Você está na página 1de 11

Rural development

Rural development in general is used to denote the actions and initiatives


taken to improve the standard of living in non-Urban neighbourhoods,
countryside, and remote villages. These communities can be exemplified
with a low ratio of inhabitants to open space. Agricultural activities may be
prominent in this case whereas economic activities would relate to the
primary sector, production of foodstuffs and raw materials.

Development actions

Rural development actions mostly aim at the social and economic


development of the areas. These programs are usually top-down from the
local or regional authorities, regional development agencies, NGOs, national
governments or international development organizations. But then, local
populations can also bring about endogenous initiatives for development.
The term is not limited to the issues for developing countries. In fact many
of the developed countries have very active rural development programs.

Rural development agencies

• Rural Development (RD) agency of the United States Department of


Agriculture (USDA RD)
• Rural Development Council (RDC) of Northern Ireland
• England Rural Development Programme by DEFRA
• Rural Development programmes in Pakistan
• The George Foundation, India
• Agricultural Development & Training Society, India
• Village Earth: The Consortium for Sustainable Village-based
Development

On October 13, 1994 The Department of Agriculture was reorganized under


the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act. Under that Act, USDA Rural Development was created
to administer the former Farmers Home Administration's (FmHA) non-farm
financial programs for rural housing, community facilities, water and waste
disposal, and rural businesses. The former Rural Electrification
Administration's (REA) utility programs were also consolidated within Rural
Development.

Rural Development's mission statement is "To increase economic


opportunity and improve the quality of life for all rural Americans."[1] Rural
Development has an $86 billion dollar loan portfolio, and administers nearly
$16 billion in program loans, loan guarantees, and grants through their
programs. For various reasons, much of this funding currently goes to urban
areas to help develop and redevelop suburbs and resort cities.[2]

Rural Development is committed to helping improve the economy and


quality of life in all of rural America. Through our programs, we touch
rural America in many ways.

Our financial programs support such essential public facilities and


services as water and sewer systems, housing, health clinics,
emergency service facilities and electric and telephone service. We
promote economic development by supporting loans to businesses
through banks and community-managed lending pools. We offer
technical assistance and information to help agricultural and other
cooperatives get started and improve the effectiveness of their
member services. And we provide technical assistance to help
communities undertake community empowerment programs.

We have an $86 billion dollar portfolio of loans and we will administer


nearly $16 billion in program loans, loan guarantees, and grants
through our programs.

Rural Development achieves its mission by helping rural individuals,


communities and businesses obtain the financial and technical
assistance needed to address their diverse and unique needs. Rural
Development works to make sure that rural citizens can participate
fully in the global economy.

Programs administered

1. Guaranteed loans. These are "lender-driven" programs, whereby business


loans (generally made by commercial banks) receive a Federal loan
guarantee. The guarantee is designed to support and incentivize rural
business lending and to support rural job creation and retention. The primary
program in this category is the Business & Industry (B&I) guaranteed loan
program.

2. Direct loans. Direct loans are made to intermediary economic


development groups who will in turn assist private rural business
development through the re-lending of these funds. Note that the Agency
does not make loans directly to for-profit businesses or individuals.

3. Grants to nonprofits & public bodies. Typically these grants are made to
nonprofit economic development groups, towns, or tribes who will
undertake some project in support of private rural business development.

4. Grants to private rural businesses & agricultural producers. These grants


are narrowly targeted and competitively awarded in support of value-added
agricultural ventures and in support of renewable energy and energy
efficiency projects. Matching funds from 50-75% are typically required.

Nearly all of the Agency's programs are funded annually through


Congressional appropriation as part of the US Federal Government budget
process.

RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT


GRANT PROGRAM (RCDG)
Rural Cooperative Development grants are made for
establishing and operating centers for cooperative
development for the primary purpose of improving the
economic condition of rural areas through the development
of new cooperatives and improving operations of existing
cooperatives. The U.S. Department of Agriculture desires to
encourage and stimulate the development of effective
cooperative organizations in rural America as a part of its
total package of rural development efforts.

Rural Development 1890 institutions can:

• Sponsor business conferences and workshops;


• Finance rural businesses;
• Provide technical assistance to new and existing
businesses, including cooperatives;
• Assist communities in leveraging other resources
via state, local, private, and/or public funding;
• Assist businesses through the application process;
• Offer courses in business development;
• Provide computer labs where community members
can have access to other rural economic
development sources on the Internet;
• Establish business incubator services.

Rural Development Assistance

In addition to providing funding, USDA Rural Development works with


1890 institutions to assist in developing business plans and loan packages.
USDA Rural Development also provides community leaders with counseling
and direction on how to develop economic stimulus programs for their
communities.

Rural Business Entrepreneurship Development Initiative

The Rural Business Entrepreneurship Development Initiative is designed to


encourage 1890 institutions to establish and promote business
entrepreneurship as a viable occupational alternative for students in all
academic disciplines. It is also designed to promote entrepreneurial practices
with cooperatives and other businesses located in underserved communities
through use of creative thinking, technical assistance, information and
technology, strategic alliances, research and development planning, and
expanding global and international market relationships.

BISNet

The Business Information System Network (BISNet) is an electronic


telecommunications initiative that gives rural areas access to the Internet.
Jointly sponsored by Rural Development and Southern University, BISNet
allows community leaders to share successful business development
concepts. It also links leaders to a network of corporate, government and
private entities.
1890 National Scholars Program

USDA Rural Development awards scholarships to students to attend one of


the 1890 land-grant universities and study agriculture, food science, or
natural resource sciences. The purpose of the initiative is to:

Strengthen the long-term partnership between USDA Rural Development


and the 1890 institutions;

Increase the number of students studying agricultural, food science, and


natural resource sciences;

Offer career opportunities to scholarship recipients at the U.S. Department


of Agriculture

Business Programs

Promoting a dynamic business environment in rural America is the goal of


Rural Development, Business and Cooperative Programs (BCP), Business
Programs (BP). BP works in partnership with the private sector and the
community-based organizations to provide financial assistance and business
planning. BP helps fund projects that create or preserve quality jobs and/or
promote a clean rural environment. The financial resources of BP are often
leveraged with those of other public and private credit source lenders to
meet business and credit needs in under-served areas. Recipients of these
programs may include individuals, corporations, partnerships, cooperatives,
public bodies, nonprofit corporations, Indian tribes, and private companies

The following are very generic suggestions for companies


focused on rural market.

Focus: The company/organization must focus on a single service


unlike Drishtee or n-logue or Akshaya.

Training: Training is necessary for all stakeholders with the


company (including employees, customers, vendors, etc). Why it is
important? Because, in rural India you get raw talent. So they must be
aligned to your requirements. Sometimes you may have to start from
creating the whole ecosystem before actually scaling up your
operations.

Adjusting to local needs: Rural India consists of varied cultures,


variety of traditions, etc. Your model should have flexibility of
adapting to the local needs.

Technology for masses: Use technology wherever is possible.

Word of mouth advertising: In rural India, people love to be your


brand ambassadors and talk about all good things about your
product/service if they like it.

End-to-end service delivery: You need to make sure that the


consumer gets service-as-a-whole delivered. For example, if you just
collect a resume and charge the customer Rs. 20, and this may not be
scalable. However, you collect a resume, provide him a job having
salary of Rs 5000 and collect Rs. 20000. This would definitely work
with rural people. Take the case of SKS, they just not only provide
capital to people but also help them in their businesses similar to
venture capital companies engaging with their portfolio companies.

Emotional Attachment: Rural people keep the trust with your


product/service and so you must live up to it. And to create such
trust, you need to align with local communities in order to follow the
trick, "trust is transferable".

Efficient distribution: Rural India is sparsely populated and so it


is obvious that the distribution costs are high. Here, one needs to
deploy innovative approaches in order to bring down the costs.

Development of Women and Children in Rural Areas


(DWCRA) program was launched in 1982, as part of the
Integrated Rural Development program (IRDP). Its aim was
to empower rural women living below the poverty line (BPL)
by way of organizing them to create sustainable income
generating activities through self-employment. It was the
first program of its kind that specifically focused on
improving the quality of life of rural women. A unique feature
of DWCRA, unlike other IRDP components, was that along
with the improvement in income, it also focused on access to
health, education, safe drinking water, sanitation, nutrition,
etc. Thus it not only aimed at economic development, but
also intended promoting social development. Another unique
feature of the program was that it emphasised group activity.
It was thought that in the long run women’s empowerment
depends on creation of a movement that promotes
awareness and self-reliance.

The present report is an outcome of the Quick Evaluation


Study of DWCRA sponsored by the Ministry of Rural
Development and conducted throughout the country, on a
sample basis.

Objectives

The objectives of the Quick Evaluation Study of DWCRA were


as follows:

1. Program Implementation: to study the degree of


conformity to the guidelines of DWCRA with reference
to selection of beneficiaries, selection of projects,
utilisation of funds allocated, transparency and
involvement of people in the program implementation.
2. Continuity in the Activities: to see what proportion of
groups formed under DWCRA have continued to remain
active; what are the factors behind continuation or
drop-out, and whether the assets created have
survived, and are in use.
3. Impact: to understand the impact of the program on
poverty alleviation, i.e., whether DWCRA has
contributed to increase in production, employment and
living conditions of women living below the poverty line.

Methodology

The study is based on a 20% sample of all the districts in the


country. In smaller States such as Goa and small North-
Eastern States a minimum of two districts were selected. The
sample districts were selected purposively to ensure that (a)
the selected districts represent the State adequately with
respect to geographical distribution and special conditions,
and (b) in at least one district (if available) watershed
programs (under DDP, DPAP and IWDP) are implemented.

In all, data were collected from 1803 villages spread over


128 districts in all the States and Union Territories. In these
villages 1683 DWCRA groups were studied. This involved
interview with 8158 beneficiaries of the program. In addition,
to study the dynamics of operation of DWCRA in the field,
1729 women who had not joined DWCRA, but were eligible
for becoming DWCRA members, were also interviewed.

Findings of the Study

The major findings of The Quick Evaluation Study of DWCRA


are as follows:

General Findings

1. Overall, DWCRA was not able to meet the objectives


that were set forth. The study showed that a large
majority of beneficiaries could not utilise the program
to translate into substantial economic benefits. The
average per day income of a beneficiary was reported
to be only Rs. 42.
2. At the national level DWCRA program was received
well. There was wide spread knowledge about the
various aspects of DWCRA. However, very small
proportion of beneficiaries could tell the different
components of program. Lack of commitment of
officials, inability to mobilise NGOs for the benefit of
program and high illiteracy of rural women were some
of the reasons for this.
3. As women became more aware, there was a reduction
in family size and time spent on household activities.
More women were keen to spare some hours for
productive work.
4. Eligible women, from both majority and minority
communities, participated in DWCRA, in proportion of
their overall population. However, since the program
was targeted at BPL families, a greater proportion of
beneficiaries belonged to lower classes, and Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC& ST). The program, as
intended, also benefited disabled women. Analysis
showed that 52.8% of all beneficiaries were SC/STs, and
2.4% were disabled.
5. DWCRA reached not only married women but it also
benefited unmarried and widowed women, though their
number was small.
6. As such, DWCRA beneficiaries had more number of
children than others (non-beneficiaries), but the
average age of beneficiaries was three years more than
that of the later. This showed that more women, who
had participated in DWCRA, had lower fertility.
7. Data showed that both literate and illiterate women
participated in DWCRA. It had mobilized both educated
and uneducated women, with better educated women
often providing the leadership, as Adhyaksha or
Treasurer.
8. DWCRA had no effect on schooling among children
because all sections of society attached high
significance to children’s education. Data showed that
about 85% children in age group of 6-14 years were
attending schools, irrespective of whether their mothers
had participated in DWCRA or not.
9. DWCRA women had higher daily earnings than other
women who had not participated in DWCRA. While the
beneficiaries earned Rs.42.00 a day, the non-
beneficiaries earned Rs.32.20. The difference was of
Rs.9.80. However, the daily earnings of DWCRA women
(Rs.42) were also less than the minimum wages.
Majorities of DWCRA beneficiaries were daily wagers,
self-employed or housewives. Their daily earnings were
between Rs.20-40. The annual family income of
beneficiaries was Rs.11,925 while that of the non-
beneficiaries was Rs.10,978.
10.Data on indicators such as kuccha-pucca house, toilet
facilities in the house, and availability of drinking water
indicated poor living condition of both beneficiaries of
DWCRA and the non-beneficiaries. In both the
categories, about 60% lived in kuccha house and about
75% lacked toilet facilities. Moreover, among the BPL
families, few owned consumer durable or farm
equipment, such as refrigerator, three- wheeler, tractor,
power tiller, combined thrasher/harvester. Only 12.5%
had TV sets and 17.6% had ceiling fans. Percentage of
women whose family owned motorcycle or tractors was
almost negligible.

Communication

The penetration of mass media among the BPL families in


rural areas was very limited. Consequently, among the
beneficiaries of DWCRA only 6.3% read newspaper, 15.8%
listened to radio, and 12.8% watched TV. This showed that to
reach out to the poor women in rural areas, the development
programs will still be dependent on the mobilization of
village workers and NGOs. Thus in developing
communication strategies the role of government was
crucial.

Time Constraints

1. Women are often constrained with time, as well as


location of work. It was heartening to note both
beneficiary and non-beneficiary groups were interested
in income generating activities. The time they could
spare for income generating activities after attending to
household chores depends on a number of factors such
as season, family circumstances, culture, motivation
and type of work. On an average, beneficiaries could
spare 4.3 hours per day, and non-beneficiaries could
spend 4.7 hours.
DWCRA Projects

1. Under DWCRA different types of activities were chosen


in different States. Yet more than half of them were
related to the primary sector. Overall, 23.1% groups
chose agriculture related activities, and 20.9% chose
livestock and fisheries activities. Another 11.6% of the
groups chose forest based activities. This is
understandable because most women felt that they
should take up the projects they understood. Involved
as they were in agriculture, livestock, fisheries and
forest activities in day to day life, they found it more
convenient to engage in related activities.
2. Overcrowding of similar projects in an area often lead to
overabundant supply of commodities, resulting in
marketing difficulties for groups.
3. In an overwhelming majority of cases the block level
officials selected the project. In some cases
beneficiaries themselves chose the projects. The role of
NGOs in project selection was minimal.

Você também pode gostar