1. 1 Poverty Scenario Poverty ScenarioMAHARASHTRA

2. 2POVERTY Affront to Human Dignity Affront to Human Dignity Cost to Economy & Polity Cost to Economy & Polity Create Vulnerability & Dependence Create Vulnerability & Dependence Consequences - Consequences - Non-inclusive growth Non-inclusive growth social unrest social unrest instability instability unproductive manpower unproductive manpower perpetuation of poverty perpetuation of poverty Solution Solution IRDP, SGSY, NRLM, ?, ?, ? IRDP, SGSY, NRLM, ?, ?, ? No more experimentation No more experimentation POVERT / NRLM = PROSPERITY For each village, every villager For each village, every villager

3. 3 ‘POVERTY’ speaks for itself P -Population- SC/ST/OBC. O -Occupation- Landless, Labor, Artisans, Marginal rain fed farmers, Lowly Service provider. V -Vulnerability- infant mortality, early marriages, ill health, Malnutrition, child labour. E -Education- Illiteracy, dropouts, unemployability. R -Resources- Credit, skills, tools, raw material, livelihood access. T -Traditions- Superstitions, practices, taboos, Customs Y -Yield- Low productivity, No-growth, peripheral market. peripheral market.

4. 4 Maharashtra Salient Features Salient Features Salient Features Area : 3.08 lakh sq. km. Population (2001 Census) Population (2001 Census)  Rural :5.57 crore (57.7 million)  Urban :4.10 crore (41 million)  Total:9.67 crore (96.7 million) Rural Households:125 lakh (12.5 million) Rural Households:125 lakh (12.5 million) Rural Habitations : 98000 Rural Habitations : 98000  Villages:42500  GPs :27920 Average population of GP:2000 Average population of GP:2000  1000 to 60000:389  5000 to 10000:1360 Rainfall:from 300 - 6000 mm Rainfall:from 300 - 6000 mm

5. 5 POVERTY STATISTICS Rural BPL population: 45 lakh families Rural BPL population: 45 lakh families : 2.05 crore Villagers : 2.05 crore Villagers Comprising of Comprising of ST:10.80 lakh (60 lakh population) SC:8.50 lakh (40 lakh population) NT/ND/VJ/SBC:5.00 lakh (25 lakh population) OBC :14.70 lakh (60 lakh population) Others:6.00 lakh (24 lakh population) According to NSSO data Maharashtra should have around 1.75 Cr. Rural peolple (31% of rural population) & around 40 lakh rural families. According to NSSO data Maharashtra should have around 1.75 Cr. Rural peolple (31% of rural population) & around 40 lakh rural families.

6. 6 District wise position (2002) as per report of Human Develop0ment Commission District Per capita Income HDI Rural BPL % Rural BPL %IMR Maharashtra548670.5835.731 Mumbai893431.00---- Mumbai Urban 1.00-- Thane785310.8245.030 Raigad570740.7029.726 Ratnagiri450600.4434.726 Sindhudurg471830.6039.125 Nashik558410.5140.428 Dhule308690.3653.627 Nandurbar305160.2873.040 Jalgaon431840.5043.341 Ahmednagar478530.5725.021 Pune799680.7619.526 Satara470090.5915.526 Sangli466990.6816.425 Solapur450550.4829.333 Kolhapur559310.6417.625 Aurangabad494650.5728.736

7. 7 District wise position (2002) as per report of Human Development Commission District Per capita Income HDI Rural BPL % Rural BPL %IMR Jalna326350.2738.325 Parbhani361610.4333.227 Hingoli291500.4334.541 Beed316720.4726.033 Nanded288530.3730.636 Osmanabad291550.3832.824 Latur287640.4729.831 Buldhana301650.4144.538 Akola367500.4448.131 Washim236280.3643.125 Amravati337100.5049.635 Yavatmal369790.2245.544 Wardha417570.4941.131 Nagpur605920.7147.438 Bhandara420370.4651.029 Gondia369860.4657.933 Chandrapur434560.4147.544 Gadchiroli243700.2155.028 Maharashtra548670.5835.731

8. 8 Percentage of poor by Regions in Maharashtra Region RegionRural 1993-941999-002004-05 Kokan (Excl. Mum) Kokan (Excl. Mum)15.218.4.30 Western Mah (Excl. Anagar) Western Mah (Excl. Anagar)24.910.717.5 Khandesh (incl. A’nagar) Khandesh (incl. A’nagar)47.331.835.5 Marathwada Marathwada49.824.229 Amaravati Divn. Amaravati Divn.49.131.740 Nagpur Divn. Nagpur Divn.49.341.950

9. 9 Skewed Poverty Distribution in the State Maharashtra is :- Maharashtra is :- Rich state -Nationally Rich state -Nationally Poor state -Locally Poor state -Locally Mumbai, Coop Processing & Dairy movement, 58% service sector contribution to GSDP, lower(12%) agri. Sector contribution but from cash crops creates a perception of affluence Mumbai, Coop Processing & Dairy movement, 58% service sector contribution to GSDP, lower(12%) agri. Sector contribution but from cash crops creates a perception of affluence  But 58% rural population still generates their livelihood from agriculture  Majority of them from low end ari. Activities & labor

10. 10 Area : 3390 sq.km. (1% of state area) Population : 2.30 crore (54% of urban & 24% of state population) Per Capita income : Rs.85000 (54867- State Avg.) HDI: 0.91 (0.58) G S D P proportion : 45% Mumbai Metropolitan Region

11. 11 8 Contagious Municipal Corporations. 8 Contagious Municipal Corporations. Mumbai, Thane, Kalyan-Dombivli, Ulhasnagar, Bhiwandi, Mira-Bhayandar, Vasai-Virar, Navi-Mumbai. Mumbai, Thane, Kalyan-Dombivli, Ulhasnagar, Bhiwandi, Mira-Bhayandar, Vasai-Virar, Navi-Mumbai. Ambernath & Badlapur on the verge of becoming municipal corporations Ambernath & Badlapur on the verge of becoming municipal corporations 9 other Municipalities, 55 Villages 9 other Municipalities, 55 Villages 25 k.m. from the periphery of Mumbai Metropolitan Region the Tribal Area of thane District starts Shahapur, Jawhar, Mokhada, Vada, Talasari, Dahanu. Shahapur, Jawhar, Mokhada, Vada, Talasari, Dahanu. Hard core Tribal area Hard core Tribal area Miles away from Development Miles away from Development 90% BPL Families (45% of these rural population) 90% BPL Families (45% of these rural population) HDI much below State Average (0.23) HDI much below State Average (0.23) No market access (except warli paintings) No market access (except warli paintings) Malnutrition Malnutrition Agriculture, labour, minor forest produce collection Agriculture, labour, minor forest produce collection

12. 12 Poverty relevant Areas - Maharashtra 12 Districts under Panchayat Extension to Schedule Area (PESA) 12 Districts under Panchayat Extension to Schedule Area (PESA) Spread over whole state Spread over whole state 49 PESA Intermediate Panchayats 49 PESA Intermediate Panchayats 5000 PESA GPs 5000 PESA GPs Tribal Population : 86 lakh (16% of Rural Population – 9% of total population) Tribal Population : 86 lakh (16% of Rural Population – 9% of total population) 4 Districts are Minority dominated 4 Districts are Minority dominated Hingoli, Parbhani, Buldhana, Washim Hingoli, Parbhani, Buldhana, Washim Minority population : State - 15.6% (4 Districts - 35%) Minority population : State - 15.6% (4 Districts - 35%) 6 Districts affected by LWE (Naxalism) Gadchiroli, Gondia, Nanded, Yavatmal, Chandrapur, Bhandara. Gadchiroli, Gondia, Nanded, Yavatmal, Chandrapur, Bhandara. 25 Districts & 172 Blocks have HDI below state Avg. 27 Dist. Have PCI below state Avg.

13. - PESA Districts in Maharashtra

14. 14 - LWE affected districts in Maharashtra

15. 15 - Minority Dominated Dist. in Maharashtra

16. 16 - Districts having PCI above State Avg.

17. 17

18. 18 Diversity in Poverty- Examples  According to UNDP/GOI Maharashtra is Ranked 4 th (HDI-0.523) only after Kerala, Punjab, Hariyana.  State reproduced & declared its First District wise HDI report in 2002 based on  PCI, Education, IMR.  It is 0.58 for state as a whole (Taking Mumbai HDI as 1)  26 Districts have HDI below state Avg. Gadchiroli HDI-0.21, Yavatmal-0.22 taking Mumbai HDI as 1 Gadchiroli HDI-0.21, Yavatmal-0.22 taking Mumbai HDI as 1  State has gone a step further Block wise HDI computed 172 blocks have HDI below state Avg.

19. 19 Diversity in Poverty- Examples  PUNE Most developed district (19.5% BPL) Most developed district (19.5% BPL) Having 3 tribal talukas - Junnar, Ambegaon and Khed Having 3 tribal talukas - Junnar, Ambegaon and Khed Hilly areas of Maval & Mulshi Hilly areas of Maval & Mulshi Rainshadow areas of Indapur & Daund Rainshadow areas of Indapur & Daund Proximity to Mumbai Market Proximity to Mumbai Market Coop Movement, High Industrilisation has some trickle down effects in Hilly & Tribal areas. Coop Movement, High Industrilisation has some trickle down effects in Hilly & Tribal areas.  Floriculture. Vegetable, Onion  Still few individual villages with rampant poverty  Though Comparatively less than state poverty Avg.(35%)

20. 20  NASHIK Industrially developed district. Industrially developed district. Winery of Maharashtra, Winery of Maharashtra, Agriculture, Horticulture growth, Onion Agriculture, Horticulture growth, Onion Has substantial tribal population Has substantial tribal population BPL Family - 41% BPL Family - 41% Benefits not gone to the tribals to the desired extent Benefits not gone to the tribals to the desired extent Poverty lives with plenty Poverty lives with plenty

21. 21  AHEMEDNAGAR Maximum Sugar Factories in any district of the State Maximum Sugar Factories in any district of the State Tribal Area in Akola Tahsil Tribal Area in Akola Tahsil Avg. district poverty - 25% Avg. district poverty - 25%  Tribal poverty - 50% Most of the District is in rain shadow area Most of the District is in rain shadow area  Excellent water shade development practices High % of BPL IN High % of BPL IN Rainshadow area where water guzzling crops not taken Rainshadow area where water guzzling crops not taken Tribal area where dam is situated, Benefits not accrued to Tribals Tribal area where dam is situated, Benefits not accrued to Tribals

22. 22  NAGPUR Second Capital Second Capital BPL – 48% BPL – 48% Tribal population in one Taluka Tribal population in one Taluka Benefits by Psuedo tribals. Benefits by Psuedo tribals.  NANDURBAR, GADCHIROLI are fully PESA Districts BPLHDIPCI Nandurbar73%0.2830516 Gadchiroli55%0.2124370 State Average 35%0.5854867

23. 23 Agriculture related Poverty issues Western Maharashtra Western Maharashtra  Less average holding, more production  Less average holding, more production  particularly, sugarcane growth  but also poor talukas like Radhanagari (Kolhapur), Maan/Khatav (Satara). Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg  Horticultural development through EGS  Horticultural development through EGS  Below Poverty Line percentage is below state average (30%)  Tribal and Scheduled Caste population insignificant  Non tribals, non scheduled caste could take EGS benefits  But textile workers from Mumbai remigrated to these areas  But textile workers from Mumbai remigrated to these areas  Created some adverse social & economic effects aggreivating poverty

24. 24  JALGAON, DHULE  Banana, Grapes are main cash crops  Mostly by non-tribals  BPL population not benefited significantly  Jalgaon BPL % – 43%  Dhule separated from fully tribal district – Nandurbar  Dhule BPL – 53%  Dhule BPL – 53%  Nandurbar BPL – 73%  Nandurbar BPL – 73%

25. 25  VIDARBHA  Asset Poverty More holding, less production More holding, less production Cause of suicides (?) Cause of suicides (?)  Entrepreneurial poverty No advantage taken of EGS Programmes No advantage taken of EGS Programmes  Productivity poverty Below average cotton production Below average cotton production  Nation – State – Vidarbha - Yavatmal  Skill Poverty Textile Industry should be prominant source of livelihood other textile developed areas  Bhiwandi, Malegaon, Ichalkaranji, Solapur, Paithan, Yevala

26. 26 Minor Forest Produce Minor Forest Produce Raw material available but skills are also equally raw Raw material available but skills are also equally raw Bamboo and Tendu Bamboo and Tendu  State Monopoly  Not included in MFP  Tribals involved in collection only  No processing activities in the hands of tribals Bidi & paper Industry in private hands Bidi & paper Industry in private hands Gadchiroli, Chandrapur, Gondia, Bhandara, Nagpur, Yavatmal. Gadchiroli, Chandrapur, Gondia, Bhandara, Nagpur, Yavatmal.  Annual realisation – Rs. 1000 crore for Bamboo + Tendu Processing would multiply many fold value addition Processing would multiply many fold value addition  Ownership of other 32 MFP legally transferred to community through Panchayats No visible effect on poverty eradication in above districts No visible effect on poverty eradication in above districts

27. 27 Industrial Production 26% GSDP generated from Industry 26% GSDP generated from Industry BPLs have hardly any share in Industrial production BPLs have hardly any share in Industrial production Mostly in agro based Industries through co-op. sector Mostly in agro based Industries through co-op. sector Micro-Enterprise activities by village artisans are also not much, though a lot of scope exists Micro-Enterprise activities by village artisans are also not much, though a lot of scope exists Need to develop supply chain involving BPL Micro- Entrepreneurs Need to develop supply chain involving BPL Micro- Entrepreneurs

28. 28 Service Sector 52% SGDP generated from service sector 52% SGDP generated from service sector However share of BPLs is confined to low value, bottom level services However share of BPLs is confined to low value, bottom level services Organised efforts to create demand-supply chain not very much successful under SGSY Organised efforts to create demand-supply chain not very much successful under SGSY Skill honing, linkage with demand side failed to take of barring certain sectors Skill honing, linkage with demand side failed to take of barring certain sectors  Garment, Beauty Parlor, Midday Meal supply, computersation, domestic servant provisioning are certain sectors which can claim moderate success

29. 29 Way Forward How to ensure inclusive & broad based growth How to ensure inclusive & broad based growth  Providing scope for BPLs to get due share Strong organisational set up of the poor, for the poor, by the poor Strong organisational set up of the poor, for the poor, by the poor Processes needs to be followed faithfully Processes needs to be followed faithfully Identification of the poor Identification of the poor Dedicated & sensitive manpower to deal with the task Dedicated & sensitive manpower to deal with the task Role of credit institutions is most crucial Role of credit institutions is most crucial Skill development & capacity building arrangements is a key factor Skill development & capacity building arrangements is a key factor

30. 30 Percentage of Rural Poor in Maharashtra and India Maharashtra MaharashtraIndia RuralRural 1973-7457.756.4 198345.245.7 1993-9437.937.3 1999-0023.727.1

31. 31 Head count Ratio of Poverty By Social Groups, Maharashtra 1999-2000 (%) IndicatorSTSCOBCOthersTotal Poverty Ratio (HCR) 44.2031.6421.8912.7823.22 Population Share 16.6313.0130.2740.10100.00 Contribution to total HCR 31.6617.7328.5422.07100.00