Audit slams agri dept for doling out ` 32 cr; individuals received financial assistance between ` 2.88 lakh to ` 70 lakh
PANAJI
Financial assistance or subsidies of 75 per cent for ‘general’ and upto 90 pc for SC or ST categories are provided in most of the schemes operated by the agriculture department. But, the audit reveals 100 pc financial assistance to farmers who were financially well off.
Under the ‘Mission for Integrated Development of Horticulture (MIDH)’ scheme of the centre, supplemented by ‘Assistance for Protected Cultivation for Growing Flowers and Vegetables’ of the State government, an unjustified assistance of 100 per cent of the cost has been provided to farmers engaged in production of commercially marketable exotic vegetables and flowers amounting to Rs 32.33 crore.
The audit inspection has observed that both schemes combined has resulted in each individual farmer getting financial assistance from Rs 2.88 lakh to Rs 70 lakh.
An average of Rs 22.77 lakh per farmer has been provided as subsidy from central and state funds in 142 cases.
How did the agriculture department manage to give 100 per cent subsidy?
The National Horticulture Mission’s (NHM) ‘Mission for Integrated Development of Horticulture’ at national level was formulated to support 50 per cent of the cost of setting up the polyhouse and 50 per cent of cost of the other incidentals. Furthermore, the Agriculture Department supplemented the national scheme by subsidising the balance 50 per cent of the cost thus resulting in financing 100 per cent of the scheme.
The audit has slammed the department stating that this activity has resulted in 100 per cent subsidisation or financing of cases of farmers who were economically sound and engaged in farming of exotic or costly agricultural produce, which would either be marketed or consumed by economically sound sections of the society.
The audit also pointed out that the scheme document had no justification for not prescribing any limit for support on the basis of categories just like other government schemes; despite being aware that the beneficiaries largely would be farmers with economically sound background having specialised knowledge of farming exotic vegetables and flowers and that the produce would be marketed commercially.
The extent of this subsidy should have been restricted to such extent of loss as may hve been suffered due to any natural calamity or unforeseen circumstances not in control of the farmer, as in the case of any similar commercial venture.
