Page 17 - PDI Vol 2

people and panchayat, that the LIF and PDI provides. Over the years, irrespective of devolution, Gram Panchayats
have shown exemplary and stand out performance across sectors in multiple ways even in those sectors that are not
effectively devolved to them.

Mandatory, Common and Priority Indicators - Common Indicators have been identified as those applicable to
all Panchayats, irrespective of geography and developmental level. These are for e.g., percentage of BPL families,
prevalence of anaemia / malnutrition, transition rate, percentage of households having FHTCs etc. However, based on

available infrastructure, geography and livelihood, there are indicators becoming specifically applicable, such as
availability of PHC, CSC, coastal village, hilly area, agriculture or fisheries, disaster prone areas, that are not common
to all.

In keeping with National, State and sub-state issues, certain Targets would be prioritized by the different Ministries, by
State Governments, by the District administration, for achieving in the Gram Panchayats thereby villages. The
indicators in the LIF, have also been correlated to the KPIs and outcomes of such programmes and flagship schemes
(for e.g.: JJM, SBM, Anaemia Mukt Bharat, etc), as applicable to the GP. Wherever there is a need or role for the GPs

as per the design of the scheme, the Gram Panchayats would also be working with respective line departments on
them. The Committee felt that the strength of administrative capability to deliver on these will see it through, and its
inclusion in LIF ensures the GPs look at them.

Using MA as priority is not recommended. The purpose of PDI and of MA are different. Further MA is a data source
for PDI where other primary data source is not available from government administrative data already being collected.
MoPR also is using the NPA parameters, and further layering with MA as priority is not advisable.

Panchayats are at different levels of development across different sectors and detailed aspects thereunder, and scheme

applicability. Best practices, awards and achievements of GPs are testimony to that. Their realities and needs are
known to them. The choice of priorities must be left to the Gram Panchayats and Priority Indicators need to be
identified by GPs.

Mandatory indicators are suggested by number of indicators that a GP must work on, suggested 100, in year 1. The
monitoring of this numbers will ensure all GPs are working on indicators of minimum number, the choice is left to
them, albeit with some riders, such as there must be an improvement scope in it, it must cover a certain number of
indicators that are low performing in the GP, cover certain number from each department or sector, etc This will

identify those not yet on board, facilitation for their involvement by field personnel, markers for the identified
indicators can get monitored for changes and it will also enable attention to needy panchayats. It is still the choice of
the GP that is emphasised.

Weightage for indicators - the Committee felt that it would not be possible to give specific weights for indicators
at the computation of the Theme Score and PDI at the GP level, as the logic and reasoning for it cannot be objectively
arrived at. Automatically, some repetitive indicators provide weight. It is up to the GP to choose its strategy.

Target values - The Committee referred UNSDG Documents on Global level targets measurement mechanism,
Metadata information at global level for Indicators, and Target and current statistics in SDG. The SDGII brought out
by NITI Aayog, was a key document for this.

From global to local level, to be more relevant for the GPs in LSDGs, the concepts and measures are so detailed and
specific that a top-down fixing or using single target for all cannot capture the diversity and humongous task that is
xi