1

Table of Content

Foreword............................................................................................................................................... 3
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 4
Section I: Background ......................................................................................................................... 6
Section II: The KALIA Scheme ........................................................................................................ 12
Section III: Scheme Design and Challenges .................................................................................... 16
Defining beneficiaries .................................................................................................................................................... 17
Form and frequency of assistance .................................................................................................................................. 17
Operational modalities ................................................................................................................................................... 18

Section IV: Scheme Implementation and Challenges ..................................................................... 20

Applications ................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Information Education Communication (IEC) ............................................................................................................... 22
Identification of beneficiaries ......................................................................................................................................... 23
How were tenant farmers included in KALIA? .............................................................................................................. 30
Transfer of assistance ..................................................................................................................................................... 31
Identifying and rectifying errors after the first instalment .............................................................................................. 33
Review and monitoring .................................................................................................................................................. 35
Grievance redressal ........................................................................................................................................................ 35
Use of technology........................................................................................................................................................... 42

Section V: Gauging the Response to KALIA .................................................................................. 45

Methodology and Approach ........................................................................................................................................... 45
Key insights .................................................................................................................................................................... 45

Section VI: Macro Policy Questions and Challenges ..................................................................... 48

Section VII: After KALIA ................................................................................................................ 51
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 55
Annexure............................................................................................................................................. 57
Annexure 1: Analysis of bank accounts vs cheques ....................................................................................................... 57
Annexure 2: Samples of green and red forms ................................................................................................................ 58
Annexure 3: Details of IVRS ......................................................................................................................................... 60

2
Foreword

Direct income transfers are an important policy tool to provide financial independence to farmers. It
empowers farmers to be entrepreneurial, as they are otherwise constrained by financial and operational
challenges. Dependence on local lending at exorbitant interest rates, and recognizably ineffective
policy support such as loan waivers, only serve to limit a farming households’ appetite for risk.

In view of the persistent problems faced by the farming household, the Government of Odisha
attempted a rethink of mechanisms used to provide sustainable support to farmers. Leading
organizations in technology, banking, IEC, policy and governance integrated their efforts to make
significant headway on a data-backed policy creation and delivery, championing elements of
commitment, transparency, and collaboration. The result of this collaboration was the KALIA scheme.

I hope this scheme will be effective and widely benefits the farmers of Odisha. I congratulate all
stakeholders who have engaged in the journey that has been KALIA.

Dr Saurabh Garg, IAS,

Principal Secretary,
Department of Agriculture and Farmers’ Empowerment,
Government of Odisha

3
Executive Summary

This case study is an attempt to delve into the policy thinking behind KALIA and its design and
implementation. To ensure this doesn’t just remain a descriptive account of the KALIA experience,
the case study has been written in a manner that will allow any policymaker, academic and professional
working in the domain to understand and assess the wide-ranging choices and decisions that need to
be made when designing and implementing a targeted direct income transfer (DIT) scheme or a quasi-
Universal Basic Income (UBI).

The Government of Odisha (GoO) launched KALIA or Krushak Assistance for Livelihood and
Income Augmentation in December 2018 to provide financial assistance to its agricultural workforce.
The scheme intended to benefit not just the state’s small and marginal farmers (SMF) but also its
sharecroppers, tenant farmers and the landless agricultural households (LAH) in the state. At the time
KALIA was launched, while there were several state and central government programmes and schemes
targeted at the landowner farmers, the most vulnerable section of the agricultural workforce that
included the sharecroppers, tenant farmers and labourers was mostly left unsupported by policy. None
of the ongoing schemes targeted the country’s tenant farmers, sharecroppers and landless agricultural
workforce. In a pioneering effort, GoO overcame this policy lacunae with KALIA.

The scheme provided for an unconditional cash transfer of Rs 10,000, made annually to the landowners
and tenant farmers of the state in two instalments of Rs 5,000 each. To the state’s landless agricultural
households, the scheme provided a livelihood cash support of Rs 12,500, paid in three instalments.

Post the cash transfer, the scheme also built a mechanism to handhold landless agri-workers in utilizing
the transferred amount in creating a sustainable livelihood for themselves. Around 4 lakh landless
labourers across 6,000 plus Gram Panchayats (GP) were trained on different livelihood support
packages across the state.

Odisha’s decision to include sharecroppers, tenants and LAH in KALIA was both a declaration of
intent to help the most marginalized section of the agricultural workforce, as well as setting a precedent
for further reforms targeted towards them. KALIA also prioritized fund transfer to female members of
the household, which resulted in approximately one-third of beneficiaries being women.

The annual budget of the first year amounted to Rs 2,175.66 crore. In December 2019, KALIA scheme
was synergized with a central government scheme, PM-KISAN for SMF beneficiaries. While
KALIA’s budget was reduced, the assistance amount to SMF was kept the same at Rs 10,000 per year.
In the first instalment in 2019, KALIA assistance was provided to 51.05 lakh eligible households
through direct benefit transfer. Of these, there were 36.35 lakh SMF and 14.70 lakh LAH.

4
The first instalment disbursal was made in five phases. While identification of beneficiaries was
completed between January and March 2019, disbursements took place till May 2019. The state
developed an approach called Unification, Verification and Exclusion (U-V-E) to include eligible
beneficiaries and exclude ineligible beneficiaries through a combination of data analysis of existing
government databases and primary surveys using green and red forms. The data reports were made
available all the way from state level to village level, to ensure public awareness and accountability.

Designing and implementing this massive state-wide scheme presented significant challenges. The
entire agriculture departmental workforce was occupied in implementing KALIA. Another challenge
was the non-readiness of banking system to provide real-time implementation, tracking and grievance
redressal.

Leading organizations in technology, banking, IEC, policy and governance aligned their efforts on a
common goal and made implementation of the scheme possible.

In its capacity of being a pioneer in innovating with technology and policy tools to support the farming
community, especially sharecroppers and tenant farmers, KALIA presents lessons for other Indian
states. For Odisha itself, KALIA has given a robust mechanism upon which several other policy
innovations can be designed to benefit vulnerable sections of the state.

5
Section I: Background

The agriculture sector provides direct employment to close to 44% of country’s labour force (Labour
Bureau 2018). Farmer welfare is a policy priority for every politician in every government, and yet
farmers continue to battle great economic barriers, with the average household income of a farmer at
an estimated Rs 96,703 1.

As per data from National Crime Records Bureau’s 2018 report on suicides, 10,349 farmers in the
country committed suicide in that year. This accounted for close to 8% of the total suicides in the
country in that year. Out of 10,349, about 56% were farmers/cultivators and remaining (about 44%)
were agricultural labourers.

There is some pattern to farmer suicides in the country. Since 1995, farmer suicides can be seen to
have peaked in the drought years, especially the 2002, 2004 and 2009 drought years when the suicides
were 17,971, 18,241 and 17,368 respectively. Suicides are also be observed to be the highest among
the small and marginal farmer categories—72% of the total farmer suicides 2. More than half (51.1%)
of farmer suicides are observed in the two categories of tenant farmers and agricultural labourers, with
latter holding the larger share. Among the causes of farmers committing suicide, level of indebtedness
(from both institutional and non-institutional sources of loans) and farming-related issues emerge the
most important.

One of the most widely used tools to provide debt relief has been a farm loan waiver, where a
government (whether central or state) decides to absolve a farmer (either completely or partially) from
repaying any loan that he/she has taken from any financial institution. However, NABARD’s NAFIS
report 3 released in 2016 raises questions on the efficiency and efficacy of farm loan waivers. As per
NAFIS, of the total Indian agricultural households, only about 30% took loans from financial
institutions. This means that remaining, i.e. about 70% of the country’s agricultural households did not
take any loan from a financial institution and would not benefit from a farm loan waiver.

The Odisha government, which was also trying to identify ways to support its farmers, was faced with
the dilemma of whether to undertake another farm loan waiver, or innovate to find more effective and
efficient ways to reach a wider set of farmers.

In 2019, renowned agriculture scientist, Dr. M.S. Swaminathan, stated that there needs to be a shift
away from “loan write-offs to long-term policies”. 4 NITI Aayog’s Dr. Ramesh Chand, while talking
about ways to boost farmer incomes highlighted the role of a direct income transfer, as he said that “in
interim, there are other options suitable for boosting farmers' income. This could be done in many
ways, including the use of direct cash transfers”. 5

1 Report of the Committee on Doubling Farmers’ Income (September 2018), Ministry of Agriculture &
Farmers Welfare, Government of India
2
This data from NCRB is taken for the year 2014 as this bifurcation of suicide data is not available for more recent years
3
NABARD All India Rural Financial Inclusion Survey 2016-17
https://www.nabard.org/auth/writereaddata/tender/1608180417NABARD-Repo-16_Web_P.pdf
4
The Hindu Business Line Income support for farmers does not mean just cash transfer
5
The Week Centre likely to consider direct cash transfer scheme for farmers in budget

6
Against this backdrop, Odisha government and policy makers innovated and designed KALIA- which
is short for Krushak Assistance for Livelihood and Income Augmentation. This case study delves into
the scheme’s motivations, design and implementation.

Section II gives an overview of the key aspects of the KALIA scheme. Section III and IV delve into
its design and implementation and associated challenges. Section V provides insights from a telephonic
survey conducted in September 2020 to gauge the farmer response to KALIA. Section VI looks into
other macro policy questions and challenges faced by the Government of Odisha while implementing
the KALIA scheme, which might be useful for other policymakers to know. Section VII describes how
the state government has used the scheme as an opportunity to further reform its agriculture sector and
streamline delivery of schemes and services.

Direct Cash Transfer: Concept and Experience

A direct cash transfer scheme is understood to be a scheme that makes a transfer of cash directly into
the bank accounts of beneficiaries who have been identified on the basis of various socio-economic
vulnerabilities or otherwise as defined under the scheme. A cash transfer can be conditional or
unconditional. Under the former, the use of the transferred cash is not controlled and the beneficiary
is free to use funds as he/she desires. However, under the latter, the transferred amount is conditional
and the funds have to be used only to meet pre-defined purposes.

The origin of cash transfer schemes can be traced back to the 20th century when these schemes took
the form of social pension schemes (for example, in South Africa) or food stamps (in the US and Sri
Lanka in the 1960-70s) and in the 1990s, the Latin American Countries (LACs) popularized them as
an instrument for poverty alleviation. Both Mexico and Brazil were among the first to experiment with
such alternative practices and which eventually led to the introduction of conditional cash transfer
schemes aimed at tackling problems of food insecurity and poverty and for improving health and
education levels. Overtime there has been an increase in the number of low and middle-income
countries adopting the cash transfer programs as an important element of poverty reduction and social
protection strategies.

Even in India, there are a number of examples of successful DBT experiments. Some notable
programmes are: Telangana’s Rythu Bandhu Scheme, Delhi’s Dilli Annashree Yojana (DAY), Delhi
and Madhya Pradesh’s UCT Pilot by the SEWA group, and Government of India’s DBT food
programmes as run in Puducherry and Chandigarh.

7
Odisha Agricultural Landscape: Prior to KALIA
Odisha is a largely rural and agrarian economy. Close to 83% of its people live in rural areas and about
61.8% of its 17.5 million workforce is employed in agriculture 6. The agriculture sector contributes
about 18% to Odisha’s Gross State Domestic Product 7.

Large base of small and marginal farmers owning less than 2 hectares of land

As per the Agriculture Census 2015-16, the total number of operational holdings in Odisha is
48,66,000 of which small landholdings are 8,87,000 and marginal are 36,37,000. Total small and
marginal landholdings are 45,24,000. This means on the basis of landholding size, nearly 92% of the
total cultivator population in Odisha comprises small and marginal farmers 8. Small and marginal
farmers, who own less than 2 hectares of land, tend to face more severe financial stress and don’t
benefit as much from loan waivers or farmer welfare schemes as medium and large farmers, who are
comparatively well-off. Between 2001-11, there was a decline in the proportion of cultivators in
Odisha (from 29.7 to 23.4%) and increase in the proportion of agriculture labourers (from 35 to 38%),
in line with national trends. 9 According to Pranab R. Choudhury et al (2017), this has been primarily
the consequence “of an increase in landlessness or near landlessness on account of population growth
and sub-division of landholdings among legal heirs” 10.

6
Odisha Agriculture Policy 2020 https://agriodisha.nic.in/Content/pdf/SAMRUDHI%20-
Agriculture%20Policy%202020.pdf
7
Ibid.
8
https://censusindia.gov.in/2011census/HLO/Metadata_Census_2011.pdf
9
Indo-Global Social Service Society (2017). Why farmers quit? A study on farmers’ suicides in Odisha, conducted
by Baitarani Initiative, IGSSS, New Delhi
10
Ibid.,

8
 42.9 lakh farmer holdings in Odisha are less than 2 hectares of land

High prevalence of informal tenant farmers and sharecroppers

As per NABARD’s NAFIS Survey, about 12% of India’s agricultural households leased-in land for
agricultural use. The ratio varied for different states like for Bihar (28%), West Bengal (27%), Odisha
(27%), UP (16%), Telangana (10%) and Chhattisgarh (9%). As per NSSO (2013), 70th round results,
tenant holdings were pervasive and these percentages varied from Andhra Pradesh (42.3%), Bihar
(28%), West Bengal (21.7%), Odisha (20.6%) and UP (10.6%), with an all-India average of 13.7% 11.

Land leasing is not legal in Odisha, like in most Indian states, and therefore a tenant farmer does not
have a record of his contract with the landowner and thus the state government machinery does not
know about this contract.

Section 6(2) of the Odisha Land Reforms Act prevents sharecropping in the state. This limits the
overall borrowing capacity of these farmers from formal institutions, and as a result they borrow from
local moneylenders at exorbitant rates, pushing them towards a debt trap. According to a report, about
47% of farmers who committed suicide in Odisha belonged to a category which owned land but also
had additional leased-in land for cultivation, i.e., sharecroppers 12.

11
Financial Express Land-leasing: Where are the tenancy reforms?
12
Indo-Global Social Service Society (2017). Why farmers quit? A study on farmers’ suicides in Odisha, conducted
by Baitarani Initiative, IGSSS, New Delhi

9
Vulnerability to climate change and natural disasters

The state’s geographic location makes it highly prone to natural disasters. Located on the country’s
east coast, the state of Odisha “is the most cyclone-prone in the country. In the last century, out of the
1,019 cyclonic disturbances in the Indian subcontinent, 890 were along the eastern coast, and of these
260 cyclonic disturbances had their landfall along the Odisha coast.” 13

The heightened vulnerability to natural disasters coupled with widespread challenges such as recurrent
pest attacks, crop loss and debt burden have led to high levels of farmer stress in the state.

A Farmer Welfare Fund in Odisha?

In April 2018, the Department of Agriculture and Farmers’ Empowerment (DA&FE), Government of
Odisha conceptualized a Rs 250 crore Farmer Welfare Fund during the 2018-19 fiscal year. The way
the scheme was designed, funds would be disbursed to districts proportionately, broadly based on the
following parameters:

● repeated instances of calamities (at least 3 times in the past 5 years) resulting in >33% yield
shock for major crops (calculated as deviation from expected yield from Crop Cutting
Experiments, or CCE data)
● average level of farmer income
● average price realized of staple crop in the open market vis-a-vis amount procured by the
government
● average level of debt outstanding as per Kisan Credit Card (KCC) database
● low uptake of crop & related insurance schemes from PMFBY database

Over the subsequent months, DA&FE started contemplating expanding the budget and scope of the
Farmer Welfare Fund to create a broader and a more comprehensive scheme package to alleviate stress
of the state’s agriculture workforce.

In November 2018, an inter-ministerial committee was formed which consisted of Minister of Finance
(Chairman), Minister of Agriculture and Farmer Empowerment (Member), and Minister of Foods
Supplies and Consumer Welfare (Member) to assess other options for providing sustainable financial
support to farmers. The inter-ministerial committee set up in November 2018 had the following
objectives:

13
World Economic Forum Lessons in disaster relief from the world’s most cyclone-battered state

10
 1) To consider existing policies and programmes directed towards farmer welfare
2) To suggest measures for long-term welfare of the farmers
3) To consult with a wide spectrum of stakeholders to get holistic view

The state government followed a consultative process with more than 30 stakeholders ranging from
economists, farmer organizations, farmers, NGOs and department officers. The key takeaways that
emerged from the discussion are:

1) Farm loan waivers do not provide any financial liquidity to the farmer and they also discourage
farm lending by financial institutions, especially to SMFs in the next loan cycle
2) Farm loan waivers exclude landless labourers, sharecroppers and tenants who are even more
vulnerable
3) Out of 32 lakh cultivators in the state, 20 lakh cultivators had availed crop loans, of which
roughly 60% (12 lakh) had been paying their loan regularly. Therefore, a loan waiver would
bypass 12 lakh farmers who have not availed loan as well as those 12 lakh farmers who have
been paying the loan regularly.

Keeping in mind principles of equity and inclusiveness, the government decided to include all SMF,
LAH, sharecroppers and tenants. The state cabinet approved KALIA in meeting held on 21 December
2018.

A mix of inter-ministerial committee and participation of civil society

organization was key to the inclusion of all types of farmers in the
scheme

11
Section II: The KALIA Scheme

In December 2018, the state government launched the KALIA scheme with an annual allocation of Rs
2,175.66 crore. DA&FE and other government departments were responsible for finalizing the
contours of the scheme and operationalizing it with minimal errors such that it not only leads to farmer
welfare but also ensure there is no leakage of funds to ineligible beneficiaries.

KALIA was conceived to mitigate the pressures of credit availability faced by farmers, and reduce
poverty by providing financial assistance to small and marginal cultivators as well as landless
agricultural households of the state. The scheme has four main components:

1. Small and Marginal farmers (SMF): Comprehensive assistance for cultivation for small and
marginal farmers (including tenant farmers and sharecroppers): Rs 5,000 per agricultural
season for five seasons
2. Landless Agriculture households (LAH): Comprehensive assistance for creating livelihood of
landless agricultural households: Rs 12,500 in three instalments. The livelihood support was
provided under nine available choices. This included goat rearing unit, dual purpose low-input
technology birds, duckery unit, mini layer unit, fishery kit, honeybee unit, mushroom unit,
dairy farming and tasar farming.
3. Life insurance: Accidental insurance worth Rs 4 lakh and natural death coverage worth Rs 2
lakh for cultivators and landless agricultural households
4. Education Scholarship: For the children of farmers identified as KALIA beneficiaries to pursue
higher education in professional courses free of cost.

This case study specifically focuses on components 1 and 2 of the scheme.

The scheme had two additional components when it was first launched a) Assistance for Vulnerable
Agricultural Household, and b) Interest Free Crop Loan.

Education Scholarship component was added to make

KALIA a comprehensive scheme which provides financial
relief as well as education opportunities for children of
most underprivileged section of the society

When the scheme was launched, the baseline target was 30 lakh SMF, 10 lakh LAH and 10 lakh
Vulnerable Agricultural Households (VAH). This was based on Census 2011 numbers according to
which there were 32 lakh SMF and 24 lakh LAH in Odisha. However, the 2015-16 Agriculture Census

12
showed that of 48 lakh operational holdings in the state, nearly 45 lakh were SMF. The final target
was revised to 50 lakh SMF and 25 lakh LAH, assuming VAH would get covered within this universal
set. Therefore, the VAH component was subsumed into the components 1&2 of the scheme. Provision
for Interest Free Crop Loans was made in the 2019-20 state budget.
● It was eventually decided that a predetermined amount of Rs 5,000 per season* for 5 seasons
for small and marginal farmers (SMF), and Rs 12,500 for landless agricultural households
(LAH) would be disbursed in three instalments. The amount for SMF was kept higher than LAH
as there would be a natural incentive for farmers to apply as the former because the quantum
of benefit is higher.
● However, since identification as SMF would require land title ownership, it would prevent
ineligible farmers from receiving this benefit. Currently, neither the Centre nor states have a
database of LAH. To identify both SMF and LAH, the Government of Odisha had to rely on
self-identification, on ground verification as well as validation from various databases such as
SECC (for socio-economic criteria) and HRMS (for occupational criteria), among others.
● Assistance was kept unconditional, with beneficiaries having the freedom and flexibility to
utilize the amount as they deem fit.
● Assistance was provided through direct cash transfer to bank accounts instead of cheques. The
former was chosen to ensure transparency and minimize chances of corruption or fraud. While
this mode also has its own set of challenges, it would lay the foundation for future transfers of
other benefits. The analysis done to make the decision is shared in Annexure I.
● Assistance under KALIA was provided per farm family. In case multiple members of the same
family were eligible, assistance was provided in the name of female head of the family.
Therefore, if the whole family was eligible, the money was transferred to the account of the
female member, provided the female bank account was available. This was done with a view
to increase agency of the women of the household and empower female agriculture workers
across the state. To make the scheme more inclusive, transgender option was also included in
the application form.
● More components to the scheme were added such as scholarships for the children of KALIA
beneficiaries to pursue higher education in professional courses free of cost, life insurance and
accidental insurance support. These additional components made KALIA a comprehensive
livelihood assistance package by augmenting income and capacity of the farmers, their
children and providing insurance support to the family, in case of a farmer’s death.

* Under PM-KISAN, small and marginal farmers receive Rs 6,000 annually through three instalments
of Rs 2,000 each. After the KALIA scheme was synchronised with PM-KISAN in December 2019,
the state government decided that all SMF would be given a top up with Rs 4,000 per year from the
2020-21 fiscal year, so that they will get total a sum of Rs 10,000 annually, i.e., Rs 6,000 from PM-
KISAN and Rs 4, 000, from KALIA. In essence, SMF would still get Rs 10,000 annually as intended
under KALIA.

13
It is important to highlight here that under KALIA, assistance was delinked from area of land owned.
This means that acreage of land owned was not the criteria for assistance, as it would result in more
assistance to the already better off, i.e., medium and large farmers and exclusion for landless labourers.
Instead anyone who is farmer (whether landowner or tenant or labourer) was to be provided the benefit.
In addition, by making the payment only for small and marginal farmers and that too on a per farmer
basis, the scheme was being progressive as it was only meant to target those who needed this assistance
the most. By making payment on a per hectare basis would have transferred a greater share of benefit
to the relatively bigger farmers and thus a transfer on a per farmer basis was more efficient.

KALIA is also unique for its inclusion of LAH and tenant farmers. This is important because landless,
tenant and sharecropper farmers lack negotiation power, access to government benefits, and inter alia,
suffer volatility and uncertainty of wages and income. Despite the significant proportion of tenant
farmers in Odisha (20.6% as per NSSO, 27% as per NABARD NAFIS survey), the informal nature of
tenancy makes it difficult to identify tenant and sharecropping farmers.

Including sharecroppers, tenant farmers and landless agricultural labourers was an operational
challenge, however the Government of Odisha decided this was important in order to demonstrate an
inclusive scheme that would provide assistance to the most underserved section of the agricultural
workforce. Therefore,

● Small and marginal farmers, almost 92% of the cultivator population including tenant farmers
and sharecroppers, were included in the scheme.
● Main landless agricultural labourers were included.
● Medium and large farmers were excluded because they are relatively wealthier and constitute
8% of the cultivator population.

The objective of providing benefit to LAH was to provide livelihood assistance and support them in
picking up one of the nine available choices under horticulture, animal resources and fisheries—goat
rearing unit, dual purpose low-input technology birds, duckery unit, mini layer unit, fishery kit, honey
bee unit, mushroom unit, dairy farming and tasar farming. DA&FE undertook several activities,
including orientation, training, activity selection and asset grounding in this regard. After the first
instalment was transferred to LAH beneficiaries, they had to opt for one of the nine choices after an
orientation session. During orientation, frontline officials would gauge the farmer's propensity to an
activity, for e.g., whether the person is an existing practitioner or new to activity, provide counselling,
pre-empt optimal asset wise demand based on agro-climatic conditions and likelihood of success and
advise farmers to achieve the optimal outcome. Beneficiaries were then trained on their respective
choice by the government before the second instalment was transferred.

14
 Sample training material used for informing farmers

As on May 2019, the first round of Gram Panchayat-level orientation on recording LAH beneficiary
choices had happened in 6,144 GPs, against a target of 6,295 GPs. Training had been imparted to
16,232 LAH who chose horticulture activities, 3,15,967 LAH who chose animal resources and 5,347
LAH who chose fisheries.

15
Section III: Scheme Design and Challenges

KALIA was conceived to mitigate the pressures of credit availability faced by farmers, reduce poverty
by providing financial assistance to small and marginal cultivators, including tenant farmers and
sharecroppers, as well as landless agricultural households of the state.

To design the scheme and develop guidelines for implementation, DA&FE had to first answer some
fundamental questions:

I. Defining beneficiaries

1. Who is a beneficiary, i.e., a farmer who will be covered under the scheme?

II. Form and frequency of assistance

1. What is the amount to be paid to beneficiaries?

2. What would be the frequency of payment?
3. Whether payment should be made on per farming household basis or per hectare basis?

III. Operational modalities

1. How would the government invite applications?

2. How would the government ensure only the eligible beneficiaries receive assistance?
3. How would the government ensure excluded farmers have a mechanism to raise grievances?

While in the course of designing and implementing KALIA, a multitude of other critical questions
came up and had to be answered swiftly, the ones outlined above are questions that any policymaker
looking to implement a targeted direct cash transfer scheme needs to answer right at the outset.

The answer to each of these questions represents a choice made by the government after weighing in
need, budget, efficacy, time and capacity to deliver. As such these choices had huge opportunity costs
and had far reaching implications and thus were made the basis of repeated consultations within the
government and with stakeholders outside it. The following section delves into the debates and
considerations which informed the final choices made by the government with respect to the scheme
and eventually became its defining characteristics.

16
Defining beneficiaries
Farmers can be classified 14 on the basis of landholding size, i.e., acreage of land held by them as well
as operational tenure, i.e., the time frame worked in agriculture
On the basis of landholding size, they can be classified as:

As per Census of India, workers in a sector can be categorized as main or marginal on the basis of time
spent on agriculture activities. Main workers are those who worked for more than 6 months (180 days)
in the reference period while marginal workers are those who worked for less than six months (180
days) in the reference period. 15 Similarly, in agriculture, on the basis of operational tenure, a farmer
is categorized as main or marginal. If a farmer is engaged in agriculture for more than 6 months in a
year, he/she is deemed to be a main worker, whereas he/she is deemed to be a marginal worker if the
engagement is less than 6 months. Both small and marginal farmers as well as landless agricultural
households can be categorized as main or marginal depending on the time they are engaged in farming.

The KALIA scheme covers two categories of beneficiaries--small and marginal farmers and landless
agricultural households. While the former included the landowner farmers, tenant farmers and share
croppers, the latter included landless labourers.
Form and frequency of assistance

DA&FE analysed farmer welfare schemes that were already operational in other states, including
Telangana’s Rythu Bandhu, Bihar’s Rajya Fasal Sahayata Yojana, Kerala’s Farmers’ Welfare Board
and Tamil Nadu’s Agricultural Labourers-Farmers (Social Security & Welfare) Act. While the first
two schemes include a direct income component depending on acreage, the other two focus on social
security by way of insurance and pension.

14
Agriculture Census 2015-16 http://agcensus.nic.in/document/agcen1516/T1_ac_2015_16.pdf
15
https://censusindia.gov.in/2011census/HLO/Metadata_Census_2011.pdf

17
 It was decided to prioritize assistance to female members’ bank account
if a family was eligible. As such, nearly one-third of KALIA
beneficiaries were women.

DA&FE wanted to zero in on a pattern of assistance under KALIA that would ensure that the overall
fiscal allocation would be optimized and also benefit the farmer.
The Government of Odisha eventually decided:

1. A conditional transfer Rs 5,000 per season* for 5 seasons for small and marginal farmers
(SMF), and a combination of conditional and unconditional cash transfer totalling Rs 12,500
for landless agricultural households (LAH) to be disbursed in three instalments;
2. Cash to be transferred directly into beneficiary bank accounts instead of cheques;
3. For empowering females, the assistance was made in the name of female head of the family;
wherever bank accounts of female member were available

* Under PM-KISAN, small and marginal farmers receive Rs 6,000 annually through three instalments
of Rs 2,000 each. After the KALIA scheme was synchronised with PM-KISAN, the state government
decided that all SMF would be given a top up with Rs 4,000 per year from the 2020-21 fiscal year, so
that they will get total a sum of Rs 10,000 annually, i.e., Rs 6,000 from PM-KISAN and Rs 4,000,
from KALIA. In essence, SMF would still get Rs 10,000 annually as intended under KALIA.
Operational modalities

Apart from the above, DA&FE also had to decide the operational guidelines for inviting farmer
applications, identification of eligible beneficiaries and disbursement of assistance. There are two ways
through which applications could be sourced– (i) top-down through the use of existing state databases
and, (ii) bottom-up by inviting application forms from farmers. While the former would be ideal for
quicker implementation, the latter ensures maximum coverage of farmers (because existing databases
were incomplete as the databases the state had/or had access to covered only a small proportion of the
farmer population). Similarly, identification of eligible beneficiaries could be conducted through on-
ground verification, state-level verification using existing databases or a combination of both. Each of
these choices have pros and cons. The state government had to make decisions that would allow
implementation in mission mode, increase operational efficiency and prevent leakages.

18
The Government of Odisha eventually decided:

● For inviting farmer applications: A hybrid process, involving the initial use of state level
databases and subsequent collection of application forms was undertaken so that KALIA could
be rolled out as quickly as possible while still ensuring maximum coverage of farmers.

● For beneficiary identification: A data-backed algorithm combined with field verification was
used to ensure higher degree of accuracy.

● For grievance redressal: A mechanism to resolve complaints from the ground, the state
government established a grievance redressal mechanism in December 2019. Between then
and June 2020, this mechanism has evolved to make the grievance filing process easier for
citizens as well as reduce the administrative load on officials involved in resolving grievances.

19
Section IV: Scheme Implementation and Challenges

With approximately 50,000 government officials 16 involved at the state, district and block level, the
state identified 51,05,290 beneficiaries for the first instalment of the scheme 17. Nearly 2% of the
KALIA budget was for implementation. Its implementation can be deconstructed into six distinct but
interconnected elements:

50,000 officials from different government departments

across various levels of administration were involved in
implementing the scheme against a tight timeline.

● Applications: The strategy used by the government to increase awareness about KALIA among
citizens, and invite applications
● Information Education and Communication (IEC): The communication strategy used by the
state government to spread awareness about the scheme
● Identification of beneficiaries: The unique unification-verification-exclusion framework
followed by the state to identify beneficiaries used multiple state databases as well as the
applications received from the panchayats
● Transfer of assistance: The process of money transfer from the KALIA portal to a central State
Bank of India’s cash management portal and finally to beneficiary accounts
● Error rectification: Reverification of the database to rectify errors identified after the first
instalment was disbursed.
● Review and monitoring: Tracking progress across phases of implementation and administrative
levels
● Grievance redressal: The grievance filing and resolution mechanism developed by the state
government
● Use of technology: How the state leveraged technology to identify KALIA beneficiaries for
the first instalment transferred withing a tight timeline

16
https://twitter.com/krushibibhag/status/1174640425828679680/photo/2
17
Financial Express Universal basic income: How Odisha’s KALIA took off in less than 6 weeks

20
Applications

After the cabinet approved the KALIA scheme on 21 December 2018 18, the administration had to
undertake the massive exercise of rolling out the scheme on the ground. The first step in this process
was generating awareness about the scheme, its benefits and encouraging those who were eligible to
apply. To this end, the state undertook a massive IEC campaign. The detailed IEC strategy is explained
below.

The scheme emphasised on reaching to all sections of farmer community who were eligible including
sharecroppers, tenant farmers and landless agriculture labourers. Special pamphlets, videos and
informational FAQs were designed to inform the above section of farmers who are normally excluded
from many agriculture schemes. The theme chosen for the IEC was “Inclusive, Transparent and
Commitment” and the first component of the IEC theme was to ensure that the inclusive aspect of the
scheme is highlighted and more inclusion of sharecroppers, tenant farmers and landless agriculture
labourers can be achieved.

The next step was inviting applications from eligible farmers. To curtail the inclusion of ineligible
farmers, the state also invited applications from those who voluntarily wanted to exclude themselves
from the scheme as well as to receive public objections. Voluntary exclusions became important
because of auto-inclusion through the use of databases. For the former, the state used green forms and
for the latter, red forms.

Green forms asked the applicant to share information such as name, number of family members,
Aadhaar, bank account number, whether the applicant held land, details of land record etc. Red forms
asked for basic details and the reason for exclusion. (Samples of both can be seen in Annexure 2)

Farmers either filled these forms themselves or went to the Gram Panchayat office, where an official
would fill it for them and submit it in green or red boxes. These boxes were also placed in the Primary
Agriculture Cooperative Society (PACS) offices.

● On a daily basis the Gram Panchayat Nodal Officer (GPNO) would open the green/red box,
assign each form a unique serial number and record it in a GP level register.
● The GPNO could be a Village Agriculture Worker, Horticulture Extension Worker, Soil
Conservation Extension Worker and Livestock Inspector.
● This register would be checked for completeness by the GPNO and Secretary, PACS.
● Using a unique PACS login, the Date Entry Operator (DEO) and/or Additional DEO would
digitize these forms by digitizing the information in the form onto the KALIA portal.

18
Business Standard Odisha Cabinet approves Rs 10,000 cr KALIA scheme for cultivators

21
 ● Once the day’s forms were digitized, a draft green list would be printed and shared with the
GPNO for validation and signature. *
● The verified draft green list would be approved and signed by the Secretary, PACS and GPNO
would be stored for records in the GP Office.
● On the portal, the correct draft green list would be approved by the GPNO.

*This is the only step that differs for red forms.

In all, nearly 96,43,392 green forms and 5,24,569 red forms were digitized in a matter of approximately
4-5 weeks. (Sample green and red forms are in the Appendix)

More than 5 lakh citizens applied through red forms which

means that if they were eligible then they decided to give
away this assistance

Information Education Communication (IEC)

To increase the reach and popularity of the KALIA scheme, the Government of Odisha launched a
comprehensive IEC campaign implemented by different vendors and headed by a senior government
official since the launch of the scheme in late December 2018. There was a digital and on ground
communication strategy.

Digital outreach included:

● Social media outreach through government accounts on Twitter and Facebook
● A digital repository of all information on the scheme such as guidelines, FAQs were available
on a central website. This was useful not only for beneficiaries but also the lakhs of field
officers involved in implementation.
● KALIA Barta, an innovative information service, through which farmers could give a missed
call to a specific number to get enrolled in the scheme and receive its details
● Articles in English and Odiya newspapers
● Radio jingles in local language, Odiya to encourage enrolment

22
On ground outreach included:
● Advertisements on public transport buses
● Pamphlets with scheme details distributed in villages
● Hoardings in places such as bus stops, railway stations and markets, essentially in places with
high footfall
● KALIA Raths were vehicles which were sent to districts across Odisha to share information
about the scheme at the Gram Panchayat level. The KALIA Rath’s arrival would be
accompanied by cultural activities and felicitation of local farmers. The Rath broadcasted
audio-visuals about the scheme and was also used to distribute green and red forms.
● Large scale conventions in specific districts led by the Chief Minister of the state

Identification of beneficiaries

A persistent challenge with respect to targeted welfare schemes is that of identifying beneficiaries
comprehensively (such that those eligible aren’t left out) accurately (ineligible aren’t included). The
Government of Odisha too faced multiple constraints in this regard.

● Data ownership: There was limited visibility on available datasets owned by different
departments in different servers across NIC-Delhi, NIC-Odisha and Odisha State Development
Centre. For data collected and submitted to the Centre by the state government, there appears
to exist ambiguity on the primary ownership as well as multiplicity of data system ownership.
● Data sharing: Even where there is in principle agreement to share data between entities, there
does not seem to exist a protocol governing the means of sharing data. There are also no
instructions on the hygiene practices to be followed before sharing data, resulting in avoidable
delays/loss of yield.
● Data usability: Rich data can be rendered redundant due to the format it is saved in. Often,
access for publicly available data is only to draw out information one unit at a time as opposed
to the use of a data dump, again making the application of analytics cumbersome. In the paucity
of time, static copies of data getting updated in real time was used to arrive at the beneficiary
lists. However, this list might no longer represent ‘eligible beneficiaries’ over time, as the base
data changes regularly, undergoing verifications and updates. This highlighted the need for
configuring Application Programming Interface (APIs) to join dynamic sets of data and
eliminate the need for manual intervention. In several cases, there was no Common ID across
databases and string entries were captured in the state’s local language, Odiya, making use of
the data more difficult.

Given these constraints how does a government go about identifying beneficiaries for a scheme?

Most schemes launched by the Centre and state governments rely on the 2011 Socio-Economic Caste
Census (SECC) to plan for beneficiaries. At times, databases for other schemes such as the National
Food Security Act, Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, or state-specific databases are used in conjunction
with the SECC. Issues with SECC notwithstanding, including the fact that it is 2011 data and does not
include Aadhaar details, other schemes also build on SECC to come up with a list of beneficiaries
based on their specific parameters.

23
For example, take a state-level database for direct-benefit transfer (DBT) which would have bank
account details as well as the Aadhaar number of citizens, but not occupation. If the state wants to
identify beneficiaries for a scheme which uses occupation as an inclusion/exclusion criterion, it will
need the SECC which has this information. But since the SECC doesn’t have Aadhaar details, the two
databases don’t have a unique identification parameter in common. Therefore, the state will have to
use a third database as a bridge. The next step would be unifying this with the DBT database to get a
list of citizens eligible for receiving benefits.

The Government of Odisha had to use a similar approach to identify beneficiaries for KALIA

To solve for both timeliness and accuracy, the state government used a three-step framework,
Unification-Verification-Exclusion (UVE), to identify beneficiaries for the scheme.

Unification:

In the case of KALIA, the primary challenge for the government was leveraging the various
agricultural and non-agricultural databases at the state and Centre, such as those on P-PAS (Paddy
Procurement Automation System), Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, National Food Security Act,
State Food Security Scheme to arrive at a single consolidated database. To start with, the government
used two comprehensive databases--the seeds direct benefit transfer database and the paddy
procurement automation system (PPAS). Simultaneously, the state was receiving digitized green forms
from the ground through the KALIA portal. Unifying the two databases and green forms, the state had
1,19,25,410 applications.

24
Now that there was a base application data, the first step was to authenticate the validity of Aadhaar
numbers and names with Aadhaar numbers. To this end, Aadhaar number and applicant name pairs
were shared with an Authentication User Agency (AUA) 19, a nodal body in each state which
authenticates Aadhaar information.

Next, the AUA would return a response in three categories:

● Valid Aadhaar and Perfect name match – Status ‘Y’

● Valid Aadhaar but name mismatch – Status ‘N’ + Error Code ‘100’ 20
● Invalid Aadhaar – Status ‘N’ + Any other Error Code

Only applicants with valid Aadhaar numbers could move forward in the process. So, for the second
category of response (valid Aadhaar but name mismatch), an algorithm was used to calculate the fuzzy
score and estimate the extent of mismatch against the NFSA database. NFSA database in Odisha had
over 85%Aadhar seeding and this is a reliable source of information.

NFSA was used for two reasons. First, against the same Aadhaar, a high degree of match between
names in two different databases implies that it is most probably a genuine case of spelling mismatch.
Second, the NFSA Database is a large and verified database covering the majority population of the
state and itself was being seeded with Aadhaar numbers. The Government used a high threshold value
to include applicants in the beneficiary list.

Next, static data points such as ration card number, Abridged Household List (AHL) TIN, were
imported from different databases.

The state now has a list of beneficiaries with unique and valid identifiers for each.

But this solves only one part of the problem. Possibilities of incorrect exclusion and inclusion still
exist.

19
AUA https://uidai.gov.in/ecosystem/authentication-ecosystem/authentication-requesting-agency.html
20
While there could be other errors returned by the AUA, since the only information shared was name and
Aadhaar, the error code returned was 100, which pertains to the name and number mismatch.

25
Verification:

On-ground verification was therefore necessary to check accuracy of the data collected as well as fill
any information gaps with respect to the unique identifiers mentioned above. It is important to note

A three-step Unification-Verification-Exclusion (UVE)

framework was developed to accurately identify
beneficiaries and minimize errors.

here, once the state develops a robust database of beneficiaries, which can remain live and updated,
the need for on ground verification greatly reduces.

Exclusion:

As a third and final step, the state had to exclude applicants based on predefined criteria. There were
three modes of exclusion.

● First, through on ground verification.

Exclusion Criteria Tick Exclusion Criteria Tick

Beneficiary belongs to Urban Local Body
Beneficiary is a minor (less than 18 years)
Beneficiary his/her family member is a
government employee i.e. under SG/ CG
or PSU
Beneficiary or his/her family member is a
Pension Holder
Beneficiary or his/her family member is
an Income/Professional tax payer or
assessee
Multiple members of the same eligible
family
Beneficiary not interested i.e. Voluntary
Exclusion
Lawyer/Engineer/Architect/Chartered
Accountant/Doctor/Police/Teacher
registered with professional bodies
Present/Former Central Minister/State
Minister/MP/MLA/Mayor/Zila
Parishad
Former and present holders of
constitutional posts
Beneficiary is a Large/Medium
Farmer i.e. owns more than 2 Ha of
cultivated land
Beneficiary has expired
No such beneficiary traceable
Any other reason for exclusion

26
After being sure about the ineligibility of a particular applicant, officials running on-ground
verification flagged those applications as excluded on the KALIA Portal.

● Second, through red forms. As mentioned before, red forms were used by individuals to
voluntarily declare themselves as ineligible for KALIA. Exclusions were also invited in the
form of public objections through an online form on the KALIA Portal. Between August and
September 2019, when the window to file public objections was open, the state government
received 3,935 objections from across districts.
● Third, using the different databases the government had access to.

Aadhaar-based exclusions were done using the Aadhaar number as a reference between two databases:

Criteria Database Explanation

Large farmers Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima
Yojana (PMFBY) Database and
Paddy Procurement Automation
System (P-PAS) Database
By using the land insured
information from PMFBY and
amount of paddy procured from P-
PAS database (two separate
quantum was decided for irrigated
area and non-irrigated area)

Government employees State’s Human Resource Scheme excluded govt. employees

Management System (HRMS)
Database

Teachers State’s Teacher Database Scheme excluded govt. employees

Police constables State’s Police Database Scheme excluded govt. employees

Other non-priority NFSA/SFSS(Ineligible) Database Assumption based on

households
reliability of NFSA

Pensioners State Treasury’s Pensioners Scheme excluded pensioners

Database

27
For the first instalment, SECC, which is a comprehensive database with various socio-economic
parameters to assess the standard of living of a particular record, was used to run exclusions based on
the following criteria:

● Motorized 2/3/4 wheeler/fishing boat.

● Mechanized 3-4 wheeler agricultural equipment.
● Kisan credit card with credit limit of over Rs 50,000.
● Household member government employee.
● Households with non-agricultural enterprises registered with the government.
● Any member of a household earning more than Rs 10,000 per month.
● Paying income tax.
● Paying professional tax.
● 3 or more rooms with pucca walls and roof.
● Owns a refrigerator.
● Owns landline phone.
● 5 acres or more of irrigated land for two or more crop seasons.
● Owning at least 7.5 acres of land or more with at least one irrigation equipment.

Lastly, since KALIA benefit was to be distributed on a per farmer household basis, there was incentive
for farming households to split the family and apply for the scheme under more than one name. To
address this, it was necessary to identify members of the same family. For this, each record’s ration
number was imported from the NFSA Database. As per the NFSA Act, each household has the same
ration number.

For complete transparency, those deemed ineligible could

see the reason for their ineligibility on the
KALIA portal

This data had three use-cases. First, it was used to identify all applicants from the same family. Second,
to identify even those family members who had not applied to KALIA and would therefore not be in
the base applicant database. Third, to check the eligibility of all family members (applicants and non-
applicants) was checked against the above criteria. In essence, this meant that in order to qualify as an
eligible family for the KALIA scheme, all members had to be eligible. Even if one member was
ineligible, the family was considered ineligible.

28
For complete transparency, those deemed ineligible could see the reason for ineligibility on the KALIA
portal.

Summary of exclusions

29
How were tenant farmers included in KALIA?

For the purpose of the scheme, the state government had to identify two categories of beneficiaries—
SMF and LAH, as this would determine the amount of KALIA assistance disbursed. Tenant farmers
would receive the same assistance as cultivators, i.e. Rs 5,000 per agricultural season for five seasons.

In the absence of government datasets that could identify tenants and landless labourers, the state
government relied on self-reporting through green forms to create a database of these categories of
agriculture workers. The green forms explicitly called out that tenant and landless farmers were also
eligible for assistance under KALIA. Next, through Aadhaar validation and using the SECC and NFSA
database, a list of beneficiaries with unique identifiers was created.

The next step entailed physical verification at the gram panchayat level to check if the beneficiaries
were cultivators, tenant farmers, sharecroppers or landless labourers. Those deemed ineligible during
on ground verification were marked as such by the Gram Panchayat Nodal Officers (GPNO) on the
KALIA portal and removed from the beneficiary list. The list of exclusions used during on ground
verification is described above. For eligible beneficiaries, GPNOs also collected any information that
might be missing from their applications or corrected any errors.

30
The third step involved running exclusions with various databases listed above to create the final list
of beneficiaries.

It is through this process that the state identified a section of the agricultural workforce that is ignored
precisely because it is considered difficult to identify them. In case tenants/landless labourers felt they
had been incorrectly excluded or didn’t receive all instalments of the assistance amount; they could
leverage the grievance redressal mechanism.

The scheme was designed keeping in mind several exceptional cases. For example, if a household had
2 brothers and their families, where the younger brother leases in land and the elder brother cultivates
his own land, the eligibility/assistance amount would be easy to determine. If the brothers had two
separate ration cards, each brother would be assisted as per the category of beneficiaries they fall under.
Whereas if the family had only one ration card, then the elder brother would receive assistance
according to the category in which he would fall.

Imagine another scenario, where there is a household in which the husband has migrated, and the wife
is cultivating owned land or leased land, what would be the eligibility/assistance amount? In such a
case, the husband’s migration wouldn’t lead to exclusion. If the wife is able to produce the household’s
ration card as proof and meets all other eligibility criteria, assistance would be transferred to the
registered bank account.

One reason why tenants are not included in agriculture welfare schemes is because tenancy is still
illegal in many states, including Odisha. However, the KALIA scheme was designed to identify SMF
and LAH, which included tenants and landless farmers to provide financial assistance and as such
wasn’t in contravention of the existing law deeming tenancy illegal.

Any state that wants to include tenants in its agriculture welfare schemes has to primarily have the
political will to design a scheme that is inclusive of them. Second, it has to back the design with
implementation tools like targeted IEC and in green forms, which specifically call out tenant farmers
to apply to the scheme.

Transfer of assistance

The successful implementation of KALIA hinged as much on the accurate identification of

beneficiaries as on the transfer of assistance to the beneficiaries with minimal errors. As mentioned in
the Design section, the state government decided to transfer money directly to the beneficiary bank
accounts rather than hand them cheques.

The state government partnered with State Bank of India (SBI) to use their Cash Management Portal
(CMP) for direct transfer of assistance to all the selected beneficiaries. SBI was chosen because nearly
50% of all beneficiaries had bank accounts with them.

31
Transfer mechanism

Between the transfer of first and second instalment, the assistance disbursement procedure was
streamlined and automated. The following table outlines four steps in disbursement and their evolution
based on the learnings from previous transfers.

# Step Initial Process Current Process Rationale for change

1 Entry of bank Text entry of all the Selection of bank The manual entry of
details bank details name, branch and bank details would
IFSC through drop some time result in
downs errors such as incorrect
IFSC code etc. For e.g.
the fifth digit of the
IFSC code should be '0'
but was entered as the
letter O. A drop down
with all possible
options ensured there
would be no such
errors

2 Bank Verification Re 1 transfers to check Bank verification The initial process was
the validity of bank through State Bank of used to test the system.
accounts (on a sample India (SBI), State
basis) Level Bankers’
Committee (SLBC)
and Odisha State
Cooperative Bank
(OSCB)

3 Transfer of Offline generation of Automated upload of Faster process and

assistance XML files with XML files to SBI’s minimizes chances of
beneficiary details from CMP through a maker upload failures
KALIA portal, and checker Secure
followed by manual File Transfer Protocol
upload on SBI’s CMP (SFTP) module
Portal

4 Recording Manual download of Automated and instant In the initial process

Transaction transaction response response through each response file had
Response from SBI’s CMP SFTP to be downloaded and
manually mapped to
the corresponding
beneficiary to ascertain
if the cash transfer was
a success or a fail

32
The current streamlined process has five steps:

1. Beneficiary account details with IFSC code populated in the database through inclusion forms.
(Data Validation + Drop-Downs for IFS Code)
2. Bank verification through SBI, SLBC & OSCB
3. Backend sanitization (confirming IFSC Length + presence in RBI’s master list of valid and
accepted IFSC codes in India)
4. Instant transaction success/failure status through SFTP. To further validate the ownership of
bank accounts, two further checks were done, first, to check for bank accounts belonging to the
beneficiaries themselves--account holder name was compared with applicant name; second, to
check for bank accounts that may belong to other family members--presence in NFSA Database
against a common ration card number.
5. Error information used by the Assistant Agriculture Officer to update the database with the
correct bank account information from the field

This process is being further streamlined by the state government using Integrated Financial
Management System/Aadhaar Enabled Payment System.

Identifying and rectifying errors after the first instalment

After the first instalment was paid, there were reports of ineligible beneficiaries receiving assistance
under the scheme. Given KALIA’s scale and the tight 3 month-timeline within which it had to be
designed and implemented, this was not unforeseen. To rectify these errors the government re-
checked the eligibility of each of the 51.05 lakh beneficiaries. After this analysis, only 32,000 were
found to be ineligible, belonging to the category of large farmers and government
servants/pensioners. This showed an error rate of less than 1%. The government then initiated
mechanisms to retrieve the money received by ineligible beneficiaries.

There were also 3 lakh persons from eligible families, in which another person (could also be a
minor) also received assistance under KALIA. Since the scheme was designed to benefit only one
member from each eligible family, the Government decided to treat the assistance sent to multiple
members of the same family as the amount for the next instalment. Which meant they wouldn’t be
receiving the subsequent instalment till the extra amount they received in the first instalment was
nullified. 21

After the first instalment, the government verified all beneficiaries through a 3-tier verification
mechanism.

21
https://twitter.com/krushibibhag/status/1174640425828679680/photo/2

33
Activity 1: Display and verification of 51,05,290 beneficiaries before the release of assistance for
Kharif-2019.

Activity 2: Exclusion of applicants/ updating applicant details/suo-moto exclusion of the 42,33,768

applications under the exclusion criteria

Activity 3: Collection and entry of inclusion form by the Gram Panchayat Nodal Officers in the low
represented GPs i.e., those which had small or marginal farmer applicants less than 50% of rural
households and landless agriculture household applicants less than 10% of rural households.

Responsibilities were distributed across different levels of the hierarchy:

34
Review and monitoring

Monitoring the implementation of KALIA in a comprehensive manner required frequent reviews and
meetings at different levels of the administrative structure.

● In the three months in which the scheme was designed and implemented, there were daily
reviews by the Principal Secretary, Agriculture, Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Co-operation,
and Director, Agriculture, Horticulture, Special Secretary of IT, for course-corrections,
coordination and micro-decisions on-the-go
● There were weekly reviews chaired by the Chief Secretary of the state and attended by
Principal Secretary, Agriculture, Principal Secretary, Revenue, Development Commissioner,
Agricultural Production Commissioner, Principal Secretary, Fisheries and Animal Resources
Development, and Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj and Drinking Water Department, to
align goals for the week and review progress
● Once in two weeks there were reviews between the Principal Secretaries of multiple
departments to brainstorm on the best method of delivery in line with goals for the week as
well as troubleshooting any roadblocks.
● The Chief Minister reviewed the progress and chaired update meetings on a regular basis.

All these meetings were extremely data backed and different data metrics were looked at to take
strategic and operational decisions. Three different zonal WhatsApp groups--Northern Division,
Central Division and Southern Division were created for coordination with field officials and real-time
query resolution.
Grievance redressal

Given the complexity of implementing direct cash transfer schemes on the ground, there are bound to
be questions, complaints, clarifications from the ground. To ensure the government is able to manage
these grievances in a structured manner, Odisha established a grievance redressal mechanism in
December 2019. Between then and June 2020, this mechanism has evolved to make the grievance
filing process easier for citizens as well as reduce the administrative load on officials involved in
resolving grievances. Till date 7,18,662 grievances have been received from small and marginal
farmers and 2,38,158 grievances from landless agricultural households.

After the first instalment was disbursed, the government decided to take a stock check of all
identified beneficiaries and check their eligibility, to ensure any errors could be rectified before the
subsequent disbursements happened. To this end, rigorous field verification was again undertaken to
check each record. Simultaneously, backend checks using the eligibility algorithm were conducted.
Where there was even slight room for doubt on eligibility, the individual was removed from the list
for the time being.

35
From the perspective of the applicant, there were two reasons to file a grievance:
1) Had received assistance
2) Had not received assistance

In the case of 1 there were further possibilities, and the state government mapped out those and the
action that would have to be taken in each scenario.

1.1. Applicant had applied and received Instalment 1 but not Instalment 2: In this case,

➔ If the applicant considered herself eligible, she would have to fill the online form and attach
documentary proof.
➔ If the applicant considered herself ineligible, she may fill the online refund form and transfer
the assisted amount to a specified bank account.

36
 The state government established a robust grievance redressal mechanism to address
identification and payment-related grievances. It started as a call center but
eventually a technology based self-served system was also created

1.2. Applicant had applied and received both Instalment 1 and Instalment 2: In this case,

➔ If the applicant considered herself eligible, but is filing a grievance, then it would be a request
for change of category (from SMF to LAL or vice versa). Then, she would have to fill the
online form and attach documentary proof.
➔ If the applicant considered herself ineligible, she may fill the online refund form and transfer
the assisted amount to a specified bank account.

1.3. Applicant hadn’t applied but received assistance: In this case, if the applicant wants to
voluntarily refund the assistance amount, she may fill the online refund form and transfer the same to
a specified bank account.

In the case of 2 also there were further possibilities.

2.1. Applicant had applied but did not receive assistance: In this case, if the applicant considered
herself eligible, she had to fill the online form and attach documentary proof.

2.2. Applicant had not applied and did not receive assistance: This would typically happen, if a
person had not enrolled in the scheme before and wanted to do so now. In this case, the applicant
may apply online on the KALIA Portal. This was not exactly a grievance but required a new
application.

It is important to note here that the same application system could be used for:
● Grievance applications
● Voluntary refunds
● New applications

37
To manage these grievances, the government outlined a process flow:

● A grievance may be registered online on the KALIA Portal by using the Aadhaar number (as
submitted in the KALIA Inclusion/Green form, if any). Grievances were only accepted online
through KALIA Portal and without any filing charges.
● On entering the Aadhaar number, the applicant would be able to view her application status
i.e.,
➔ Whether there is any application with that Aadhaar number, and
➔ Whether the entered Aadhaar number has received assistance or not, separately for
Instalment 1 and Instalment 2.
Thereafter, the applicant could select whether she wanted to file a grievance or refund money.
● If she wanted to file a grievance, she could select a grievance category and fill the online
form along with scanned copies of required documents on the KALIA portal.
● If she wanted to refund money, she could transfer money into a specific bank account and
enter the UTR number, bank details from which amount has been debited or
acknowledgement number, in case it is a cash deposit in the online form on KALIA portal.
● On successful registration of a grievance, the applicant would receive an acknowledgement
token number. This token number could be used to track the status of the grievance online on
the portal.

This was the initial design of the grievance redressal process. However, subsequently, the state
government realized it had a design flaw, as explained below.

Challenge 1

When an applicant would enter her Aadhaar number, she would be shown her status, “both
instalments received” or “instalment 1 received, instalment 2 not received”, etc, as per the status in
the system. However, say an applicant’s grievance was that she had received instalment 1 received,
but not instalment 2, but the status as per the system is that she has received “both instalments”.
Several applicants incorrectly chose the same category of grievance as the system-generated status
(in this example “received both instalments”), and not the one that is actually relevant to their
grievance (in this example “received instalment 1 received, but not instalment 2”).

This resulted in the administrative machinery involved in resolving grievances expending a lot of
bandwidth to ascertain what the grievance really was.

38
To mitigate this challenge resulting from misunderstanding on the ground, and incorrect
categorisations when grievances were being filed, the state devised a grievance redressal framework
which the tech vendor managing the KALIA portal could use to categorise grievances based on the
category of complaint and action required.

39
Further, the state government issued an SOP for the frontline officials, which explained how the
status on the system was to be understood. The government had also realized that there were two
broad categories of grievances, and therefore the complaint filing mechanism could be suitably
simple:

● Grievances related to payment

● Grievances related to contesting eligibility

An applicant could file a grievance under the following two categories:

● Applicant had applied and has received Instalment 1 but not Instalment 2:

Meaning: Applicant has received assistance for Rabi 2018 and has been excluded for
Kharif 2019. The applicant now wants to file a grievance contesting her eligibility. In this case, if the
applicant thinks she is eligible, she will have to fill the online form and attach documentary proof.

● Applicant had applied but hasn’t received assistance:

Meaning: Applicant had applied and has not received assistance both for Rabi 2018 and

40
Kharif 2019. In this case, if the applicant thinks she is eligible, she will have to fill the online form
and attach documentary proof.

In case a particular beneficiary’s bank details were found to be incorrect, she could file a grievance
under the “applicant had applied but hasn’t received assistance” category.

Challenge 2

Another issue faced at the ground level was related to the form itself. Below is a snapshot of the
grievance redressal form. The applicant could select one of the two grievance categories mentioned
above from a drop-down menu and attach necessary documentation.

41
However, there was no way to check if in the place where Aadhaar copy is required, an applicant
attaches the ration card copy instead. Now even though the grievance would get registered
successfully, it could not be processed.

To mitigate this challenge, two things were done. First, a compliance check layer was added at the
level of the Village Agriculture Worker (VAW) who had a checklist of documents required. If all
those were not uploaded, the VAW would send the grievance back to the farmer and ask for missing
documents. Second, the number of documents required was reduced.

Subsequently, to further streamline the process, SMS-integration with the form was introduced. This
meant that applicants had to share their mobile number when they submitted a grievance. In case
there were any compliance issues with the form, such as incorrect documents uploaded, they would
receive an SMS alerting them to the mistake and ask them to rectify the error.

As is evident, KALIA’s grievance redressal process evolved over time. Through multiple design
iterations, some minor, some major and constantly analysing the challenges faced on the ground, the
state government was able to streamline the process. Since December 2019, when the grievance
mechanism was established, 12,31,580 applications have been received, of which 9,33,704 were
grievances and 2,97,876 were new applications. Of this, 2,68,046 have been sent back for
compliance. The remaining 9,63,533, have been checked at the District Nodal Officer level, of which
as per field verification, 7,32,577 have been deemed eligible and 18,349 ineligibles. Going forward,
the state government has two options to resolve grievances: a) trust other databases (which might
have their own errors or aren’t updated), or b) trust field verification (which has its own limitations).
Use of technology
The limited time within which KALIA beneficiaries had to be identified and the first instalment
transferred, necessitated the extensive use of technology.

To this end, the Government of Odisha partnered with a private technology company which had been
working on various technology mandates with the DA&FE and the Food Supplies and Consumer
Welfare (FS&CW) Department for more than 10 years. This experience working with the government
meant technology company was better placed to know the kinds of databases available, the format in
which they were maintained, how best to use them, etc.

DA&FE worked with the technology company on three broad mandates. First, to develop and manage
a centralized portal to collect green and red forms from farmers, based on which a beneficiary list for
the scheme could be developed and maintained. The same portal was used by field officials for
verification. Second, the responsibility of developing the grievance redressal mechanism on the portal.
Third, to create the list of beneficiaries for final cash disbursement, which would be approved by a
government official. The team also managed the rectification of errors in the KALIA portal when
transactions failed.

42
 Technology was key to the swift implementation of KALIA.
At a given point of time, more than 50,000 records were
entered into the KALIA portal per hour and this monitoring
was done at the Chief Minister level

The team also supported the state government with some aspects of the IEC for KALIA. They handled
the government’s social media publicity of the scheme and also developed an app for the government
to manage vendors working on the creation of IEC material and its placement. For example, many
KALIA posters, hoardings had to be placed strategically in locations with high footfall. To allow the
government to track whether the IEC material was placed at the right locations, vendors had to click a
photo of the photo and upload it on the app with location details. This information was used to make
payments to the vendor. Similarly, they also managed the movement of KALIA Raths, where they
were going, how many green and red forms were disseminated through them etc.

Below are some of the challenges faced by the tech team and the best practices which helped them
develop and manage the KALIA portal given the time constraints:

1) Reducing time for data entry: Odisha has 6,798 gram panchayats (GPs). Data entry into the
KALIA portal from the green forms had to happen across GPs in a short time span. Even
assuming each form would take 5 mins, for roughly 30 lakh farmers, the technology company
estimated that the process would take close to 15 days minimum. This also assumed there were
at least 10 data entry operators in each GP.

To reduce the time each form would take to digitize, the technology partner devised a pick and
choose mechanism for data entry. This meant that data entry operators would be choosing most
information from options or checking boxes, as opposed to manually entering information.
Manual information was restricted to 50-60 characters where needed (e.g., address, father
name, bank account details, etc.) How did this mechanism work? Once a data entry operator
entered the Aadhaar number on the portal, through the Verhoeff algorithm 22, the system would
be able verify whether the provided number could be a valid Aadhaar number. It is important
to note here, this was not a process to authenticate Aadhaar. The data entry operator would then
have to compare this information against what was written in the green form. Even though the
screen might show different name spellings or bank account details in different databases, the
operator could select the details as mentioned in the green form. This way, operators had to
spend less time (1-2 minutes) manually entering information thereby making the process much
faster. At a given point of time, more than 50,000 records were entered into the portal per hour.

22
The Verhoeff Algorithm is a checksum formula for error detection. In this context is was used to check if a given
combination of numbers can be a possible Aadhaar number.

43
 Within a month, data entry operators in GPs created 65 lakh records with unique Aadhaar
numbers.

2) Tech infrastructure: To be able to handle the load of collecting so much information 24*7, the
technology company team planned in advance and made the KALIA portal backend system
lightweight, such that the load on servers was minimized. Even though each GPNO had 2
registered data entry operators, the actual number of people entering data per GPNO was more
than 10. This was necessary to meet the enrolment and verification target in record time. This
meant across the state an average of 25,000 data entry operators were using the portal at any
moment. In all 8 servers were used for the portal, 4 in operation and 4 as back-up. The state’s
IT department and private technology partner had to work in tandem to expedited permission
to have servers made available as they needed it.

3) Data normalization: The system had to constantly access multiple datasets and pull citizen
details from them. This would considerably slow down the data entry process. To this end, the
technology company merged the different databases into one dataset, so the system response
was faster.

4) Master data management: There were no standardised demographic databases available at the
district, block, GP and village levels. Different departments used a different list of
administrative units. This led to additional complexity in assessing the actual address of a
farmer. Therefore, the technology partner used the local government directory (LGD), created
by the Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Government of India, to standardise administrative units by
mapping all beneficiaries with the LGD database. Similar issues were faced with bank account
details where IFS codes were initially, manually entered. Eventually a drop-down menu of
standard IFS codes based on an RBI master list was added to the portal.

44
Section V: Gauging the Response to KALIA
To understand how well KALIA was implemented and received by farmers on the ground, a third-
party conducted a telesurvey covering 3,040 KALIA beneficiaries across all 30 districts and 314
blocks of Odisha. The survey recorded responses from 1,696 (55.79%) small and marginal farmers
and 1,344 landless farmers (44.21%).

The survey was conducted in Odia, though it needs to be acknowledged that Odia might not be the
language of business for all the respondents (there could be variation in dialect or tribal languages
spoken in some regions). Any misrepresentation of the questions cannot be accurately factored in this
method of enquiry.
Methodology and Approach
The telephonic survey of farmers drawn from the KALIA database was conducted between 29th
September and 4th October 2020 covering all the 30 districts of Odisha. The phone numbers of farmers
were randomly selected from the KALIA database

1. An initial list of directional questions for the survey were used by the third-party (referred to
as the firm going forward) and converted into a survey questionnaire. The questions were also
translated into Odia.
2. In order to ensure real-time data capture, the firm converted the questions into a data entry
software—KOBO Collect which is an Opens Source data management platform.
3. In order to familiarize the enumerators with the questionnaire, the firm organized a one-day
training that included practicing all the questions, setting up the software and pilot testing the
questions.
4. Phone numbers were arranged district-wise and within the district, the list of famers was
prepared alphabetically. With a view to have equitable representation from all districts, equal
number of farmer phone numbers were allotted to enumerators. However, the number of
responses from districts is dependent on the number of phone connections and responses
received.

5. The phone numbers were tried once, and if a connection was not made, the enumerators skipped
to the next number on their list. Numbers which called back were asked the questions and their
responses were recorded.
Key insights
This section includes key macro insights from the survey, while more details are available in
Annexure 3.

1. Out of 3,040 respondents, 95.16% had applied for KALIA. From among the 2,893 farmers who
had applied, 80.71% said they received financial assistance, 49.71% have received both the
instalments while 30.04% have received one instalment.

45
2. 1,294 of 1,696 SMF (76.29%) said they received KALIA assistance, of which 857 received both
instalments, while 437 said they received one instalment. 1013 of 1,344 LAH (75.37%) confirmed
they received KALIA assistance, of which 581 said they received both instalments, while 432 said
they received one.

No. of
No. of Receive No. of
respondent
No. of respondents d respondents
s who
# District Name respon who applied who
KALIA received
dents for KALIA received one
benefit both
benefit instalment
instalments

1 ANGUL 55 54 46 39 7
2 BALASORE 138 135 112 79 33
3 BARGARH 85 84 55 40 15
4 BHADRAK 94 93 75 57 18
5 BOLANGIR 99 92 79 41 36
6 BOUDH 86 73 59 30 29
7 CUTTACK 115 113 91 65 26
8 DEOGARH 92 86 74 54 19
9 DHENKANAL 70 68 59 35 20
10 GAJAPATI 69 61 48 23 24
11 GANJAM 132 127 97 47 50
12 JAGATSINGHPUR 139 139 115 78 37
13 JAJPUR 126 122 98 66 32
14 JHARSUGUDA 106 96 79 48 30
15 KALAHANDI 98 93 72 47 24
16 KANDHAMAL 75 67 62 45 16
17 KENDRAPARA 125 121 101 73 27
18 KEONJHAR 112 108 90 59 31
19 KHURDHA 113 106 91 44 47
20 KORAPUT 92 85 56 31 25
21 MALKANGIRI 89 86 64 31 33

46
 No. of
No. of Receive No. of
respondent
No. of respondents d respondents
s who
# District Name respon who applied who
KALIA received
dents for KALIA received one
benefit both
benefit instalment
instalments

22 MAYURBHANJ 128 125 108 68 40

23 NAWARANGPUR 76 70 51 37 14
24 NAYAGARH 137 133 110 64 43
25 NUAPADA 94 90 67 48 18
26 PURI 134 128 110 55 53
27 RAYAGADA 68 62 47 28 19
28 SAMBALPUR 100 96 73 31 40
29 SONEPUR 76 67 54 32 17
30 SUNDERGARH 117 113 92 43 46
TOTAL 3040 2893 2335 1438 869

3. An overwhelming majority, i.e., 95.28% SMF said they found the KALIA scheme useful, while
the same sentiment was echoed by 94.04% LAH.

4. 74.64% farmers said they utilized KALIA money for agricultural purpose while 80.47% farmers
who expected further future instalments said they would spend the assistance money on agriculture.
While 1,065 SMF (62.79%) said they used KALIA money for agricultural purposes, 703 LAH
(52.30%) said they did the same.

5. 558 (19.28% of applied) eligible farmers responded that they had not received KALIA assistance,
347 said they have approached GP office to enquire about the delay. Out of this, 36.02% responded
that they did not receive any support from the GP office.

6. Of these 558 respondents, 77 knew why didn’t they receive KALIA assistance and 481 didn’t
know.

7. None of the 77 respondents who knew they were ineligible filled up the red form.

47
Section VI: Macro Policy Questions and Challenges
This section delves into the implications of including tenants/sharecroppers/LAH in the KALIA
scheme, as well as other macroeconomic policy challenges that the state government had to tackle in
designing and implementing KALIA.

1) What is the need for inclusion?

Tenants, sharecroppers and LAH lack official (i.e. administrative) recognition of their status, and thus
suffer from lower negotiation power. They have limited or no access to government benefits, and inter
alia, therefore suffer from volatility and uncertainty of wages and income that is more acute than in
the case of landowners. Despite a significant proportion of tenant farmers, (in Odisha there were 20.6%
as per NSSO, 27% as per NABARD survey), this important subset of agricultural workforce lacked
political recognition and support. At the national level, more than half of the agricultural workforce
(nearly 144 million of 263 million) is landless. It is thus imperative for policymakers to not just take
cognizance of the plight of this sizeable working population but also direct welfare schemes towards
them.

It is only by taking decisive steps in this direction can the efforts of governments towards ameliorating
the condition of farmers in the country become truly inclusive, equitable and progressive.

2) What are the perceived challenges?

The primary challenge with respect to the inclusion of tenants, sharecroppers and LAH in welfare
schemes is their identification. The political standpoint around tenancy has promulgated an unofficial
market for land leasing. No legal documents exist to prove leasing by an individual, and consequently
no database captures their details.

The second challenge is the continuity of the (unofficial) lease agreement between two parties. With
strong threat to the ownership of land, landowners often change their tenants too soon. This implies
that a database of tenant farmers, unlike that of landowners, would require more frequent updates and
corrections.

This third challenge is with respect to the landless agriculture workers, in particular. Even though they
are linked to agriculture, their livelihood issues differ in many ways as compared to a farmer/tiller.
This necessitates a different approach to designing schemes and programmes around their welfare.

3) How can the political economy be managed?

48
Undoubtedly, policymakers are aware of the need to include this vulnerable section of the agriculture
workforce in welfare schemes. However, the absence of identification methods, the instability or
discontinuity in their terms of contract, and the overall “informal” nature of their contracts and
commitment are some immediate problems that weigh heavily in the minds of policymakers when
considering the inclusion of tenants, sharecroppers and LAH. However, as demonstrated through
KALIA, technological and policy innovations can be used effectively and efficiently to solve this
problem.

4) How can other states follow suit?

Any farmer seeking benefits such as subsidized seed kits, fertilizers, pesticides, micro-irrigation
equipment etc., needs to prove land ownership to the government. As a direct consequence of this
requirement, a tiller without this proof of land (like tenant farmers, sharecroppers, lessee farmers) will
be excluded from such schemes and programmes. Purely from the perspective of agricultural
development, these tillers must first be legally recognised as farmers and thus rendered eligible to all
associated benefits under various schemes / programmes / missions of the government.

Other challenges

Effect on personnel productivity: Given the tight timeline within which the state government wanted
to roll out KALIA, the entire administrative machinery of the Department of Agriculture had to
singularly focus on implementing the scheme. For roughly 6,500 Gram Panchayat Nodal Officers
(GPNO), who were the field level officials involved in collection of application forms, verification,
handling queries, etc., this meant putting all tasks on hold. Similarly, depending on the specific time
in the agriculture calendar, GPNOs are involved in ensuring seed supply, issuing pest and weather-
related advisories, crop-cutting, procurement of harvested crops, etc. In January 2019, when the first
tranche of KALIA cash transfers had to happen, it was a relatively lean time in the agricultural calendar
(after seeding, before procurement). However, August 2019, when a second round of verification of
beneficiaries was happening before the release of the second instalment, was a critical time in the crop
cycle. By the end of August, most farmers need to finish sowing for the Rabi season. This means that
in the preceding weeks, GPNOs have to ensure adequate seed supplies to farmers. As such GPNOs
had to manage both time-critical priorities simultaneously.

It is also important to note here that the data gathering, and verification exercise undertaken for KALIA
became the stepping stone for the development of a state-wide comprehensive farmer database
(explained in detail in the next section). In this sense, the state is likely to reap enormous efficiency
gains as a result of this one-time effort. Additionally, the productivity of farmers themselves remains
largely unaffected from the administration’s work.

Challenges with the banking system: While the accurate identification of beneficiaries is a prerequisite
for the success of targeted direct income transfer schemes, error-free transfer of assistance to
beneficiary accounts is just as critical. Any direct transfer through the banking system has three

49
components--Record, Verify, Transfer. For assistance to directly reach the end beneficiary, the first
and foremost step is ensuring that each beneficiary owns a bank account and the details of these
accounts are recorded with the government. While the Jan Dhan campaign helped in this regard to a
large extent, it has been estimated that around 10% of the accounts created under the campaign were
fake or existing accounts 23. Different banks have different bank account guidelines 24. Each bank is
free to choose a different length for its bank account number. Moreover, while in some cases the same
IFSC is shared by multiple branches of the same bank, in others it acts as a unique bank branch
identifier. These varying guidelines make the recording process challenging. Once the bank details of
a particular beneficiary are recorded, it is important to verify two aspects of such bank details--validity
and authenticity. Here, validity implies whether a bank account is functional or not, and authenticity
implies where it belongs to the intended beneficiary or not. At 48%, India has the highest rate of
inactive accounts in the world, and about twice the average of 25% for developing economies 25. While
mechanisms such as the Public Finance Management System, State’s State Level Bankers’ Committee
or penny-drop mechanisms can establish validity despite some flaws, there is no efficient way to check
for the authenticity of a particular bank account unless confirmed by the beneficiary herself. At best,
the mechanisms return account-holder name, which can thereafter be compared with the beneficiary
name to establish authenticity. The final step in the cash transfer transaction is the actual transfer of
assistance and subsequent analysis of transaction response. However, in several state or regional banks
there is low adherence to notified transaction response timelines. As a result, a significant amount of
time and effort is spent on analysing transaction responses i.e., whether a transaction was a success or
failure. Even when assistance is successfully transferred to the beneficiary bank, in most cases, there
is no communication of such transfer to the beneficiary, unless she proactively checks her bank
balance. Lastly, there are two common deductions from bank accounts which result in no net gain to
the beneficiary. First is loan adjustment wherein if a beneficiary submits his loan account details
instead of bank account, the assistance once transferred, can be adjusted towards setline past unpaid
loan instalments. Second, most bank accounts have a minimum balance clause built in for savings
accounts. In case, the average monthly balance of the beneficiary’s given bank account falls below
that minimum balance limit, the penalty amount is adjusted through the provided assistance. In
addition to these issues, there are some limitations associated with Jan Dhan accounts such as a cap on
the number of transactions in a year and a maximum balance amount of Rs 50,000.

23
Livemint India needs Jan Dhan, and not just Jan Dhan accounts
24
RBI - Report of the Technical Committee to Examine Uniform Routing Code and Account Number Structure (Annexure III)
25
Livemint India needs Jan Dhan, and not just Jan Dhan accounts

50
Section VII: After KALIA
Majority of the population of Odisha depends on agriculture for its livelihood. To develop appropriate
policy responses and build support systems to increase their productivity, the state government should
have insight into the number of farmers in the state, their demographics, production and consumption
patterns, among other things. This will not only help the state in planning and implementing existing
schemes and services, but also proactively designing targeted schemes and services in the future.

To this end, the Government of Odisha is planning the creation of a state-wide farmer database which
will capture the following information:

The first step towards creating this database was taken during the process of creating the beneficiary
list for the KALIA scheme. As a result of the extensive data unification and verification exercises
undertaken under KALIA, the state has been able to create an authentic database of 48 lakh small and
marginal farmers including sharecroppers and landless agricultural households.

However, the beneficiary database for KALIA only has details on one member of a farm family and
also excludes medium and large farmers. In order to create an inclusive base database, it has been
proposed that the following four scheme databases will be utilized –

● KALIA database: As mentioned above, the Odisha government has been able to create an
authentic database of small and marginal farmers and landless agricultural households to create
the beneficiary list for KALIA.

51
 ● Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) database: Government of India’s Crop Insurance
Database with approximately 25 lakh records is a repository of all the farmers who have availed
insurance, including large farmers. This entire database is seeded with Khata and Plot numbers
and covers a substantial portion of the farmer population.
● Farmer Registration under Paddy Procurement Automation System (P-PAS) database: Almost
90% of the crop production in Odisha is paddy. The entire marketable portion of this produce
is recorded on the P-PAS system, tagged with land records.

These above-mentioned databases have been proposed primarily on the following three grounds:
● Majority Aadhaar seeded datasets
● Most validated datasets
● Cover majority farmers of the state

In addition to these three databases, the state’s existing Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) database would
also be integrated:

● DBT database: The state has an existing database of 25,61,669 registered farmers with a pre-
existing farmer ID. This database would be subsumed in the farmers database for process
integration and to prevent workflow disruption. Thereafter, the DBT database would be
replaced by the newly created Farmers’ Database.

Consolidating all these databases, the government currently has details of 75 lakh farmers in all. Given
that a little over 50% of the information in this database has already been verified for KALIA, the
amount of bandwidth the state will have to expend to verify information on ground would be lesser.

Once complete, the farmer database will allow the state to identify eligible beneficiaries for a scheme
without any need for inviting applications of conducting on ground verification, have a farmer level-
view of the state’s agriculture profile and leverage this information to formulate targeted and relevant
policies, assess budget requirements for schemes/services, and establish direct connections with and
disseminating customised advisories to farmers. Broadly the database shall serve the following
purposes:

For the state government/department:

● Accurate identification of beneficiaries for farmer welfare schemes
● To reduce the documentation required at each step by utilising the already fetched and validated
data
● To leverage farmer level state agriculture profile to formulate auto-eligibility criteria, targeted
policies and assess fund requirement

52
 ● Accurate evaluation and assessment of schemes/services thereby facilitating rationalisation

Building on the KALIA beneficiary database, the state

government has now built a comprehensive database of 75
lakh farmers in the state with a unique ID.

For farmers:
● Serve as identity proof for farmers for availing subsidy or applying to a particular
scheme/service
● To establish direct communication with the department to receive customised agro-advisory
● To check eligibility for various schemes
● To establish transaction history and farming track record as alternate collateral for availing
credit/Insurance/other inputs

Continuous Data updation

To ensure that the data once collected, stays live and updated the government is undertaking several
measures. First, the farmer database will be linked with all databases that are used when a farmer
interacts with the government. For example, when a farmer buys seeds, or when the government
procures paddy from a farmer, all these transactions get recorded in some form in some database the
state owns. The farmer database will be linked to all of these to create a live record of all farmer
transactions. This would give the state insight into the farmers’ spending and consumption patterns,
income, among other things. Second, the government is mandating the use of the farmer database
across all relevant agricultural data systems. This would help in institutionalising the database and
ensure farmer data remains updated across systems. Third, farmers will have to necessarily keep the
information on the database updated to avail the government’s schemes and services. This would
ensure more proactive disclosures from the farmers themselves. It is important to note here that this
will be done in conjunction with measures to provide easy access to farmers to update their information
within their blocks and villages.

53
Top-down interaction: Interaction where the other existing databases are connected to the farmer
database through APIs. This interaction could be for the following use-cases:
● For farmer verification
● To update information

Bottom-up interaction: Interaction where the farmer database fetches certain fields from other
databases through APIs. If the same data point is present in two or more databases, the database last
updated will be utilized.

Where development of APIs may take time, manual linking through regular data sharing (backup
files) can be facilitated until development is complete. For smooth linking of databases, ‘Data
Sharing Agreements’ will be entered into by the interacting departments/directorates/other relevant
bodies and the state to facilitate these agreements.

It is important to note here that the creation of a database at this scale requires a one-time effort by
the state machinery to collect, verify and consolidate data. However, if designed well, such a
database can become a live resource for the state to tap into and have efficiency, administrative and
productivity gains with far reaching consequences.

Data governance:
The state government has put in place measures to safeguard the data of farmers. First, farmer-level
information will be shared with all departments on the basis of licensed agreements with DA&FE.
Second, even within the department, information would only be available on a need-basis. For
example, if a Village Agriculture Worker (VAW) has to undertake on ground verification to check a

54
farmers’ eligibility for a service, she will be given an app with information on specific farmers in her
GP only when such an exercise has to be done. This information would be shared only once for that
specific purpose. Third, Aadhaar data of farmers would not be exposed. Lastly, all the use cases
envisioned for the database would be system-generated, which means if customised pest advisories
need to be issued to farmers through IVRS or a list of farmers eligible for scheme needs to be generated,
these would be done by the government internally and no data would be shared externally with any
entity.

Balaram Yojana

In July 2020, the state government also announced the Balaram Yojana to provide agricultural credit
of Rs 1,040 crore to landless farmers facing economic hardships due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
These loans would be provided through joint liability groups (JLGs) over the next two years and are
a sequel to the KALIA scheme. This is another step taken by the government to help landless
labourers in the state. Around 140,000 JLGs would be formed with each group comprising five
farmers. Around 70,000 groups are expected to get farm loans under the scheme this year. 26

Conclusion
Direct income transfer (DIT) schemes are increasingly being seen by governments as a sustainable
way to provide financial support to the most vulnerable populations. However, even as DITs become
a popular policy choice, it is imperative to bear in mind that its success depends on the accurate
identification of beneficiaries as well as having in place a robust money transfer mechanism.

In this regard, through the KALIA scheme the Government of Odisha has endeavoured to establish a
framework which can be used by other states looking to implement DIT schemes as well.
Transparency through the use of data and technology have been central to the design of KALIA’s
unique UVE methodology for identifying eligible beneficiaries as well as making the cash transfer
process easier to manage. A robust online grievance redressal mechanism has been quintessential in
assessing and addressing feedback and complaints from the ground. This has also helped in
improving the design and implementation of the scheme iteratively.

KALIA is an inclusive, forward-looking agrarian welfare scheme, which stands out for its inclusion
of sharecroppers, tenant farmers and landless labourers. They are a section of the agricultural
workforce that is usually left out of the purview of welfare schemes and financial support, even
though they need it the most. The provision of livelihood assistance to landless agricultural
households is a particularly progressive move that empowers them to become entrepreneurs rather
than relying on agriculture for subsistence. Significantly, nearly one-third of the scheme’s

26
Hindustan Times Odisha to provide Rs 1,040 crore loans to sharecroppers through joint liability groups

55
beneficiaries are women. KALIA is a quasi-UBI which seeks to provide sustainable income support
to truly provide financial and social mobility to farmers.

A key takeaway for any policymaker trying to understand the KALIA experience, is to look at
schemes like these as an opportunity to increase the use of data and technology in decision-making.
A one-time consolidated effort to create verified databases that can be kept live, can go a long way in
reducing administrative burden on an ongoing basis. For e.g., as a consequence of the creation of the
KALIA beneficiary database, the state is now in a position to create a more comprehensive database
of all farmers in the state. Going forward this database will become the single source of truth for
designing and implementing schemes. Similarly, with the launch of Balaram Yojana, the state is
going a step further from KALIA to provide loans to landless labourers, who traditionally face
difficulty in accessing formal credit.

As more states consider implementing DIT schemes, we hope this case study can be a useful tool for
policymakers to understand the many administrative, economic, technological and logistical aspects
of such a scheme.

56
Annexure
Annexure 1: Analysis of bank accounts vs cheques

Comparison between cash transfers to bank accounts vs cheques

57
Annexure 2: Samples of green and red forms

The green form (in Odiya) on the left and a summary of the information asked.

58
The red form (in Odiya) on the left and a summary of the information asked.

59
Annexure 3: Details of IVRS
Questionnaire

Identifiers
ପରିଚୟ

Phone number (record from the datasheet)

ad.1
େଫାନ ନମ�ର (ତାଲିକା ରୁ େରକଡର୍ କର�ୁ )

Farmer type 1- SMF େଛାଟ ଓ ମଧ୍ୟମ

ad.2 ଚାଷି
ଚାଷି �କାର
2- LL ଭୁମି ହୀନ
District
ad.3 Drop down
ଜି�ା

Block
ad.4 Drop down
ବ�କ

GP
ad.5 Drop down
�ାମ ପ�ାୟତ

Village
ad.6 Drop down
�ାମ

Name of respondent
ad.7
ଉ�ରଦାତା � ନାମ

Father/Husband name
ad.8
ପିତା / ସ�ାମୀ � ନାମ

Phone number
ad.9
େଫାନ ନମ�ର

Namaste, I ________________, am working with NPRDA and Samagra Governance. We are

helping Govt. of Odisha to understand how KALIA scheme helped you and your family. What have
you done with the support, etc.? We need 5-10 minutes to discuss about this. Are you okay for
continuing discussing about the scheme benefit?
1- Yes, 2- No (End of interview)

60
ନମ�ାର, େମା ନାମ ___________________. ମଁୁ ଏନପିଆରଡିଏ ଓ ସମ� ସହ କାମ କରୁଛି� ଆେ� ଓଡିଶା ସରକାର �ୁ ,
କାଳିଆ େଯାଜନା େର ଲାଭ ପାଇଥିବା ହିତାଧିକାରୀ �ୁ େଯାଜନା ଟି କିପରି ସହାୟକ େହାଇଛି େସ ବିଷୟ େର ଜଣାଉଛୁ , ଯଥା
ଆପଣ ଏହି ସହାୟତା କୁ କିପରି ଉପେଯାଗ କେଲ � ଏହି କଥାବା�ର୍ା ପାଇଁ ୫ ରୁ ୧୦ ମିନଟ
ି ସମୟ ଲାଗିବ� ଆଶା କରୁଛି
ଆପଣ ଏଥିେର ସହେଯାଗ କରିେବ? ଆେ� କଥାବା�ର୍ା ଆର� କରିବା କି?

୧- ହଁ ୨- ନା (କଥାବା�ର୍ା େଶଷ କର�ୁ )

Knowledge about KALIA Scheme

କାଳିଆ େଯାଜନା ବିଷୟେର �ାନ

Label Questions Response

1- Yes
Have you heard of the KALIA scheme? 2- No (Skip to Q C.4)
C.1 ୧- ହଁ
ଆପଣ କାଳିଆ େଯାଜନା ବିଷୟେର ଶୁଣିଛ�ି?
୨- ନା (�ଶ� C.4 କୁ ଯାଆ�ୁ )

1- Yes
2- No (Skip to Q C.4)
95- Can't say
Is it a useful scheme?
C.2 ୧- ହଁ
କାଳିଆ େଯାଜନା ଟି ଉପକାରୀ କି?
୨- ନା (�ଶ� C.4 କୁ ଯାଆ�ୁ )

୯୫-କହି ପାରିବ ି ନାହି

1- Yes
If yes, did you apply to receive benefit under the scheme?
2- No
C.3 ଯଦି ହ୍ଁ, ଆପଣ କାଳିଆ େଯାଜନା େର ସହାୟତା ଲାଗି ଆେବଦନ କରିଥିେଲ ୧- ହଁ
କି?
୨- ନା

1- Yes (Skip to Q A.1)

Did you receive any benefit? 2-No
C.4 ୧- ହଁ, �ଶ� A.1 କୁ ଯାଆ�ୁ
ଆପଣ କାଳିଆ େଯାଜନା େର ସହାୟତା ପାଇ ଥିେଲ କି?
୨- ନା

1- Yes
If no, do you know why you did not receive any benefit 2- No (End the
under the scheme? interview)
C.5 ୧- ହଁ
ଯଦି ନା, ଆପଣ କାଳିଆ େଯାଜନା େର କଣ ପାଇଁ ସହାୟତା ପାଇ ନ ଥିେଲ
ଯାଣ�ି କି? ୨- ନା (କଥାବା�ର୍ା େଶଷ
କର�ୁ )

61
 Label Questions Response
1- Yes
If yes, are you aware that you are ineligible? 2- No
C.6 ୧- ହଁ
ଯଦି ହ୍ଁ, ଆପଣ କାଳିଆ େଯାଜନା େର ସହାୟତା ପାଇଁ ଉପଯୁ� ନୁ ହ�ି କି?
୨- ନା

1- Yes
Did you fill the red form? 2- No
C.7 ୧- ହଁ
ଆପଣ ଏହି େଯାଜନା େର ନାଲି ପମର୍ ଭରିଥିେଲ କି?
୨- ନା

Benefits of KALIA Scheme

କାଳିଆ େଯାଜନା ର ଲାଭ

1- Yes
If yes, did you receive both installments? 2- No (Skip to Q B.1)
A.1 ୧- ହଁ
ଯଦି ହଁ, ଆପଣ କି�ି ପାଇଛ�ି କି?
୨- ନା �ଶ� B.1 କୁ ଯାଆ�ୁ

1- One instalment
How many instalments did you receive? 2- Both instalments
A.2 ୧- େଗାଟିଏ କି�ି
ଆପଣ େକେତାଟି କି�ି ପାଇଛ�ି?
୨-ଦୁ ଇଟି କି�ି

1- Yes
Have you utilized the money for agricultural 2- No
purposes?
A.3 ୧- ହଁ
ଆପଣ ଏହି କି�ି ଟ�ା କୁ ଚାଷ କାମେର ବ୍ୟବହାର କରିଛ�ି?
୨- ନା

62
 1-Personal expenses
2- Household consumption
3-Health expenses
3- Child education
4- Repay a loan
5- Gave to a friend
6- Agriculture
88-Other (specify)
If no, what did you utilize the money for?
Multiple response possible ୧-ବ୍ୟ�ିଗତ ଖ�ର୍
A.4 ୨-ଘେରାଇ ଖ�ର୍
ଯଦି ନା, ଆପଣ ଏହା କୁ କଣ ପାଇଁ ବ୍ୟବହାର କରିଛ�ି?

ଏକ ରୁ ଅଧିକ ଉ�ର ସ�ବ ୩- ସ�ା�୍ୟ େର ଖ�ର୍

୪- ପିଲା ର ଶି�ା େର ଖ�ର୍

୫- ରୁଣ ପରିେଶାଧ େର ଖ�ର୍

୬- ବ�ୁ �ୁ େଦଇଛି

୭- ଚାଷ େର ଖ�ର୍

୮୮- ଅନ୍ୟ (ଦଶର୍ା�ୁ )

If no, have you checked with the GP office why

you haven't received the money yet? 1- Yes
2- No (End the interview)
B.1 ଯଦି ନା, ଆପଣ କାହିଁକି କି�ି ପାଇେଲ ନାହିଁ, େସ ବିଷୟେର ୧-ହଁ
ଜାଣିବା କୁ �ାମ ପ�ାୟତ କାଯର୍୍ୟାଳୟ େର େଯାଗାେଯାଗ
୨- ନା (କଥାବା�ର୍ା େଶଷ କର�ୁ )
କରିଥିେଲ କି?

1- Helped in tracing my application

If yes, how have they helped you?
2- Helped in calling the block/district
Multiple option possible office
3- Assured that they will follow up
4- Did nothing
Note: option 4- Did nothing can't be selected 5- 88- Other(specify)
with other options ୧- େମା ଆେବଦନ କୁ େଖାଜିବାେର ସହେଯାଗ କେଲ
B.2 ଯଦି ହଁ, �ାମ ପ�ାୟତ କାଯର୍୍ୟାଳୟ ଆପଣ �ୁ କିପରି ୨-ବ�କ ବା ଜି�ା ଅଫି ସ କୁ େଫାନ କେଲ
ସହେଯାଗ କଲା?
୩- େସମାେନ ଏହି ବିଷୟେର ବୁ ଝକ
ି ି ଜଣାଇେବ
ଏକ ରୁ ଅଧିକ ଉ�ର ସ�ବ େବାଲି କହିେଲ

େନାଟ- ୪- କିଛ ି କେଲ ନାହିଁ ସହ ଅନ୍ୟ ଉ�ର ଚୟନ କର�ୁ ୪- କିଛ ି କେଲ ନାହିଁ
ନାହିଁ
୮୮- ଅନ୍ୟ (ଦଶର୍ା�ୁ )

63
 1-Didn't want the support
2-Office asking for money
3-Don't know whom to contact
4-Don't have the required documents
Ask if B.2=4 or no, why haven't you raised the
5-Didn't get time
issue yet?
88-Other(specify)
Multiple option possible

B.3
୧- ସାହାଯ୍ୟ କେଲ ନାହିଁ
ଯଦି =୪ ବା ନା- ଆପଣ କାହିଁକି ଏହି ବିଷୟେର ଅଭିେଯାଗ
କେଲ ନାହିଁ? ୨-ଅଫି ସ େର ଟ�ା ମାଗିେଲ
ଏକ ରୁ ଅଧିକ ଉ�ର ସ�ବ ୩- ମଁୁ କାହାକୁ େଯାଗାେଯାଗ କରିବ ି ଜାଣିନ ି

୪-େମା ପାଖେର ଉପଯୁ� କାଗଜ ନାହିଁ

୫-ସମୟ ପାଇନଥିଲି

୮୮- ଅନ୍ୟ (ଦଶର୍ା�ୁ )

64
 1-Personal expenses
2-Household consumption
3-Health expenses
4-Child education
5-Repay a loan
6-Gave to a friend
How do you plan on using the money once you 7-Agriculture
receive it?
88-Other (specify)
Multiple option possible

B.4
୧-ବ୍ୟ�ିଗତ ଖ�ର୍
ଆପଣ ଯଦି ସହାୟତା ପାଇେଲ େତେବ ଏହା କୁ କିପରି
ବିନେି ଯାଗ କରିେବ ? ୨-ଘେରାଇ ଖ�ର୍

ଏକ ରୁ ଅଧିକ ଉ�ର ସ�ବ ୩- ସ�ା�୍ୟ େର ଖ�ର୍

୪- ପିଲା ର ଶି�ା େର ଖ�ର୍

୫- ରୁଣ ପରିେଶାଧ େର ଖ�ର୍

୬- ବ�ୁ �ୁ େଦଇଛି

୭- ଚାଷ େର ଖ�ର୍

୮୮- ଅନ୍ୟ (ଦଶର୍ା�ୁ )

Survey coverage
District-wise coverage of samples is given below:

Percentage Of Of
No. of No. of No. of
# District Name of which which
Blocks GPs Villages
respondents LAH SMF

1 ANGUL 8 55 55 1.84% 19 36

2 BALASORE 11 138 138 4.53% 53 85

3 BARGARH 12 85 85 2.53% 28 57
4 BHADRAK 8 94 94 3.12% 27 67
5 BOLANGIR 11 99 99 3.22% 45 54
6 BOUDH 3 86 86 2.86% 38 48
7 CUTTACK 14 115 115 3.74% 59 56

65
 Percentage Of Of
No. of No. of No. of
# District Name of which which
Blocks GPs Villages
respondents LAH SMF

8 DEOGARH 3 92 92 3.02% 35 57
9 DHENKANAL 8 70 70 2.30% 44 26
10 GAJAPATI 7 69 69 2.27% 26 43
11 GANJAM 22 132 132 4.33% 72 60
12 JAGATSINGHPUR 8 139 139 4.56% 67 72
13 JAJPUR 12 126 126 4.14% 59 67
14 JHARSUGUDA 6 106 106 3.48% 57 49
15 KALAHANDI 11 98 98 3.22% 53 45
16 KANDHAMAL 11 75 75 2.46% 33 42
17 KENDRAPARA 9 125 125 4.10% 48 77
18 KEONJHAR 13 112 112 3.71% 32 80
19 KHURDHA 11 113 113 3.71% 73 40
20 KORAPUT 13 92 92 3.09% 26 66
21 MALKANGIRI 8 89 89 2.95% 47 42
22 MAYURBHANJ 26 128 128 4.24% 52 76
23 NAWARANGPUR 12 76 76 2.53% 20 56
24 NAYAGARH 8 137 137 4.50% 63 74
25 NUAPADA 5 94 94 3.09% 46 48
26 PURI 12 134 134 4.40% 44 90
27 RAYAGADA 10 68 68 2.46% 22 46
28 SAMBALPUR 9 100 100 3.28% 52 48
29 SONEPUR 6 76 76 2.50% 40 36
30 SUNDERGARH 17 117 117 3.84% 64 53
TOTAL 314 3040 3040 100% 1344 1696

66
Findings
1. Awareness and access

1.1. 99.34% of respondents said they had heard about KALIA scheme.

Question Yes No Total

C1. Have you heard of the KALIA 99.34% 0.66% 100%
scheme?
Total 3020 20 3040

1.2. 95.40% of respondents opined that KALIA is a useful scheme.

Question Yes No Can’t say Total

C2. Is KALIA a useful 95.40% 2.75% 1.85% 100%
scheme?
Total 2881 83 56 3040

2. Utilization of KALIA assistance

2.1. A large section of respondents, 76.64% said they utilized KALIA assistance for purposes related to
Agriculture.

Question Yes No Total

A3. Have you utilized KALIA money 76.64% 23.36% 100%
for agricultural purpose?
Total 539 1768 2307

2.2. KALIA assistance was utilized in following other categories as follows:

A4. How did you use KALIA money? Count Percentage

1. Personal Expense 49 9.09%
2. Household Consumption 337 62.52%
3. Health Expenses 90 16.70%
4. Child education 29 5.38%
5. Repay a loan 29 5.38%
6. Gave to a friend 0 0
7. Agriculture 210 38.96%

67
 8. Others 124 23.01%
Total 868 100%

2.3. Respondents who are expecting to receive KALIA assistance said that they would spend the money on
various categories as follows. 80.47% said they would spend it on agriculture.

B4. How do you plan to use the money once you Count %age
receive it?
1. Personal Expense 19 3.41%
2. Household Consumption 92 16.49%
3. Health Expenses 21 3.76%
4. Child education 19 3.41%
5. Repay a loan 25 4.48%
6. Give to a friend 0 0
7. Agriculture 449 80.47%
8. Others 65 11.65%
Total 690 100%

3. Grievance redressal

3.1. Out of 2,893 respondents who had applied for KALIA, 558 (19.28%) said they have not yet received
financial assistance. Of this, 347 respondents (constituting 62.18% of those who did not receive KALIA
assistance) said they approached GP office to enquire about the status.

Question Yes No Total

B1. Have you checked with the GP 62.19% 37.81% 100%
office why you haven’t received the
money yet?
Total 347 211 558

3.2. In terms of grievance redressal for KALIA money, 36.02% responded that they did not receive any support
from Gram Panchayat office. This was a multi-choice question. Other responses are listed below:

68
 Question Count %
A4. How did the GP Office help you?
1. Helped in tracing my application. 30 8.65%
2. Helped in calling the block/district office 33 9.51%
3. Assured that they will follow up 140 40.35%
4. Did nothing 125 36.02%
5. Other 25 7.20%
Total 353

4. Challenges and limitations

4.1. Of the 7,945 phone numbers that were dialled during the survey, the third-party could connect with 3,047
numbers and received 3,040 valid responses.

4.2. Of the phone numbers that were dialled, 4,905 numbers (61.7% of total) were either:

• Not reachable
• Switched off
• Without incoming facility
• Invalid numbers
• Did not receive the call

4.3. Since the phone numbers were collected in 2019, there is a probability that some numbers might have been
disconnected or changed, but such a high proportion needs further enquiry. Respondents who called back were
accommodated in the tele-survey.

4.4. The enumerators found inconsistency and mismatch in the listed phone number and farmer names as well
as location. Hence, the enumerators recorded the names and location as was conveyed by the respondent on the
call.

4.5. Some of the respondents denied to confirm the name of village, GP or block, in such cases the location
details used are as per the database.

4.6. A telephonic survey is limited by lack of personal interaction and overconfidence bias of the respondents
cannot be ruled out.

69
70