanding. In Bihar, the programme started in 2005-06, 200 women came from AP these

were SHG members who had came out from poverty, who had been members of SHG for more

than 10 years that will be substantial diversified livelihoods and still they are willing to go to

other state that to train people. 200 women come to Bihar and 40-50 villages covered village by

them. They spent month in each village and they took 4 to 5 rounds in a year. They have to for

about 2.5 years and turning point in Bihar Jeevika is when the first set of hosts in Bihar were

able to produce their own CRP. So, CRP is not women who’s very articulate or who speaks

well but is a person whose life has changed whose life has been transformed. And so she

speaks from her experience. So its experience is training and that is the solution for Jharkhand.

So to cover the whole state we don’t have to multiply their office, we do this own way initially

in blocks and human resource from this block they once move this programme to neighbouring

block, districts, and then human resource there takes into other places. Sometimes people

thinking that you know we are training when we talk about poverty eradication, but it is

possible that we have to change, change of our thinking and we have to differently and it’s also

not costly but it is very cost effective model. So the CRP that means NRLM should be driven

by the poor. Apply all element of strategies in every phase of implementation rather applying it

into first stage of introduction and then phase of conclusion whatever strategy whatever

implementation we want to do the lens that you should adopt the lens you will adopt judge

whether strategy make sense or not is what is the role of institution of the poor, what is the role

of CRPs what is the role of community professional. Each and every element of the strategy

would be the might view of salt test. One you do this the result will automatically come. So,

NRLM would require believing in the capability of poor and believing in each of operational

strategy.

Question answer session

It has become fashion to initiate a programme with the name of MISSION like NRHM, NHM

etc but parent department never gives full autonomy of its operation. Still project mission unit

is dependent to the parent organisation for decision making. Hence system of operation is not

improved. So, under NRLM, state management unit will have autonomy to work independently?

Mr. T. Vijay Kumar replied that we have said, state govt should develop annual action plan

based on their condition. Action plan by interface by the ministry, by the state govt, by the

mission. The Annual Action Plan is also in the context of 7 year poverty eradication plan, so

therefore the flexibility is there. But, I know unless that spelt very carefully into the byelaws

for the society and govt also keep say the flexibility of operation. So, I couldn’t agree with you

more. This is only programme where entire focus is building demand side. We are saying that

18


we do have any target for the development of like road, infrastructure etc. For the success of

mission how many self reliant, self dependent institution of a poor have been created. We

believe that once you have built strong institution of people, they will have known how to

remove the poverty. They understand better how to remove the poverty. The objective here to

build good institution of the poor, institution managed by people, financially self reliant. This is

investment for demand side. The basic work under NRLM is to involve people.

SHG movement is very poor. NABARD can participate to improve the scenario, only if

principal secretary Mr. Poddar initiate in this issue.

Mr. Poddar replied that the problem of FI is very much centre of agenda. UIDAI Adhar, 30

members have enrolled. Whosoever is registered job card in NAREGA will have bank a/c. We

have allocated one block one bank in different areas to ensure ADHAR number to open bank

a/c. PACS have presence in each and every village/panchayat. We have allowed regenerating

PACS in every panchayat/village. This LAMPS and PACS can do banking operation.

Cooperative deptt has a plan under ITDP to enable each of the LAMPS & PACS banking

operation. Those institutions which are very mature very much in place and they have lot of

potential what is missing link are there. We can probability can take care of these institution.

Suggestion by Mr. T Vijay that if PRADAN or NGO can map of good SHG. We can work

under NRLM treat this location as intensive area by capitalising federations from both end,

work can be started at demand and supply both.

Mr. Poddar added that under NRLM, SPIP should also envisage convergence with similar

programmes implemented by different programme like agriculture department, welfare deptt.

Our SPIP will take of this aspect. Everybody in isolation will not work.

T Vijay reiterated that in second phase JTDP is scaling in 500 villages. Earlier they were

working in 300 villages. Rather scale up to 500 villages, JTDP has to scale up the programme

to 200 villages and take care of 300 villages for further support mean supply side, if capacity

building aspect took place.

Narendranath from PRADAN shared experience regarding bank linkage in Hazaribag & told

NABARD will be an effective body in mobilising bankers and their support for financial

linkage.

Mr Deepak Upadhyay raised and issue on Financial Inclusion and said that just opening of

bank a/c is should not be considered as financial inclusion. This is the very sector, where NGO

has great opportunity. Unless and until income level of beneficiary increased and they go for

re-banking, it should not be treated as FI. He again asked a condition of those areas which is

not taken intensive block in first phase and SGSY will be terminated by 31 Dec 2011.

Mr. T Vijay Kumar replied that for non-intensive, flow of fund will not stop. But budget given

to the state government the fund for non intensive will cut down but it will not be zero.

Discussing in this issue he reiterated that wherever good work has been done with SHG might

have work like intensive block. But this will do in partnership with corporate. So, identify

block, cluster etc and also treat them as intensive.

19


Mr. Paritosh Upadhyay, special secretary RDD said regarding the nodal agency in state for the

preparation of SPIP that we have submitted proposal to nominate existing JSLPS as nodal

society for SPIP preparation as initial work of NRLM. It is clear from Law department but

from finance deptt, has reservation that how can society formed for one project can be

applicable for multiple projects, if it is formed for the purpose to run one project. They again

raised the issue of funding after NRLM.

Replying on the issue of state nodal agency Mr. T. Vijay Kumar said if we looked at other

state Tamilnadu women development corporation, In Bihar Jeevika (BRLP) was setup to

implementing Jeevika has been nominated by government as nodal agency. It’s not necessary

to start new society. If state can start new society, please mend the bye-laws in such way that

the programme can be implemented across state.

Mr. Pandya concluded the session with a belief that this not end but this is starting of sharing

innovative and workable views.

Finally Mr. Kailashpati Jha gave vote of thanks to Debasish Gupta, Mr. Vishnu Kr Secretary

labour deptt, Mr. Poddar, Principal secretary Mr Paritosh Upadhyay and delegates from various

institution, NGOs and corporate.

20


Appendix List of Participants NRLM Workshop

Sl

No

Name of the Participant Designation Organization Phone E-mail

Administration & Government

1 Mr. T. Vijay Kumar Joint Secretary MORD Government of India

2 Mr. Debasis Gupta Development Comissioner Government of Jharkhand 0651-2491070

3 Mr. R S Poddar Secretary Department of Rural Development,GoJ 9431707250

4

Shri Vishnu Kumar Principal Secretary

Department of Labour ,Employment

and Training 0651-2490514 [email protected]

5 Mr. Paritosh Upadhaya Program Director SRLM,GoJ 9431381831 [email protected]

6 Mr. B. Nijalingappa CEO SLNA,GoJ 9204857260

7 Mr. Jata Shankar Choudhury Director SAMETI 9431115706 [email protected]

NNMU (NRLM)

8 Mr. Kamalesh Prasad National Manager National Project Management Unit 9810899893 [email protected]

Banking

9 Mr. Vinay Kumar Vutukuru Consultant World Bank 9934368224 [email protected]

10 Mr. Jiji Mammen Genral Manager NABARD 9431708964 [email protected]

11 Mr. B K Das AGM NABARD 7250961670 [email protected]

12 Mr. S K Singh Coordinator,SLBC Allahabad Bank 9470140089 [email protected]

13 Mr. Sanjay Akhouri Zonal Manager State Bank of India 9431706703 [email protected]

14 Tarlochan Singh Zonal Manager Bank of India 9431115417 [email protected] n

15 Shalabh Kr. Shrivastava Chief Manager PNB 7209015729 [email protected]

Academics & Research

15 Dr. Harishwar Dayal Regional Coordinator Institute of Human Development 9835540564 [email protected]

16 Dr. Shivendra Kumar Head HARP 9955360454 [email protected]

17 Prof. A.K Jaiswal Principle Scientist IINRG( formely ILRI) 9431593545 [email protected]/[email protected]

18 Mr. Mintoo Job Professor Birsa Agricultural University 9431374196 [email protected]

CSR & Industry

19 Dr. O P Jha Eecutive Director Zindal Steel & Power 0651 2242362 [email protected]

20 Mr.Biren Bhuta Chief (Corporate

Sustainability Services)

Tata Steel 9234531276 [email protected]

21 Ms. Jaya Patel Head(CSR) Tata Power Ltd [email protected]

22 Mr. Ravindra Singh Executive Director Bokaro Steel Plant Non Government Organization

23 Mr. Mahesh Venketesh KGVK 9279448630 [email protected]

24 Siva Kumar Group Head - Agri & IT Businesses,ITC 91 40 2780 0875 [email protected]

25 Mr. Sanjay Basu Mullick Secretary ICFG 9431103041 [email protected]

26 Bipin Bihari Singh Zonal Programme Manager GVT 0651-2230904 [email protected]

27 Mr. S.A.Ahmed President KSRA 651-2351520 [email protected]

28 Mr. Satish Girija Secretary NBJK 6546-263332 [email protected]/ [email protected]

29 Mr. Arvind Secretary Badlao Foundation 9334346801 [email protected]

30 Mr. Manish Kumar Executive Director Dynamics Tarang 0651-2547480 [email protected]

Narendra Nath PRADAN 9868882025 Non-farm Skill Development

31

Dr. B.V. Somasekhar Fashion Institute, OCFIT 040-32995455/ 325520000, 9701299933 40-66772009 [email protected]

32 Mr. Sebastian Fernandis Regional Coordinator Cap Foundation 9337475699 [email protected]

33 R.Anwer State Coordinator BOSCO(DBTI) 9811122604 [email protected]

34 Mr. Vikash Kumar Regional Head IL& FS Cluster Development Initative

Ltd.

9801555990 [email protected]

35 Col.N.B. Saxena(RETD.) Regional Training Manager Lersen & Tuubro Limited 9810646996 [email protected] /

[email protected]

36 G. Singh

Peoples' Enterprise & Producer Networks

36 Mr. Nilesh K. Singh Program Coordinator RRA ( Watershed network) 6512401974 [email protected]

37 Ms. Bala Devi CEO VB.Net( State wide Value Chain

network)


38 Mr. Vartika Jaini Executive Director Collectives for Integrated Livelihood

Initiative


Other

39 Mr.Abhijit Chanda Programme Officer The Centre for Development and

population activities

0651 2243296 [email protected]

40 Mr.Kallol Saha Consultant NRLM 9471710631 [email protected]

41 Mr.Manish Dubey NRLM Consultant NRLM 9810511019 [email protected]

JSLPS team

42 S.N. Pandya State Project Manager UNDP/JSLPS 9431102803

43 Mr. K.P. Jha M & E expert UNDP/JSLPS 9471171401

44 Mr. Debasis Mohapatra Livelihood Specialist UNDP/JSLPS 9431102656

45 Mr. Navin Gupta State Finance Associate UNDP/JSLPS 9470161360

46 Mr. Arif M. Akhtar District Coordinator, Palamu JSLPS 9471761237

47 Mr. Kamal Jaiswal Block Coordinator, Satbarwa JSLPS 8986715542

48 Mr. Debashis Chaki Block Coordinator,

Bishrampur

JSLPS 9304969406

49 Ms. Shanti Mardi District Coordinator, Ranchi JSLPS 9934161626

50 Mr. Khalid Hussain Block Coordinator, Anagara JSLPS 9431356408

51 Mr. DD Singh Block Coordinator, Namkom JSLPS 9431750399

52 Mr. Praveen Singh District Coordinator, HB JSLPS 9431552327

53 Mr. H. N. Mishra Block Coordinator, Padma JSLPS

54 Mr. Ajit Singh District Coordinator, Pakur JSLPS 9471142332

55 Mr. Birbal Thakur Block Coordinator, Pakuria JSLPS

56 Mr. Prakash Kumar Block Coordinator JSLPS

57 Mr. Sanjay Kumar Block Coordinator JSLPS

58 Mr. Xavier Ekka Block Coordinator JSLPS

59 Ms. Ekta Kumari EACO JSLPS 8986641070

mailto:[email protected]









mailto:[email protected]/[email protected]






















21


Acronyms

RDD – Rural Development Department

NRLM – National Rural Livelihood Mission

CRP – Community Resource Person

SPIP – State Project Implementation Programme,

SHG – Self Help Group

AP- Andhra Pradesh

BRLP – Bihar Rural Livelihood Programme

GM – General Manager

NABARD – National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development

PACS – Primary Agriculture Credit Society

SLM – State Livelihood Mission

NGO – Nan Government Organisation,

SERP – Society for elimination of Rural Poverty,

SGSY – Swarn Jayanti Swarozgar Yojna,

MORD – Ministry of Rural Development,

SAARC – South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation,

IRDP – Integrated Rural Development Programme,

JTDP – Jharkhand Tribal Development Programme,

LAMPS – Large Area Multipurpose Society,

UAIDAI – Unique Identification Authority of India,

JSLPS – Jharkhand State Livelihood Promotion Society,

PM – Prime Minister

SPM – State project Manager

nrlm wokrsho aug2011

Documents