Denial
of funds
The
Right to Relief and Rehabilitation
has been recognised
at various levels, not merely as a legal right, but also as moral,
human right. Yet
several factors conspire to deny funds and therefore relief and
rehabilitation.
712 identified fishermen of Puri
district were deprived of
cash assistance of Rs.14.62 lakh for repair of boats and nets damaged
due to cyclone
although adequate funds for the purpose were available with the
Assistant Director of
Fisheries (Marine), Puri. (Audit Report (Civil) Orissa for the year
2000-2001)
Most of
us remember how in the first three months after
the Tsunami, Dalit were discriminated against and denied relief and the
right to
rehabilitation. Thanks to several dalit organisations, activists
groups, and NGOs, this
wrong was by and large set right, at least officially, as government as
well as big donor
agencies decided to act, albeit under pressure.
CED
Resources:
Tsunami; The
Hit and the Affected -
A Report of the Study on "Vulnerabilities and Livelihood Security
options of the
non-ocean fishing communities affected by Tsunami in Tamil
Nadu" by M Louis, People's Watch - Tamil
Nadu, June-August 2005
Caste
Out, A film on
discrimination of dalits in the aftermath of Tsunami dir. by Gopal
Menon [L.Y00.V893]
The Hit
and the Affected:
Social Rights of Tsunami Victims - An interview with Henri Tiphagne,
36mins 19secs,
produced by CED for Reconstruction for Development Centres(RDC)
[L.Y00.VB03]
Twice Evicted, A film on the
eviction of
Fisherfolk in the aftermath of Tsunami, dir. by Gopal Menon 31 mins
[L.Y00.V915]
Where is All Our Money Going, A Poster
Prepared by CED
As far as Central Government funds are
concerned, the
Centre had set up Calamity Relief Funds in 1995. The CRF is used only
for meeting the
expenditure for providing immediate relief to the victims of cyclone,
drought, earthquake,
fire, flood, tsunami, hailstorm, landslide, avalanche, cloud burst and
pest attack. Funds
are allocated to the state through CRF. The proportion of the fund is
75% by Central
government and 25% from State government.
However as CAG pointed out in it report
on utilisation of
CRF over the last decade, in 2000, has
pointed out that state
government had been “misusing” the funds by diverting the central
grants meant
for it to meet their routine expenses, leaving very little to deal with
any calamity.
That was the reason why state government
had been found
lacking in providing effective relief to the suffering people – bet it
super cycline
in Orissa, massive earthquake in Gujarat or the present Tsunami.
The procedure seems to be that centre
releases money in two
installments to the states. After receving
a utilisation
certificate, the centre then provides the second
installment.
However
as CAG point out, the centre has provided Rs. 10,998 crore to pooling
into the CRF, but a total of 755 crores
was credited by various states into their
general pool revenue accounts . As a
result, not only have states
lost more than 140 crores as interest, but
when calimity strikes,
even of the routine nature like drought or flood, the state throw their
hands up, as they
do not have the money to help people.[i].
The situation is well illustrated by
this extract from the
proceedings in the RajyaSabha:
“I will particularly mention about Orissa -- whenever we demanded more
money for
super-cyclone, drought, or, floods, the then Agriculture Minister, Shri
Ajit Singh, and
other Ministers clearly stated, "You ask your State Government to
utilise the money
and give the utilisation certificate, and only then we can give more
money." That is
the right procedure. But the question is, if the State Government
because of its
inefficiency or its inability could not give its share and spend the
money, why should the
people of that State suffer? Has the person who lost his house in the
super-cyclone a
right to get a house under the Indira Awas Yojana? HaState Government
is not able to
utilise the money because they are unable to give its share and also
not able to spend the
money, even if it is relief money, whether the people of that State
should suffer, and
whether the State Government or we should allowve the children of the
Scheduled Castes or
the Scheduled Tribes people a right to get the stipend or not? If you
say that your
the people to suffer. That is the question. “ (PB/4P/7.05
SHRI
RAMACHANDRA KHUNTIA)
The same issue of denial of funds due to
problems of
diversion or mis-utlisation related to
funds from World Bank and
Asian Developmental Bank and other multilateral agencies..
For example in case of Super Cyclone in Orrisa, while a World Bank loan
of about Rs.250
crore was obtained for the ‘immediate phase’, the state government was
negotiating with the bank for an additional Rs.500 crore for the next,
‘short-term’ phase. The state government had actually given a proposal
for
Rs.750 crore for the short-term phase but the World Bank capped it at
Rs.500 crore
earmarking the rest for water resources projects.[ii]
Later on World Bank had not disbursed the Rs.500 crore promised to
Orrisa. And the British
government’s Department for International Development had given only
Rs.13 crore of
the Rs.250 crore promised for rehabilitation. The financially bankrupt
state of Orissa has
received only Rs.2,000 -odd crore to offset damage estimated at
Rs.20,000 crore.[iii]
There is another problem associated with multilateral funds. In
their book Tsunami Aid and Debt cancellation’ by Damien Millet, Eric
Toussaint and
François Houtart [CED Acc. B.Y00.M60] state that the governments
of the twelve countries
struck by the tsunami pay about 38 billion dollars in the name of "debt
service". All the donations promised by international community, which
are estimated
at 10 billion dollars, will be swallowed up servicing the
debt.
They
therefore feel that such Aid agencies would do better if their just
cancelled the debt,
rather than give any more aid.
In a disaster situation, it is always
difficult to keep
track of utilization of funds, as large amounts have to be disbursed in
a short time, in
difficult circumstances. Thus it is always
presumed that a
certain amounts of money may go to the wrong persons or just be
pocketed by officials or
workers. To avoid this, norms are laid
down for such
disbursement.
Are these norms appropriate? A classic
example of misuse of
funds was in Kadegaon taluka, in Sangli district, where farmers
received Rs.5.8 crore as
compensation for crop loss due to heavy rains. According to standards
set by the
meteorological department, rainfall above 125 mm in a single day is
classified as
‘heavy rain’ -- Kadegaon town reported only 75 mm of rain, the
neighboring
villages only 65 mm.[iv]
Now in this example CAG has reported
the unnecessary spending of money. Now isn’t it possible that locations
with low
rainfall could nonetheless be affected by flooding from other run off
sources?
In
Mumbai alone, of the Rs.1,200 crore
sanctioned for flood relief, following the July
2006 deluge, Rs.700 crore is said to have been wastefully spent.
644 families affected by floods in Maharashtr
were deprived of
benefits to the tune of Rs.6.44 crore in death compensation from the
Prime Minister’s
relief fund.[v]
Another illustration of how bureaucratic
norms, rather than
the humanitarian duty, decide relief is Mumbai. In the floods in July
2005, less
assistance was provided to Mumbai on the grounds that most of the
structures washed away
were unauthorized. The question there is, when more than 60% of such
structures in any
case are so called unauthorized, are they not entitled to relief in
such calamities?
Who decides the norms? The Comptroller
Audit General (CAG)
or State government? Or local bodies? Or The NGOs? Can these be decided
transparently in
full knowledge of the Gram Sabhas? Surely, with 60 years of
bureaucratic experience, we
can come out with more appropriate norms which are based on people’s
assessment, and
local need!