First Independent Review Mission for Backward Regions Grant Fund State Report



Download 0.5 Mb.
Page5/11
Date01.06.2018
Size0.5 Mb.
#52523
TypeReport
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11

Investment Menu

The investment menu defined in the BRGF guidelines is broad and funds are largely untied and discretionary. The BRGF Programme Guidelines sets a few strings on the use of funds, e.g. maximum 5 percent of the funds can be allocated for provision of adequate functionaries for the Panchayats for planning and implementation, and the funds cannot be spent for construction of religious structures, structures of religious institutions, construction of welcome arches or similar activities7.


Furthermore, a special sub-plan for use of scheme-wise allocations for SC/ST and schemes, benefiting SC/ST, should be provided in an amount at least reflecting their proportion of the total population in the area. Amenities such as schools, anganwadis (kind of kindergarten), health centers, etc. should be given a strong priority in villages, which have a substantial SC/ST population. Annex 4 of the BRGF Guidelines gives an indication of the priority schemes for funds earmarked for SC and ST development. The guidelines do not have a clear distinction between capital and recurrent costs and Annex 4 for SC/ST projects encompasses training activities. However, the capacity building support under the second window of the BRGF- the CB grants to the states -, indicate that areas of CB support will be covered by the 250 crore fund for CB (Rs 1 crore per district). The state of Madhya Pradesh and the two districts visited were of the view that maintenance could not be funded by the development grant. As mentioned under the Planning Section, the State provides some “guidance” to the states on how the funds should be guided at the PRI and ULB levels. RT was informed that the State has asked the 13th finance commission for separate funds for maintenance of assets created under various programmes and schemes.
The over all Financial and Physical progress reported by the state was as under:
Table 6: Financial and Physical Progress – The State of Madhya Pradesh (Rs. Lakhs)


Year

Fund from MoPR

Sanctioned Work #

Total Cost

Expen- diture

%

Completed Works (#)

Under Progress (#)

Not Started (#)

2006-07

3050

1480

4672

4671

153

1257

211

12

2007-08

42371

23822

40805

35783

84

19635

3782

405

2008-09

25345

17242

24744

11295

45

9338

5930

1974

Total

70766

42544

70221

51749

73

30230

9923

2391

Source: State presentation July 1, 2009
Activity wise funds utilisation may be seen from the tables below.
Table 7: Examples of Utilisation of Funds – The State of Madhya Pradesh FY 2007/08 (Rs Lakhs)


No.

Activity

Sanctioned Work #

Total Cost

Expenditure

Completed Works (#)

Under Progress (#)

Not Started (#)

1

Health

1398

2150

1420

154

137

23

2

Woman & Child Development

7468

19258

7661

1889

1285

24

3

Agriculture

260

759

268

40

48

2

4

Irrigation

2038

5600

2094

65

37

15

5

Vetnary

680

1309

693

72

115

7

6

Education

3212

6194

3274

179

159

3

7

Road Connectivity

6002

4030

6043

753

290

59

8

Electrification

532

813

541

110

34

5

9

Rural Haat/ Marketing

306

318

309

23.00

31

4

10

Livelihood

286

1615

302

44

49

72

11

Apna Ghar

3223

2216

3245

12465

590

81




Total

25406

44262

25849

15794

2775

295

Source: State presentation July 1, 2009

Table 8: Examples of Utilisation of Funds - The State of Madhya Pradesh FY 2008/09 (Rs Lakhs)


No.

Activity

Sanctioned Work #

Total Cost

Expenditure

Completed Works (#)

Under Progress (#)

Not Started (#)

1

Health

199

1229

2565.8

0

25

174

2

Woman & Child Welfare

1344

3695

1450.4

31

869

444

3

Agriculture

20

98

15.7

0

4

16

4

Irrigation

48

1263

461.6

2

30

16

5

Vet nary

47

256

31.0

0

9

38

6

Education

149

2151

734.0

9

60

80

7

Road Connectivity

827

4701

1662.5

44

385

398

8

Electrification

22

173

90.5

2

11

9

9

Rural Haats Marketing

16

140

12.9

0.00

6

10

10

Livelihood

10

82

0.0

0

0

10

11

Apna Ghar

12621

4420

3915.5

8488

3844

289




Total

15303

18207

8630.2

8576

5243

1484

Source: State presentation July 1, 2009
It is observed from the above table that:


  • 84% of the total funds released for 2007-08 have been committed for use in the 5 priority sectors identified by the state - Health (sub-health centers), Women and Child Welfare (Anganwadi Centers), Education (additional classrooms), CC Roads and IAY (Apna ghar)




  • 93% of the total funds released for 2008-09 have been committed for use in these 5 priority sectors.




  • 2% of the funds for 2007-08 and 08-09 each used for construction of Panchayat Ghar.




  • 11% of the funds of 2007-08 and 5% of 2008-09 spent on construction of community centers.




  • 10% of 2007-08 funds and 37% of 2008-09 funds used for construction of Apna Ghar (IAY)




  • The average cost of the projects is small, Rs 1.75 lakhs in FY 2007/08 and 1.22 lakhs in FY 2008/09. On the completed projects in FY2007/08, the average costs have been 1.63 Lakhs.

At the district level, the table below shows the use of funds within FY 2007/08 for Balaghat District. The average costs of the projects in Balaghat District is Rs.1.1 lakhs, but the projects on average vary from a low of Rs.25-35,000 for Apna Ghar to Rs. 19 lakhs for education and Rs. 5.98 lakhs for roads. The average project size without considering the schemes on rural connectivity and IAY is Rs.3.93 laks. The average size of the road/bridge projects is high as it includes a bridge in village Bhima (Block Birsa) costing Rs.99.7 lakhs. 93.4% has been incurred on 1045 completed and 661 in-progress works.


Table 9: Size of projects in Balaghat District FY 2007/08 (Rs. Lakhs)


Activity

Schemes

Sanctioned (#)

Total

Cost

Total

Expenditure

Schemes (#)

Average

Size

Completed

in-progress

Health

15

96.6

91.8

1

14

6.4

Woman & Child

216

432.0

391.4

22

194

2.0

Vet nary

17

69.5

66.5

2

15

4.1

Education

5

95.0

91.0

0

5

19.0

Roads/Bridges

129

770.8

716.9

58

71

6.0

Electrification

18

79.1

79.1

18




4.4

Panchayat

24

120.0

114.3

5

19

5.0

Community

4

20.0

19.0

0

4

5.0

Apna Ghar

585

146.3

139.3

413

172

0.3

Telephone

693

41.6

38.0

526

167

0.1




1706

1870.8

1747.2

1045

661

1.1

Source: Balaghat District
Table 10: Size of projects in Seoni District FY 2007/12 (Rs. Lakhs)


Activity

Schemes

Sanctioned (#)

Total

Cost

Total

Expenditure

Schemes (#)

Average

Size

Completed

in-progress

Health

56

342.76

86.28

9

47

6.1

Woman & Child

730

1808.8

487.71

157

69

2.5

Vet nary

24

156.11

21.1

0

19

6.5

Education

80

400.00

88.95

17

1

5.0

Roads/Bridges

466

1667.14

40.36

11

2

3.6

Electrification

71

166.55

6.56

0

6

2.3

Panchayat

189

944.50

383.03

55

132

5.0

Community

84

424.70

169.8

29

7

5.1

Apna Ghar

2043

510.75

197.9

494

410

0.3

Telephone

654

198.60

22.8

632

0

0.3

ULB works

333

1452.83

91.11

34

6

4.4




4730

8072.74

1595.6

1438

699

1.7

Source: Balaghat District

The State monitors and ensures that the planned projects comply with the minimum allocation for SC/ST and there is a clear overview of these projects in both districts and at the state level. Though the guidelines permit augmenting Indira Awas Yojna to meet portion of the backlog in the provision of new housing, a large scale allocation to Apna Ghar – one house in each GP each year - and thereby tying up to 12% allocation to this activity needs to be reviewed by the State.


It was also not clear at the various levels of the PRIs how the 5% for support to functionaries could be used to the benefit of the PRIs. All PRIs had pressing staffing requirements and many gaps in staffing, but these funds have not yet been activated.

Urban Local Bodies
As mentioned earlier, the planning is not participatory; the schemes recommended by the local body’s council are changed at the DUDA and DPC level, and sometime after the schemes are included in the approved yearly plan are not taken up by the ULBs. In the following two cases the RT observed:
(i) In the case of Malajkand municipality (Balaghat district) it was observed that sanctioned works for Rs. 23.5 lakhs for 2007-08 were dropped/ changed by the municipality on the ground that funds for these were since obtained under a loan from Housing and Urban Development Corporation. It was also observed that schemes proposed by the municipal council for year 2008-08 for Rs. 232 lakhs were later substituted at DUDA/DPC level with schemes for Rs. 40.2 lakhs which do not fall under the municipal functions and are the prime responsibility of the line departments e.g. one school library and two anganwadis. This is a clear case of interference in the municipal affairs and disregard to the municipal council powers to select schemes; and
(ii) In case of Seoni municipality (Seoni district) it was reported that due to non submission of the council resolution for four approved works for 2008-08 amounting to Rs. 128 lakhs, the administrative and financial sanctions were not issued by DPC.


Download 0.5 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message

    Main page