Earlier this month, guidelines for the Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin) were released by the Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation. Key features of the Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin), as outlined in the guidelines, are detailed below. In addition, a brief overview of sanitation levels in the country is provided, along with major schemes of the central government to improve rural sanitation. The Swachh Bharat Mission, launched in October 2014, consists of two sub-missions – the Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin) (SBM-G), which will be implemented in rural areas, and the Swachh Bharat Mission (Urban), which will be implemented in urban areas. SBM-G seeks to eliminate open defecation in rural areas by 2019 through improving access to sanitation. It also seeks to generate awareness to motivate communities to adopt sustainable sanitation practices, and encourage the use of appropriate technologies for sanitation. I. Context Data from the last three Census’, in Table 1, shows that while there has been some improvement in the number of households with toilets; this number remains low in the country, especially in rural areas. Table 1: Percentage of households with toilets (national)
| Year | Rural | Urban | Total |
| 1991 | 9% | 64% | 24% |
| 2001 | 22% | 74% | 36% |
| 2011 | 31% | 81% | 47% |
In addition, there is significant variation across states in terms of availability of household toilets in rural areas, as shown in Table 2. Table 2 also shows the change in percentage of rural households with toilets from 2001 to 2011. It is evident that the pace of this change has varied across states over the decade. Table 2: Percentage of rural households with toilets
| State |
2001 |
2011 |
% Change |
| Andhra Pradesh |
18 |
32 |
14 |
| Arunachal Pradesh |
47 |
53 |
5 |
| Assam |
60 |
60 |
0 |
| Bihar |
14 |
18 |
4 |
| Chhattisgarh |
5 |
15 |
9 |
| Goa |
48 |
71 |
23 |
| Gujarat |
22 |
33 |
11 |
| Haryana |
29 |
56 |
27 |
| Himachal Pradesh |
28 |
67 |
39 |
| Jammu and Kashmir |
42 |
39 |
-3 |
| Jharkhand |
7 |
8 |
1 |
| Karnataka |
17 |
28 |
11 |
| Kerala |
81 |
93 |
12 |
| Madhya Pradesh |
9 |
13 |
4 |
| Maharashtra |
18 |
38 |
20 |
| Manipur |
78 |
86 |
9 |
| Meghalaya |
40 |
54 |
14 |
| Mizoram |
80 |
85 |
5 |
| Nagaland |
65 |
69 |
5 |
| Odisha |
8 |
14 |
6 |
| Punjab |
41 |
70 |
30 |
| Rajasthan |
15 |
20 |
5 |
| Sikkim |
59 |
84 |
25 |
| Tamil Nadu |
14 |
23 |
9 |
| Tripura |
78 |
82 |
4 |
| Uttar Pradesh |
19 |
22 |
3 |
| Uttarakhand |
32 |
54 |
23 |
| West Bengal |
27 |
47 |
20 |
| All India |
22 |
31 |
9 |
II. Major schemes of the central government to improve rural sanitation The central government has been implementing schemes to improve access to sanitation in rural areas from the Ist Five Year Plan (1951-56) onwards. Major schemes of the central government dealing with rural sanitation are outlined below.
| Central Rural Sanitation Programme (1986): The Central Rural Sanitation Programme was one of the first schemes of the central government which focussed solely on rural sanitation. The programme sought to construct household toilets, construct sanitary complexes for women, establish sanitary marts, and ensure solid and liquid waste management. |
| Total Sanitation Campaign (1999): The Total Sanitation Campaign was launched in 1999 with a greater focus on Information, Education and Communication (IEC) activities in order to make the creation of sanitation facilities demand driven rather than supply driven. Key components of the Total Sanitation Campaign included: (i) financial assistance to rural families below the poverty line for the construction of household toilets, (ii) construction of community sanitary complexes, (iii) construction of toilets in government schools and aganwadis, (iv) funds for IEC activities, (v) assistance to rural sanitary marts, and (vi) solid and liquid waste management. |
| Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan (2012): In 2012, the Total Sanitation Campaign was replaced by the Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan (NBA), which also focused on the previous elements. According to the Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation, the key shifts in NBA were: (i) a greater focus on coverage for the whole community instead of a focus on individual houses, (ii) the inclusion of certain households which were above the poverty line, and (iii) more funds for IEC activities, with 15% of funds at the district level earmarked for IEC. |
| Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin) (2014): Earlier this year, in October, NBA was replaced by Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin) (SBM-G) which is a sub-mission under Swachh Bharat Mission. SBM-G also includes the key components of the earlier sanitation schemes such as the funding for the construction of individual household toilets, construction of community sanitary complexes, waste management, and IEC. Key features of SBM-G, and major departures from earlier sanitation schemes, are outlined in the next section. |
III. Guidelines for Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin) The guidelines for SBM-G, released earlier this month, outline the strategy to be adopted for its implementation, funding, and monitoring. Objectives: Key objectives of SBM-G include: (i) improving the quality of life in rural areas through promoting cleanliness and eliminating open defecation by 2019, (ii) motivating communities and panchayati raj institutions to adopt sustainable sanitation practices, (iii) encouraging appropriate technologies for sustainable sanitation, and (iv) developing community managed solid and liquid waste management systems. Institutional framework: While NBA had a four tier implementation mechanism at the state, district, village, and block level, an additional tier has been added for SBM-G, at the national level. Thus, the implementation mechanisms at the five levels will consist of: (i) National Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin), (ii) State Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin), (iii) District Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin), (iv) Block Programme Management Unit, and (v) Gram Panchayat/Village and Water Sanitation Committee. At the Gram Panchayat level, Swachhta Doots may be hired to assist with activities such as identification of beneficiaries, IEC, and maintenance of records. Planning: As was done under NBA, each state must prepare an Annual State Implementation Plan. Gram Panchayats must prepare implementation plans, which will be consolidated into Block Implementation Plans. These Block Implementation Plans will further be consolidated into District Implementation Plans. Finally, District Implementation Plans will be consolidated in a State Implementation Plan by the State Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin). A Plan Approval Committee in Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation will review the State Implementation Plans. The final State Implementation Plan will be prepared by states based on the allocation of funds, and then approved by National Scheme Sanctioning Committee of the Ministry. Funding: Funding for SBM-G will be through budgetary allocations of the central and state governments, the Swachh Bharat Kosh, and multilateral agencies. The Swachh Bharat Kosh has been established to collect funds from non-governmental sources. Table 3, below, details the fund sharing pattern for SBM-G between the central and state government, as provided for in the SBM-G guidelines. Table 3: Funding for SBM-G across components
| Component | Centre | State | Beneficiary | Amount as a % of SBM-G outlay |
| IEC, start-up activities, etc | 75% | 25% | - | 8% |
| Revolving fund | 80% | 20% | - | Up to 5% |
| Construction of household toilets | 75%(Rs 9000)90% for J&K, NE states, special category states | 25%(Rs 3000)10% for J&K, NE states, special category states | -- | Amount required for full coverage |
| Community sanitary complexes | 60% | 30% | 10% | Amount required for full coverage |
| Solid/Liquid Waste Management | 75% | 25% | - | Amount required within limits permitted |
| Administrative charges | 75% | 25% | - | Up to 2% of the project cost |
One of the changes from NBA, in terms of funding, is that funds for IEC will be up to 8% of the total outlay under SBM-G, as opposed to up to 15% (calculated at the district level) under NBA. Secondly, the amount provided for the construction of household toilets has increased from Rs 10,000 to Rs 12,000. Thirdly, while earlier funding for household toilets was partly through NBA and partly though the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), the provision for MGNREGS funding has been done away with under SBM-G. This implies that the central government’s share will be met entirely through SBM-G. Implementation: The key components of the implementation of SBM-G will include: (i) start up activities including preparation of state plans, (ii) IEC activities, (iii) capacity building of functionaries, (iv) construction of household toilets, (v) construction of community sanitary complexes, (vi) a revolving fund at the district level to assist Self Help Groups and others in providing cheap finance to their members (vii) funds for rural sanitary marts, where materials for the construction of toilets, etc., may be purchased, and (viii) funds for solid and liquid waste management. Under SBM-G, construction of toilets in government schools and aganwadis will be done by the Ministry of Human Resource Development and Ministry of Women and Child Development, respectively. Previously, the Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation was responsible for this. Monitoring: Swachh Bharat Missions (Gramin) at the national, state, and district levels will each have monitoring units. Annual monitoring will be done at the national level by third party independent agencies. In addition, concurrent monitoring will be done, ideally at the community level, through the use of Information and Communications Technology. More information on SBM-G is available in the SBM-G guidelines, here.
Early this week, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India tabled a report on the finances of Uttar Pradesh for the financial year 2020-21. A few days prior to that, on May 26, the budget for Uttar Pradesh for 2022-23 was presented, along with which the final audited expenditure and receipt figures for the year 2020-21 were released. The year 2020-21 presented a two-fold challenge for states – loss in revenue due to impact of COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown, and the need for increased expenditure to support affected persons and economic recovery. CAG noted that Uttar Pradesh’s GSDP grew by 1.05% in 2020-21 as compared to a growth of 6.5% in 2019-20. The state reported a revenue deficit of Rs 2,367 crore in 2020-21 after reporting revenue surplus for 14 successive years since 2006-07. Revenue deficit is the excess of revenue expenditure over revenue receipts. This blog looks at the key trends in the finances of Uttar Pradesh in 2020-21 and certain observations by CAG on fiscal management by the state.
Spending and Deficits in 2020-21
Underspending: In 2020-21, total spending by the state was 26% less than the budget estimate presented in February 2020. In sectors such as water supply and sanitation, the actual expenditure was 60% less than the amount budgeted, while in agriculture and allied activities only 53% of the budgeted amount was spent. CAG observed that in 251 schemes across 57 departments, the state government did not incur any expenditure in 2020-21. These schemes had a budget provision of at least one crore rupees, and had cumulative allocation of Rs 50,617 crore. These included schemes such as Pipe Drinking Water Scheme in Bundelkhand/Vindhya and apportionment of pension liabilities. Moreover, the overall savings due to non-utilisation of funds in 2020-21 was 27.28% of total budget provisions. CAG observed that the budgetary provisions increased between 2016 and 2021. However, the utilisation of budget provisions reduced between 2018-19 and 2020-21.
Pattern of spending: CAG observed that in case of 12 departments, more than 50% of the expenditure was incurred in March 2021, the last month of the financial year. In the civil aviation department, 89% of the total expenditure was incurred in March while this figure was 62% for the social welfare department (welfare of handicapped and backward classes). CAG noted that maintaining a steady pace of expenditure is a sound practice under public financial management. However, the Uttar Pradesh Budget Manual has no specific instructions for preventing such bunching of expenditure. The CAG recommended that the state government can consider issuing guidelines to control the rush of expenditure towards the closing months of the financial year.
Management of deficit and debt: As a measure to mitigate the impact of COVID-19, an Ordinance was promulgated in June 2020 to raise the fiscal deficit limit from 3% of GSDP to 5% of GSDP for the year 2020-21. Fiscal deficit represents the gap between expenditure and receipts in a year, and this gap is filled with borrowings. The Uttar Pradesh Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act, 2004 (FRBM Act) passed by Uttar Pradesh Assembly specifies the upper limit for debt and deficits. The Ordinance thus permitted the state government to borrow more to sustain its budget expenditure. The fiscal deficit of the state in 2020-21 was 3.20% of GSDP, well below the revised limit. At the same time, the state’s outstanding debt to GSDP in 2020-21 was 32.77% of GSDP, above the target of 32% of GSDP set under the FRBM Act. Outstanding debt represents accumulation of debt over the years.
Table 1: Spending by Uttar Pradesh in 2020-21 as compared to Budget Estimates (in Rs crore)
|
Particular |
2020-21 BE |
2020-21 Actuals |
% change from BE to Actuals |
|
Net Receipts (1+2) |
4,24,767 |
2,97,311 |
-30% |
|
1. Revenue Receipts (a+b+c+d) |
4,22,567 |
2,96,176 |
-30% |
|
a. Own Tax Revenue |
1,58,413 |
1,19,897 |
-24% |
|
b. Own Non-Tax Revenue |
31,179 |
11,846 |
-62% |
|
c. Share in central taxes |
1,52,863 |
1,06,687 |
-30% |
|
d. Grants-in-aid from the Centre |
80,112 |
57,746 |
-28% |
|
Of which GST compensation grants |
7,608 |
9,381 |
23% |
|
2. Non-Debt Capital Receipts |
2,200 |
1,135 |
-48% |
|
3. Borrowings |
75,791 |
86,859 |
15% |
|
Of which GST compensation loan |
- |
6,007 |
- |
|
Net Expenditure (4+5+6) |
4,77,963 |
3,51,933 |
-26% |
|
4. Revenue Expenditure |
3,95,117 |
2,98,543 |
-24% |
|
5. Capital Outlay |
81,209 |
52,237 |
-36% |
|
6. Loans and Advances |
1,637 |
1,153 |
-30% |
|
7. Debt Repayment |
34,897 |
26,777 |
-23% |
|
Revenue Balance |
27,451 |
-2,367 |
-109% |
|
Revenue Balance (as % of GSDP) |
1.53% |
-0.14% |
|
|
Fiscal Deficit |
53,195 |
54,622 |
3% |
|
Fiscal Deficit (as % of GSDP) |
2.97% |
3.20% |
Note: A negative revenue balance indicates a deficit. The actual fiscal deficit reported by Uttar Pradesh for 2020-21 in 2022-23 budget was 2.8% of GSDP. This difference was due to higher GSDP figure reported by the state.
Sources: Uttar Pradesh Budget Documents of various years; CAG; PRS.
Finances of State Public Sector Undertakings
Public sector undertakings (PSUs) are set up by the government to discharge commercial activities in various sectors. As on March 31, 2021, there were 115 PSUs in Uttar Pradesh. CAG analysed the performance of 38 PSUs. Out of these 38 PSUs, 22 companies earned a profit of Rs 700 crore, while 16 companies posted a loss of Rs 7,411 crore in 2020-21. Note that both the number of PSUs incurring losses and the quantum of losses has decreased since 2018-19. In 2018-19, 20 PSUs had reported losses worth Rs 15,219 crore.
Figure 1: Cumulative losses incurred by Uttar Pradesh PSUs (Rs crore)
Sources: CAG; PRS.
Losses of power sector PSUs: Three power sector PSUs—Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, and Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited—were the top loss incurring PSUs. These three PSUs accounted for 73% of the total losses of Rs 7,411 crore mentioned above. Note that as of June 2022, for each unit of power supplied, the revenue realised by UP power distribution companies (discoms) is 27 paise less than cost of supply. This is better than the gap of 34 paise per unit at the national level. However, the aggregate technical and commercial losses (AT&C) of the Uttar Pradesh discoms was 27.85%, considerably higher than the national average of 17.19%. AT&C losses refer to the proportion of power supplied by a discom for which it does not receive any payment.
Off-budget borrowings: CAG also observed that the Uttar Pradesh government resorted to off-budget borrowing through state owned PSUs/authorities. Off budget borrowings are not accounted in the debt of the state government and are on books of the respective PSUs/authorities, although, debt is serviced by the state government. As a result, the outstanding debt reported in the budget does not represent the actual debt position of the state. CAG identified off-budget borrowing worth Rs 1,637 crore. The CAG recommended that the state government should avoid extra-budget borrowings. It should also credit all the loans taken by PSUs/authorities on behalf of and serviced by the state government to state government accounts.
Management of Reserve Funds
The Reserve Bank of India manages two reserve funds on the behalf of state governments. These funds are created to meet the liabilities of state governments. These funds are: (i) Consolidated Sinking Fund (CSF), and (ii) Guarantee Redemption Fund (GRF). They are funded by the contributions made by the state governments. CSF is an amortisation fund which is utilised to meet the repayment obligations of the government. Amortisation refers to payment of debt through regular instalments. The interest accumulated in the fund is used for repayment of outstanding liabilities (which is the accumulation of total borrowings at the end of a financial year, including any liabilities on the public account).
In line with the recommendation of the 12th Finance Commission, Uttar Pradesh created its CSF in March 2020. The state government may transfer at least 0.5% of its outstanding liabilities at the end of the previous year to the CSF. CAG observed that in 2020-21, Uttar Pradesh appropriated only Rs 1,000 crore to the CSF against the requirement of Rs 2,454 crore. CAG recommended that the state government should ensure at least 0.5% of the outstanding liabilities are contributed towards the CSF every year.
GRF is constituted by states to meet obligations related to guarantees. The state government may extend guarantee on loans taken by its PSUs. Guarantees are contingent liabilities of the state government, as in case of default by the company, repayment burden will fall on the state government. GRF can be used to settle guarantees extended by the government with respect to borrowings of state PSUs and other bodies. The 12th Finance Commission had recommended that states should constitute GRF. It was to be funded through guarantees fees to meet any sudden discharge of obligated guarantees extended by the states. CAG noted that Uttar Pradesh government has not constituted GRF. Moreover, the state has also not fixed any limits for extending guarantees.
For an analysis of Uttar Pradesh’s 2022-23 budget, please see here.
