Appendix H — Program Atlas
Each sheet to the 8-section template + 4-point QA bar (defined inline in Vol III App H Education, the format-reference sector).
Read this chapter in the interactive reader, or download the full 601-page manifesto (PDF).
The People’s Model
Manifesto v2026
Volume III — Implementation Handbook
Appendix H — Program Atlas
Agriculture sector — sheets H.055–H.072 (v1.0)
Each sheet to the 8-section template + 4-point QA bar (defined inline in Vol III App H Education, the format-reference sector).
Problem
Karnataka farmers face fragmented service delivery; land records (Bhoomi), crop registry (FRUITS), insurance, subsidies, and procurement run on separate systems. Time and money is lost to repeated verification.
Program design
- Single Farmer Case File on the operating spine integrating Bhoomi, FRUITS, scheme entitlements, insurance status, market interactions.
- Consent-based field access for officers; minimum data per transaction.
- Plot-level resolution where land record supports.
- Mobile + Panchayat Service Centre access.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Agriculture + Revenue Department (Bhoomi)
Backup: Karnataka State Agricultural Marketing Board
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹110–160 cr / year (integration + maintenance)
Source: State Budget Agriculture head; IT modernisation funds.
Payment trigger: Case-file event log + integration evidence.
KPIs
- • Farmers with active integrated Case File — baseline: Patchy across systems; F: ≥60% in pilot districts; B: ≥95% statewide; C: 100% with continuous update.
- • Cross-system verification cycles eliminated per farmer per year — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Material reduction; C: Sustained low-touch experience.
- • Privacy-incident rate per million records — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; published; B: Material decline; C: Near-zero with public audit.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Consent-fatigue. Safeguard: Per-purpose granular consent; Citizen Data Trust review (Vol I Ch 6).
- • Risk: Data-broker resale risk on farmer data. Safeguard: Statutory prohibition; four-tests (Vol I Sec. 6.2) on any analytics use.
- • Risk: Land-record manipulation risk. Safeguard: Bhoomi audit trail (already strong); spine-linked change-log; bank-account-change protocol (App C RF-P-03).
Dependencies
- • Vol I Ch 2; Vol II Ch 10 Sec. 10.2.
- • App H sheets H.059 (Insurance), H.061 (Procurement), H.071 (Land Dispute Fast Track).
Problem
Karnataka’s agricultural extension reaches farmers unevenly and often after the sowing decision. WhatsApp-broadcast advisory is one-way and gets lost in noise.
Program design
- Trained field-coach cadre at the cluster level.
- Offline-first advisory platform in Kannada and minority languages.
- Pre-season planning advisory delivered before sowing.
- Two-way feedback loop into program design.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Agriculture (Extension Reforms)
Backup: Karnataka State Agricultural Universities + KVKs
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹250–350 cr / year
Source: State Budget; SMAE convergence; ATMA scheme integration.
Payment trigger: Per-farmer advisory event + post-season outcome data.
KPIs
- • Farmers receiving pre-season advisory in time — baseline: Patchy; F: ≥70% in pilot blocks; B: ≥95% statewide; C: ≥98% with timeliness audit.
- • Field-coach visits per cluster per quarter — baseline: Sporadic; F: ≥6; B: ≥12; C: Risk-targeted with measured outcomes.
- • Advisory adoption tracked on Case File — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Material adoption; C: Embedded in farming cycle.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Capture by input dealers via field coaches. Safeguard: Conflict-of-interest register (Vol I Sec. 1.7 #7); rotation; published advisory content.
- • Risk: Coverage gap in tribal / small-farmer pockets. Safeguard: Equity audit (sheet H.207 geographic outcomes); inclusion safeguards (sheet H.180).
- • Risk: Content captured by political messaging. Safeguard: Independent academic board for content (Vol III Ch 21 Sec. 21.4).
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.055, H.066, H.070, H.109 (PSC).
Problem
Karnataka soil health varies widely; chemical-input use is often misaligned with actual soil need. Both fertility decline and over-application are problems.
Program design
- Plot-level soil-health testing on a published cycle.
- Personalised input recommendations on the Case File.
- Targeted subsidy on need-aligned inputs only.
- Organic-transition pathway where appropriate (sheet H.068).
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Agriculture (Soil Health cell)
Backup: Karnataka Soil & Water Conservation Department
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹180–250 cr / year
Source: State Budget; Soil Health Card scheme convergence.
Payment trigger: Per-plot test event + recommendation issuance.
KPIs
- • Plots with current soil-health record (≤3 yrs) — baseline: Partial; F: ≥70%; B: ≥95%; C: 100% on cycle.
- • Need-aligned input recommendation adoption — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Material adoption; C: Yield + cost outcomes published.
- • Reduction in over-application (district-level fertiliser use vs need) — baseline: High over-application in some districts; F: Baselined; B: Material reduction; C: Aligned use.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Sub-standard input quality. Safeguard: Quality testing on inputs; vendor blacklist for proven fraud.
- • Risk: Subsidy diversion to ineligible buyers. Safeguard: Spine-linked beneficiary verification; payment-anomaly detection (App C RF-P-04).
- • Risk: Test-lab capture. Safeguard: Independent lab rotation; sample re-test.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.055, H.056, H.068, H.080.
Problem
Karnataka’s irrigation assets carry decades of deferred maintenance. Water-use efficiency is below potential; many farmers depend on private borewells with declining yields.
Program design
- Irrigation asset audit and Asset Registry integration.
- Repair Corps district unit (Works Corps wing for irrigation).
- Demand-side management with publishing of canal water releases.
- Drip + sprinkler subsidy targeted to water-stressed blocks.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Water Resources (Major + Medium Irrigation) + Minor Irrigation
Backup: Karnataka State Works Corps (Irrigation wing)
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹600–900 cr / year (maintenance + repair + drip subsidy)
Source: State Budget; AIBP + PMKSY convergence.
Payment trigger: Per-asset maintenance evidence + water-release publication.
KPIs
- • Irrigation asset uptime (major + medium) — baseline: Variable; F: ≥80%; B: ≥95%; C: ≥98%.
- • Water-use efficiency (m³/ha for indicator crops) — baseline: Below potential; F: Baselined; B: Material improvement; C: At/below benchmark for crop class.
- • Maintenance backlog reduction — baseline: Significant; F: Stable; B: -40%; C: -80%.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Contractor capture on maintenance. Safeguard: Works Corps in-house preferred; published unit costs; rotation if contracted.
- • Risk: Drip-equipment vendor capture. Safeguard: Open empanelment; rotation; quality testing.
- • Risk: Inequity in canal-water access. Safeguard: Published release schedules; downstream-farmer recourse; equity audit.
Dependencies
- • Vol I Ch 5; App H sheets H.055, H.074, H.069 (Rural Roads).
Problem
Karnataka farmers wait months — sometimes years — for insurance compensation; parametric triggers exist but real-life payout cycles are slow.
Program design
- Parametric insurance triggers (rain, temperature, satellite-NDVI).
- Auto-trigger on threshold breach; compensation released through the spine.
- Field verification only for non-parametric losses, on a published SLA.
- Transparent grievance pathway.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Agriculture (Insurance cell)
Backup: Karnataka State Agricultural Marketing Board (settlement infrastructure)
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹1,500–2,200 cr / year (premium subsidy + administration)
Source: State Budget + farmer share + Centre share under PMFBY; restructured fund pool.
Payment trigger: Insurance trigger event + payout disbursement evidence.
KPIs
- • Median claim-to-payout time — baseline: Slow; F: ≤45 days; B: ≤21 days; C: ≤14 days.
- • Coverage as % of cultivated area (priority crops) — baseline: Patchy; F: ≥60%; B: ≥85%; C: ≥95%.
- • Grievance resolution within SLA — baseline: (new); F: ≥70%; B: ≥90%; C: ≥95% with appeal.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Insurer underpayment on subjective assessment. Safeguard: Sample-based independent re-verification; Grievance Justice Authority remedy.
- • Risk: Over-reliance on remote sensing producing false-negative payouts. Safeguard: Field-verification fallback; multi-method triangulation.
- • Risk: Ghost beneficiaries. Safeguard: Spine-linked Case File verification (sheet H.055); App C RF-P-03/05 detection.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.055, H.066 (Climate Resilient Crops), H.073 (Climate Risk Maps).
Problem
Individual Karnataka farmers face a near-monopsony at the mandi or village level. Bargaining power, price information, and post-harvest logistics are weak.
Program design
- FPO strengthening with seed capital + governance training.
- Market intelligence dashboard linked to APMC and private platforms (sheet H.070).
- Aggregation centres at the cluster level.
- Linkages with processing micro-factories (sheet H.063).
Owning agency
Lead: Karnataka State Cooperative Marketing Federation + Department of Agriculture
Backup: Karnataka State Agricultural Marketing Board
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹250–400 cr / year (capital + facilitation)
Source: State Budget; NABARD + central FPO scheme convergence.
Payment trigger: Per-FPO registration + transaction-throughput data.
KPIs
- • Functioning FPOs (with revenue and audited accounts) — baseline: Growing but low base; F: Baselined statewide; B: Material growth; C: FPOs as primary market actor in their geography.
- • Member-farmer count per FPO — baseline: Variable; F: Baselined; B: Rising trajectory; C: Sustained member base.
- • FPO turnover (aggregated) — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Material rise; C: Sustained scaling.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: FPO governance capture by single faction. Safeguard: Statutory governance norms; published audited accounts; member-led oversight.
- • Risk: Aggregation contract abuse with buyers. Safeguard: Standard published contracts; legal aid for FPOs; published price-discovery.
- • Risk: Subsidy diversion to non-FPO entities. Safeguard: Spine-linked verification; published award rules.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.061, H.062, H.063, H.070.
Problem
State procurement of agricultural commodities (paddy, ragi, jowar, etc.) is opaque in places — middlemen capture margin meant for the farmer.
Program design
- Open Ledger publication of every procurement transaction (farmer → buyer → payment).
- Auto-payment to farmer Case File on receipt verification.
- Karnataka Procurement Audit Cell oversight on bulk-purchase patterns.
- Quality grading on transparent criteria.
Owning agency
Lead: Karnataka State Agricultural Marketing Board + Food & Civil Supplies
Backup: Karnataka Food & Civil Supplies Corporation
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹4,000–6,000 cr / year (commodity procurement at scale, with sub-share state)
Source: State Budget; Centre share via FCI / decentralised procurement.
Payment trigger: Per-transaction publication on Open Ledger.
KPIs
- • % MSP-procurement transactions on Open Ledger — baseline: Partial; F: 100% above threshold; B: 100% all; C: Continuous + audit.
- • Median farmer payment time — baseline: Delayed; F: ≤7 days; B: ≤3 days; C: Same-day where feasible.
- • Middleman-share of MSP procurement — baseline: Material; F: Baselined; B: Materially reduced; C: Direct-to-farmer dominant model.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Grade-classification fraud. Safeguard: Independent grading where feasible; vendor blacklist for proven fraud; sample re-grading.
- • Risk: Ghost-farmer claims. Safeguard: Spine-linked Case File verification; payment-anomaly detection (App C RF-P-02/05).
- • Risk: Procurement-window manipulation. Safeguard: Published procurement calendar; deviation requires written reason.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.055, H.060, H.062, H.072.
Problem
Karnataka loses significant farm output to post-harvest spoilage. Storage and cold-chain capacity is concentrated, often distant from production clusters, and unevenly maintained.
Program design
- Cluster-level storage hubs sized to local crop pattern.
- Cold-chain for perishables (horticulture, dairy, fish).
- Open booking system on the spine.
- Asset Registry + maintenance schedule.
Owning agency
Lead: Karnataka State Agricultural Marketing Board + Karnataka Warehousing Corporation
Backup: Department of Horticulture; Department of Fisheries (for fish cold-chain)
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹600–900 cr / year (capital + operating)
Source: State Budget; AIF (Agriculture Infrastructure Fund) convergence; PPP where appropriate.
Payment trigger: Per-hub commissioning + utilisation data.
KPIs
- • Cluster coverage with storage / cold-chain hub — baseline: Patchy; F: ≥40%; B: ≥85%; C: 100% in high-volume clusters.
- • Utilisation rate — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: ≥75%; C: ≥85%.
- • Post-harvest loss reduction (priority crops) — baseline: Material; F: Baselined; B: -25%; C: -50%.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Hub allocation favouring large farmers. Safeguard: FPO + small-farmer priority booking; transparent allocation rules.
- • Risk: Cold-chain breakdown causing spoilage. Safeguard: Maintenance Corps (sheet H.032 pattern); insurance against spoilage; SLA-bound.
- • Risk: Vendor capture on construction. Safeguard: Open bidder-floor; published unit costs; rotation.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.060, H.063, H.065 (Fisheries), H.069.
Problem
Karnataka exports primary produce and imports processed food. Value addition happens elsewhere; farmer income remains at the raw-material rung.
Program design
- Cluster-level micro-factories for processing (oil, milling, drying, packaging).
- Operated by FPOs or cooperatives; technical assistance from State Manufacturing Network (Vol I Ch 5).
- Quality certification (FSSAI) supported.
- Market-linkage to public procurement (schools, hospitals, anganwadis).
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Agriculture + Karnataka State Manufacturing Network
Backup: Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (land + power)
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹400–600 cr / year (capital + capability-building)
Source: State Budget; PMFME convergence; PSU + cooperative bank credit.
Payment trigger: Per-factory commissioning + throughput data.
KPIs
- • Micro-factories operational — baseline: Limited; F: +150 statewide; B: +800; C: +2,000.
- • FPO/Cooperative ownership share — baseline: (new); F: ≥60%; B: ≥75%; C: ≥85%.
- • Public-procurement off-take (% production) — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Material share; C: Stable demand floor.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Sub-scale economics. Safeguard: Cluster-economics study before commissioning; published unit-cost benchmarks.
- • Risk: FSSAI compliance gap. Safeguard: Technical assistance + testing-lab access; certification-cost subsidy in early years.
- • Risk: Vendor lock-in on equipment. Safeguard: Open-standard procurement; tech-portability clause.
Dependencies
- • Vol I Ch 5; App H sheets H.060, H.062, H.114 (Rural Micro-factories).
Problem
Karnataka’s livestock economy contributes substantially to rural incomes; veterinary access and feed quality are uneven.
Program design
- Mobile veterinary care + tele-veterinary at the cluster level.
- Feed-quality testing + supply.
- Disease-surveillance for zoonotic and economic-loss diseases.
- Insurance for livestock with fast claims.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services
Backup: Karnataka Milk Federation (KMF) + Karnataka Sheep Development Corporation
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹350–500 cr / year
Source: State Budget; NLM + NAHEP convergence.
Payment trigger: Per-animal service event + disease-incidence data.
KPIs
- • Veterinary service coverage (animals per service event per year) — baseline: Patchy; F: Baselined; B: Material rise; C: Universal need-aligned coverage.
- • Feed-quality test compliance rate — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: ≥90%; C: ≥98%.
- • Disease-outbreak containment time — baseline: Variable; F: ≤14 days; B: ≤7 days; C: ≤3 days.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Feed-vendor capture. Safeguard: Open empanelment; rotation; sample testing.
- • Risk: Disease-data suppression. Safeguard: Statutory reporting; whistleblower protection; sample audit.
- • Risk: Insurance underpayment. Safeguard: Independent assessment; Grievance Justice Authority remedy.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.055, H.059, H.072.
Problem
Coastal and inland fisheries in Karnataka are economically important but under-served by infrastructure. Aquaculture has growth potential but environmental risk if poorly governed.
Program design
- Landing-centre upgrades on the coast.
- Cold-chain to processing (sheet H.062).
- Aquaculture pond licensing with environmental compliance.
- Fisherfolk welfare on the spine (insurance, education).
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Fisheries
Backup: Karnataka Fisheries Development Corporation
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹250–380 cr / year
Source: State Budget; PMMSY convergence; Centre share.
Payment trigger: Per-landing-centre upgrade + license issuance + compliance audit.
KPIs
- • Modern landing-centre coverage along Karnataka coast — baseline: Patchy; F: ≥40%; B: ≥85%; C: 100% with maintenance.
- • Aquaculture compliance with environmental standards — baseline: Variable; F: Baselined; B: ≥90% compliance; C: Sustained with enforcement.
- • Fisherfolk insurance + welfare coverage — baseline: Partial; F: ≥70%; B: ≥95%; C: 100%.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Coastal land-use conflicts. Safeguard: Coastal Regulation Zone compliance; consent-based engagement with fishing villages.
- • Risk: Aquaculture pollution risk. Safeguard: Discharge standards + monitoring (sheet H.079); polluter-pays.
- • Risk: Subsidy capture by large players. Safeguard: Cooperative + small-fisher priority; published award rules.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.062, H.075, H.081 (Coastal Resilience).
Problem
Karnataka’s farming portfolio is concentrated in some districts in ways that compound climate risk (water-intensive crops in water-stressed zones). Diversification has been slow.
Program design
- Agro-eco-zone-specific crop diversification plans.
- MSP and procurement support for diversification crops where applicable.
- Extension messaging tied to soil and water reality (sheets H.056, H.057).
- Research-station partnerships for varietal release.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Agriculture + Karnataka State Agricultural Universities
Backup: ICAR institutes (research partner)
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹200–320 cr / year
Source: State Budget; National Mission on Sustainable Agriculture convergence.
Payment trigger: Per-zone diversification plan + adoption evidence.
KPIs
- • Districts with published agro-eco-zone diversification plan — baseline: Partial; F: All districts; B: Refreshed annually; C: Plans + outcomes co-published.
- • Diversification crop area share (in concentrated districts) — baseline: Low; F: Baselined; B: Material shift; C: Sustained portfolio change.
- • Climate-resilience index (district-weighted) — baseline: (new); F: Index defined and baselined; B: Rising trajectory; C: At/above peer-state benchmark.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Market non-existence for new crops. Safeguard: Pre-arranged off-take via FPOs (sheet H.060) or public procurement (sheet H.061).
- • Risk: Yield-risk for early adopters. Safeguard: Insurance with fast claims (sheet H.059); demonstration plots.
- • Risk: Vendor capture on seed. Safeguard: Open seed-systems; KSAU/ICAR varieties prioritised.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.056, H.057, H.059, H.073.
Problem
Karnataka’s small and marginal farmers cannot afford modern mechanisation individually. Access through dealers is patchy and expensive.
Program design
- Cluster-level mechanisation pools (custom-hiring centres) with transparent booking.
- Operated by FPOs or cooperatives; subsidised capex.
- Maintenance support from State Manufacturing Network where applicable.
- Skills training for operators.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Agriculture (Mechanisation cell)
Backup: Karnataka State Cooperative Marketing Federation
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹220–320 cr / year
Source: State Budget; SMAM convergence.
Payment trigger: Per-pool commissioning + utilisation data.
KPIs
- • Clusters with operational mechanisation pool — baseline: Patchy; F: ≥40%; B: ≥85%; C: Universal in production clusters.
- • Utilisation rate per pool — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: ≥70%; C: ≥85%.
- • Small/marginal-farmer access share — baseline: (new); F: ≥60%; B: ≥75%; C: ≥85%.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Capture by large farmers (booking gaming). Safeguard: Priority rules; transparent booking; complaint pathway.
- • Risk: Equipment maintenance failure. Safeguard: Maintenance contracts under Works Corps / SMN; SLA-bound.
- • Risk: Vendor capture. Safeguard: Open empanelment; rotation; price-benchmark publishing.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.058, H.060, H.063.
Problem
Organic farming in Karnataka has potential premium markets but the transition is risky and the certification market is fraud-prone.
Program design
- Three-year transition support for farmers moving to verified organic.
- Independent third-party certification; vendor-blacklist for proven fraud.
- Marketing through dedicated channels (state organic mark; FPO outlets).
- Reset to non-organic permissible without penalty if outcomes do not meet.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Agriculture (Organic Farming cell)
Backup: Karnataka State Organic Certification Agency
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹150–220 cr / year
Source: State Budget; PKVY convergence.
Payment trigger: Per-farmer transition enrolment + verification cycle.
KPIs
- • Verified-organic area (cumulative ha) — baseline: Limited; F: Baselined; B: Material expansion; C: Sustained sector with premium markets.
- • Transition-success rate (% reaching verified status) — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: ≥75%; C: ≥85%.
- • Verified-organic price premium realisation — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Material premium; C: Stable premium with audit.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Certification fraud. Safeguard: Independent agency; rotation of auditors; vendor blacklist; sample testing of produce.
- • Risk: Pesticide drift from neighbouring plots. Safeguard: Spatial buffer rules; community engagement; mitigation support.
- • Risk: Market collapse on supply spike. Safeguard: Pre-arranged off-take via FPOs; staged scale-up.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.057, H.060, H.067.
Problem
Karnataka’s rural agri roads (farm-to-market connectivity) deteriorate quickly. Disconnect from market = price loss.
Program design
- Asset Registry for rural agri roads.
- Maintenance Corps district unit (Works Corps wing).
- Pre-harvest readiness for market connectivity in priority blocks.
- Convergence with PMGSY and state schemes.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj + Karnataka State Works Corps
Backup: Karnataka State Rural Road Development Agency
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹700–1,000 cr / year (statewide maintenance + augmentation)
Source: State Budget; PMGSY convergence; maintenance-first allocation.
Payment trigger: Per-road maintenance evidence + connectivity-status data.
KPIs
- • % rural agri roads in ’fair or better’ condition — baseline: Variable; F: Baselined per block; B: ≥85%; C: ≥95%.
- • Median maintenance-response time on degraded section — baseline: Variable; F: ≤30 days; B: ≤14 days; C: ≤7 days.
- • Maintenance backlog reduction — baseline: Significant; F: Stable; B: -50%; C: -90%.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Maintenance fund diversion. Safeguard: Maintenance-first allocation ring-fence (Vol I Sec. 3.4).
- • Risk: Contractor capture. Safeguard: Works Corps in-house preference; rotation if contracted; unit costs published.
- • Risk: Asset over-design (vanity). Safeguard: Standard specs by road class; deviation requires written reason.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.058, H.062, H.110.
Problem
Karnataka farmers operate at an information disadvantage relative to traders and aggregators. Real-time price information and demand intelligence is unevenly available.
Program design
- State-operated price dashboard at the mandi, cluster, and crop level.
- Demand signals from public procurement + private buyers (where shared).
- API access for civic-tech builders (sheet H.130).
- Voice + Kannada-text channel access; not English-only.
Owning agency
Lead: Karnataka State Agricultural Marketing Board
Backup: Department of Agriculture (Data cell)
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹80–130 cr / year
Source: State Budget; AGMARKNET integration.
Payment trigger: Per-day data publication + user-access logs.
KPIs
- • Mandis publishing real-time price (priority crops) — baseline: Partial; F: ≥80%; B: ≥98%; C: 100% with audit.
- • Farmer-access reach (per cluster) — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Material reach; C: Universal Kannada + minority-language access.
- • Civic-tech app reuse of the open data feed — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Material developer use; C: Public-good apps in routine use.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Trader-side data manipulation. Safeguard: Multi-source verification; published methodology; sample audit.
- • Risk: Digital exclusion of poor farmers. Safeguard: Voice channel + PSC operator (sheet H.169).
- • Risk: Data-broker abuse of farmer access patterns. Safeguard: Consent + minimum-data principle; Citizen Data Trust review.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.055, H.056, H.130 (Open Data Portal).
Problem
Karnataka’s land and tenancy disputes consume disproportionate court time and rural lifeforce. Delays compound; the marginal tenant suffers.
Program design
- Specialised fast-track at the taluk / district level.
- Mediation as the first option (sheet H.094 convergence).
- Spine-linked record access (Bhoomi, FRUITS).
- Outcome publication aggregated to district level.
Owning agency
Lead: Revenue Department + Karnataka State Legal Services Authority
Backup: Karnataka Bhoomi project office
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹120–180 cr / year
Source: State Budget; convergence with mediation + legal-aid.
Payment trigger: Per-case opening + closure with verified outcome.
KPIs
- • Median case disposal time — baseline: Slow (years); F: ≤12 months; B: ≤6 months; C: ≤3 months.
- • Mediation-settlement rate — baseline: (new); F: ≥40%; B: ≥60%; C: ≥75%.
- • Re-litigation rate (post-disposal) — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Material decline; C: Sustained low.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Political/local-elite pressure on disposal. Safeguard: Independent fast-track; Vol III Ch 19 anti-interference rules; appeal pathway.
- • Risk: Mediation captured by stronger party. Safeguard: Legal-aid for weaker party (sheet H.093); recorded mediation; appeal.
- • Risk: Record manipulation. Safeguard: Bhoomi audit trail; spine-linked change log.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.055, H.094, H.107 (RTI).
Problem
Karnataka’s food security is uneven; nutrition-linked farming (millets, pulses, oilseeds) is under-supported relative to staple grains.
Program design
- Nutrition-linked procurement (anganwadi, school, nutrition kitchens).
- Local sourcing rules with transparency.
- Millet revival programme with cluster-level FPO involvement.
- Linked with sheets H.023 (Maternal & Child Health), H.033 (Nutrition Kitchens).
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Agriculture + Department of WCD + Department of School Education
Backup: Karnataka Millet Mission
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹250–380 cr / year
Source: State Budget; Centre share via POSHAN Abhiyaan + IIMR partnership.
Payment trigger: Per-cycle procurement + nutrition-outcome evidence.
KPIs
- • Public procurement of millets/pulses share (target crops) — baseline: Low; F: Baselined per scheme; B: Material rise; C: Sustained share.
- • Local sourcing share (% within district / state) — baseline: Variable; F: ≥40%; B: ≥70%; C: ≥85%.
- • Anganwadi/school menu nutritional adequacy — baseline: Variable; F: Baselined per district; B: Material improvement; C: At/above standard.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Local-source verification fraud. Safeguard: Spine-linked farmer verification (sheet H.055); sample audit.
- • Risk: Vendor capture on logistics. Safeguard: Open empanelment; rotation; published unit costs.
- • Risk: Crop-portfolio shift outpacing market demand. Safeguard: Phased scale-up; demand-side commitments alongside supply-side.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.008, H.023, H.033, H.060, H.063.
Architecture cross-reference
Architecture cross-reference — sector sheets to architectural sheets
Each program sheet in this sector references the operating architecture defined in Vol I Ch 2 and App H CyberDPI sheets H.230–H.233. Specifically: financial flows from this sector’s programs are published through the Open Ledger (sector-specific data fields per App D) anchored to KSSL (sheet H.230). Time-series outcome data and sector dashboards are published on the Karnataka Open Data Portal (sheet H.233). Personal data flows (where applicable) are governed by the Citizen Consent Ledger (sheet H.232). Security audit and incident response across this sector’s systems falls under the statutory CSOC (sheet H.231).
H.055 — AGRICULTURE — Farmer Case File + Land Record Integration
H.056 — AGRICULTURE — Extension 2.0 (Field coaches + offline-first platform)
H.057 — AGRICULTURE — Soil Health + Input Rationalisation
H.058 — AGRICULTURE — Water-smart Irrigation & Repair Corps
H.059 — AGRICULTURE — Crop Insurance with Fast Claims (Evidence-based)
H.060 — AGRICULTURE — Market Access: Farmer Producer Organisations (FPO)
H.061 — AGRICULTURE — Transparent Procurement for MSP-like operations
H.062 — AGRICULTURE — Post-harvest Storage & Cold Chain Hubs
H.063 — AGRICULTURE — Agri Processing Micro-factories
H.064 — AGRICULTURE — Livestock Health & Feed Mission
H.065 — AGRICULTURE — Fisheries & Aquaculture Upgrade
H.066 — AGRICULTURE — Climate-resilient Crop Diversification
H.067 — AGRICULTURE — Farm Mechanisation Pools
H.068 — AGRICULTURE — Organic Transition Support (Verified)
H.069 — AGRICULTURE — Rural Agri Roads Maintenance
H.070 — AGRICULTURE — Agri Data and Price Intelligence
H.071 — AGRICULTURE — Land & Tenancy Dispute Fast Track
H.072 — AGRICULTURE — Food Security: Nutrition-linked farming
← Manifesto_Vol3_AppJ_InvestmentOperationalCost_v1.0_c0626.docx · Appendix H — Program Atlas →
This is a chapter of The People's Model manifesto for Karnataka — published in full for public review. Every claim may be challenged: write to [email protected].