B K Chaturvedi committee’s recommendations may form part of the final 12th Plan document.
One common complaint that most states aired at the just-concluded National Development Council meeting was the inflexibility of certain centrally-sponsored schemes (CSS) when it came to addressing local requirements.
This was against the backdrop of a Planning Commision panel stressing the need to address the issue besides taking measures to restructure the 147 CSS by slashing them to 59. The B K Chaturvedi commitee also wanted changes to be introduced in the fiscal norms and normal central assistance.
| THE PRESCRIPTION |
| * Number of central schemes should be cut to 59 from 147 |
| * All CSS should be classified into flagship, sub-sectoral and umbrella schemes |
| * Schemes with less than Rs 100 crore annual outlay should be weeded out |
| * States should have flexibility in 10 per cent of funds allocated under flagship programmes and 20 per cent under other two |
| * States should have power to change physical norms of schemes |
| * Financial norms of all CSS should be reviewed every two years |
| * Independent evaluation and monitoring of all CSS |
| Source: Planning Commission |
The recommendations, which were placed in the public domain today, will now be commented upon by the states and others before they form part of the final 12th Plan document.
To bring down the number, the panel has suggested a trifurcation of the existing 147 CSS: (a) flagship schemes that will address major national interventions required on education, health, irrigation, urban development infrastructure, rural infrastructure, skill development, employment and other identified sectors; (b) major sub-sectoral schemes to address developmental problems of sub-sectors of major sectors like agriculture, education and health and (c) umbrella schemes that will address the sectoral gaps to help improve effectiveness of Plan expenditure.
It said a CSS with less than Rs 100 crore annual outlay should either be weeded out or merged with bigger schemes or else transferred to the states that can then continue running them.
To address the local conditions better, the Panel has suggested that the schemes must have a national importance, even as it agreed that the ground conditions among states vary —like in the case of programmes for development of animal husbandry infrastructure.
Such schemes should be converted into additional central assistance schemes in which states will have the flexibility to undertake activities to plug the gaps in the programmes, provided they fall under the core objective for which the programme was framed.
To incentivise states that have provided increased budgets in programmes related to health, education, urban development, skill development and rural infrastructure in comparison to the previous year, the panel suggested that the distribution of a 50 per cent increase in the budget amount of that central government department among states that have allocated more funds.
To enable states to meet their special needs, the panel suggested 20 per cent of the budget allocated under the schemes classified as umbrella and sub-sector should be in the hands of the state governments.
In case of flagship programmes like Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act and National Rural Health Mission, 10 per cent of annual budget should be in the hands of the states government. Also, the new centrally sponsored schemes should focus only on major interventions required by national development needs and should have a minimum plan expenditure of over Rs 10,000 crore over a five-year plan period.
“The normal central assistance to states should not be reduced to below 10 per cent of gross budgetary support to enable states to have adequate flexible untied resources for their Plan.”
