volume 3, track 2, october 2005 - cbga india · volume 3, track 2, october 2005 the second quarter...

National Centre for Advocacy Studieswww.ncasindia.org

Volume 3, Track 2, October 2005

A publication by:Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability

for private circulation only

Foreword

IN THIS ISSUE

Tracking the Budget and 2Policies of the Union Government

Observations on Financing the 12National Rural Health Mission

Disaster Management Bill 2005: 16Can It Be a Panacea?

SPECIAL COLUMN- Progress 22Through the MDG Lense: Is theremuch to distinguish betweenSouth Asia and Sub-SaharanAfrica

A Report on CBGA’s National 26Convention on Union Budget2006-07

World Inequality: 31Some Glaring Facts

BudgetTRACKVolume 3, Track 2, October 2005

The second quarter of the financial year 2005-06 has witnessed some very importantdevelopments in terms of legislations and policies, at the level of the Union Government.The Monsoon Session of the Parliament has been extremely fruitful in this regard. Aftergetting the green signal from the Standing Committee on Rural Development, the NationalRural Employment Guarantee Bill was enacted in the Monsoon Session of the Parliament.The new employment guarantee scheme provides a crucial lifeline to the millions of poorin the rural areas of the country. This social security measure, for the first time, makesthe right to work a legal right–a new, radical deal for India’s poor. Other two veryimportant bills enacted in the said session, namely, the Protection of Women from DomesticViolence Bill, the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Bill are significant steps towardsadvancing women’s rights. Indeed, these steps merit praise, however, the Government atall levels must ensure that delivery mechanisms are transparent and grassroots monitoringis undertaken in a comprehensive manner. Now that the Right to Information Act hascome into force and ‘Outcome Budget’ would be an annual event, one can hope thatpublic spirited citizens and Civil Society Organisations of this country will come forwardand seek transparency and accountability from the Government and ensure timely andeffective implementation of various projects and programmes.

This issue of the Budget Track provides a lot of information to facilitate timely andmeaningful civil society interventions in the realm of governance and policymaking. Thepresent issue, the second issue of its third volume, in its different sections takes note ofimportant developments related to Union Budget 2005-06 and crucial policy enactmentsincluding legislations over the last four months. While providing critical analysis of the‘Outcome Budget 2005-06’ with regard to core sectors, it also presents salient features ofthe Bills enacted during the Monsoon Session. The article on National Rural Health Missionlists important components of this programme and critically examines the financing issuesinvolved therein. A thorough investigation of the proposed Disaster Management Bill hasalso been presented. While listing the important features of the proposed Bill, this articleoffers important suggestions for improvement and inclusion. The special column in thepresent issue compares the progress of the Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asian countriesin the era of liberalisation in terms of developmental deficits taking MillenniumDevelopmental Goals as the benchmark.

Finally, it includes a report on the National Convention on Union Budget 2006-07 organisedby CBGA. The said National Convention brought together policy analysts, academics, civilsociety activists and people working at the grassroots to discuss some of the pertinentissues relating to Union Budget 2006-07, from a pro-poor perspective. Based on thedeliberations and group discussions held in this Convention, CBGA has prepared a Charterof Demands, which reflects the demands of a host of Civil Society Organisations andexperts vis-à-vis the forthcoming Union Budget. CBGA has been undertaking this exercisebeginning with Union Budget 2005-06 in order to create a space for the stakeholdersmentioned in the foregoing. It is hoped that the concerns of these stakeholders withrespect to core sectors generate a dialogue with the Union Government and influence itsannual Budgets.

[Views expressed in the articles are those of the authors and not necessarily the position of the Organisation]

Budget TRACK Volume 3, Track 2, October 2005

2

Tracking the Budget andPolicies of the UnionGovernment - Nandan Jha

Tpast few months that have far reachingimplications for the welfare of the poor and themarginalized sections of the population of thiscountry. The second quarter of the currentfinancial year has witnessed some very importantresults in this regard. The ‘Outcome Budget2005-06’ presented in the Parliament on 25th

August 2005, the enactment of National RuralEmployment Guarantee Bill, Protection ofWomen from Domestic Violence Bill, the HinduSuccession (Amendment) Bill, ‘Bharat Nirman’,‘National Rural Health Mission’ are some of theimportant initiatives that will go down in theannals of history for their great implicationsfor the welfare of the poverty-stricken andmarginalized sections of our country, provideddelivery mechanisms are transparent andgrassroots monitoring is undertaken in a bigway. In this article we shall briefly take stock ofall this, however, it should be noted that thesehappenings should be located in the current socio-political set up.

The incumbent UPA Government at the Centre hasbeen voted to power on a pro-poor plank and isan alliance of many progressive regional partiesand communist parties. It is in this context andthe proactive role played by various Civil Society

his article intends to provide an updateon some of the major developments in therealm of public policy, governance,legislation and budgetary provisions in the

Organisations across the country in building upcontinuous pressure on the Central Governmentto honour its own National Common MinimumProgramme (NCMP) that the UPA Government isalso moving ahead on the issues mentioned above.It would be worthwhile to add here that theOpposition Parties too have played a constructiverole and the Monsoon Session of the Parliamenthas been relatively fruitful for the country,especially for the weaker sections of society. Nowthat the Right to Information Act has come intoforce since 12th October 2005 (see box on nextpage), one can hope that the people of thiscountry will come forward and seek transparencyand accountability from the Government and

ensure timely and effective implementation ofvarious projects and programmes.

Towards this end, the Central Government hascome up with the ‘Outcome Budget 2005-06’,which, according to the Government, is amechanism that will measure the developmentalresults of all major programmes. The Governmentalso hopes that the citizen’s Right to Informationwould be strengthened further and their scrutinyof results will help ensure value for money.Although, the scale of this exercise has fallenshort of expectations, the attempt at preparingan outcome budget to monitor publicexpenditure is by itself laudable. We begin ourtracking exercise with a brief factual account ofthe Outcome Budget 2005-06.

OUTCOME BUDGET 2005-06While presenting the Union Budget 2005-06 beforethe Parliament, the Finance Minister said thatduring the course of the year, together with thePlanning Commission, the Union Government shallput in place a mechanism to measure thedevelopmental results of all major programmes. Theneed for independent and in-depth monitoring andevaluation of measurable results of variousimportant programmes was also emphasised andin this regard the Finance Minister urged theCivil Society to engage the Government in ahealthy debate on the efficiency of the delivery

mechanism. These promises led to great optimismin all quarters and various stakeholders praisedthis move towards improving the quality ofimplementation and enhancing the efficiency andaccountability of the delivery mechanism by theGovernment.

Subsequently, the Prime Minister wrote to allUnion Ministers on March 17, 2005 asking themto prepare physical outcomes with fixed quarterlymeasurable and monitorable targets vis-à-vis thefinancial outlays on various developmentalprogrammes of their respective ministries. Inresponse to this directive, the Ministries /Departments worked out the targets of


3

intermediate outputs / outcomes in respect of Planprogrammes / schemes being implemented bythem. These data were further analysed by thePlanning Commission and the Department ofExpenditure (Ministry of Finance) and compiledinto the ‘Outcome Budget 2005-06’ document.With this, India joined a list of select countries,which have institutionalised a mechanism tomeasure the developmental outcomes of allgovernment programmes. This voluminous 725-page document, presented by Finance Minister PChidambaram in Parliament on 25th August 2005,is a compilation of desired results identified by44 ministries and 61 departments to be achievedfrom the allocations made in the Budget for 2005-06 as mentioned earlier. It excludes targets fornine ministries including Defence, ExternalAffairs, Parliamentary Affairs and AtomicEnergy.This exercise has been taken up only for the PlanExpenditure this year. From the next year onwards,the Government has promised that the ‘outcomebudget’ would cover Non-Plan Expenditure too. TheGovernment wants this exercise to reflect the‘annual budget’ in terms of intended outcome overa period of time. It will be a pre-expenditureinstrument to help realise the Ministries’ visionthrough clearly defined outputs / outcomes andact as a supplement to the current system builtaround post-expenditure scrutiny.

Earlier this year, the Government decided todisclose/make public relevant information on

the financial expenditure of the CentralMinistries so that those who have a stake, aswell as public-spirited citizens, can scrutinisehow the money is spent. The outcome budgettakes the process further by initiating pre-expenditure process, i.e., setting targets to beachieved along with timetables for each projector programme. Financial outlays when expressedin terms of physical targets can be monitoredmore meaningfully. It should be mentioned herethat when properly structured, the outcome budgetcould become an important tool in themanagement of public finance, ensuring costeffectiveness of financial outlays whilesimultaneously ensuring that the money spent isaccounted for.

The idea of an Outcome Budget can be traced toMr. Robert McNamara’s efforts in the budgetingof the United States Department of Defence, whichpromoted the concept of programme budgeting invarious countries in the 1970s. In India, manyStates and the Centre undertook preparation ofdepartmental performance budgets, a post-expenditure exercise, setting out the targets ofphysical performance comprehensively vis-à-vis thefinancial outlays for each department beginningwith the year 1975-76. The Outcome Budget is astep forward in the direction of legislative controland the common citizen’s scrutiny of theimplementation and monitoring of the objectivesof Government expenditure. The PerformanceBudget listed the ministry’s achievements in the

Tracking theBudget andPolicies of theUnionGovernment

Right to Information Act Comes into Force

With the Right to Information Act (RTI) coming into force on 12 October 2005, the government hasconstituted the Central Information Commission (CIC) to be headed by a retired IAS officer Wajahat Habibullah.According to a gazette notification issued on 11 October 2005 by the department of personnel and training,Mr Habibullah, a 1967 batch IAS officer from Jammu and Kashmir, will be heading the CIC with A N Tiwari,O P Kejarewal, N N Ansari and Padma Balasubramaniam as information commissioners. Except for Prof. N NAnsari, all the information commissioners are from bureaucratic background.

The new law applicable all over India, barring Jammu and Kashmir, is meant to curb corruption andinefficiency in the government at various levels. It covers all central and state administrations,panchayats, local bodies and non-governmental organisations getting public funds. Under the Act, theauthorities have to respond to queries in as little as 48 hours, if it is a matter of life and liberty. The ChiefInformation Commissioner and Information Commissioners have been appointed by the President on therecommendation of a committee comprising the Prime Minister, who was the chairperson of the committee,the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the PM.

There are several concerns, though, over issues of implementation, jurisdiction, the bureaucracy’s ability tobe transparent and even the necessary/desirable level of citizen participation. Activists are also concernedabout the kind of appointments that have been made at the top tier of the RTI hierarchy. Call it chance ordeliberate strategy; former bureaucrats have occupied all the top slots in the Central InformationCommission and the state commissions. This seems, on the surface, to be a shackling of the spirit ofthe Act. With former bureaucrats dominating an institution supposed to keep them on their toes, severalactivists are seeing red. The most prominent of them is Aruna Roy, a former IAS officer who won theMagsaysay Award in 2000 and is now with the National Campaign for the People’s Right to Information,which did pioneering work in laying the foundation for the current legislation. ‘The credibility of thegovernment is likely to suffer serious damage if appointments of independent information commissioners arelargely restricted to serving or retired bureaucrats,’ she said.

India joined alist of selectcountries, whichhaveinstitutionaliseda mechanism tomeasure thedevelopmentaloutcomes of allgovernmentprogrammes.

The OutcomeBudget is a stepforward in thedirection oflegislativecontrol and thecommon citizen’sscrutiny of theimplementationand monitoringof the objectivesof Governmentexpenditure.


4

previous financial year. Targets for achievementin a year were internal to the ministry. Therefore,performance was not normally measured againstthe target. This is bound to change next yearwhen ministries present their performance budget.However, while the performance budgets are easierto understand, the present outcome budget usesmany confusing abbreviations and heterogeneoustables indicating financial outlays and physicaltargets across different departments / ministries.Before presenting an analysis of the targets,outlays and timelines with regard to the coresectors that directly affect the common citizens,we list here some of the critical issues, whichhave guided this process.

Although, the Finance Minister has promised toinclude the Non-Plan expenditures too from thenext fiscal in this exercise, the exclusion of thesame in the present Outcome Budget does notinstil much optimism. The sheer magnitude ofNon-Plan expenditure in Union Budget 2005-06is 72.1 percent of the Total estimated expenditure.Leaving this huge proportion out of the purviewof Outcome Budget would prove the whole exercisefutile. The Government took nearly six months forpreparing the Outcome Budget for Plan schemesand programmes after presenting the Union Budget2005-06. This exercise of putting together thephysical targets and timelines should not havetaken so long given that all Plan schemes andprogrammes already have some degree of detailsin terms of intended outcomes and timelines,which also form the basis for the demand forfinancial allocations by various departments /ministries. Also, in the pre-Budget period, thephysical projects are converted into financial termsand, in the Outcome Budget they have been re-converted into physical terms, keeping in mindthe actual release of the funds. In light of theforegoing, the Government should have begun thisexercise by taking into account the Non-planexpenditure too to the extent possible. In anycase, it is a matter of only a few months fromnow that the next Budget would be presented.We can hope that the Finance Minister wouldpresent the Outcome Budget along with theusual Budget for the year 2006-07 which wouldinclude Non-Plan expenditure in its purviewtoo.

As regards the process of converting financialoutlays into actual results, the Finance Ministerenumerated the important steps to be followedby all ministries / departments in the forewordof the Outcome Budget document. They are:

1. Outcomes to be specifically defined inmeasurable and monitorable terms;intermediate outputs should also be definedwherever required.

2. Standardisation of unit cost of delivery.

3. Benchmarking the standards / quality ofoutcomes and services.

4. Capacity building for requisite efficiency at alllevels, in terms of equipment, technology,knowledge and skills.

5. Ensuring flow of right amount of money atthe right time to the right level, with neitherdelay nor ‘parking’ of funds.

6. Effective monitoring and evaluation systems.

7. Involvement of the community/target groups/recipients of the service, with easy access andfeedback systems.

As is evident, the government is clearly aware ofthe importance of addressing quality relatedissues. However, it must be stressed that it iseasier said than done. Tracking quality requiresvery careful discussions as regards appropriatesuccess indicators and the institutional capacityto track the same. It may not be improper tobe somewhat sceptical on these counts at thisstage.

However, a closer look at the Outcome Budgetreveals that the above-mentioned impressiveguidelines have not been adhered to whilecompiling the outcome vs. outlays. Anyonewishing to understand the contents of theOutcome Budget would get lost in the confusingmaze of abbreviations. Assumptions underlyingthe various physical estimates have not beenclearly spelt out. Against a good number ofschemes listed in the budget, the Outcome Budgetmentions that ‘the schemes are still underfinalisation’ or ‘Cabinet Committee on EconomicAffairs is still to approve’. Also, the timeline forthe flow of money has not been provided in allthe cases. There are instances where timelines arementioned as contingent on matching grants fromthe States. The last two guidelines have almostcompletely been ignored.

In spite of these shortcomings, the OutcomeBudget when read along with the performancebudget at the end of the fiscal year will throwsignificant light on the extent of physicaltargets achieved. The general budget, outcomebudget and the performance budget shouldtogether give a much better picture of what hasbeen physically achieved based on the fiscaloutlays made every year.

This exercise has to be broadened and stepshave to be taken to include States and LocalBodies in its purview. Also, an independentevaluation agency should be assigned the task ofassessing the extent of outcomes achieved aslisted in the Outcome Budget.

Now let us take stock of the contents of this

Tracking theBudget and

Policies of theUnion

Government

The Magnitude ofNon-Plan

expenditure inUnion Budget2005-06 is a

huge 72.1percent of the

total estimatedexpenditure.Leaving this

huge proportionout of thepurview of

Outcome Budgetwould prove the

whole exercisefutile.


5

document. Our focus would be sectors likeEducation, Health, Rural Development, RuralEmployment generation, Sanitation and DrinkingWater Supply etc. that are very important for thewell-being of the marginalized sections of oursociety.

EDUCATIONThe Outcome Budget points out that the SarvaShiksha Abhiyan, the programme to enrol allchildren between 6 and 14 years of age inelementary schools, faces the problem of properupdating of village education registers. Difficultiesare also being faced in appointing new teachers,while those on the rolls resort to absenteeism.This not only hinders improved access, but alsothe retention of children under the programme.For the current fiscal, the Outcome Budget hasallocated Rs. 7,800 crores for the educationscheme that seeks to enroll 81.3 lakh children inprimary schools. The dropout rate at the primarylevel (class I-V will be reduced by 5 percentagepoints, according to the Department of Education.The progress on this front will be reported byDecember 31, this year. One finds no mentionabout physical targets in respect to buildingschool infrastructure. The Outcome Budget doesmention sanctions for new schools, constructionof school buildings, building new classrooms,drinking water and toilet facilities, supply oftextbooks etc., however, the timelines are missing.The Department of Elementary Education andLiteracy simply mentions that an annual reportingwould be done in this regard.

In case of the popular mid-day meal scheme forprimary school children that seeks to improvenourishment and provide an incentive to geteducated, the Outcome Budget acknowledgesthat it suffers from the lack of supervision andmanagement. An amount of Rs. 3,345 croreshas been allocated for the meal scheme toprovide food to 11.2 crore children in primaryschools while the integrated child developmentscheme under the Department of Women andChild Development accounts for Rs. 3,685 crores.The said department hopes to bring down theincidence of mortality, morbidity, malnutritionand school dropouts in the age group of 0-6years.

The Department of Education and Literacy haspromised to undertake bi-annual reporting in caseof Mid-Day Meal Scheme. Regarding HigherEducation, it has been mentioned that enrolmentis already on the rise in university and highereducation. In the beginning of the Tenth Plan,enrolment in higher education was 8.8 million.The University Grants Commission, with an outlayof Rs 785.40 crore for 2005-06, has upped thetarget to 14 million from 12.5 million by the endof the Plan period.

HEALTHThe UPA’s flagship, the National Rural HealthMission, with an outlay of about Rs 5,920.96crore, plans to set up state and district ruralhealth missions in all states by December 2005,according to the Outcome Budget. By this year-end, merger of health and family welfaredepartments and societies in all states is beingplanned. However, according to the ministry ofhealth and family welfare, the first year, i.e. 2005-06, is being used as a ‘preparatory phase’ . Itsays that results would be visible from 2006-07.Next on the ministry’s priority list is the NationalAids Control Programme, with an outlay of overRs 1,000 crore for 2005-06. The programmeenvisages upgrading the existing infrastructure,and setting up additional centres to check HIVgrowth, modernising district-level blood banks, STDclinics etc. However, the ministry hasacknowledged that it needs to intensify its effortsto reduce the population growth rate. With anoutlay of Rs 172.50 crore for sterilisation /spacing, it has extended the target scenario oftotal fertility rate of 2.1 within three years (2007to 2010). The National Tuberculosis (TB) ControlProgramme, with an outlay of over Rs. 370 Crores,would detect and treat approximately 13,70,000TB patients. This programme would cover theentire population in the country. In order toreduce the incidence of malaria, the Departmentof Health has allocated well over Rs. 390 Crores.This programme currently covers North Easternstates and 1045 Primary Health Centres selectedin 100 districts spread over eight states. In theremaining areas / states the programme is on a50 percent sharing basis where the states bearoperational cost and centre provides commodities/insecticides. Under this scheme, annual bloodexamination would be extended to 10 percent ofthe population within its area of coverage. Healthworkers would visit the households every fortnightand the Below Poverty Line (BPL) patients wouldbe provided free bed nets and insecticides aftertreatment in the endemic areas.

With the threat of polio re-emerging in Asia (WHOhas recently warned that detection of some casesin Indonesia may lead to the disease spreadingto south-east Asia), the pulse polio immunisationprogramme is important. With an outlay ofRs 877 crore, ministry has targeted zerotransmission by the end of 2005. For this, theeradication drive has been intensified in vulnerablestates like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.

In the field of plant medicine, the department ofAyush under the Ministry of Health and FamilyWelfare plans to initiate about 1,200 new projectson promotional and commercial cultivation. Thesecond instalment of 500 old projects will alsobe released this year. In addition to the 65,000acres covered so far, another 25,000 acres will


The OutcomeBudget reportsan allocation ofRs. 7,800 croresfor the educationscheme thatseeks to enroll81.3 lakhchildren inprimary schools.

The OutcomeBudget has noclear informationabout physicaltargets withrespect tobuilding schoolinfrastructure.


6

be brought under medicinal plant cultivation. Allthis would be done with an outlay of Rs. 30crores. With a total allocation of Rs. 350 crores,this department would develop and upgrade 30Undergraduate Colleges under the Indian Systemof Medicine and Hospital (ISM&H). It would create12 state of the art institutions, upgrade the skillsof 1000 ISM&H practitioners, and renovate andstrengthen the hospital wards of teachinginstitutions totalling 40 in number. All thesetargets would consume over Rs. 37 crores. Thenanother 90 crores has been earmarked for hospitalsand dispensaries such as, 30 ISM polyclinics, 315ISM&H speciality clinics, 75 ISM wings in DistrictHospitals, supply of medicinal kits to 10000dispensaries, etc.

AGRICULTUREWith a total Plan Outlay of over Rs. 4,179 croresthe Department of Agriculture & Cooperation runs48 programmes / schemes. The Integrated Schemeof Oilseeds, Pulses, Oil Palm & Maize has anoutlay of Rs. 240 crores. The objective of thisscheme is to provide flexibility to the statesimplementating the programmes based on aregionally differentiated approach and promotecrop diversification. With regard to the processes/ timelines, the Outcome Budget mentions thatthe annual action plans for the implementationof the scheme received from the states areapproved for implementation as per the targetsfixed for the year. The problem of fundutilization by the states due to lack ofmatching grants has been mentioned as a riskfactor for this scheme. The quantifiabledeliverables are summarized in the following table:

lakh hectares. Total sum insured under this schemeis over Rs. 12,600 crores. Total premium collectedis estimated to be Rs 444 crores and claimsreported stood at over Rs. 640 crores. Number offarmers benefiting from this scheme is estimatedto be over 19 lakhs and the total value of claimspaid is over 145 crores.

In case of Enhancing Sustainability of DrylandFarming Systems scheme with an outlay of Rs.200 crores, it has been reported that the schemeis yet to become operational. The NationalHorticulture Mission with an outlay of Rs. 645crores (Rs. 446 crores would further be added tothis scheme from Macro Management of Agriculturewhich is another programme run by theDepartment of Agriculture & Cooperation) isintended to promote the holistic growth ofhorticulture sector comprising fruits, vegetables,flowers, root and tuber crops, mushroom, spices,aromatic plants, cashew and cocoa, etc. Thisscheme has only recently been approved and workPlans received from the states was beingscrutinized at the time of the preparation ofOutcome Budget. The Micro Irrigation projectwith an outlay of Rs. 400 crores had not beenapproved by the time this document wasprepared. The Macro Management of AgricultureProject to help states develop Work Plans andpursue activities on the basis of their regionalpriorities is reported to be dependent on counterpartial funding by the States. Out of the totalbudget of Rs. 912 crores, Rs. 446 crores hasalready been transferred to National HorticultureMission. Also, out of the 27 components underthis scheme 10 have been allotted to the NationalHorticulture Mission.

RURAL EMPLOYMENT ANDINFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENTThe outcome budget has laid a quarterly timelinefor investing Rs. 18,334 crores allocated to thedepartment of rural development for the currentfinancial year. Under the new parameters, the ruraldevelopment department will be required to meetspecific targets relating to employment generation,building of rural roads and construction of housesfor poor.

As much as Rs. 4,000 crores has been earmarkedfor the Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana (SGRY).Under this scheme, according to outcome budget,8,611 lakh man-days of employment would begenerated. This has been further split intoquarterly targets. The target for first quarter is1,722 lakh man-days, second 1,722 lakh man-days,third 3,014 lakh man days and fourth 2,153 lakhman-days. The SGRY, it may be recalled, waslaunched on September 25, 2001 by merging otherschemes of the rural development department withthe objective of the providing additional wageemployment in the rural areas. The scheme also



Government

Integrated Scheme of Oilseeds,Pulses, Oil Palm & Maize

Key Deliverables Oilseeds Pulses Maize

Area Coverage 236.99 234.42 73.22(lakh hectares)

Production (lakh tonnes) 278.00 157.00 141.00

Production & distribution 1321245 376842 89065of quality seeds (Quintals)

Plant protection chemicals (Ha.) 163562 62160 20348

Plant Protection 90930 54421 14096Equipments (Nos.)

Weedicides (Ha.) 26250 15600 3598

Gypsum / Pyrite (Ha.) 191552 223142 2602

Sprinkler Sets (Nos.) 29911 16451 2034

Farmers Training (Nos.) 3012 1824 841

Water Pipes (Mtrs.) 262619 236334 27929

Another notable scheme run by the Departmentof Agriculture & Cooperation is NationalAgricultural Insurance Scheme with an outlay ofRs. 550 crores. This scheme is assumed to coverover 128 lakh farmers and an area of over 272

With a total PlanOutlay of over

Rs. 4,179 crores,the Departmentof Agriculture &

Cooperation runs48 programmes /

schemes.

As much asRs. 4,000 crores

has beenearmarked for

the SampoornaGrameen Rozgar

Yojana. Underthis scheme,according to

Outcome Budget,8,611 lakh

man-days ofemployment

would begenerated.


7

been enumerated. However, the departmentmentions that these outcomes are contingent onthe matching grants provided by the states.

THE MARGINALIZED SECTIONS: DALITSAND ADIVASISThe Ministry of Social Justice and Empowermenthas earmarked Rs. 379.59 crores for Post-MatricScholarships and Book Banks for SC students topromote higher education. The target for awardingscholarships this year is well over 22 lakhstudents. The annual targets would be fixed atthe beginning of the year and the funds to thestudents would be released at least twice a year.Another major programme run by the aboveministry is Special Central Assistance to SpecialComponent Plan of the states / Union Territorieswith an outlay of Rs. 437 crores for the year 2005-06. The quantifiable deliverables identified is thenumber of Below Poverty Line (BPL) ScheduledCaste (SC) families assisted through variousincome and employment generating activities andprojects. In this case, a physical target has notbeen fixed. Similarly, the Ministry of Tribal Affairshas earmarked Rs. 260 crores for providingscholarships and books to Scheduled Tribe (ST)students to promote higher education amongthem. The annual targets have not been fixed inphysical terms in this case. There has been aprovision of Rs. 727 crores as Special CentralAssistance to Tribal Sub Plans of the States andUnion Territories for implementing family orientedincome-generating activities amongst BPL STs.However, the Ministry of Tribal Affairs notesthat these funds either remain unspent or getdiverted towards some other form ofexpenditure. Although, the said ministry hasexpressed that the funds under this head wouldbe released twice in a year, it has not providedany quantifiable deliverables.

URBAN DEVELOPMENT, EMPLOYMENTGENERATION AND POVERTY ALLEVIATIONThe ministry of urban development will provideRs 2,800 crore to States and Union Territories forthe National Urban Renewal Mission. If Statesprovide matching funds for urban expenditure, thetotal outlay would go up to Rs 5,600 crore. TheUrban Development Ministry has stated that atotal of Rs 900 crore would be allocated for watersupply, Rs 525 crore for sewerage and sewagetreatment, Rs 500 crore each for roads and urbantransport, Rs 275 crore for storm water drainageand Rs 100 crore for solid waste management.On completion, the projects are expected toproduce and deliver 1,168 mld (million litres perday) of treated water in the project cities. Apopulation of 13.5 million is expected to benefitby augmentation of the existing service andcreation of new facilities. As much as 445 mld of


seeks to provide food security, alongside thecreation of durable community assets in the ruralareas. The cash component of the programme isshared between the Centre and states in the ratioof 75:25. As a part of the scheme, food grain isprovided free of cost to the states. The Centrewould make the payment of food grain directlyto the Food Corporation of India (FCI) at economiccost. Under this programme, minimum wages arepaid to the workers through a mix of minimum 5kg of food grain and at least 25 percent in cashper month.

The outcome budget has also fixed physical andmonitorable targets for the National Food for WorkProgramme (NFFWP), which seeks to provide wageemployment and food security in the mostbackward districts. Under the scheme, Rs 6,000crores will be utilised for generating 7,500 lakhman-days of employment in the lean seasonthrough 100 days of employment to each belowpoverty line (BPL) family in unskilled manual work.The target for first quarter is 1,500 lakh man-days, second 1,500 lakh man-days, third 2,625lakh man-days and fourth 1,875 lakh man-days.At present NFFWP is operational in 150 districts.All the states except Goa are covered under thescheme. This programme is being implemented as100 percent Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS).Under the scheme, the Centre provides cash andfood grain to the states. The focus of theprogramme is on works relating to waterconservation, drought proofing (includingafforestation / tree plantation), land development,flood-control / protection (including drainage inwaterlogged areas) and rural connectivity in termsof all-weather roads. The rural job schemes –Sampoorna Gramin Rozgar Yojana and the NationalFood for Work programmes-which are to be mergedinto National Rural Employment Guarantee Schemehave been allocated Rs. 4,000 crores and Rs. 6,000crores for generating 16,111 lakh man-days ofwork.

The outcome budget has also provided similartargets for other important schemes of the ruraldevelopment department. The Pradhan Mantri GramSadak Yojana (PMGSY) seeks to connect 7,895habitations by building 17,454 km of rural road.The union budget has earmarked Rs 4,235 croresfor implementing PMGSY. Similarly, under the ruralhousing scheme, the outcome budget hasenvisaged construction of 14.54 lakh houses atan estimated cost of Rs 2,775 crores.

The Department of Drinking Water Supply andSanitation through its Accelerated Rural WaterSupply Programme (ARWSP) and Central RuralSanitation Programme (CRSP) with a combinedoutlay of Rs. 4,750 crores hopes to provide safedrinking water to rural habitations and ruralschools and intends to accelerate sanitationcoverage in rural areas. The quarterly targets have

Under theNational Food forWork ProgrammeRs 6,000 croreswill be utilisedfor generating7,500 lakh man-days ofemployment inthe lean seasonthrough 100days ofemployment toeach BelowPoverty Line(BPL) family inunskilled manualwork.


8

waste water generated from a total population of5.39 million in the project cities will be subjectedto treatment, before disposal into land and waterbodies. The ministry expects to lay about 1,375km long storm water drains in selected cities. Itis expected that the project will benefit 16.19million people and the 6,476 metric ton municipalsolid waste generated will be effectively collected,treated and disposed of in a scientific manner.This is expected to result in the creation of a2,000 km long two-lane road. For carrying outthe stated projects, state governments will haveto prepare city development plans and detailedproject reports. Projects would need to besanctioned by the State level sanctioningcommittee and the Central level sanctioning andmonitoring committee. Among the identified riskfactors is the fact that the outcome of theprogramme would depend upon the priority givenby states for taking up water supply, sewerage,sanitation, drainage and road projects.

The government has decided to embark upon aRs 1,500 crore scheme under the proposedNational Urban Renewal Mission. The OutcomeBudget indicates that the scheme would providebasic services for the urban poor in 60 citiesidentified under the mission. The detailedguideline for the new scheme, including thequantum of funds to be provided by states, isyet to be finalised. However, the Governmenthopes to complete the projects in two to threeyears. As per a broad proposal of the scheme, tobe initiated on Cabinet approval, the Governmentis expected to set up 75,000 dwelling units. Eachunit is expected to cost Rs 2 lakh. The schemewould be finalised under a tripartite memorandumof agreement between the Ministry, concernedState Government and the urban local body. TheStates and Union Territories would be required tosubmit a detailed project report before the CentralSanctioning and Monitoring Committee for itsapproval. The monitoring committee would alsomeet on a recurring basis to consider release offunds to the states. Under the scheme, theappraisal of the project report would be carriedout by a central agency. The physical and financialprogress of the project would also be monitoredfrom time to time. However, delay in finalisationof the memorandum and submission of proposalsby States may hinder the processing and appraisalof project reports. In these circumstances it maybe difficult to complete the project within thescheduled period. In addition , the governmenthas also proposed another scheme, costing Rs 500crore, to provide shelter and infrastructuralfacilities in the urban slum areas.

Having identified some of the major contents ofthe Outcome Budget, we now turn to otherimportant issues that were mentioned at theoutset. One of them happens to be the National

Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 passed bythe Parliament on 23rd August 2005 and ratifiedby Rajya Sabha on 24th August 2005.

NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENTGUARANTEE ACT 2005The new employment guarantee scheme providesa crucial lifeline to the millions of poor in therural areas of the country. This social securitymeasure, for the first time, makes the right towork a fundamental legal right–a new, radical dealfor India’s poor.

The Parliament has approved the National RuralEmployment Guarantee Bill, 2005 seeking toprovide 100 days assured employment every yearto every rural household in 200 districts. The Billdrafted after wide consultations fulfils a majorpromise of UPA’s National Common MinimumProgramme. The legislation has received widesupport among political parties, socialmovements and the public at large.

Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh has describedit as the ‘most important piece of legislation’in independent India. It marked a new beginningin the efforts for social equity and justice. TheGovernment hopes, in the next four or five years,to extend this Programme to all rural districts. DrSingh said this legislation would give bargainingpower to the poorest of the poor and help thosebelonging to the Scheduled Castes, ScheduledTribes, landless class and women.

This legislation ensures that village panchayatswould play a pivotal role in the implementationof the National Rural Employment GuaranteeScheme (NREGS). Initially, the scheme would beimplemented in 200 districts across the country,which would be extended to 600 districts. Onethird of the proposed jobs would be reserved forwomen. The Centre has taken responsibility forproviding financial assistance to the scheme andthe States only have to implement it. Theminimum wage as applicable in various Statesunder the Minimum Wages Act 1948 would applyto the programmes. However, the Centre wouldstep in to ensure a minimum rate of not lessthan Rs. 60 a day in States, where it was lower.The minimum wages offered for manual work instates currently varies from Rs. 25 in Nagalandto Rs. 134 in Kerala. The Bill also provides forunemployment allowance if the job, under thescheme, is not provided within a specified period.The UPA government has already provided aboutRs. 10,000 crores for implementing the schemein the current financial year.

A Central Employment Guarantee Council at theCentral level and State Employment GuaranteeCouncils at the State level in all States wherethe legislation is made applicable will beconstituted for reviewing, monitoring and



Government

The NationalRural

EmploymentGuarantee Act2005, for the

first time, makesthe right to work

a legllydefendable

right–a new,radical deal for

India’s poor.

The NREGlegislation

ensures thatvillage

panchayatswould play a

pivotal role inthe

implementationof the National

RuralEmployment

GuaranteeScheme.


9

effectively implementing the legislation in theirrespective areas. The Standing Committee of theDistrict Panchayat, District Programme Coordinator,Programme Officers and Gram Panchayats havebeen assigned specific responsibilities forimplementing various provisions of the legislationat the Gram Panchayat, Block and District levels.

The Central Government shall establish a fundto be called ‘National Employment GuaranteeFund’ for the purposes of this legislation.Similarly, the State Governments may constituteState Employment Guarantee Funds. Provisionsfor transparency and accountability, audit,establishment of grievance and redressalmechanisms and penalty of non-compliance arealso envisaged.

The implementation of an employment guaranteewill require money, but it saves social andeconomic costs of poverty. Most official estimatesplace the annual expenditure at Rs. 40,000 croresto Rs. 50,000 crores for expanding this guaranteeto the entire country in five years. For the currentfiscal year the rural job schemes–SampoornaGramin Rozgar Yojana and the National Food forWork programmes–which are to be merged intothe National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme,have been allocated Rs. 4,000 crores and Rs. 6,000crores for generating 16,111 lakh man-days ofwork in the 200 districts as mentioned earlier.

The Bill would have to be seen against thebackground of the improved Right to InformationAct, which would enable social audits and greaterpublic scrutiny of the programmes. It will ensuregreater accountability of panchayat bodies and thedistrict administration as well. For example, musterrolls will no longer be secret, and budget andworks will be public knowledge. All this will ensurethat only those who really need work will beemployed, and only those schemes required bythe community are taken up.

Critics of the NREGS have focussed on two setsof issues: one, that it is too expensive and, two,that corruption will prevent its success. There havebeen demands that the government integrate theEmployment Guarantee Scheme into the BharatNirman Project, which is aimed at building ruralinfrastructure. However, Prof Mahendra Devthinks that dovetailing of the EmploymentGuarantee Scheme to the Bharat Nirman project‘will result in a dilution of the guarantee’.Bharat Nirman aims to improve rural infrastructure–roads, irrigation, telecom, electricity, water supply,housing and so on. But the kind of assets plannedunder the Employment Guarantee Scheme relateto soil and water conservation and watersheddevelopment, apart from road building. The keyword in the Employment Guarantee Scheme is theguarantee of employment that it offers. However,Prof Mahendra Dev is not averse to some kind of

useful coordination between the two projects atthe grassroots level, but he argues for separatefunding for the two projects.

BHARAT NIRMANAs for rural development, the Bharat Nirmanprogramme has been launched by the Governmentunder which one crore hectares of unirrigated landwould be irrigated; all villages with populationof 1,000 or more and hilly areas with a populationof 500 or more would be connected by roads;two-and-a-half crore houses would be givenelectricity connections and over 60 lakh houseswould be built in villages. Also the remaining74,000 habitations having no access to safedrinking water would be provided these facilities.Remaining 66,822 villages would be provided withtelephone connectivity. All these physical targetshave to be achieved in a four-year periodstarting from 2005-06. For a four-year period,the targets set are in accordance with theexisting deficits except for rural housing, wherethe 2001 Census has reported that we have ashortage of 148 lakh houses. Thus, the physicaltarget of constructing only 60 lakh houses overnext four years is grossly inadequate.

The total spending on these components isexpected to be Rs 174,000 crore. While sourcesof financing have yet to be confirmed, individualMinistries have been given tentative, four-year


Monsoon Session of the ParliamentThe Monsoon Session, 2005 of Parliament, whichcommenced on Monday, 25th July 2005 andconcluded on 30th August 2005, concluded with 24sittings of both the Houses of Parliament spreadover a period of 37 days. Supplementary Demandsfor Grants (General) and (Railways) for 2005-06 andthe Demands for Excess Grants (General) and(Railways) for 2002-03, and their Appropriation Billswere discussed and passed by the Lok Sabha duringthe Session. Thereafter, the Rajya Sabha consideredand returned these Appropriation Bills.

During the Session, 23 Bills (14 in the LokSabha and 9 in the Rajya Sabha) wereintroduced. 16 Bills each were passed by the LokSabha and the Rajya Sabha. Total number of Billspassed by both Houses of Parliament during theSession was also 16. Some of the important billspassed by both Houses during the Session were:

1. The National Rural Employment Guarantee Bill,2004

2. The Protection of Women from Domestic ViolenceBill, 2005

3. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Bill, 2005

We have already covered NREGA in some detail. Thelast two bills passed in the Parliament are verypowerful legislations in the direction of empoweringwomen.

Theimplementationof anemploymentguarantee willrequire money,but it will savesocial andeconomic costsof poverty.

The physicaltarget ofconstructing only60 lakh housesunder the BharatNirmanProgramme overnext four yearsis grosslyinadequate.


10



Government

targets as mentioned above. The World Bank hasagreed to lend up to US$ 3 billion (Rs. 13500Crores approximately) over the next three yearsto support Bharat Nirman. According toinformation collected from various Ministries, theGovernment would have spent about Rs. 1,02,000Crores on these sectors over the next four years,even in the absence of the Bharat Nirmanprogramme (Kandula Subramaniam, The SundayExpress, November 13, 2005). These specifictargets have added an extra burden of Rs. 72,000Crores @ of Rs. 18,000 per year. At the firstBharat Nirman Programme meeting in June 2005,the Finance Minister promised that, for fiscal2005-06, he would provide Rs 6,000 crore. Thus,for the current fiscal, the financial provision isgrossly inadequate. However, starting 2006-07, theGovernment will raise the additional resourcesthrough a combination of a ‘separate window’ forBharat Nirman under NABARD schemes, domesticbudgetary support, external assistance, marketborrowings and beneficiary contribution. The PrimeMinister has also directed that the entireinformation pertaining to targets, execution ofworks, funding and other aspects of Bharat Nirmanshould be placed on the Internet by November14, 2005 to enable accountable delivery.

THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROMDOMESTIC VIOLENCE BILL, 2005A landmark Bill to protect women from all formsof domestic violence and check harassment andexploitation at the hands of family members orrelatives was unanimously passed by the Lok Sabhaon 24th August 2005. The comprehensivelegislation aims at checking all forms ofexploitation of women–physical, sexual, verbal,emotional, economic, actual abuse or threat ofabuse. Harassment by way of unlawful dowrydemands from the woman or her relatives willcome under the purview of the Act. It coverswomen living in joint families or nuclear families.In addition, women in relationships with familymembers living together as a joint family can alsotake recourse to this Act for redress. Even thosewomen who are sisters, widows, mothers, singleor living with the ‘abuser’ would be entitled tolegal protection under the proposed legislation.It provides women the right to secure housing,

right to reside in her matrimonial home or sharedhousehold, whether or not she has any title orrights in such a home or household.

The Act empowers a magistrate to pass protectionorders in favour of the aggrieved person to preventthe respondent from aiding or committing an actof domestic violence or any other specified act.Breach of protection order by the respondent shallbe an offence and punishable with imprisonmentupto one year or fine of Rs 20,000 or both. Thereare about 1.5 lakh cases of domestic violenceregistered till 2003 and there was 9.2 per centincrease every year, though most such cases wentunreported. The purpose of the Act is to empowervoiceless women and to lessen their exploitation.Female domestic helps would be brought underthe purview of this law to stop sexual harassmentat workplaces. This would protect maidservantsfrom exploitation by employers.

THE HINDU SUCCESSION (AMENDMENT)BILL, 2005The Hindu Succession (Amendments) Bill 2004was passed in Lok Sabha on 29th August,allowing women to have equal rights as menin all property, including agricultural land.Daughters would be on par with sons wheninheriting joint family property. Bringingagricultural land on par with other property is avictory for campaigners as it was not included inthe original Bill introduced on 20th December,2004 in Rajya Sabha. Section 4 (2) which exemptsagricultural land from the Hindu Succession Act(1956) was abolished. Now, the amended HinduSuccession Act overrides any gender discriminatoryclauses in State level tenurial laws currently inplace. The States where tenurial laws did notfavour women were Haryana, Punjab, HimachalPradesh, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Jammu andKashmir. In Southern States, it was much betterwith the tenurial laws being silent on devolution.Kerala had abolished the joint family propertysystem. The other significant benefit has been tomake women coparcenaries (right by birth) inMitakshara joint family property. The female heironly had a deceased man’s notional portion. Withthis amendment, both male and female will getequal rights.

The DomesticViolence Bill,2005 aims atchecking all

forms ofexploitation of

women–physical,sexual, verbal,

emotional,economic, actualabuse or threat

of abuse.


11


(Rs. in Crores)

Budget Estimates Actuals@ for % of Actuals to2005-2006* APRIL-SEPT. 2005 Budget Estimates

Rs. Rs. Current COPPY**

1 Revenue Receipts 3,51,200 122845 35.0% (34.4%)

2 Tax Revenue (Net) 2,73,466 96249 35.2% (33.3%)

3 Non-Tax Revenue 77,734 26596 34.2% (38.0%)

4 Non-Debt Capital Receipts 12,000 4295 35.8% (115.2%)

5 Recovery of Loans 12,000 4284 35.7% (131.5%)

6 Other Receipts 0 11 (4.8%)

7 Total Receipts (1+4) 3,63,200 127140 35.0% (41.8%)

8 Non-Plan Expenditure 3,70,847 151577 40.9% (42.8%)

9 On Revenue Account 3,30,530 141819 42.9% (44.9%)(i) of which Interest Payments 1,33,945 53940 40.3% (42.8%)

10 On Capital Account 40,317 9758 24.2% (27.4%)(i) of which Loans disbursed 1,576 910 57.7% (81.1%)

11 Plan Expenditure 1,43,497 59406 41.4% (36.6%)

12 On Revenue Account 1,15,982 46123 39.8% (37.8%)

13 On Capital Account 27,515 13283 48.3% (34.5%)(i) of which Loans disbursed 4,076 3124 76.6% (36.4%)

14 Total Expenditure (8+11) 5,14,344 210983 41.0% (40.9%)

15 Fiscal Deficit (14-7) 1,51,144 83843 55.5% (38.7%)

16 Revenue Deficit (9+12-1) 95,312 65097 68.3% (60.9%)

17 Primary Deficit {15-9(i)} 17,199 29903 173.9% (-27.4%)

*Financial Year runs from “April to March”**COPPY: Corresponding Period of the Previous Year@ Actuals are unaudited provisional figures.Source: Website of the Controller General of Accounts (www.cga.nic.in)

UNION GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTS AT A GLANCE(AS AT THE END OF SEPTEMBER 2005)


12

Observations onFinancing the NationalRural Health Mission

- Anurag Srivastava

2005-12. In this article, we articulate some broadimperatives for the success of the NHRM as faras instruments of financing are concerned.

The Mission aims to provide an integrated packageof health services with improved availability andaccess to quality health care by people, especiallyfor those residing in rural areas, the poor, womenand children. This is really warranted as Indiaoccupies a far from enviable position as far ashealth indicators are concerned.

According to the (2005) Report of the NationalCommission on Macroeconomics and Health(NCMH), levels of malnutrition and rates ofinfant and maternal deaths stagnated during

the 1990s. Currently, life expectancy at birth,infant and under-five mortality levels are worsethan those of Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.Pakistan eradicated smallpox, guineawormdisease and polio much before India could.Although we account for 16.5 percent of theglobal population, we contribute to a fifth ofthe world’s share of diseases: a third of thediarrhoeal diseases, TB, respiratory and otherinfections and parasitic infestations, andperinatal conditions; a quarter of maternalconditions, a fifth of nutritional deficiencies,diabetes, and the second largest number ofHIV/AIDS cases after South Africa.

These statistics correlate to some observableimprovements in India over a long term.Longevity, for instance has doubled from 32 yearsin 1947 to 66 years in 2004. Infant MortalityRate (IMR) has fallen by over 70 percent pointsbetween 1947-1990; malaria has been containedat 20 lakh cases; smallpox and guineaworm havebeen completely eradicated and leprosy and polioare nearing elimination. In the last five years,over five hundred thousand deaths have been

averted due to the upscaling of Directly ObservedTreatment Short-course (DOTS). Indian doctors,trained at a fraction of cost compared to thewestern world, are among the best globally.However, the shortfalls remain stronger than theachievements.

NRHM: OBSERVATIONS ON SOMECOMPONENTSThe NRHM is presumably a scheme aimed atvertical and horizontal integration of the Healthcare services and delivery mechanisms throughoutthe country. While the NRHM document (GOI)reads this mission for the ‘country’ as a whole, itironically begins with a case for implementationin eighteen states only. It may be worthwhile tonote that within the dialogue on impacts ofschemes and development programmes, ‘targeting’

is a very controversial term; precisely because itamounts to colossal mistargeting and bypassing.Therefore, the very selection of eighteen statesdefies notion of integration/universalisation byeffecting geographical marginalisation.

The Finance Minister had promised thatDepartments of Health and Family Welfare wouldhave increased allocations from Rs. 8420 croresin the current year to Rs. 10,280 crores in thenext year. This increase will finance the NRHM.However, NRHM found no mention in theexpenditure budgets and demand for grants in the(2005-6) document. Overall, in the missiondocument, Rs. 6713 crores have been allocated.

The programme has, however, taken off. Theoutcome budget has come out recently and it isan appreciable step by the government. It canbe a veritable tool for expenditure tracking.However, from the information that is available,little can be made out. It is good that theprogramme has been initiated and the money isnot being used in the existing programmes ofother departments and ministries who had aconsiderable demand for grants.

The current government has launched theNational Common Minimum Programme andincluded therein is the National RuralHealth Mission (NHRM) for the plan period


13

But still the question exists: Does the presentexercise warrant any movement towards acomprehensive management that the NRHM visiondocument espouses? Is the government learningany lessons this year that may informimplementation, monitoring and evaluation in thenext fiscal?

Some of the current problems identified are asunder:

1. Service delivery is a constraint

2. Additional funds are a constraint

3. PRI leadership is not feasible

4. Planning for selecting and training ASHA

5. Fund availability for manpower planning

6. Programmatic convergence between variousdepartments a challenge

These are the very basic problems of India’s healthcare system. It remains an interestinginterpolation within the cohort of civil societymonitoring and evaluation groups to see how thegovernment organizes its integrative scheme(NRHM) and demonstrates planning neatness inthe budget accounting in the ensuing year. Thiscomment in the passing is centrally critical tosuccess because the basic conundrum in Indiandevelopment planning is the recurrent failure todeal with complexity. Different departments haveto deal with different aspects of health care. Arural household needs department of family welfarefor RCH services, department of medicine forpreventive medication, another one for clean waterand sanitation, nutrition is provided under theICDS scheme etc. Then, in a federal structure,states organise different departments for similarservices. Again each rural household has to devisea permutation and combination strategy to matchits needs with available services in a given villageor district. NRHM vision to integrate administrativeand departmental heads in one source deliverymode is welcome with a pinch of unobservablepracticability. A lot will also be evidenced frominter-departmental allocations.

THE BASIC OPERATIONAL LINK AT THELOCAL LEVEL (ASHA)The real planning innovation one finds in termsof service delivery is the launch of the ASHA(Accredited Social Health Activist). This isenvisaged to be a female, voluntary health workeraccountable to the Panchayat who will integratethe works of the ANM (Auxiliary Nurse Midwife)and the village, promote universal immunization,referral and escorts services for RCH, constructionof household toilets and other healthcare deliveryprogrammes. Other functions include carrying adrug kit for ailment management through AYUSH(Ayurvedic, Yunani, Siddha Systems of Health) and

allopathic formulations; she will also carry outintegrating different department workers for thepreparation and implementation of the villagehealth plan under the panchayat. In this regard,a key question remains on compensation to theseworkers.

The NRHM mission document states that ASHAwill be provided performance based incentives andwill be otherwise honorary. The central axis atthe delivery level is a proposed cadre of workerswith no commitment to monetary compensationand with compensation based on performance.Apart from evaluation of performance the keyquestion remains about a non-fallacious blueprint.Higher and better health outcomes hinge on theefficient performance of a voluntary worker whois also promised a parallel compensation relativeto the outcome. How can both co-exist? How doesone account for this? And a larger question iswhether even a 2 percent allocation to health ofthe total budget (proposed funding for NRHM) willbe enough to compensate these workers in aperformance-oriented scenario of achievements.Somehow this basic issue has escaped theargument behind decision-making regarding thelarger issue of financing NRHM. The term‘voluntary’ too is very non-committal. It skewsthe issue away from finance for the fundamentalcomponent of health delivery. Similarly delvinginto other components of the NRHM documentraises pertinent questions about the level ofrealistic understanding guiding this promisingpronouncement. While these issues help us siftpopulism from pragmatism, we shall in this notekeep to issues of financing.

ISSUES OF FINANCING AS THEYCONDITION THE SUCCESS OF NRHMSTATE RETREAT AND OUT OF POCKET EXPENSESAccording to the UNDP 2004 report, roughly 75percent of health expenditure in India comes fromout of pocket expenses. The situation as notedin the 2001 India Human Development Report,which is valid even today, is that there is anincreased dependence of people on private healthcare services. Further there is an escalating costof health care with ever widening gaps betweenwhat is possible and what can be afforded. Thesecontentions are related to the larger problems ofinfrastructure, manpower, rural–urban disparitiesand inter-state differences etcetera. Needless tosay, these statistics can never be treated as anindicator of higher purchasing power of people.Disbursing health care costs often leads toindebtedness in rural areas.

The situation has further aggravated post-liberalization. Needless to say these factors presentIndia at an abysmally low (127th among 177nations) position on Human Development ranking

Observat ionson Financingthe NationalRural HealthMiss ion

The central axisat the deliverylevel is aproposed cadreof workers withno commitmentto monetarycompensationand withcompensationbased onperformance.

According to theUNDP 2004report, roughly75 percent ofhealthexpenditure inIndia comes fromout of pocketexpenses.


14

(2004) as far as health is concerned. The samereport finds 0.9 percent and 4.2 percent (of GDP)as the proportional spending between the publicand private sources, respectively.

DEBILITATING EFFECTS POST-LIBERALISATIONIt may help to see that there is a direct co-relation between State spending and the reductionof health expenditure in the post liberalizationperiod. The idea behind controlling fiscal deficitwas supported with the expenditure curtailmentpolicies of the State Government.

Non-realisation of taxes has always been theIndian reality but post liberalisation the specifictheme has hinged on a visible curtailment of‘social’ expenditure. The current FiscalResponsibility and Budget Management Act is aseal of approval to institutionalise this practice.There is compelling evidence that in the 1990s,after liberalisation was regimented, social sectorexpenditures has been curtailed and this hadvisible effects on health spending.

Before the decade preceding liberalization at leastover 1 percent of public expenditure (as aproportion of the GDP) on health was observed(1.05 percent in 1981 and 1.19 percent in 1986).This has declined and demonstrates a lower lineartrend since the early 1990s. Obviously thiscorrelates with an upwardly-spiralling privateexpenditure on health care. Overall as per theNational Health Policy (NHP) Document (2002),the decline stood at 0.9 percent in 1999 from1.3 percent in 1990. Table 1 below exemplifiesthe same.

Overall fiscal pressures have resulted in reductionof State expenditures and a steady decline insocial expenditures. The combined expenditure ofStates in the 1990s on medical, health,sanitation, water supply and family welfaredeclined from 8.4 percent of total expenditure to7.2 percent in 2001-2. As a proportion of GSDP,the decline was from 1.5 percent to 1.3 percent(NCMH 2005).

At a micro level, this also gets skewed as poverty

ricochets within - often with counter-factual trade-offs. Most people, who can actually afford privatehealth care like government employees, havehealth costs coverage while the poor (peasants,labourers, vendors etc) have to pay for themselves.According to the NSS 1996 data the STs had 12times less access in rural areas and 27 times lessaccess in urban areas as compared to others; forSCs the disparity was 4 and 9 times, in rural andurban areas, respectively. This is counter-factualgiven that generally urban areas are betterendowed. These groups’ health outcomes accordingto the 1998 NFHS are 1.5 times more adversethan other groups.

NEEDS & RESPONSIBILITY OF HEALTH FINANCINGIN THE FEDERAL STRUCTUREHealth is part of the State list though, a numberof items related to health such as drugs andpoisons, population control and family planning,medical education and profession, prevention ofinfectious and contagious diseases, etc. are listedin the concurrent list. This means that in principlethe Centre is largely accountable for theaccountability for health outcomes via theinstruments of financing.

The estimates from the NCMH indicate that publicinvestment for provisioning of public goods andprimary and secondary services alone will requireabout Rs. 74,000 crores or 2.2 percent of theGDP at current government prices. In terms ofHealth, estimations point that Rs. 76,000 croreswill be needed by the States until 2010. Table 2presents the same.

The table demonstrates that there is a substantialamount of financial investment needed to improvehealth outcomes. The States to the CentreExpenditure Ratio for Health is 85:15. As notedin the National Health Policy document thebudgetary allocation on health sector by theCentral government over the last decade has beenstagnant at 1.3 percent of the total Central Budgetand that in the States has declined from 7 percentto 5.5 percent. Given that the States arefinancially constrained, we seem to be right on a

Observat ionson Financingthe NationalRural Health

Miss ion

1951 1961 1971 1981 1986 1991 1995 1996 1997 1998 2000 2003

Health Publ ic 0.22 1.08 3.35 12.86 29.66 50.78 82.17 101.65 113.13 126.27 178 219.59Expenditure(Rs. Pr ivate 3.65 10.99 52.84 90.54 146.98 278.59 329.23 373.41 459 835.17 1250Bi l l ion)

Health Publ ic 0.25 0.71 0.84 1.05 1.19 0.92 0.95 0.91 0.88 0.81 0.87 1Expenditureas percentof GDP Private 2.25 2.6 4.06 3.61 2.88 3.04 3.07 3 3.3 4.76 5.6

Private: 3.4 3.3 4.1 3.1 2.9 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.6 4.7 5.7Public ratio(t imes)

Source: Public expenditures from Finance Accounts of State and Central Governments, and private expenditures from NationalAccounts Stat ist ics of Central Stat ist ical Organisat ion, GOI, dur ing the var ious years mentioned.

Table1: Growth of Private Health Expenditures in India in Comparison to Public Expenditures 1951-2003

Publicexpenditure on

health hasdeclined since

the early 1990s.

The estimatesfrom the NCMH

indicate thatpublic

investment forprovisioning of

public goods andprimary and

secondaryservices alone

will requireabout 2.2

per cent of GDPper annum.


15

A reading of the needed resources as per thereport of the National Commission onMacroeconomic on Health points to requirementswell in excess of 2 percent (of the GDP) that hasbeen the approximate promise in the NCMP aswell as a suggestion in the National Health Policy(2002) document. Logically enough, the WHO hadrecommended 5 percent long ago. This is giventhat, we are not talking about the requisiteinvestments in the critical sectors, which are basicto sustaining health outcomes. These sectors arewater & sanitation, education and infrastructurelike roads etc. Further, the larger policy positioningby the government in health related sectorsundermines the poor. The Pharmaceutical Policyof 2002 wherein the price control has progressivelybeen removed from 347 to 35 drugs and thePatents Amendment Act, 2005 that will render itdifficult to prevent monopoly of key pharmaceuticalfirms, are likely to have debilitating effects onthe poor.

Treating affordability and financing constraints asgiven, we need to seek solutions.

ALTERNATIVES FOR FINANCING THE NRHM.Being cautiously optimistic for NRHM, I see meritsin its ‘umbrella’ and ‘integrative’ approach. Theplan is quiet comprehensive. One plausible solutionin this scenario is to guarantee the minimumamount needed for realisation of health costs. TheFinance Minister’s speech hinted towards a cesson tobacco products for financing the NRHM. AsRavi Duggal (CEHAT, Mumbai) suggests, a 2 percenthealth cess on sales turnover of health degradingproducts with an estimated turnover of Rs. 1000billion would itself generate Rs. 20 billion whichis 8 percent addition to the existing budgets ofCentral and State governments combined. A Tobintax of 0.1 percent on securities transactions willraise 60 crores daily for social sector budgetswithout hurting transactions. Similarly additionalresources can be generated.

Secondly, systems and structures for financinghealth infrastructure should be improved formanaging existing resources. It is odd that so farthe basis for allocation has not been the percapita or the per block level norms. Thereforemoney management within the districts itself isuneven. Correction herein will make for efficientuse of existing funds. Matching facilities per unitof population/block will serve to raise healthoutcomes.

Finally, given poor State finances, increase inCentral Government’s health expenditure should begreater than the present proposal of 30 per centper annum and matching grant requirements bythe States vis-à-vis the Centre (via Ministry ofHealth and Family Welfare) should be relaxed.

Observat ionson Financingthe NationalRural HealthMiss ion

Table 2: Additional Resource requirements for 15Major States for the period 2005-06 and 2009-2010 (Rs. Crores) at 2005-06 Prices (Figures forPrimary Schooling and Roads not included)

State Health Water & Nutri- TotalSector Sanitation tion

Andhra Pradesh 944 0 0 944

Assam 975 1349 1379 3704

Bihar & Jharkhand 7150 897 11204 19251

Gujarat 634 0 1979 2613

Haryana 554 0 736 1290

Karnataka 10 415 703 1128

Kerala 0 3532 910 4442

MP & Chattisgarh 2983 1842 7365 12190

Maharashtra 223 2455 2471 5149

Orissa 1210 2336 2478 6024

Punjab 405 175 775 1355

Rajasthan 990 300 3876 5166

Tamil Nadu 612 0 0 612

UP & Uttranchal 8463 1834 1814 28111

West Bengal 1285 2459 4593 8438

Total 76439 17593 56383 100415

Source: NCMH 2005

cul-de-sac as far as saving and improving the livesof our teeming millions is concerned.

The present Government had promised in theNational Common Minimum Programme (NCMP) toincrease public spending on health to 2-3 percentof the GDP in a phased manner. A closer scrutinyof the mechanism to increase spending revealsthat at the end of the UPA government’s tenurein 2008-09, the public spending on health wouldimprove only marginally over the current level.

The financing mechanism for NRHM state that theCentre would increase it’s spending on health by30 percent over the existing levels in eachfinancial year and the corresponding increase forthe States has been suggested at a rate of 10percent over the existing levels. Taking intoaccount the ratio of public spending between theCentre and the States and assuming 10 percentnominal rate of growth of GDP in the countryand current combined public expenditure on healthat 1 percent of GDP, public expenditure on healthwould be just around 1.1 percent of the GDP in2008-9. This is way behind the NCMP’s promisedlevel of public spending on health.

The UPAGovernment hadpromised in theNationalCommonMinimumProgramme toincrease publicspending onhealth to 2-3percent of theGDP in a phasedmanner.


16

Disaster ManagementBi l l 2005: Can It Be aPanacea? - Subrat Das

This year the United Progressive Alliance(UPA) Government at the Centre has beenable to enact a number of cruciallegislations like, the National Rural

droughts cause extensive damage to life andproperty; and heat wave, cold wave, avalanches,landslides, fire, and pest attacks are also takingheavy tolls on life and property at regularintervals. The Latur earthquake of 1993-94, theOrissa super cyclone of 1999, the Bhuj earthquakeof 2001, and the Tsunami of December 2004 aresome of the most severe natural disasters thathave struck the country in the recent past. Giventhe growing intensity of the damage to life andproperty caused by natural disasters in thecountry, legislative support for disastermanagement has been viewed essential for a longtime. Hence, many civil society organisations,humanitarian agencies, experts and also commonpeople have welcomed the proposal for legislationon disaster management. However, it needs to behighlighted that the Disaster Management Bill2005 fundamentally differs from the otherlegislations referred to above in that it doesnot confer any ‘rights’ on the people of thiscountry, either in the domain of relief and

State and district levels. Thereafter, following theGujarat earthquake, an all-party NationalCommittee on Disaster Management (NCDM) wasconstituted in 2001, under the Chairmanship ofthe then Prime Minister, to deliberate on thenecessary institutional and legislative measuresneeded for an effective and long-term strategyto deal with natural disasters in future. On therecommendation of the NCDM, the Government ofIndia (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 wereamended to transfer the work relating tomanagement of disasters, except droughts, fromthe Ministry of Agriculture to the Ministry of HomeAffairs in June 2002.

Soon after this transfer of responsibilities, theGovernment had drawn up a strategic roadmap inOctober 2002 for reducing the country’svulnerability to disasters. The State Governmentswere advised to develop similar State roadmapstaking the national roadmap as broadguidelines. Accordingly, a view was taken in theGovernment that instead of a Central legislation

rehabilitation following disasters or in thedomain of reduction of disaster risks in theprocess of economic development. The Billprimarily aims to provide the institutionalmechanisms for drawing up disastermanagement plans and monitoring theirimplementation. This article attempts to highlightthe major strengths, the notable lacunae and theinherent potential of the Disaster Management Bill2005, with regard to management of naturaldisasters in the country.

Though devastation caused by the Gujaratearthquake in 2001 forced the Government to situp and think about the change necessary in itsorientation towards disasters, before that in 1999,a High Powered Committee (HPC) had beenconstituted to formulate the policy framework ondisaster management in India. The HPC hadrecommended measures for strengthening theorganisational structure and for formulating acomprehensive model plan for natural andmanmade disaster management at the national,

Employment Guarantee Act, Right to InformationAct, and Women’s Inheritance Law, each one ofwhich has the potential to usher in fundamentalchanges in favour of the poor, marginalized andvulnerable sections of the population. Equallycommendable has been this government’sintroduction of a draft Disaster Management Billin the Parliament (the Disaster Management Bill,2005- Bill No. LV of 2005 introduced in the RajyaSabha) on 11th May 2005. This proposedlegislation has certainly raised people’sexpectations about effective management of bothnatural and man-made disasters in the country.India is highly prone to natural disasters, andthe country has experienced very severe naturaldisasters at regular intervals. Among the varioustypes of natural disasters affecting different partsof the country, floods, cyclones, earthquakes and


17

on disaster management, the States might beadvised to enact their respective State legislations.Consequently, the State of Gujarat enactedlegislation on disaster management in 2003 andStates of Bihar and Jharkhand are in the processof enacting similar laws.

However, subsequently, a strong need was felt tovest the coordination mechanism at the nationallevel with necessary legislative back up, thedevastation caused by the Tsunami in December2004 adding further momentum to such thinking.The Government at the centre, therefore, decidedto enact a law on disaster management whichwould ‘provide for requisite institutional andcoordination mechanism and powers forundertaking prevention and mitigation measuresas also mechanism for ensuring preparedness andcapacity building to handle disasters’. Theproposed legislation is relatable to Entry 23 (SocialSecurity and Social Insurance) in the ConcurrentList of the Constitution. This will have theadvantage that it will permit the States also tohave their own legislation on disastermanagement.

WHAT’S THERE IN THE DISASTERMANAGEMENT BILL?SALIENT FEATURES OF THE BILL1. As is evident from the name itself, this Bill

concerns both natural as well as manmadedisasters occurring in the country. This aspectof the Bill could have significant implicationsfor the process and quantum of funding thatwould be made available to the Governmentapparatus responsible for managing naturaldisasters in future. As we have seen,Government funding available for managementof natural disasters has been meagre incomparison to the requirement. Hence, makingadequate funds available for management ofboth natural and manmade disasters couldprove to be a Herculean task for theGovernment and test its commitment to theprocess of disaster mitigation and prevention.However, as of now, we can only say that theintention of the Government, as reflected bythe Statement of Objects and Reasons of theBill is welcome.

2. The Bill provides for setting up of DisasterManagement Authority at national, State anddistrict levels under the Chairmanship of thePrime Minister, Chief Ministers and DistrictMagistrates, respectively.

3. The National Disaster Management Authority(NDMA) shall have the responsibility for layingdown the policies, plans and guidelines fordisaster management. It may constitute anAdvisory Committee consisting of experts inthe field of disaster management. The NDMA

shall be assisted by a National ExecutiveCommittee of Secretaries to be constituted bythe Central Government.

4. The NDMA shall also lay down guidelines forthe minimum standards of relief to be providedto persons affected by disasters.

5. The State Executive Committee shall have theresponsibility for implementing the NationalPlan and the State Plan and act as thecoordinating and monitoring body formanagement of disasters in the State.

6. The Bill provides for constitution of a specialistresponse force called National DisasterResponse Force (NDRF), where command andsupervision shall vest in an Officer to beappointed by the Central Government as theDirector-General of the National DisasterResponse Force. (The Ministry of Home Affairshas already taken steps to earmark 8 battalionsof Central Para Military Forces, from theirexisting strength, to be trained and equippedto function as specialist response teams.)

7. Most importantly, the Bill provides forconstitution of National Fund for DisasterResponse (NFDR) and National Fund forDisaster Mitigation (NFDM), and similar Fundsat State as well as district levels.

While legislative backing for the disastermanagement apparatus and policies in the countryis commendable, it is pertinent to ask whetherthe proposed legislation can be a panacea forthe problems afflicting management of naturaldisasters in the country? In the followingsections, we present a brief appraisal of this Billhighlighting some of the more relevant aspects.

HOW IS THE BILL GOING TO HELP?There is reason to be optimistic about the impactof such a legislation (on management of naturaldisasters in the country) on several grounds, whichare as given below.

DISASTER MITIGATION FUNDSPerhaps, the most commendable feature of theBill is its provision for the setting up of DisasterMitigation Funds, at national, State as well asdistrict levels. With a separate Fund in place forthe purpose of financing mitigation measures, wecan expect timely and adequate flow of funds tofinance projects/ initiatives related to disastermitigation and preparedness.

NATIONAL DISASTER RESPONSE FORCEThe provision for setting up a National DisasterResponse Force, ‘for the purpose of specialistresponse to a threatening disaster situation ordisaster’, is another positive feature of the Bill.Developing a skilled and trained force of personnelfor rescue and relief operations backed up with

DisasterManagementBil l 2005: CanIt Be aPanacea?

The mostcommendablefeature of thebill is itsprovision for thesetting up ofDisasterMitigation Funds,at national,State as well asdistrict levels.


18

adequate infrastructural/ hardware facilities isessential. The Eleventh Finance Commission hadsuggested for constituting a group of 200-300personnel drawn from different Governmentdepartments associated with the services for rescueand relief in each State, which in turn couldconstitute a national force of 3000 to 4000 personnel.Such teams could be mobilised and deployedanywhere in the country in a disaster situation.

ENGAGING DIFFERENT ARMS OF GOVERNMENTCOMPREHENSIVELYThe Bill provides for the formulation of DisasterManagement Plans, not only at the national levelbut also at the State and district levels, alongwith the requirement that these plans would bereviewed and updated at a one-year interval. TheseDisaster Management Plans will lay down the rolesand responsibilities of the different Ministries/Departments at the respective levels of theGovernment, and subsequently the Ministries/Departments shall draw up plans for their activityin disaster management. This provision holds alot of potential for enabling a comprehensive andintegrated engagement of the various arms of theGovernment in disaster management at all levels.

STATUS REPORTS BY ALL MINISTRIESThe provision, in the Bill, for preparation of StatusReports by all Ministries/ Departments with regardto their role in disaster management (as envisagedin their respective Plans) and the strategies tobe adopted for attaining the desired levels, isagain a far-sighted element of the legislation.

Despite its potential for making significantimprovements in disaster management in thecountry, the Bill suffers from numerous seriouslacunae, which need to be amended beforeenacting the proposed legislation. In thefollowing, we briefly mention some of thoselacunae and also comment on the report of theStanding Committee of the Parliament on Ministryof Home Affairs, which was entrusted the task ofcritical appraisal of the Bill.

WHAT DISAPPOINTS US IN THE BILL?NO RECOGNITION FOR RIGHTS OF THE VICTIMSSetting up an institutional mechanism or a fundcannot address many important issues relating toprovision of relief, rehabilitation and disaster riskreduction, which might be rooted in the socio-economic conditions of different sections of thepopulation. Hence, the Disaster Management Billshould have legally guaranteed the ‘rights’ ofvictims of disasters to timely and adequate relief,compensation for losses and rehabilitation.Legislative support for rights of the victims cansubstantially improve the drawbacks and adverseconsequences of the ‘charity’ mode of interventionof both the State as well as some of the non-

state actors following natural disasters. Also, alegally backed ‘right’ can best serve the interestof ensuring accountability of the State and non-state actors in relief and reconstruction activities.

NOT RECOGNIZING DIFFERENTIALVULNERABILITIES AMONG THE VICTIMSLegislation on management of disasters in Indiashould essentially recognize the differentialvulnerabilities of sections of the population. Thefact that women and children, as also thesocially disadvantaged sections (like, dalits andadivasis) suffer much greater setbacks innatural disasters is very well recognized.(Similarly, man-made disasters can inflict muchgreater damages on minorities in the country,as has been witnessed in the past.) Hence, inthis context, it is disappointing to see that theproposed legislation does not address suchimportant issues in the sphere of disastermanagement.

LIMITED ROLE FOR LOCAL BODIESIt is disappointing to note the limited roleenvisaged for the institutions of local self-

PEOPLE’S PERCEPTION ON THE DISASTERMANAGEMENT BILLThe All India Disaster Mitigation Institute (AIDMI),Ahmedabad, reports several demands of the victimsof Gujarat earthquake (2001) and cyclone (1998)and those of the Tsunami (2004), with regard tothe Disaster Management Bill. Some of the crucialdemands that have emerged are:1. The Bill must clearly emphasize that the poorest

among the victims will get the first priority inutilization of funds in relief and rehabilitation.

2. The Bill must ensure that, in the wake of adisaster, money is spent on reconstructing suchassets for the poor as are safer and sustainable.

3. Expenditure on rehabilitation/ reconstruction ina disaster affected area should promote localeconomic development by using local labour,procuring relief material from within the affectedState and rebuilding a new economic base forthe local community.

4. The provisions in the Bill can easily inflate aweb of costly administrative apparatus acrossthe country, consuming a major part of theresources allocated for disaster management. Toavoid such a consequence, it has to be ensuredthat the authorities are cost-effective.

5. The Bill should recognize the victims of disastersas ‘active recoverers’ not merely as ‘passivereceivers of relief and charity’.

6. While State and National Governments plan andfinance, the local bodies (like, Panchayats andNagarpalikas) should be able to decide whereto and how to spend the money.

Source: Mihir R. Bhatt, ‘The Bill: What Do VictimsWant?’, July 26, 2005, www.southasiadisasters.net

DisasterManagement

Bil l 2005: CanIt Be a

Panacea?

The DisasterManagement Bill

should havelegally

guaranteed the‘rights’ of victims

of disasters totimely and

adequate relief,compensation for

losses andrehabilitation.

Legislation onmanagement of

disasters inIndia should

essentiallyrecognize the

differentialvulnerabilities of

sections of thepopulation.


19

governance and local communities in the processof setting up the infrastructure for disastermanagement. As per the original Bill introducedin the Parliament, the role of the local bodieswould largely be consultative, during theformulation of disaster management plans, andrelated mainly to the activities of impartingtraining and awareness on disaster management.Many experts have highlighted the need forlearning from the local communities (who usuallyhave some traditional experience of tacklingdisasters, especially natural disasters, occurring intheir areas), in shaping measures for disastermitigation and preparedness, especially indeveloping countries that cannot afford to spendas much as the developed countries do on disastermanagement. It may be noted here that theParliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs(which examined the said Bill, before it isintroduced in the Parliament again) has made acase for representation of local bodies as follows:‘the Committee recommends for inclusion of aclause/ provision in the Bill for nomination ofpublic representatives (like the Chairman of ZilaParishad and other local bodies) as Co-Chairpersonof the District Disaster Management Authority’(Source: Report of the Department-RelatedParliamentary Standing Committee on HomeAffairs: 115th Report on the Disaster ManagementBill, 2005).

TOP-DOWN APPROACH TOWARDS PLANNINGAnother serious weakness of the Bill is itsadherence to a top-down approach in envisagingthe planning process relating to all aspects indisaster management. In the overall chain ofactivities in disaster mitigation, the processes ofdissemination of warning and risk avoidance actiondepend crucially on the people in the disaster-prone areas. Hence, with respect to these twosteps at least (in the whole chain of actions indisaster loss mitigation) the Government apparatusneeds to ensure that both planning as well asimplementation is people-centric or pursued witha bottom-up approach. However, the Bill envisagesan approach towards all aspects of disastermanagement in which the National DisasterManagement Plan would be formulated at thehighest level, and subsequently this National Planwould dictate the formulation of Plans at the Statelevel, at the district level and so on.

NO MECHANISM PROPOSED FOR PUBLICGRIEVANCE REDRESSALAnother lacuna in the Bill is that it does notmake adequate provisions for putting in place amechanism for Public Grievance Redressal onmatters relating to disaster management thatcould be easily accessible to people in the disasteraffected/ prone areas. The Bill restricts thejurisdiction of Courts, which would deal with any

suit or proceeding against any of the authoritiesinvolved in disaster management at any level(including the district level authorities), to theSupreme Court and the High Courts only.

WHAT HAPPENS TO THE CRF AND NCCF!The Bill provides for the setting up of a NationalDisaster Response Fund, State Disaster ResponseFunds as also District Disaster Response Funds.Also, the Bill states that the ‘National DisasterResponse Fund shall be made available to theNational Executive Committee to be appliedtowards meeting the expenses for emergencyresponse and relief’ (Clause 46 (2) of CHAPTER IXin the Disaster Management Bill, 2005). Therefore,these Disaster Response Funds, at the differentlevels, will deal with the expenditures on rescue,relief and immediate rehabilitation in the wakeof disasters. Presently, we have the Calamity ReliefFund (CRF) scheme for financing expenditure ofStates on immediate relief in the event of naturaldisasters, and the National Calamity ContingencyFund (NCCF) scheme for the same purpose in caseof natural disasters of severe intensity. Since thedomain of the Disaster Response Funds will overlapwith those of CRF and NCCF schemes, it isessential that the Bill throw light on the linkagesbetween the two. Also, if the CRF/NCCF schemesare going to be replaced completely or modifiedsubstantially after the setting up of DisasterResponse Funds, then the Disaster ManagementBill 2005 should clearly state the institutionalmechanism for implementing the new system offinancing relief expenditures of States.

AMBIGUITY OVER FLOW OF FUNDS BETWEENMINISTRIESAgain there is lack of clarity in the Bill regardingthe flow of funds between different arms of theGovernment machinery for the purpose of measuresto be taken for disaster mitigation and vigilance.While there would be Disaster Mitigation Fundsat national level, State level and also district level,‘for projects exclusively for the purpose ofmitigation’, the Bill also requires ‘every Ministryor Department of the Government of India to makeprovisions in its annual budget, for funds for thepurposes of carrying out the activities of disastermanagement plan’. The Bill also requires a similarmechanism at the State level. Now, the questionis how would the money from the DisasterMitigation Funds flow down for the projects onmitigation so as to enable the various GovernmentMinistries/ Departments undertake the necessaryexpenditure towards carrying out their objectivesin disaster management? A lot of clarity andsuitable modifications in the Governmentaccounting framework would be needed for thesake of transparency in and accountability forexpenditure on disaster management.

DisasterManagementBil l 2005: CanIt Be aPanacea?

There is lack ofclarity in the Billregarding theflow of fundsbetweendifferent arms ofthe Governmentmachinery.


20

NEGLECTING PROBLEMS OF STATES IN FINANCINGRECONSTRUCTION OF ASSETSAlso, many of the States have been facing majorproblems relating to availability of funds forfinancing reconstruction of public/ capital assetsdamaged in disasters. While the States have, inthe submissions to the Finance Commissions,demanded funds for this purpose to be given tothem as Non-Plan Grants, the prevailingmechanism has forced them to cut down theirPlan funds . Unfortunately, the DisasterManagement Bill 2005 does not address thisproblem.

Thus, the proposed legislation on disastermanagement is riddled with many morecomplications than would appear at first sight.It is hoped that when the revised DisasterManagement Bill (based on the recommen-dations of the Parliamentary StandingCommittee) is brought to the Parliament againin the Winter Session of 2005 (The Hindu,‘Disaster management policy likely by year-end’,15 August 2005), many of the lacunae in theoriginal Bill would have been done away with.

CAN THE INTENT BE TRANSLATED INTOACTION?In India, the basic responsibility for undertakingrescue, relief and rehabilitation measures in theevent of natural disasters has been that of theconcerned State Government. The role of theCentral Government has only been supportive, interms of physical and financial resources andcomplementary measures in sectors such astransport, warning and inter-State movement offood grains. Relief Manuals and Codes have beenavailable for undertaking emergency operations.The subject of disaster management does not findany specific mention in any of the three lists(Union, State and Concurrent Lists) in the 7th

Schedule of Indian Constitution, where subjectsunder the Central and State Governments as alsosubjects that come under both are specified.While rescue, relief and rehabilitation in theevent of a natural disaster have beenconsidered to be the direct responsibility ofthe concerned State Government, the questionthat needs to be raised is–whether takingadequate measures for disaster mitigation andpreparedness should also be deemed as thedirect responsibility of the States? The States’ability to mobilise financial resources has beenmuch less than that of the Centre while theirexpenditure commitments have been far greaterthan that of the Centre. Also the discretion ofthe Centre with regard to resource mobilisationhas increased in the era of economic liberalization,and most of the States have been facing anacute fiscal crisis since 1997-98. Given such ascenario it is not logical to expect the States to

take the major financial burden for the crucialtask of managing natural disasters. All throughthe post-Independence period, States have beenheld primarily responsible for relief andrehabilitation activities following natural disasters.However, given the greater financial muscle of theCentral Government the financial responsibilityfor setting up appropriate disaster managementmechanisms in the country should lie primarilywith it.

The national level disaster management plans/policies formulated by the numerous expertcommittees in the past do not seem to havetranslated into better management of naturaldisasters in practice. The approach to disastermanagement has so far been reactive–responding to disasters after they occur. Notmuch attention has been paid to mitigation.Also, it seems that important lessons that shouldhave been learnt by the Government apparatusfrom the severe natural disasters in the past havebeen ignored, and some of the important realitiesin India have not been given adequateimportance from the policy makers.

The entire process of disaster management canbe thought of as comprising two distinct phases,viz. Pre-disaster Phase, and Post-disaster Phase.The Pre-disaster Phase consists of measuresrelating to disaster watchfulness, prevention andmitigation, while the Post-disaster Phase involvesresponse, rehabilitation and recovery. Many of thedeveloped countries are able to reduce losses fromdisasters because they implement the first phaseof the process well. Even some of the developingcountries have adopted this strategy andregistered substantial decline in the losses causedby disasters. In India also, the disastermanagement apparatus needs to implement thePre-disaster Phase measures very well. This doesnot mean the need for relief operations shouldbe neglected, rather it reflects the understanding

EXPERIENCE WITH GSDMA NOT VERYENCOURAGING!There are strong reasons to be sceptical about howwell the various institutions and authorities, beingset up through the Disaster Management Bill 2005,would perform when natural disasters actually strike.The All India Disaster Mitigation Institute (AIDMI),Ahmedabad, reports ‘the most recent floods (inGujarat) in July 2005 have cast a shadow on thepreparedness claims of the Gujarat State DisasterManagement Authority (GSDMA). GSDMA hassuccessfully kept the civil society out of its way,including its own advisory body, which is nevercalled on to advice. How to prevent such wellfunded and well meaning authorities mutating intoineffective institutions, however temporarily?’

Source: The New Bill: Old Hopes, 26 July 2005,www.southasiadisasters.net

DisasterManagement

Bil l 2005: CanIt Be a

Panacea?

The proposedlegislation on

disastermanagement is

riddled withmany more

complicationsthan would

appear at firstsight.

It is not logicalto expect theStates to take

the majorfinancial burden

for the crucialtask of managingnatural disasters.


21

that proper disaster mitigation and vigilanceefforts can not only reduce the requirement forrelief and rehabilitation but also improve therescue and relief activities significantly.

As part of disaster mitigation process, six criticalfactors namely, event prediction, dissemination ofwarning, risk avoidance action, necessaryhardware, emergency response plan and promptactivation of the emergency response plan(identified by Sagar Dhara (2001), ‘The BhujQuake: Lessons of Previous Disasters not Learnt’ ,The Hindu Survey of Environment, July), shouldbe planned and implemented in the disaster-proneregions of the country. Out of these six factors,at least two, viz. dissemination of warning andrisk avoidance action, depend crucially on theinhabitants or people of the disaster-prone areas.Hence, with respect to these two steps at least(in the whole chain of actions in disastermanagement) the Government apparatus needs toensure that both planning as well asimplementation are people-centric.

When we look at the relevant policy documentsin India, it clearly emerges that the major chunkin the financial resources allocated by theGovernment for management of natural disastersover the years has been utilized for post-disasterrelief and rehabilitation. The mitigation andvigilance measures, which have been financedby the Government, are limited mainly toprevention of droughts and floods . On theother hand the States, have been explicitlyand very significantly dependent on financialresources from multilateral developmentagencies for mitigation and preparednessmeasures with regard to all kinds of naturaldisasters. We find that the allocation of financialresources by the Government (especially theCentral Government) for long-term measures formitigation and vigilance has been very little, evenduring the last decade in which India supposedlyhas been changing its approach towards disastermanagement. Also it reflects a very low prioritygiven by the policy makers in the country to long-term measures in the pre-disaster phase.

While the entire focus of the Governmentapparatus in our country (vis-à-vis coping withnatural disasters) has been on post-disaster reliefoperations, there are serious lacunae within thatsphere of activity as well. There are seriousdrawbacks in both planning relief operations aswell as implementation of the same in the wakeof natural disasters. Even in case of a severe

disaster like the Tsunami of December 2004,which attracted substantial amounts of funds forrelief operations from State and non-state actors,the relief measures, in the affected areas ofTamil Nadu State (in India), seem to have beensupply-driven rather than being driven by thedemands/ needs of the victims. In the Andaman& Nicobar Islands, the government apparatusseems to have ignored completely thedifferential needs of disabled people in thewake of the tsunami. Similarly, it was found inmany of the affected areas in Tamil Nadu thatthe government apparatus providing relief had nottaken into account the differential needs ofwomen. The intervention of the civil society alsowas found wanting for several reasons. Thus, thereis an urgent need for focusing the relief effortson most vulnerable sections among the affectedpopulation. Lack of accountability of thoseimplementing the relief measures on the groundis one of the major reasons for the limitedeffectiveness of relief operations in the country.All those taking part in relief operations shouldbe accountable to the disaster-affected people,who should be involved in the decisions thataffect them. People in a particular area, affectedby a particular disaster, have their own way ofcoping with that, so it’s essential to include themin planning the relief operations, and ignoringtheir needs and suggestions can constrain theeffectiveness of the rescue and relief effortssignificantly. The State and non-state actorsinvolved in relief activities must inform affectedpeople about all aspects of relief operations andabout their rights–through public meetings, massmedia or information centres. They must know theviews of affected people, about their felt needsand priorities in order to improve relief provision.Above all, the State in India should recognizepeople’s ‘right’ to timely and adequate relief,compensation and rehabilitation following disastersas well as to a process of economic developmentthat is safe and sustainable.

While legislative support for disaster managementis commendable, we must not forget that theactual commitment of the present Governmentto setting up a comprehensive and effectivedisaster management apparatus in the countrywould be reflected –its willingness to recognizepeople’s rights in the sphere of managementof disasters, channelise substantial financialresources for this purpose and its ability tolearn from the experiences of the pastdisasters.

D isasterManagementBil l 2005: CanIt Be aPanacea?

While the entirefocus of theGovernmentapparatus in ourcountry (vis-à-viscoping withnatural disasters)has been onpost-disasterrelief operations,there are seriouslacunae withinthat sphere ofactivity as well.


22

Special Column: Praveen Jha

Progress Through the MDG Lense: Isthere much to distinguish betweenSouth Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa?

IThe chorus of this cheer-talk has been joined bya number of global agencies, in particular, theBretton Woods Institutions (i.e., the World Bankand the International Monetary Fund). However,the reality may be vastly different from the claimsmade. South Asia continues to suffer from avariety of acute deficits. During the period of theneo-liberal economic reforms of the last coupleof decades, the region has witnessed a rollbackof the State from many important economic andsocial arenas, and consequently a whole range ofpositive economic impulses and welfare serviceshave suffered a great deal.

There is little merit in assuming that the extentof developmental deficits in South Asia issubstantially less than those in Sub-SaharanAfrica. Sure enough, in terms of pockets ofaffluence, South Asia may outscore the richerstrata in even several developed countries. Butobviously it does not hide their dismaloverwhelming reality of deprivations. Over the lastcouple of decades, South Asia has witnessed ahighly uneven progress across its different regions,and moreover, within the same geographicalregion, the successes and failures as regardsdifferent goals are quite diverse.

In spite of accepting the obvious distinctionbetween proportional and absolute poverty levelsin South Asia, it has to be admitted that the

n recent years, many of the South Asiancountries have been patting themselveson their backs due to the presumedprogress in their poverty reduction efforts.

latter has gone up in the past decade. South Asiastill contains the largest number of poor inthe world. An estimated 421 million people livewith less than $1.08 a day and 1,064 millionwith less than $2.15 a day. This is, respectively,1.4 times and twice as many extreme poor andpoor as in the whole Sub-Saharan Africa. Thoughin Sub-Saharan Africa the proportion ofundernourished has increased, South Asia hasexperienced only a very mild fall. A substantialproportion of poor South Asians do not fulfiltheir needs in terms of calorie intake, which

translated to an absolute approach means thatSouth Asia is holding the largest number ofundernourished of the world.

South Asia is the worst performer in terms ofapproaching the 2015 Millennium DevelopmentGoals (MDGs) scenario after Sub-Saharan Africa.Among the indicators not related to environmentalissues, only one is on track, none has yet beenmet, half of them are progressing but will notlead to the expected 2015 MDGs scenario and therest show negative performances. Only proportionalpoverty reduction seems to be on track despitethe earlier mentioned little variation in absoluteterms. It has achieved the access to water Goaland if current trends are to continue it wouldachieve the poverty Goal on time while the restof the Goals would be achieved as follows: hungerin 2100, primary education shortly before 2050,gender equality by 2040, child mortality after 2020and access to sanitation shortly after 2015. Further,on conceptual grounds and with respect to theissues of quality, the projected rates of progressmay need to be qualified, which would make themeven more unflattering, as we discuss briefly later.

As regards India, huge differences persist betweenurban and rural India, and across States, withparticular reference to the indicators of access tosafe water, pucca house, literacy, formal educationand life expectancy. This gulf appears more clearlywhen we consider the human poverty indexdefined by the Government of India, which takesinto account economic, educational and healthattainments, separately for rural and urban areas.

Furthermore, empirical evidence shows that morethan half the population lives in States with wellabove average extent of social deficiencies, andthat inter-state inequalities are also large. Thislast finding is particularly meaningful becausewhile economic poverty shows little differencesbetween rural and urban areas, povertyunderstood as deprivation in the economic,educational and health spheres does present ahuge gap between these two areas. Therefore,the on-track Millennium Development Goalstargeting a reduction in relative poverty across


23

India may have little impact on the livingconditions of the rural population if improvementsare mostly captured by urban areas. India, andin particular seven large States, containspockets where child malnutrition is worse thananywhere else in the world both in terms ofproportion and absolute numbers of childrenaffected, far worse-off than Sub-Saharan Africa.

Not surprisingly, the picture of hunger anddeprivation emerging from this region tells adismal story. For instance, in India, there has beena precipitous decline in food grain absorptionsince the early 1990s and the recent estimate ofabout 151 Kg per capita per annum is close tothe figure of the West Bengal Famine of the1940s. The progress on the health front has moreor less completely stalled during the reform periodbeginning early 1990s. Employment generation hasdeclined dramatically and has almost collapsed inrural India.

Also, it is worthwhile to mention the surprisinglyscarce amount of debate generated on qualityrelated issues . Many social indicators used todefine the MDGs, to a certain extent, are basedon arbitrary quality standards, e.g. the case forthe poverty line, water safety, sanitation, etc. Oneclear example of the importance of addressing suchdifficulties is the poor quality of water in Indiancities and the very low level of literacy consideredadequate. Despite being accounted for as safe,it is acknowledged that tap water is a source andtransmitter of several diseases. The case of literacyis even worse, in India a person is consideredliterate if she or he is able to sign her or hisname, indeed a very low standard in terms ofquality indicator. Moreover, the goals chosen bythe Millennium Declaration were quite limited inscope in the sense that one may wonder why theMDGs’ commitment to halve proportional povertywas not aimed at completely eradicating it or, atleast, halving absolute poverty, which wouldobviously have a much larger impact on the poor.Similarly, the MDGs do not address any issuerelated to inequality and its spectacular growthwithin the neo-liberal era despite the fact thatthis is clearly a major factor shaping povertyaround the globe.

The period of liberalisation since the early 1990shas entailed higher vulnerability for marginalizedgroups due to the withdrawal of the State in

critical services and the privatisation of the same.The lack of a comprehensive strategy ofGovernment intervention seeking to pursue ashared, inclusive development agenda that wouldtake disadvantaged groups along the path ofprogress, will simply widen the gap between thetwo Indias, the one enjoying moderate and highstandards of living comparable to any highlyindustrialised country, and the one made up bythe majority, the millions of deprived Indians whoare not able to meet their minimal basic needs.

While the relatively successful among thelatecomers to industrialisation, especially in theEast and South East Asian context, pursuedstrategies of shared growth with extensive Stateintervention in the economy and remarkable publicprovisioning of social services to boost inclusivedevelopment, India seems to shy away from allhistorical evidence as regards the necessity ofcrucial public intervention to facilitate progressin multidimensional poverty reduction.

The need for public safety nets in developingcountries, and in particular in India, remains acuteand urgent. Indeed, a recent report by the WorldHealth Organisation on progress on the healthMDGs concludes that these will not be attainedunless there is strong commitment by Governmentstowards strengthening core health systemsfunctions (WHO, ‘MDGs. Health and theMillennium Development Goals’, Pg 75). Theexisting evidence and diverse historical experienceslead to the conclusion that a minimalistic Stateis not a choice if eradicating poverty is to betaken seriously. A variety of structural constraintshave to be addressed and purposive macro-economic policy regime has to be put in place.Elements of such a strategy, as Patnaik suggests(Patnaik, Prabhat, ‘Some Indian Debates onPlanning’ . Pg 186.), must include: ‘radical landdistribution, free and compulsory primaryeducation and the provision of adequate healthcare to all, the provision of basic amenities inrural areas, decentralisation of decision-making andresources, an export thrust through an appropriateindustrial policy, a step-up in the investment ratiowith public investment, especially in infrastructureand based on domestic resource mobilisation, andthe putting into place of appropriate controls toensure that “enterprise” does not become the“bubble on a whirlpool of speculation”’.

ProgressThrough theMDG Lense: Isthere much todist inguishbetween SouthAsia and Sub-SaharanAfr ica?

Many socialindicators usedto define theMDGs, to acertain extent,are based onarbitrary qualitystandards.

India seems toshy away fromall historicalevidence asregards thenecessity ofcrucial publicintervention tofacilitateprogress.


24

ProgressThrough the

MDG Lense: Isthere much to

dist inguishbetween SouthAsia and Sub-

SaharanAfr ica?

Table 1: Key MDG indicators: A Comparison of Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia

Indicator Sub Saharan South Disaggregated Picture of South Asia

Africa Asia India Bangladesh Nepal Pakistan

1 Population (in mil l ion) 688.9 1401.1 1048.6 135.7 24.1 144.9[2002] a

2 percent of Population 46 31 34.7 36 37.7 13.4< $ 1 per day(with Purchasing Power Parity) [2001]b [2001]b [1990-2002] c [1990-2002] c [1990-2002] c [1990-2002] c

Population (in m.) < $ 1 per day 313 431 363.8 48.8 9.09 19.42(with Purchasing Power Parity) [2001]b [2001]b

3 Under 5 Mortal ity Rate 174 93 93 77 91 107(per 1000) [2001/02]b [2001/02] b [2002] c [2002] c [2002] c [2002] c

4 MMR (per 100,000 l ive births) 920 520 540 380 740 500[2000] b [2000] b [2000] c [2000] c [2000] c [2000] c

5 percent of Underweight Children 31 47 47 48 48 38among Children under 5 yrs age [2002]d [2002]d [1995-2002] c [1995-2002] c [1995-2002] c [1995-2002] c

6 TB- Prevalence Rate 492 343 344 447 271 379(per 100,000 Population) [2002]d [2002]d [2000] c [2000] c [2000] c [2000] c

No. of people affected by TB 3.39 4.81 3.61 0.61 0.07 0.55(in mil l ion)

7 Malaria Cases … … 193 40 33 58per 100,000 people [2000] g [2000] c [2000] c [2000] c

No. of people affected by … … 1.93 0.05 0.01 0.08Malaria (in mil l ion)

8 Primary Education 52.9 e 73.1 e 59 f 65 f 78 f …Completion Rate ( percent) [2001/02]d [2001/02] d [2000/01] c [2000/01] c [2000/01] c

9 Percent of Population having 58 84 84 97 88 90access to Safe Water [2001/02]b [2001/02] b [2000] c [2000] c [2000] c [2000] c

Population without access 289.3 224.18 167.78 4.07 2.89 14.49to Safe Water ( in mil l ion)

10 Percent of Population having 36 37 28 48 28 62access to Improved Sanitation [2001/02]b [2001/02] b [2000] c [2000] c [2000] c [2000] c

Population without access to 440.9 882.69 755 70.56 17.35 55.06Improved Sanitation (in mil l ion)

11 Share of Women in Wage 35 18.2 … … … …Employment in Non-Agricultural [2002]d

Sector (percent)

Proportion of Seats held 13.4 8.5 8.8 2 5.9 21.6by Women in [2004]d [2004]d [2004] c [2004] c [2004] c [2004] c

National Parl iament(Single or Lower House only)(percent)

Sources: a. World Development Indicators 2004, The World Bank b. United Nations (UN) Mil lennium Project – Ful lReport submitted to UN Secretary General (www.undp.org) c . Human Development Report 2004, UNDP d. Website ofthe UN Statist ics Divis ion e. Percentage of Students enrol led in the Final Grade of Pr imary School f . Percent ofGrade I students who reach Grade V. g. Human Development Report 2002.


25

Indicator Bihar Madhya Rajasthan Uttar Orissa SCs STsPradesh Pradesh

1 Population (in mil l ion) [2001]a 83 60.3 56.4 166 36.7 179.7 88.8[2001]b [2001]b

2 Under 5 Mortal ity Rate 105.1 137.6 114.9 122.5 104.4 119.3 126.6(per 1000)[1998] c

3 MMR 452 498 670 707 367 … …(per 100,000 l ive births) [1998]a

4 percent of Underweight Children 54 55 51 52 54 53.5 55.9among Children under 3 yrs age[1998] c

5 TB Prevalence Rate 42.5 115.49 150.1 124.22 53.06 … …(per 100,000 population)[2001-02] d

No. of people affected by TB 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.21 0.02 … …(in mil l ion)[2001-02] d

6 Malaria Cases 4.95 303.68 229.14 56.94 1238.53 … …(per 100,000 population)[2001] e

No. of people affected by Malaria 0.004 0.18 0.13 0.09 0.45 … …(in mil l ion)[2001] e

7 Gross Enrolment Ratio 73.52 95.02 97.25 91.25 103.02 96.8 101.1(Class I to V) [2001]g [2001]g

[2002-03] f

Drop-out Rates in Class I to V 59.65 23.27 55.3 49.85 49.61 44.27 57.36[1998-99] h [1998-9]b [1998-99]b

(Estimated) No. of Children in 8.4 1.4 0.21 15.9 0.64 … …the age group of 6-14 years whoare out of school ( in mil l ion){All India f igure: 35.36 m}[2000-01] i

8 Percent of Population having 86.6 68.4 68.2 86.6 64.2 63.6 43.2access to Safe Water [1991] h [1991] h

[2001] f

No. of People without access to 11.12 19.05 17.94 22.24 13.14 … …Safe Water (in mil l ion)

9 Percent of Population having 58 8 65 33 9 11.16 7.22access to Improved Sanitation [1991] h [1991] h

[1997]a

No. of People without access to 34.86 55.48 19.74 111.22 33.4 … …Improved Sanitation (in mil l ion)

Sources: a.Human Development Fact Sheets, Human Resource Development Centre, UNDP (India) (http://hdrc.undp.org.in)b.Tenth Five Year Plan, Planning Commission of India (http://planningcommission.nic. in) c .National Family HealthSurvey-II, 1998 (Cited in National Health Policy 2002, Government of India) d.Calculated from the data on No. of TBCases Detected under Revised National TB Control Programme (RNTCP); Data Source: Rajya Sabha Unstarred QuestionNo. 1289 dated 15.12.2003 (Cited in www.indiastat.com) e.Calculated from the data on No. of Malaria Cases; DataSource: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, and Lok Sabha Starred Question No. 446 dated 27.04.2005 (Cited inwww.indiastat .com) f .Economic Survey 2004-05, Government of India g .Se lected Educat ional Stat ist ics 2000-2001,Government of India h.National Human Development Report 2001, Planning Commission, Government of India i .RajyaSabha Unstarred Question No. 1908, dated 10.03.2003.

Table 2: Key MGD indicators for BIMAROU States and SCs/STs in India ProgressThrough theMDG Lense: Isthere much todist inguishbetween SouthAsia and Sub-SaharanAfr ica?


26

CNational Convention organised by CBGA broughttogether policy analysts, academics, civil societyactivists and people working at the grassroots todiscuss some of the pertinent issues relating toUnion Budget 2006-07, from a pro-poorperspective.

The convention opened on 5th October, with notedeconomist Prof. Prabhat Patnaik (of JNU) givingthe Inaugural Address. Prof. Patnaik urged forusing the next Union Budget 2006-07 as anepisode in an alternative economic trajectory forthe country. The first step in such an alternativetrajectory, he said, should be to insulate theeconomy from the vulnerability to financial crises,which has resulted from increasing inflows ofinternational finance capital. For this purpose, hesuggested some specific instruments that couldbe used by the Finance Minister, such as, arelatively higher tax on stock market transactions,and a 1 % tax on purchases of foreign exchangein the country. In order to augment the revenuekitty of the Government, he also advocated forthe imposition of a reasonable amount of tax oninheritance of wealth as well as on capital gains,neither of which he argued is an outcome of meritor hard work. The additional resources mobilised,in this way, could then be spent on ruraldevelopment, health care for all, etc.

BGA organised a National Convention onUnion Budget 2006-07 on the 5th and6th of October 2005, at YMCA TouristHostel, 1, Jaisingh Road, New Delhi. The

The first main Session of the Convention, onAgriculture and Livelihood Issues, had Prof. T.S.Papola (Director, ISID), Prof. Amitabh Kundu(JNU), Dr. Rohini Nayyar (Adviser, PlanningCommission), Com. W.R. Varadarajan (Secretary,CITU) and Mr. Devinder Sharma (Forum forBiotechnology and Food Security) as the speakers,who brought out many relevant issues in theconcerned sectors and suggested corrective actionthat could be taken through the next Budget. Theissues highlighted in this session were;

� The need for strengthening rural-urbanlinkages in the country, which have

weakened drastically in the recent past. Thisalso means an agenda for inclusion of theurban poor in the schemes meant foremployment guarantee.

� The employment guarantee scheme shouldactually target 200 or 300 most backwarddistricts, as universalisation of such ascheme would allow the better off States(which also have better administrativecapacity) to draw much more resources thanthe poorer States.

Later the same day, Prof. Abhijit Sen (Member,Planning Commission) chaired the Session onResource Mobilisation and Management of PublicExpenditure, which also had Prof. C. P.Chandrasekhar (JNU), Dr. N. J. Kurian (Director,Council for Social Development), Dr. MohanGuruswamy (Centre for Policy Alternatives, NewDelhi), and Dr. Pronab Sen (Adviser, PlanningCommission) as the speakers. The issueshighlighted in this session were,

� The next Budget should be one that getsthe Government out of the trap ofdeflationary economic policies (and amacroeconomic disequilibrium marked byvisible unemployment) and allow it to widenits tax-base.

� Need for taxing reasonably the profligateexpenditure of the rich in the country, whichis highly import intensive,

� Withdrawal of the FRBM Act.

� A falling tax-GDP ratio for the Centre hasaffected the States, especially the poorerStates that are more dependent on transfersfrom the Centre.

� A change in accounting classification thatwould allow the Central Government toaugment public investment with the help ofinstitutional capacity of the States andgreater investments by the Central PublicSector Undertakings.

The next day, Prof. Alakh N. Sharma (Director,Institute for Human Development) chaired thesession on Marginalised Groups: Women, Children,

A Report on CBGA’sNational Convention onUnion Budget 2006-07


27

Dalits and Adivasis, which was addressed by Prof.Aasha Kapur Mehta (Indian Institute of PublicAdministration) and Prof. P.M. Kulkarni (JNU). Themain concern that emerged was how to improvethe access of women and the historically deprivedsections, dalits and adivasis, to public resources.Mr. Ravi Duggal (CEHAT, Mumbai) chaired thesecond session today, on Social Sectors: Healthand Education, which was also addressed by Dr.Geeta Sodhi (Swasthya) and Dr. Praveen Jha (JNUand CBGA). Many pertinent suggestions for Budget2006-07 were made, which include-

� Raising the Central Government’s expenditureon health (including its transfer to Statesfor health sector) to around 0.66 % of GDP,

� Raising additional resources through ‘healthcess’ on health-degrading products, removalof user fees for public health care facilities,

� Strengthening and rationalisation ofparamedic services in the country,

� Substantial increase in funds for education,spending the entire amount collected fromeducation cess in addition to the earlier flowof funds, and

� Universalisation of school education (ratherthan only elementary education).

On both the days, Group Discussions, involvingall the participants from across the nation, wereheld for framing of a “Charter of Demands”, whichwill be submitted to the Finance Minister, DeputyChairman of the Planning Commission and theNational Advisory Council later in this month. Keypoints that emerged from these discussions helpedin finalising the Charter of Demands.

CHARTER OF DEMANDS

1. EMPLOYMENT GENERATION ANDPOVERTY ALLEVIATION

1.1 Unemployment in urban areas grew at 0.49percent per annum (p.a.) during the period1983 to 1993-94. This rate of growthjumped to 3.45 percent during the period1993-94 to 1999-00. In light of the growingunemployment problem in urban as well assemi-urban areas, extend EmploymentGuarantee Act to cover these areas as well.

1.2 Avoid clubbing of National Rural EmploymentGuarantee (NREG) scheme with otherprogrammes of rural employment. Suchclubbing will lead to targeting of entire ruralemployment expenditure at 200 of thepoorest districts of the country. Clubbing,if at all desirable, should wait till NREG isitself extended to the entire country.

1.3 Public Distribution System should beuniversalised. Targeting of food subsidy at

the BPL population has not only reducedthe per capita food grain availability buthas also failed to achieve the statedobjective of reducing the subsidy expenditureof the Government. In fact the increase infood stocks held by the Food Corporationof India (FCI) in recent years (an outcomeof targeting PDS) has increased the carryingcost of FCI operations and thus has led toan overall increase in the food subsidyexpenditure of the government. This stoodat 4.45 percent of the Centre’s receipts in1990-91 and had increased to 9.98 percentof the same by 2002-03.

1.4 Unorganised Sector Worker’s Bill is awelcome step. However in its present formthe bill has certain drawbacks. Especiallydiscomforting is the clause that requiresdiscontinuation of workers from the schemein case of non-payment of arrears. Giventhat most workers in the unorganised sectorhave irregular earnings, chronic accumulationof arrears and discontinuation is an ordinaryenough scenario and dismissal from thescheme due to non-payment of these arrearsmay indeed become very common. Hence,the legislation on unorganised sector workersshould also address the issue of insecurelivelihood of workers in this sector.Appropriate budgetary policies need to beworked out in this regard.

2. ISSUES RELATED TO AGRARIANDEVELOPMENT

2.1 Increase budgetary support to agriculture inthe form of input subsidies (on fertilizers,pesticides, seeds, diesel and electricity) aswell as through higher minimum supportprices, which have remained more or lessstagnant in the recent years.

2.2 The Centre should step up its publicinvestment on agriculture, especially onirrigation and flood control. Total expenditureon irrigation and flood control was Rs. 860crores in 1996-97 and had fallen to Rs. 440crores by 2003-04. In this context theCentre should clearly spell out itsexpenditure on irrigation and otherinfrastructural items under Bharat Nirman.The Centre should avoid shifting theresponsibility of making additional budgetaryallocations for Bharat Nirman to States.

2.3 In the last two decades the total area undermillet cultivation has fallen sharply. In lightof this disturbing trend we demand thatspecial initiatives be taken to supportcultivation of millet. To this end FCI maybe engaged in the procurement of millet.Also research initiatives should be

A Report onCBGA’sNationalConvention onUnion Budget2006-07

In light of thegrowingunemploymentproblem in urbanas well as semi-urban areas,extendEmploymentGuarantee Act tocover theseareas as well.


28

undertaken to develop high yielding varietiesof millet. In this regard appropriate changesshould be made in the forthcoming budget.

2.4 Agricultural research in India has collapsedin the last decade. Agricultural research andextension services are reeling under afinancial crunch and private companies aresubstituting the role of public agencies. Inthis context, we demand that publicexpenditure on agricultural research andextension be raised to at least 1 percent ofagricultural GDP.

3. RESOURCE MOBILISATION ANDEXPENDITURE MANAGEMENT

3.1 A review of exemptions to the corporatesector needs to be made. Not only do theseexemptions create a large difference betweenscheduled and effective tax rate, they arealso regressive in the sense that bigger firmsbenefit much more from these exemptions.No more reductions in personal income taxesshould be considered.

3.2 Widen the direct tax base through wealthtaxation. This can be done, for examplethrough an inheritance tax. Not only willsuch a tax earn revenues for thegovernment, it will also have positivedistributional effects.

3.3 Capital gains tax should be restored.

3.4 The decline in tax revenues in the postreform period has been led by a massivedecline in indirect tax collections. This inturn has happened due to sharp reductionin indirect tax rates. To reverse this trend,no more reduction in excise and importduties should be considered. Moreover, sincemost of our imports are income rather thanprice sensitive, implying that the demandfor imports will not fall even if there is someincrease in prices due to higher tariff rates,we should try to negotiate for higher tariffrates in WTO on this ground.

3.5 In the Union Budget 2004-05, securitiestransaction tax was proposed at 0.15 percentof the value of the transaction. However dueto the pressure applied by financial interestsGovernment reduced rate on this tax to0.015 percent of the value of thetransaction. In the last budget securitiestransaction tax was increased marginally to0.02 percent of the value of the transaction.We demand that in the forthcoming budgetrate on securities transaction tax should bemade equal to the level initially proposed,i.e. 0.15 percent.

3.6 Tax on purchase of foreign currency must

be instituted. Such a tax will check outflowof short-term capital and will also generateprecious revenue for the Government.However, since India is a signatory to Article8 of the Agreement of InternationalMonetary Fund, which provides for fullconvertibility of currency on current account,this tax can be levied only on foreigncurrency purchases on capital account.

3.7 There is a need to increase the share ofservices sector in total tax revenue sinceservices sector comprises almost half of ourGDP whereas its share in the tax revenuesof the Centre is a meagre 3 percent. Toachieve this end no more tax exemptionsshould be announced for this sector.

3.8 Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management(FRBM) Act requires an automaticcurtailment of Government expenditure incase of any shortfall in its revenues andthus ties the hands of the Government infulfilling the promises made in the CommonMinimum Programme. In the last budget,when the Government tried to fulfil someof the commitments made in the CMP, itfailed to meet the deficit targets set underthe FRBM Act This happened even whenrevenue estimates in the last budget iswidely recognised to be exaggerated. In thecoming years also FRBM Act will obstructthe delivery of the promises made by thisGovernment to the common citizens of ourcountry and thus it should be revoked.

3.9 In the recent years internal public debtsituation has become unsustainable due tothe sharp rise in the interest cost of CentralGovernment borrowings. The axe of cuttingdown fiscal deficit has thus fallen mainlyon primary deficit, which is highly correlatedwith developmental expenditure. Evidence onthis count is quite clear. Interest paymentsof the Central Government as a proportionof GDP increased from 3.8 percent of GDPin 1990-91 to 4.8 percent in 2002-03.Comparing primary deficit for these twoyears we see a decline from 2.8 percent ofGDP to 1.1 percent of GDP. In this contextwe demand that the internal public debtsituation should be made sustainablethrough a reduction in interest payments andnot through a cut down in primary deficitof the Government. To attain this objectivethe Government should allow monetizationof a part of the fiscal deficit and also reduceinterest rate on Central Governmentborrowings through appropriate changes inits banking sector policies, especially thoserelated to Statutory Liquidity Ratiorequirements of banks.

A Report onCBGA’s

NationalConvention onUnion Budget

2006-07

Widen the directtax base throughwealth taxation.

This can bedone, for

example throughan inheritancetax. Not only

will such a taxearn revenues forthe government,it will also have

positivedistributional

effects.

Tax on purchaseof foreign

currency must beinstituted.


29

3.10 The New Pension Scheme is likely to increaseGovernment expenditure on pensions for thenext 38 years (according to the High LevelExperts Group on Pensions set up during theNDA regime at Centre), since the Governmentwill have to contribute to the Pension Fundaccounts of two generations of employeessimultaneously. To avoid incurring this extraand unfruitful expenditure the Governmentshould consider reverting to the old Pay AsYou Go pension system, under which acertain minimum amount (of defined benefit)was paid by the Government from itsBudget. The money accumulated under theNew Pension Scheme could be put inProvident Fund accounts created for the newemployees along the lines of the old system.

3.11 Total devolution from Centre to States shouldregister a noticeable increase in the comingyears. Also the policy of asking StateGovernments to borrow directly from themarket, implemented in the last budgetwhen the Centre completely stopped loansfor financing State plans, may have adverseconsequences for poorer States lacking‘creditworthiness’. This policy needs to bereversed in the forthcoming budget.

3.12 Since Centrally Sponsored Schemes requirethe States to mobilise a matching grant,this conditionality reduces the capacity ofsome of the States to absorb these grants.The Centre should bring out a white paperin this regard mapping the ground realitiesand suggesting possible remedies.

3.13 If poorer States with low value added, suffera revenue loss due to VAT a special packagefrom the Centre to these States should beinstituted.

3.14 Check the growth of defence expenditure.

4. DALITS AND ADIVASIS4.1 In the recent years public expenditure on

welfare of dalits, adivasis and otherbackward classes has fallen. Comparing therevised estimates of expenditure on SCs, STsand OBCs between the year 1998-99 and2004-05, we find a decline from Rs. 1654crores to Rs. 1415 crores. The Governmentshould reverse this trend in the forthcomingbudget.

4.2 The Government should identify relevantdepartments and make them specify theproportion of their total allocation directedtowards the welfare of these marginalizedgroups, as in the gender budgeting exercise.

4.3 The Government should provide properinfrastructural facilities for the processingindustries in tribal areas. Since, most tribal

communities depend on minor forest produce,necessary infrastructure for the processingindustry around the tribal areas is indeedessential. A special package should beannounced for this purpose in the nextbudget.

4.4 The SC/ST Financial Development Corporationshould be provided with enough funds. TheCorporation should provide entrepreneurialskills to Dalits and Adivasis.

4.5 Also, in the last budget while the FinanceMinister promised to start The Rajiv GandhiNational Fellowship for 2000 SC and STstudents to pursue M. Phil and Ph.D. coursesin selected universities, the outcome budgetreveals that this fellowship will cover only1333 such students in a year. In thiscontext, we demand that The Rajiv GandhiNational Scholarship should be given to2000 students, as initially proposed, and thenumber should be increased in the comingyears.

5. WOMEN, CHILDREN, AND AGED5.1 Provide greater allocations for shelter homes

for women and children in distress.

5.2 There are around 6 lakh anganwadis in thecountry at present. The declared norm of oneanganwadi per one thousand of populationrequires that there should be at least 14lakh anganwadis. To bridge this gap appro-priate financial allocations should be made

5.3 Allocation of Rs 2 per day per child underthe mid day meal scheme is too little andshould be increased. Also, the Governmentshould take adequate steps to ensure thatthis scheme is operational in all states.

5.4 Government departments/ministries thatwere found to allocate a small proportionof their budgets for gender specificprogrammes should significantly increasethese allocations in the forthcoming budget.Also a review should be carried out if somemore departments can be brought within thepurview of gender budgeting proposals.

5.5 Special budgetary provisions should be madefor the old age security of workers. Also,the New Pension Scheme for CentralGovernment Employees should be scrappedsince (besides the reasons mentioned indemand no. 3.10 above) it will link up theold age economic security of workers withthe state of capital markets.

6. EDUCATION6.1 Allocate at least 6 percent of GDP for the

education sector as a whole.

A Report onCBGA’sNationalConvention onUnion Budget2006-07

Check the growthof defenceexpenditure.

Specialbudgetaryprovisions shouldbe made for theold age securityof workers.


30

6.2 At present the Government is focusing onuniversalising education for the age groupof 6-14 years, i.e. at the elementary level.Free and compulsory education needs to beuniversalised for all up to 18 years, i.e.secondary and higher secondary levels. TheGovernment should at least bring out a whitepaper on universalising education for all upto the age of 18 years, clearly stating thebudgetary implications of such a strategy.

6.3 There has been a sharp fall in the per capitareal expenditure of the Centre on Universityand Higher Education in the recent years.The figure reached its peak of around Rs 90per annum in the year 2000-01 and hashovered around Rs. 54 in the subsequentyears. This trend needs to be reversedstarting from the Union Budget 2006-07.

6.4 The amount collected from education cessin the years 2004-05 and 2005-06 isexpected to be around Rs 12000 croreswhereas increase in Government allocationon elementary education in this period hasbeen around Rs. 6000 crores. This impliesthat the full amount of the cess is notmeant for additional financing, but ratheralmost half of it could be used to replacefunding of elementary education from othersources. Education cess should not replaceexpenditure on education from other sourcesbut should be in addition to the amountthat the Government was already spendingon education.

6.5 Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan requires the Statesto mobilise a matching grant. This is theprimary reason for the low fund releaseunder this programme. In this context wedemand that the Centre should relax thematching grant requirement.

6.6 Step up capital expenditure on education.The lack of schooling infrastructure definitelystands in way of universalising elementaryeducation in the country.

7. HEALTH7.1 Public expenditure on health should be

increased up to at least 2 percent of GDP.

7.2 Expand primary health care facilities in thecountry. While National Rural Health Mission(NRHM) may be a step forward in thisdirection, the proposed increase of 30percent p.a. on Central Government’s healthexpenditure under NRHM (considering thatstates increase their expenditure asproposed, i.e. 10 percent p.a.) will beinsufficient to attain the NCMP goal ofincreasing public spending on health to 2percent of GDP by the year 2008-09. Giventhe precarious health of state finances,increase in Central Government’s healthexpenditure should be greater than thepresent proposal of 30 percent p.a.

7.3 Central assistance to States for health hasrisen mainly for the States performing betterwhereas those who are already laggards havebeen neglected. For example, Centralassistance to Bihar for health actually fellfrom Rs 114.3 million in 1992-93 to Rs109.9 million in 2003-04, whereas it hasrisen manifold for States performing well likeAndhra Pradesh and Karnataka. This maybebecause poorer States find it difficult tomobilise matching grants required by theMinistry of Health and Family Welfare. Inthis context we demand that matching grantrequirement of the Ministry of Health andFamily Welfare be relaxed to help the poorerStates.

A Report onCBGA’s

NationalConvention onUnion Budget

2006-07

Expand primaryhealth care

facilities in thecountry.

Step up capitalexpenditure on

education


31

RICH MAN, POOR MAN� The amount of money that the richest 1 percent

of the world’s people make each year equals whatthe poorest 57 percent make.

� World’s 358 billionaires have assets exceedingthe combined annual incomes of countries with45 percent of the world’s people

� The richest 5 percent of the world’s people haveincomes 114 times that of the poorest 5 percent

� The combined wealth of the world’s 200 richestpeople hit $1 trillion in 1999; the combinedincomes of the 582 million people living in the43 least developed countries is $146 billion

� The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the poorest48 nations (i.e. a quarter of the world’s countries)is less than the wealth of the world’s three richestpersons combined

� A few hundred millionaires now own as muchwealth as the world’s poorest 2.5 billion people

RICH NATIONS, POOR NATIONS� 20% of the population in the developed nations,

consume 86% of the worlds goods

Wor ld Inequality:Some Glar ing Facts� A mere 12 percent of the world’s population uses

85 percent of its water, and these 12 percent donot live in the Third World.

� Globally, the 20% of the world’s people in thehighest-income countries account for 86% oftotal private consumption expenditures - thepoorest 20% a minuscule 1.3%. More specifically,the richest fifth:� Consume 45% of all meat and fish, the

poorest fifth 5%.� Consume 58% of total energy, the poorest

fifth less than 4%.� Have 74% of all telephone lines, the poorest

fifth 1.5%.� Consume 84% of all paper, the poorest fifth

1.1%.� Own 87% of the world’s vehicle fleet, the

poorest fifth less than 1%.

� An analysis of long-term trends shows thedistance between the richest and poorestcountries was about :� 3 to 1 in 1820� 11 to 1 in 1913� 35 to 1 in 1950� 44 to 1 in 1973� 72 to 1 in 1992� 82 to 1 in 2003

� The cost of providing basic health care andnutrition for all in the world would be less thanis spent in Europe and the US on pet food

RICH CORPORATIONS POOR NATIONS� The annual revenue of Motorola is almost equal

to the annual income of Nigeria, Africa’s secondlargest economy, almost the size of Europe andwith a population of 118 million people.

POVERTY, HUNGER� More than 840 million people in the world are

malnourished—799 million of them are from thedeveloping world. More than 153 million of themare under the age of 5.

� Hunger kills. Every day, 34,000 children underfive die of hunger or preventable diseasesresulting from hunger or 6 million in a year

� Of the 6.2 billion people in today’s world, 1.2billion live on less than $1 per day. Nearly 3billion people live on less than $2 a day

� 1.2 billion lack access to clean water; 2.4 billionlive without decent sanitation; and 4 billionwithout wastewater disposal.

� 12 million people die each year from lack of water,including 3 million children from waterbornedisease: More than 113 million children in thedeveloping world are without access to basiceducation, 60 percent of them are girls

The above information has been taken from varioussources including the following website:

www.worldcentric.org/stateworld/socialjustice.htm


32

BUDGET TRACKCBGA Newsletter on public policy and GovernmentBudgets published thrice a year

Volume 1, Track 1, September 2003

Volume 1, Track 2, January 2004

Volume 1, Track 3, August 2004

Volume 2, Track 1, October 2004

Volume 2, Track 2, February 2005*

Volume 2, Track 3, May 2005*

Volume 3, Track 1, July 2005 *

*in Hindi and English

RESPONSE TO UNION BUDGETSAnalysis of Budgetary allocations and proposals ofthe Union Budget

Response to Union Budget 2003-04: TheMarginalised Matter (E Version)

Response to Union Budget (Interim) 2004-05:Marginalised Matters Again (E Version)

Response to Union Budget 2004-05: New Deal orthe Beaten Track (E Version)

Response to Union Budget 2005-06: StateIntervention in Favour of the Poor: Decisive orDisappointing? (in Hindi and English)

THE RHETORIC AND REALITY OF MPLADS(2004)Since December 1993, Members of Parliament havebeen allotted funds (Rs. 2 crore annually) under theMembers of Parliament Local Area DevelopmentScheme, to pursue developmental works in theirconstituencies. The research study makes anassessment of the utilization of funds under MPLADSvis-à-vis the felt needs of the local communities,and draws attention to the implications of such ascheme for the process of decentralization.

NATURAL DISASTERS AND RELIEFPROVISIONS IN INDIA: COMMITMENTSAND GROUND REALITIES (2004)The Calamity Relief Fund (CRF) Scheme, incombination with the National Calamity ContingencyFund (NCCF), finances relief expenditure of Statesin the wake of natural disasters. The research studymakes an informed assessment of the design andfunctioning of this scheme so as to make suggestionsfor substantial improvements in the same. It alsohighlights inadequacies in the disaster managementpolicy of the country.

PAPERS AND STUDIES IN ELECTORNICVERSIONCommon Minimum Programme and Social Sector(2004)A quick response to the National Common MinimumProgramme of the UPA Government at the Centre,highlighting concerns related to the social sector.

Decentralisation of Finance: A Study of PanchayatFinances (2004)Report of the study on devolution of funds toPanchayati Raj Institutions, taking Kerala andRajasthan as case studies.

Primer on BudgetA manual intended to help any lay reader grasp theimportant concepts, methods and issues related togovernment budgets.

Budget as an Instrument to TransparencyAn invited paper by a leading budget analyst AIndira, which discusses the basics of budget workand underscores transparency as an important goalof such efforts.

Transparency and Accountability in GovernmentBudgeting in India (2004)A country-specific paper that identifies the needsfor civil society budget work in India, and presentsan overview of such efforts in the country.

Macroeconomic Priorities and People’sPerspective: Union Budget 2005-06 (2005)A background paper that set the tone of deliberationsin the pre-Budget National Workshop organized byCBGA in February 2005.

A Study on Fiscal Responsibility and BudgetManagement Bill (2005)An economic literacy manual on the FRBM Act, whichhas provided legal teeth to conservative fiscalthinking in our country.

Background Note on National Convention onUnion Budget 2006-07This background note has been prepared keeping inmind issues and policies with far reachingimplications for the welfare of the poor andmarginalised sections of our country.

Public Policy towards Natural Disaster in India:Disconnet between Resolutions and Reality

CBGA PUBLICATIONS

CREDITSEditorial Advisory BoardM D Mistry, Vinod Vyasulu,Jayati Ghosh, John SamuelEditorial TeamAmitabh Behar, Praveen Jha,YaminiAdvocacyDeepak L Xavier, AnuragSr ivastavaResearchSiba Sankar Mohanty, Subrat Das,Nandan Kumar Jha, Sakti GolderCirculationShal lu Angra,Khwaja Mobeen Ur-RehmanAssistanceHarsh Singh RawatI l lustrationSiba Sankar Mohanty

DesignMayank Bhatnagar

Layout & PrintingKriti Creative Studio

National Centre for Advocacy Studieswww.ncasindia.org

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:

cbga Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability(A programme of NCAS)

B 64, Second Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi – 110 017, IndiaTel: 91-11-26537603 Email: [email protected]

Serenity Complex, Ramnagar Colony, Pune – 411 021, IndiaTel: 91-20-22952003 / 4 Email: [email protected]

volume 3, track 2, october 2005 - cbga india · volume 3, track 2, october 2005 the second quarter...

Documents