Thumbnail Image

Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur

The history of agricultural education in Kerala can be traced back to the year 1896 when a scheme was evolved in the erstwhile Travancore State to train a few young men in scientific agriculture at the Demonstration Farm, Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram, presently, the Cropping Systems Research Centre under Kerala Agricultural University. Agriculture was introduced as an optional subject in the middle school classes in the State in 1922 when an Agricultural Middle School was started at Aluva, Ernakulam District. The popularity and usefulness of this school led to the starting of similar institutions at Kottarakkara and Konni in 1928 and 1931 respectively. Agriculture was later introduced as an optional subject for Intermediate Course in 1953. In 1955, the erstwhile Government of Travancore-Cochin started the Agricultural College and Research Institute at Vellayani, Thiruvananthapuram and the College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences at Mannuthy, Thrissur for imparting higher education in agricultural and veterinary sciences, respectively. These institutions were brought under the direct administrative control of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Animal Husbandry, respectively. With the formation of Kerala State in 1956, these two colleges were affiliated to the University of Kerala. The post-graduate programmes leading to M.Sc. (Ag), M.V.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees were started in 1961, 1962 and 1965 respectively. On the recommendation of the Second National Education Commission (1964-66) headed by Dr. D.S. Kothari, the then Chairman of the University Grants Commission, one Agricultural University in each State was established. The State Agricultural Universities (SAUs) were established in India as an integral part of the National Agricultural Research System to give the much needed impetus to Agriculture Education and Research in the Country. As a result the Kerala Agricultural University (KAU) was established on 24th February 1971 by virtue of the Act 33 of 1971 and started functioning on 1st February 1972. The Kerala Agricultural University is the 15th in the series of the SAUs. In accordance with the provisions of KAU Act of 1971, the Agricultural College and Research Institute at Vellayani, and the College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Mannuthy, were brought under the Kerala Agricultural University. In addition, twenty one agricultural and animal husbandry research stations were also transferred to the KAU for taking up research and extension programmes on various crops, animals, birds, etc. During 2011, Kerala Agricultural University was trifurcated into Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University (KVASU), Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies (KUFOS) and Kerala Agricultural University (KAU). Now the University has seven colleges (four Agriculture, one Agricultural Engineering, one Forestry, one Co-operation Banking & Management), six RARSs, seven KVKs, 15 Research Stations and 16 Research and Extension Units under the faculties of Agriculture, Agricultural Engineering and Forestry. In addition, one Academy on Climate Change Adaptation and one Institute of Agricultural Technology offering M.Sc. (Integrated) Climate Change Adaptation and Diploma in Agricultural Sciences respectively are also functioning in Kerala Agricultural University.

Browse

20221
Reset filters
Subject: Agricultural Extension × Author: Abdul Jabbar P K. × Start date: 1985 × Thesis Type: Ph.D ×
Reset filters

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    ThesisItemOpen Access
    Institutionalization of decentralized planning in agriculture in Kerala: trends, determinants and policy imperatives
    (Department of Agricultural Extension, College of Agriculture,Vellanikkara, 2022-03-30) Abdul Jabbar P K.; Jiju P Alex
    Kerala has successfully evolved a paradigm of decentralized planning by utilizing the provisions of the 73rd and 74th amendments of the constitution. Local governments have been transformed as effective instruments for formulating and implementing development programmes through people’s participation. They are empowered to discharge such functions through strategic devolution of functions, functionaries and funds. Though a robust framework has been evolved over time to make decentralized planning operational, several bottle necks related to local governance affect the efficacy of planning and implementation processes at the grassroots level. This is evident in the productive sector in general and agriculture in particular. It was in this backdrop the present study was conducted. The study was primarily intended to describe the process of institutionalization of decentralized planning in agriculture in Kerala. In this connection, transitions in the administrative framework and policy environment of decentralized planning were also explored. The determinants of the efficacy of decentralized planning in agriculture and the nature of their influence as experienced by major actors of the process were also identified. The study also explored the accomplishments in the agricultural sector since institutionalization of decentralized planning. Alongside, policy imperatives of the experiences of institutionalization were delineated. The sample consisted of 160 respondents comprising of agricultural officers, panchayat presidents and members of the agricultural working group of various development sectors. Respondents were drawn from 40 grama panchayaths selected from five districts representing the five major agroclimatic regions. The study has revealed that there are 15 distinct processes of decentralized planning in the productive sector at the LSGI level. They have evolved over a period of three five-year plans through various iterative processes and drawing lessons from diverse field experiences. The state government plan allocation to local selfgovernments showed decreasing trend from Ninth Five Year Plan onwards. While local self-government institutions (LSGIs) had been provided with 29.29 per cent of state plan fund allocation, it was reduced to 22.9 per cent and 24.2 per cent in the tenth and eleventh five-year plans respectively. Plan expenditure of LSGIs was found to range from 74.81 per cent to 105.25 per cent during this period. It could also be observed that the mandatory sectoral ceilings for productive sector enforced in various plans have succeeded in ensuring investment in various sub sectors of agriculture. Many institutional innovations were initiated to foster people’s participation in planning. Introduction of ward development committees and Ayalsabhas was a major step towards this direction. However, attempts towards additional resource pooling, collaboration with academic institutions to enhance quality of projects and attempts to avoid thin spread of resources were found to be ineffective. Formulating agricultural projects with the assistance of cooperative sector and integrating central and state schemes were also not effective. In spite of the guidelines for formulating joint projects and muti year projects, local bodies were not venturing to such projects, suggesting that a motivational measure to promote joint projects among local bodies be introduced. Moreover, selection of members to the working group and PPC have to be according to their capabilities adjudged based on a state wide criteria. Employing modern technologies for primary processing and value addition, better provision of services, networking of producers and efficient marketing were not adequately mainstreamed by LSGIs in their plans. The efficacy of processes involved in decentralised planning was perceived differently by different categories of actors. Out of the 15 processes, plan appraisal, integration and implementation were perceived to have low efficacy. Plan formulation and resource allocation were also found to have low efficacy. Integration of projects had the lowest efficacy perception score. However, approval of plans by the District Planning Committee, preparation of detailed projects by the working group, holding of Gramasabha, preparation of draft plan proposals and discussion in the development seminar were reported to have high efficacy. Analysis of the attributes of the actors which contributed to their perception on the efficacy of decentralized planning process revealed that four major factors viz. participation, group decision making, experience and knowledge mediation could explain 77.22 per cent variance. Majority of agricultural officers had medium level of perceived efficacy, significantly influenced by their participation-performance interdependence factor and decentralization- development facilitation factors. Role performance of Agricultural Officers in decentralised planning was found to be high. They had performed their roles actively in budgeting of project proposals, planning, monitoring and evaluation, in the order of involvement. Lowest performance level of Agricultural Officers was found to be in functions related to agricultural extension. Accomplishments of decentralized planning in agriculture were quantified in terms physical targets and financial achievements. Plan fund allocation in the productive sector was found to be the highest in the high range zone, followed by problem zone. Plan expenditure in the districts selected from high range zone, northern region and problem zone was higher than 80 per cent. Projects on various aspects of rice, vegetables and banana had received more funds than other sub sectors during the reference period. With regard to the allocations spent, assistance to labour cost for rice farmers was the major intervention while those for coconut development and promotion of intercropping were less than 10% and 3% of respectively. Compared to other crops, the attention paid by local bodies to development of tuber crops, spices and pulses was less. Cashew being a hardy crop for waste lands did not find any place in decentralized plans of north, central and high range zones. Several deficiencies were found in the process of decentralised planning. Most importantly, there should be focused efforts for enhancing the capacities of working groups and Planning Committees. Integration of development interventions by various agencies at the local level have to be ensured through better coordination. Collective deliberations on sectoral working group reports coordinated by panchayath planning committee will foster shared vision and convergence among functions of various officials transferred to the Grama panchayath. The panchayath level data base, Peoples’ Bio Diversity Register formulated through Bio Diversity Management Committees and the watershed master plan have to be updated through massive farmer participation to ensure data base support to local planning and foster the opportunities for local resource mobilization. Further, assistance for conservation and multiplication of local germplasm, traditional seed reserves by local farmer clusters, community seed banks and seed growers’ networks have to be initiated and the subsidy guidelines have to be broadened to include such initiatives. The perception of poor marketing infrastructure was the most ranked among various constraints analyzed. With regard to projects to bridge the skill gaps in farming and improved service delivery, the existing Agro Service Centres (ASC) at block level and Farmer Service Centres should be networked for technologybased services with supporting projects from decentralized plan allocations. A KVKATMA- LSGD linkage will resolve the issues of less propagation of technologies in projects and less expertise of working group members. To enhance participation of youth in gramasabha a drive on decentralization, gramasabha literacy and the need to participate for youth was suggested as part of school and college syllabus.