More money, no work

30/10/1996
Down To Earth

More money, no work SAURABH BHATTACHARYA

a stinging slap on the face of the ministry of environment and forests ( mef) . That is precisely how one should term the report of the present Parliamentary Standing Committee (psc) on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests, on the ministry’s demands for grants for 1996-97. Although the primary function of the psc is to conduct an in-depth study into a ministry’s budgetary demands, this particular report also brings to light a number of lacunae in the ministry’s functioning. From finance to forests, eco-development to elephants, no area has been left unscathed. “Unfortunately for us, the ministry of environment itself has major loopholes in its knowledge regarding the environment,” says Ramdas Agarwal, Rajya Sabha mp and member of the psc. His sentiment is echoed time and again in the report’s findings.

Presented on September 12, 1996, the psc report begins its critique of the mef by severely attacking the ministry’s plan outlay for 1996-97. The ministry has proposed an outlay of Rs 552.74 crore, including a non-plan outlay of Rs 83.34 crore, for the financial year 1996-97 as against Rs 411.90 crore for the previous financial year.

However, according to the findings of the committee, out of the total budgetary support of Rs 370.50 crore, later brought down to Rs 335.50 crore, in 1995-96, only Rs 292.22 crore was utilised by the ministry. The total unutilised portion, therefore, amounted to Rs 43.28 crore “out of which Rs 36.93 crore remained unutilised on account of the Ganga Project”.

The sector-wise allotment of the mef also seems to defy all logic. As is evident from the psc findings, the actual amount spent by the ministry has continually either fallen far short of the estimate or exceeded the estimate by a considerable margin. The psc has compared the budgetary estimates and the actuals for different sectors during the years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 to show the yawning difference between the two. (The table for the year 1995-96 is given in Box).

The Committee is at a loss to understand the correlation between the actual expenditure on the one hand, allocation demanded and the budgetary support provided in the budget estimates for the current year as also the last few years. It states, “It appears that adequate groundwork is not done by the ministry before finalising their projections. One gets the feeling of total adhocism and lack of in-depth planning. Funds were sought and provided quite liberally keeping in view the pressing need to at least protect the forest cover but not much seems to have been done.”

The mef ’s much-hyped afforestation programme and its claims that the shrinking forest cover has been arrested has also been found to be an empty boast under the psc ’s scrutiny. In his presentation before the committee, the mef secretary had reportedly stated that the trend of shrinking forest cover has largely been arrested and had cited findings of the Forests Report, 1993, of the Forest Survey of India ( fsi) which showed a marginal increase in forest cover by about 22 sq km.

But the much-delayed State of the Forests Report 1995 , which appeared in early September this year ( Down to Earth, Vol 5, No 9), has a different story to tell. The report puts the total forest cover in India at 639,600 sq km, which is a decline of 507 sq km from the 1993 assessment. Moreover, the decline, which reflects the status between 1991 and 1993, was mainly due to rapid deforestation in the north-east. In view of these facts, the psc has observed that “the ministry’s claim of marginal increase in the forest cover is not borne out by its own facts. The average investment in forest area of around Rs 1,000 crore is not being monitored properly as it is not yielding expected results.”

The committee has also demanded from the ministry a full report on the functioning of the Air Operation Wing, which had been constituted to monitor fire-fighting via aircraft donated by the undp , since one of the two aircrafts had reportedly crashed in 1992 at Sawai Madhopur.

According to the findings of the psc , another major failure of the mef has been in the field of pollution control where funds have consistently remained unutilised due to faulty planning. The mef has proposed an estimate of Rs 30.35 crore for pollution prevention and control despite the fact that of the Rs 26.53 crore allotted during 1995-96, only Rs 10.98 crore had been utilised. Similarly, in 1993-94 and 1994-95, the actual amounts spent in this sector were much less than the allotted money.

The report states quite clearly that despite the ministry’s tall claims of implementing pollution control measures, “norms regarding discharge of industrial effluents continue to be flouted” and “the ministry has not done anything significant to control environmental pollution.”

On the issue of eco-development, the committee has cited a survey conducted by the Self-employed Womens’ Association (sewa) in Sabarkantha district of Gujarat which has shown that government monopoly on the forest produce collected by women there has led to a major drop in their earnings, from Rs 25 per day to Rs 12 per day. On top of that the tribal women of the district, who are at best semi-literates, have to apply for licence at every step and “have to pay 200 per cent to 300 per cent more than paper mills pay for the same forest produce.” At present, 93 per cent of the families in the villages of this district are living below the poverty line. Coming down heavily on ministerial red tape, the report states that “no justification has been given as to why should forest products should be sold only to government agencies and why should there be licences at every step, which means more corruption.” Taking a slight jibe at the present thrust of liberalisation in the country, the report goes on to state, “What about liberalisation for these poor people dependent on forest produce for their livelihood?”

Ganga Action Plan (gap) and Project Elephant, the two showcase programmes of the mef , have been severely criticised by the psc for gulping down crores of rupees without showing any results whatsoever. The ministry’s note to the committee on Project Elephant has apparently glossed over a lot of facts regarding the position of the elephant populace in the southern states and the total land acquired for the project.

The ministry’s note on the gap ’s progress has also attracted flak from the committee. The project, which failed to utilise its allotted amount last year apparently due to “litigations, contractual disputes and encroachments”, has for long been under attack for its inefficiency. Clearly unimpressed by such excuses, the report states, “The note gives only bald details of the action programmes under gap Phase- i … No details of monitoring of the programme have been furnished.”

The psc report has quite clearly put the ball in the mef ’s court and it remains to be seen how it can cover up the bruise that it has left on its cheek. Although none of the recommendations of the committee are binding, tough times seem to be ahead for the mef as it has to face Parliament with its response, that is, the Action Taken Report (atr), to the findings. As Agarwal said, “They can’t get away. It might be difficult for the ministry to accommodate the budgetary recommendations. But they will have to rectify the administrative lacunae.”

But, for the moment, there does not seem to be much hullabaloo in the ministry corridors. Referring to the ministry’s response to the report, S Jha, joint secretary, (administration) mef , says, “A proper reply to the report is bound to take some time as the report covers a number of departments of the ministry. But the process is underway and we will submit an atr within a couple of months.”

Going by the justifications provided by the ministry before the psc on various issues, the time-tested bureaucratic technique of passing the buck seems to be the chosen mode of response. Be it the non-utilisation of funds for gap or the fsi ’s failure in preparing the required number of 260 thematic maps last year, the excuses are essentially the same

Tags:

India Environment Portal Knowledge for change

Browse by subjects