Sanitation Sector Financing in India

Aniruddhe Mukerjee

Dr. Subrata Pani

WaterAid’s mission is to overcome poverty by enabling the world’s poorest people to gain access to safe water, sanitation and hygiene education

The India WASH Forum is an independent and credible voice for the water and sanitation sector, and a force for increased cooperation.

March 2012

Aniruddhe Mukerjee*Secretary, Transport, Government of Madhya Pradesh

Dr. Subrata Pani Research FellowLake Conservation Authority of M.P., Govt. of M.P.

WaterAid, Bhopal

Ganesh GraphicsM.P. Nagar, Bhopal

Authors:

Cover Photo:

Design and Production:

Published by

Water Aid, India403-408, 4th Floor, CNI Bhavan,16 Pandit Pant Marg, New Delhi-110 001

* Formerly Chief Technical Advisor Water for Asian Cities Programme, India

India Wash ForumK-U, Pitampura, Delhi-110034

CONTENTS

Foreword

Executive Summary

CHAPTER-1: Current Sanitation Scenario in India

CHAPTER- 2: Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC)

CHAPTER- 3: Integrated Low Cost Sanitation (ILCS)

CHAPTER- 4: National Urban Sanitation Policy

CHAPTER- 5: Basic Services for Urban Poor (BSUP)

CHAPTER- 6: Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme (IHSDP)

CHAPTER- 7: Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY)

Introduction

Approach and Methodology

Introduction 6

Project States

Project States

Project States

1

Sanitation Scenario in India 4

Rationale of Study 5

Objective of Study 5

Total Sanitation Campaign in Uttar Pradesh 11

Total Sanitation Campaign in Andhra Pradesh 12

Total Sanitation Campaign in Madhya Pradesh 13

Total Sanitation Campaign in Gujarat 13

Comparative Analysis of TSC in Project States 14

5

Introduction 17

Integrated Low Cost Sanitation in Uttar Pradesh 18

Integrated Low Cost Sanitation in Andhra Pradesh 20

Integrated Low Cost Sanitation in Madhya Pradesh 20

Integrated Low Cost Sanitation in Gujarat 21

Comparative Analysis of ILCS in Project States 22

23

Introduction 29

Basic Services for Urban Poor in Uttar Pradesh 30

Basic Services for Urban Poor in Andhra Pradesh 32

Basic Services for Urban Poor in Madhya Pradesh 34

Basic Services for Urban Poor in Gujarat 35

Comparative Analysis of BSUP in 37

Introduction 38

IHSDP in Uttar Pradesh 39

IHSDP in Andhra Pradesh 43

IHSDP in Madhya Pradesh 45

IHSDP in Gujarat 45

Comparative Analysis of IHSDP in 46

RAY in Uttar Pradesh 47

RAY in Andhra Pradesh 48

RAY in Madhya Pradesh 48

RAY in Gujarat 48

Comparative Analysis of RAY in 48

Page No

iii-iii

CHAPTER- 8: Urban Infrastructure and Governance (UIG)

CHAPTER- 9: Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Small and Medium Towns (UIDSSMT)

CHAPTER- 10: Externally Aided Project

CHAPTER-11: State Specific Schemes

CHAPTER-12: Comparative Analysis of Performance of one district each in Project States

CHAPTER- 13: Comparative Analysis of States

CHAPTER- 14: Conclusions and Recommendations

Annexures

Introduction

Introduction 55

49

Urban Infrastructure and Governance in Uttar Pradesh 50

Urban Infrastructure and Governance in Andhra Pradesh 51

Urban Infrastructure and Governance in Madhya Pradesh 52

Urban Infrastructure and Governance in Gujarat 53

Comparative Analysis of UIG in Project States 54

UIDSSMT in Uttar Pradesh 56

UIDSSMT in Andhra Pradesh 56

UIDSSMT in Madhya Pradesh 57

UIDSSMT in Gujarat 57

Comparative Analysis of UIDSSMT in Project States 57

Externally Aided Project in Andhra Pradesh 58

Externally Aided Project in Madhya Pradesh 59

Urban Water Supply and Environmental Improvement Project (UWSEIP) 59

Madhya Pradesh Urban Services for Poor (MPUSP) 60

Water for Asian Cities (WAC) Programme 61

Externally Aided Project in Gujarat 62

Dr Ambedkar Gram Sabha Vikas Yojana (Uttar Pradesh) 63

Kashi Ram Garib Awas Yojana (Uttar Pradesh) 64

Indiramma Housing Project (Andhra Pradesh) 69

Nirmal Gujarat (Gujarat) 72

Integrated Urban Sanitation Programme (IUSP) (Madhya Pradesh) 73

Nirmal Vatika (Madhya Pradesh) 75

Barabanki District, Uttar Pradesh 78

Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh 79

Sehore District, Madhya Pradesh 81

Bhavnagar District, Gujarat 82

86

92

95-118

Page No

AP - Andhra Pradesh

APL - Above Poverty Line

APUFIDC - Andhra Pradesh Urban Finance & Infrastructure Development Corporation

BLS - Base Line Survey

BPL - Below Poverty Line

BSUP - Basic Services to the Urban Poor

CBOs - Community Based Organizations

CRSP - Central Rural Sanitation Programme

CTs - Community Toilets

DA - Development Authority

DUDA - District Urban Development Agency

DWSM - District Water and Sanitation Mission

EWS - Economically Weaker Section

GDP - Gross Domestic Product

GoI - Government of India

GP - Gram Panchayat

HUDCO - Housing and Urban Development Corporation

IEC - Information, Education and Communication

IHHL - Individual Household Latrines

ILCS - Integrated Low Cost Sanitation

JMP - Joint Monitoring Programme

JnNURM - Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission

MDGs - Millennium Development Goals

MP - Madhya Pradesh

NSSC - National Scheme Sanctioning Committee

NGO - Non Governmental Organization

NGP - Nirmal Gram Puraskar

NGSY - Nirmal Gujarat Sauchalaya Yojana

ODF - Open Defecation Free

PCs - Production Centers

PIA - Project Implementing Agency

PIP - Project Implementation Plan

PPSA - Poverty Pocket Situation Analysis

PRIs - Panchayati Raj Institutions

RSMs - Rural Sanitary Marts

SHG - Self Help Group

SSHE - School Sanitation and Hygiene Education

SUDA - State Urban Development Agency

UADD - Urban Administration and Development Department

UIG - Urban Infrastructure Governance

ULBs - Urban Local Bodies

UNDP - United Nations Development Programme

UNICEF - United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund

UP - Uttar Pradesh

UTs - Union Territories

WHO - World Health Organization

ABBREVIATION

i

FOREWORDThe subject of sanitation has been treated with apathy by policy makers across India despite the fact that lack of sanitation and hygiene is responsible for a number of diseases resulting in the death of thousands of people, especially children, every year in the country. Access to improved sanitation has not been quite impressive during the last decade even after implementing programmes like the CRSP and TSC to achieve total sanitation. India is still one of the most densely populated countries in the world with lowest sanitation coverage . The report by WHO/ UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water Supply and Sanitation says that progress in relation to access to basic sanitation is insufficient to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Till 2010, only 57% of the total rural population could be brought under sanitation coverage after the introduction of Total Sanitation Campaign in the year 1999. Thus leaving a huge gap between the achievement and the target set in MDGs. Unless adequate efforts are made, the proportion of people with access to basic sanitation will not even be halved by 2015.

The sanitation status in India is still inadequate, despite longstanding efforts by various levels of government and communities at improving coverage. The failure to achieve the target set for bringing the country under total sanitation by 2010 has prompted the Government of India to further restructure the total sanitation programme by introducing concepts like the Nirmal Bharat and launching schemes like the City Sanitation Plans under National Urban Sanitation Policy.

The implementation of the government policies has remained a big challenge and the rural sanitation sector is its major victim. The paradigm shift made by community based TSC led to an improvement, but the process remained slow, especially in implementing the key reforms as desired from the states over the years.

This sanitation financing study is an attempt to analyze the quantum of money that is being spent under various Central and State sponsored schemes towards improving sanitation in the country. The present study has focused on four states, viz. Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, each of which is unique in term of its geographical, geo-political and socio-economic status, to document the flow of fund, utilization of the available funds under various tied and untied schemes and effectiveness of financing in changing the sanitation scenario of four states.

The report is based on the information available from urban and rural development departments of the four states, ULBs, district headquarters and NGOs involved in the sanitation related activities in the country.

Sanitation is a noble mission for the nation and a large number of dedicated individuals and organizations are working tirelessly to improve the basic sanitation status. We acknowledge the contribution made by all such individuals and organizations involved in this mission.

A number of people have extended their support in conducting this study. We are grateful to all.

We are especially thankful to Mr. Depinder Kapur, National Coordinator, WASH, who not only encouraged us in conducting this study but also actively supported us as and when needed. Without his help, this study could not have been completed. We are also thankful to Ms. Indira Khurana, Director, WaterAid, India for her valuable inputs in finalization of the report. We are especially thankful to WaterAid and India Wash Forum (IWF) and all its trustees especially Mrs. Nafisa Barot, Mr. Ashok Chatterjee, Mr. Darryl D' Monte, Ms. J Geetha, Mr. Subash Chandra Jain, Mr. Pawan Kumar Jha, Mr. Joe Madiath, Ms. Meenakshisundaram, Mr. Bunker Roy and Mr. R. Murli of Mari Foundation, for providing financial and logistic support in conducting this study. Thanks are also due to Mr. Neelkanth Mishra of Fansa, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh for his valuable support.

We are also thankful to Dr P.K.Nandi, Chief Technical Advisor, UN- Habitat, Bhopal, India, and Dr. Somnath Bandyopadhyay, Environment Management Specialist, NGRBA, MoEF, for their valuable suggestions in preparing this report.

Feedback from Mr. Pramod Dabrase, Sanitation Expert (IUSP/MPUSP), Urban Administration and Development Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh is greatly appreciated.

We are also grateful to a number of Government officials of Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh who have given their vital and significant inputs in conducting this study especially Mr. Rajiv Agrawal, Divisional Commissioner, Aligarh, Mr. T.R. Jagdesh Babu, Chief General Manager, AP State Housing Corporation, Mr. Imtiyaz Ahmed, Engineer-in-Chief, AP Urban Finance & Infrastructure Development Corporation, Mr. Kondala Rao, SE, Mission for Eradication of Poverty in Municipal Areas, Mr. Chintamani, Managing Director, SUDA, UP, Mr. Vijindra Vikramaditya, OSD (Technical), Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, Mrs. Sonal Mishra, Managing Director, Gujarat Urban Development Mission and Mr. K.N. Bhatt, Additional Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt of Gujarat, among others.

We hope that this study will be useful to a large number of sanitation professionals, both within and outside India.

Secretary, Transport, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal

Research Fellow, Lake Conservation Authority of M.P., Bhopal

Aniruddhe Mukerjee

Dr. Subrata Pani

Executive SummaryGoing by the current trends, the global sanitation target of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)

will be missed by a staggering 700 million people. Despite an increase in the number of people using

improved sanitation facilities from 18% in 1990 to 31% in 2008 and an estimated 45% by 2015, India

would be failing to achieve the MDGs target.

The rural-urban gap in access/ use of sanitation facility is still very high as 60% of rural households and

19% of urban households do not have toilet facilities. Further, safe sanitation to rural households on a

sustainable basiswould continue to be a challenge along with other facets of sanitation.

The present study is undertaken to map various types of schemes financing sanitation, both from tied and

untied sources, to understand their utilization patterns and to identify those that have succeeded in

making an impact in four project States of India with varying performance levels. Extensive consultations

were carried out in 4 pilot States of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh with

various government departments, ULBs, communities being served, local authorities and NGOs. The

expenditure incurred duringthe period of 2007-10 in the four project states is as below:

State Expenditure during 2007-10 (Rs. in Crore)

TSC UIG UIDSSMT ILCS Total

Andhra Pradesh 196.37 605.51 253.56 1.60 1057.04

Gujarat 219.38 1473.36 284.09 0 1976.83

Madhya Pradesh 402.17 272.47 63.48 0 738.12

Uttar Pradesh 1459.67 807.44 147.09 96.18 2510.38

The study reveals that Total Sanitation Campaign with respect to expenditure incurred in the four project

states is quite adequate as the realization ranges from 85% to 92%. The campaign accelerated in all the

project states in last three years. However, the JMP Report, 2010, opines that the programme would fail to

achieve the expected MDGs target in the country. TSC approach has been oriented towards physical

targets of construction of individual household toilets but it was found during the study of TSC that it lacks

focus on sustainable sanitation solutions by getting the community involved through strategic

participatory methods to end open defecation.

Under Urban Infrastructure Governance (UIG), the utilization of disbursed funds was good in Andhra

Pradesh,Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh; only 75% funds were utilizedin Uttar Pradesh. Here it need be

underlined that Gujarat has received sanctions much greater than the proportionate allotment to other

States as per its size. Under UIDSSMT, Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh showed good utilization of funds.

Here, also, Gujarat has much higher share proportionate to its size vis a vis other project States.

Under Integrated Low Cost Sanitation (ILCS), Uttar Pradesh has been the lone project State to have

consistently implementing the programme. Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh have revived the

scheme after a gap of few years. While Gujarat discontinued ILCS scheme in 2008 and replaced it by

another state sponsored scheme called Nirmal Gujarat Shauchalaya which enhanced incentives for

construction of toilets in the urban areas. The study reveals that ILCS in the project states remain

inconsistent in terms of regular implementationeven though UP making highest expenditure.

Under Integrated Housing and Slum Development Program (IHSDP), Andhra Pradesh was the most

efficient project state with 77% fund utilization although Uttar Pradesh received the maximum sanctions.

In Madhya Pradesh, utilization of funds was poor compared to the other states. On the other hand, funds

utilization under Basic Services for the Urban Poor (BSUP) scheme was excellent in Andhra Pradesh and

Gujarat.

The comparative analysis of amounts spent in sanitation sector in the project States from external aid

shows that Andhra Pradesh received maximum funds. On the other hand, under State specific sanitation

scheme, Uttar Pradesh has spent maximum. ii

The analysis of the financing schemes in the four states shows that funds were not a serious constraint in sanitation sector. However, effective utilization has been at variable, particularly in smaller cities and especially for the poorer sections. The common perception that Gujarat and AP are among better performing states with regard to sanitation as compared to UP and MP may be a result of greater visibility of sanitation projects in mega cities like Ahmedabad and Hyderabad that were prominently covered under the JnNURM.

The sanitation programs designed recently by states of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh have also shown remarkable creativity in integrating various on-going schemes in order to benefit target populations both in rural and urban areas. In these endeavours, the political will is clearly evident but the flexibility of schemes, quantum of resources and administrative capacity (except, may be, in small towns) might also be contributing to success. A few of such political-willed successful schemes are mentioned as under:

INDIRA AMMA Housing Scheme of Andhra Pradesh is a unique programme, where funds from Indira Awas Yojana (IAY) and Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) have been converged for construction of houses and providing sanitation facilities in villages and urban areas. Interestingly, the programme also provides better health facilities among other amenities in all villages over a period of three years in a saturation mode in order to significantly improve the living standards of the poor people.

Dr. Ambedkar Gram Sabha Vikas Yojana of Uttar Pradesh, too, is a unique convergence scheme, where the focus is on social and economic upliftment of poor people living in rural areas by converging village level services of various departments, like infrastructure, sanitation, social security, employment, land improvement, scholarships, etc., to ensure an improvement in the sanitation status of these villages, even converting them to zero open defecation status.

Nirmal Vatika is a unique convergence scheme of Madhya Pradesh for improved environmental sanitation and construction of individual toilets in rural areas. Under this scheme, Rs. 2500/- per beneficiary is sanctioned from TSC programme with an additional amount of Rs. 2000/- per beneficiary from NREGA for the construction of leach pits and tree plantation. The composite amount of Rs. 4500/- provide for better constructed toilets on the one hand, while promoting bio-fertilizer and horticulture-based livelihoods on the other. The production of bio-fertilizers not only reduces the overall cost of plantation but helps in solid and liquid waste management in rural areas.

Nirmal Gujarat (NG) is another unique and holistic convergence scheme launched by the Government of Gujarat, in the year 2007-2008 for overall cleanliness. It is an attempt on complete behavioural changes through communication, environmental consciousness and awareness, capacity building, public participation, best practices and guidelines. It includes almost all activities related to sanitation and solid waste disposal by converging sectoral activities of cleanliness, environment and public health issues in the urban, rural and tribal areas under one umbrella.

The study finds that it was amply possible to extend the scope of convergence to achieve sustainable success. Health and education programmes like National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), Indira Gandhi Matritva Sahyog Yojana (IGMSY) and Sarv Shikhisa Abhiyan (SSA) are obvious choices for synergizing sanitation programmes, targeting at behaviour of women and children through awareness and strategic interventions. SSA mandates the provision of separate toilets for girls and boys in each school and thus provides an opportunity for transformative education by inculcating hand-washing and other aspects of personal hygiene. IGMSY provides financial and medical support to pregnant and lactating mothers through Anganwadi Centers. These mothers can be educated and motivated to adopt safe and hygienic practices while handling feces of their children. NRHM and TSC share a common goal for integration of health, sanitation and hygiene education through effective inter-sectoral convergence, contributing towards achievement of MDGs. ICDS Scheme can be utilized to inculcate habit of using toilet and motivating kids to adopt hygiene practices.

One of the important inferences of this study is that funds were really not an issue for achieving total sanitation. However, the convergence of funds sources by according priority to the sanitation sector is the crux for effective outcomes. District is the best suited unit of convergence of these activities/programmes where Zila Panchayats in coordination with district administration are uniquely positioned to execute such development programmes.

iii

CURRENT SANITATION SCENARIO IN INDIA11.1 Introduction

Inadequate sanitation is a major cause of diseases and improving sanitation is known to have a

significant beneficial impact on health, both in households and across communities. Globally almost 1

billion people do not receive clean drinking water, 2.4 billion people have no access to hygienic sanitation

facilities and another 1.2 billion lack any sanitation facility at all. Each day, an average of 5,000 children

die due to preventable diseases related to water and sanitation (UNICEF, 2010).

Worldwide efforts have resulted in 1.3 billion people gaining access to improved sanitation since 1990

and the practice of open defecation have reduced from 25% to 17% during 1990-2008. However, an

estimated 1.1 billion people still practice open defecation despite a global decline of 167 million since

1990.

Moreover, despite progress in rural areas, disparity between rural and urban sanitation has also widened,

with only 45% of the rural population using improved sanitation as against 76% in urban areas

(WHO/UNICEF JMP Report 2010). On the other hand, rapid growth in urban populations is a major

reason for seven out of ten people to go without access to improved sanitation today.

MDGs Target :

Halve, by 2015, the proportion of the population without sustainable access to safe drinking

water and basic sanitation.

1. Safe water supply remains a challenge in many parts of the world.

2. The world is on track to meet the

drinking water target, though much

remains to be done in some

regions.

3. Accelerated and targeted efforts

are needed to bring drinking water

to all rural households.

4. With half the population of

developing regions without

sanitation, the 2015 target appears

to be out of reach.

5. Disparities in urban and rural

sanitat ion coverage remain

daunting.

6. Improvements in sanitation are

bypassing the poor.

Source: MDG Report by UN

638

58

50

49

48

33

17

15

13

12 215

India

Indonesia

China

Ethiopia

Pakistan

Nigeria

Sudan

Nepal

Brazil

Niger

Rest of the world

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

81% of 1.1 billion people that defecate in the open worldwide live in 10 countries

1

In 2000, through the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the International community committed to

halving the proportion of people without access to clean water and basic sanitation by 2015. Even with

major gaps in many regions and countries, the world is on track to meet the MDG target for water.

However, if the current trends continue, the sanitation target will be missed by a staggering 700 million

people (UNDP Report on Water Supply and Sanitation, 2010).

JMP Report: Fast Facts on Sanitation

2.4 billion people, or 39 percent of the world's population, live without access to improved

sanitation. The vast majority live in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.

In the developed regions of the world, almost entire population (99 percent) use improved facilities

as compared to 52 percent in developing regions.

At current rates of progress, the world will miss the MDG sanitation target by almost 1 billion people.

Besides, some 1.7 billion people will still not have access to improved sanitation facilities.

Rural/ urban disparities are particularly apparent in sub-Saharan Africa, and the Caribbean,

Southern Asia and Oceania where improved sanitation coverage is highest among the urban

population despite the vast majority living in rural areas.

751 million people share their sanitation facilities with other households or only use public facilities.

Source: WHO/UNICEFJjoint Monitoring Report 2010: Progress on Sanitation and Drinking Water

In the last two decades, millions of dollars have been spent to improve the sanitation scenario all over the

world. During 1990 to 2000, approximately US$ 15.7 billion have been invested on global water supply

and sanitation. During that period, an additional 816 million people have gained access to safe water and

an additional 747 million people have gained access to improved sanitation facilities. However, the

proportion of population with safe water supply and improved sanitation facilities have increased by only

3% and 5% respectively because of rapid population increase during that period.

Sanitation between 1990 and 2008

Even with the increase in the proportion of the population using improved sanitation facilities in China

(from 41% to 55%) and in India (from 18% to 31%), the world is not on track to meet the sanitation

target. This is despite the fact that 475 million people gained access to improved sanitation in these

two countries alone, accounting for 38% of the 1.3 billion people that gained access globally.

Source: JMP Report, 2010

2.4 billion people are now without access to improved sanitation facilities worldwide, and 1 billion people

are without safe water supply (Brocklehurst, UNICEF Chief of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH).

"With only five more years to go until 2015, a

major leap in efforts and investments in sanitation

is needed today in order to have an impact by the

time we carry out our end-of-MDG evaluation,"

(Robert Bos, Coordinator, Water, Sanitation,

Hygiene and Health, WHO).

In 2008, an estimated 2.6 billion people around

the world lacked access to an improved sanitation

facility. If the trend continues, that number will

grow to 2.7 billion by 2015. In the same year, 52

percent of the population in developing regions

had access to improved sanitation facilities

leaving 48 percent without basic sanitation

(Table-1). The two regions facing the greatest

challenges are sub-Saharan Africa and Southern

Asia, where 27 percent and 44 percent of the

population, respectively, lack access.

l

l

l

l

l

Four out of 10 people gaining access in 1990 improved sanitation live in China and India

2008 to

17%

21%

62%

India China Rest of the World

2

Region % Population with Improved sanitation

facilities

% Population with Shared Sanitation

Facilities

% Population with Unimproved Sanitation

Facilities

% Population with Open Sanitation Facilities

1990 2008 1990 2008 1990 2008 1990 2008 Latin America and Caribbean

64 80 14 14 0 0 17 6

Oceania 55 53 0 0 45 47 0 0 Sub-Saharan Africa

28 31 16 30 20 22 36 27

South Eastern Asia

46 69 6 9 16 8 32 14

Eastern Asia 43 56 12 18 38 22 7 4 Northern Africa 72 80 5 6 6 1 17 4 Western Asia 80 86 2 5 10 7 8 3 Developing Region

41 52 9 13 14 14 32 21

Southern Asia 25 36 7 10 2 10 66 44 World 50.44 60.33 7.89 11.67 18.88 16.38 23.89 13.67

The practice of open defecation by 1.1 billion people is an affront to human dignity. Moreover,

indiscriminate defecation is the root cause of faecal-oral transmission of disease, which can have lethal

consequences for children, the most vulnerable members of society. If open defecation rates continue to

decline, the impact on reducing child deaths could be enormous, primarily by preventing diarrheal

diseases, under-nutrition and stunting that tend to follow. Success stories among some of the poorest and

most disadvantaged groups in society show that behaviours can change. What is required is the political

will to mobilize the resources needed to stop open defecation, which represents the greatest obstacle to

tackling the sanitation problem.

Most progress in sanitation has occurred in rural areas. Over the period 1990-2008, sanitation coverage

for the whole of the developing regions increased by only 5 percent in urban areas and 43 percent in rural

areas.

Table 1.2 Sanitation coverage in Urban and Rural areas in various regions of the world

Table- 1.1: Sanitation coverage worldwide (1990 vs. 2008)

Region Population with improved Sanitation facilities (%)Rural Areas Urban Areas

Latin America and Caribbean Oceania

Sub- Saharan Africa South Eastern Asia Eastern Asia Northern Africa

Developing Region

Western Asia

Developed Region

World

Southern Asia

5545

24605383

4067

96

45

26

86 81

44 79 61 94

68

94

100

76

57

Among sanitation practices, the one that poses the greatest threat to human health is open defecation. It

is encouraging that this practice has declined in all developing regions. However, the largest relative

decline was in two regions where open defecation was already the least Northern Africa and Western

Asia. In contrast, the least progress (a decrease of 25 percent) was made in sub-Saharan Africa, where

rates of open defecation are high. Southern Asia, which has the highest rate of open defecation in the

world (44 percent of the population), made only limited progress.

3

Source: MDG, October 2010

In Southern Asia, coverage rose from 56 percent to 57 percent of the urban populationa mere 1

percent increasewhile doubling in rural areas, from 13 percent to 26 percent. The gap between rural

and urban areas, however, remains huge, especially in Southern Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and

Oceania.

India is developing at a fast pace. In the last few decades, the rate of economic growth has been high,

with the country becoming the leader in many sectors. By 2022, it is expected to be well positioned to

become a middle income country, with its economy among the top five in the world in terms of GDP

(Nirmal Bharat Report 2010), but with lowest sanitation coverage. The JMP Report reveals that

despite an increase in the proportion of population using improved sanitation facilities in India from

18%(1990) to 31%(2008),it is expected that India would be failing to achieve the MDGs target by14%.

Table-1.3: Population without sanitation facilities in India (%)

1990 2008 2015 MDG target Expected achievement

82 69 41 55

The rural urban gap in access/ use of sanitation facility continues to be very high as 60% of the rural

households do not have toilet facilities as against 19% of urban households, as per data available for

2007-2008 (Millennium Development Goals- India Country Report, 2009). In addition to the

challenges in achieving safe sanitation to rural households on a sustainable basis, other facets of

sanitation also continue to be a challenge. These include adoption of hygiene practices such as hand

washing at critical times, and management of solid and liquid waste to ensure environmental

sanitation.

The present sanitation scenario therefore continues to be inadequate, despite longstanding efforts

by various levels of government and communities for improving the coverage. The level of

investment in sanitation, albeit low by international standards, has increased over the past few years.

While access has also increased significantly, most Indians still lack access to improved sanitation

facilities. A number of innovative approaches have been tested in India to improve the sanitation

facilities, particular since the early 2000s. These include community-led total sanitation and public-

private partnerships, both in rural and urban India.

Even after all these efforts, the overall sanitation conditions in most of the states remain grim. In terms

of coverage, a huge section of the rural population does not have access to sanitation. Taking the self

1.2 Sanitation Scenario in India

55

45

24

60

53

83

67

40

96

45

26

86

81

44

79

61

94 94

68

100

76

57

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Latin America

and Caribbean

Oceania Sub-Saharan

Africa

South Eastern

Asia

Eastern Asia

Northern Africa

Western Asia

WorldDevelopingRegion

DevelopedRegion

Southern Asia

Rs

. in

La

cs

% Population with improved Sanitation facilities

Rural Areas

Urban Areas

4

reported figure of 65% for the rural population lacking access to improved sanitation, about 30 million

people in rural areas are still defecating in the open or lacking access to improved sanitation. The

construction of individual toilets in the country is reported to be about 57% (www.ddws.nic.in) against

the target.

Inadequate sanitation causes India considerable economic losses, equivalent to 6.4 percent of

India's GDP in 2006 at US $ 53.8 billion (Rs. 24,000 crores) annually, according to The Economic

Impacts of Inadequate Sanitation in India, a report from the Water and Sanitation Program (WSP), a

global partnership administered by the World Bank. The cost of treatment for diseases due to poor

hygiene was estimated at US $ 38.5 billion (over Rs. 17,000 crores).

The need to improve sanitation facilities in urban and rural areas is a high priority for the Government

of India (GOI). Although both GOI and state governments are spending huge amount of money for

providing basic sanitation facilities, the actual ground scenario is not very encouraging.

The present study was undertaken to map the various types of financing schemes, both tied and

untied ones, understand their utilisation patterns and identify those that have succeeded in making

an impact in the four states of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh.

The study has been the outcome of extensive consultations carried out with various government

departments, ULBs, communities being served, local authorities and NGOs.

The objective of the study was to assess various avenues that are available for financing the

sanitation sector, by analyzing programmes in four states of India with varying performance levels.

All possible sources of tied and untied government finance, non government sources of finance and

through private sector, NGOs have been analyzed following the criteria given below:

1. Source of funding: nature of the funding organization

2. Type of activities for which the funds are available.

Sample formats were prepared for various types of tied and untied schemes. Data collected through

these formats sought to identify sources of finance, both from the government and non-government

sources (private, NGO, donor agencies), available for sanitation in the four states (viz, Andhra

Pradesh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh). The data was analysed in consultation with

government officials (from ministries and departments involved in Urban Development and Rural

Development), officials of agencies implementing and monitoring schemes, NGOs, and

beneficiaries. The methodology followed is represented in brief, in the diagram below (Fig-1).

Fig 1: Methodology of Financial Resource Mapping Study

1.3 Rationale for the study

1.4 Objective of the study

1.5 Approach and methodology

Methodology

Collection of data from Govt.

Departments

Primary Research

Internet research

Meetings & Discussions

Consultations with the Sarpanch, NGOs and Communities

ULBS & IAgencies

mplementing

State Departments

Secondary Research

Earlier Research /Evaluation Reports

5

TOTAL SANITATION CAMPAIGN2Introduction

Government of India launched the Central Rural Sanitation Programme (CRSP) in 1980, which focused

on the provision of household pour-flush toilets and relied on a hardware subsidy to 'generate demand'.

This approach has not been successful in motivating and sustaining high levels of sanitation coverage. It

also did not adopt 'total' sanitation, which includes safe sanitation practices by the entire community,

improved hygiene behaviour, school and institutional sanitation, and solid and liquid waste management.

Despite an investment of US$ 138 million and construction of over 9 million latrines in rural areas, rural

sanitation grew at just 1 percent annually throughout the 1990s and the Census of 2001 found that only 22

percent of rural households had access to a toilet.

In light of the relatively poor performance of the CRSP and keeping in view the experiences of the Central

and state governments, NGOs and other implementing agencies and the recommendations of the

Second National Seminar on Rural Sanitation, the strategy for the Ninth Five Year Plan was revised and

the CRSP programme was restructured and launched as the Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) from 1

April 1999.

This programme moves away from the principle of state-wise allocation of funds, primarily based on

poverty criteria, to a demand driven approach in a phased manner. TSC is a comprehensive

programme to ensure sanitation facilities in rural areas with a broader goal of eradicating the practice

of open defecation. It is a community-led and people-centered programme. The focus has shifted

from a high subsidy to a low subsidy regime. The TSC approach emphasize awareness-building and

meeting the demand through alternate delivery mechanisms. School sanitation has been introduced

as a major component to encourage wider acceptance of sanitation among rural masses.

The Total Sanitation Campaign concentrates on promoting behavior change by the community, as

against the toilet construction focused approach of earlier programs. The main principles underlying

TSC implementation are:

A community led approach where the whole village ends open defecation and achieves total

sanitation.

Mobilize and motivate communities for behavior change.

Minimum cash incentives only for poorest households, post construction and usage of toilets.

Different types of technology options so that people can choose according to what they can

afford.

Facilitate availability of sanitary products at economical prices. Fiscal incentives to Gram

Panchayats in the form of prizes such as Nirmal Gram Puraskar (NGP) for achievement of total

sanitation by the Gram Panchayat.

2.1 Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC)

Total Sanitation Campaign

l

l

l

l

l

6

TSC emphasizes Information, Education and Communication (IEC), Capacity Building and Hygiene

Education for effective behaviour change with involvement of PRIs, CBOs, and NGOs. The key

intervention areas are Individual household latrines (IHHL), School Sanitation and Hygiene

Education (SSHE), Community Sanitary Complex, Anganwadi toilets supported by Rural Sanitary

Marts (RSMs) and Production Centers (PCs). The goal of the GoI is to eradicate the practice of open

defecation by 2012. Total Sanitation Campaign is being implemented in rural areas taking district as a

unit of implementation.

Total Sanitation Campaign has seven major components which are as follows:

This includes initial publicity, motivational campaigns, conduct of preliminary

surveys to assess the demand. The aim is to prepare the District TSC project proposals for

seeking Government of India assistance. Conducting Base Line Survey (BLS) and preparing

Project Implementation Plan (PIP) is also part of the start-up activity.

The IEC are important components of the

programme, which seek to create demand for sanitary facilities in the rural areas. IEC also

focuses on health and hygiene practices and environmental sanitation aspects.

The Rural Sanitary Mart is an outlet dealing

with materials required for construction of not only sanitary latrines but also other sanitary

facilities required for individuals, families and schools in rural areas. The main aim of having a

RSM is to provide materials and guidance needed for constructing different types of latrines and

other sanitary facilities, which are technologically and financially suitable to the rural areas.

Production Centers are the means to improve production of cost effective affordable sanitary

materials. To run RSMs and PCs, PRIs, NGOs and SHGs may be involved at district, block and

village level.

TSC aims to cover both BPL and APL families. But BPL

families are eligible for subsidies (incentives), which are available for low cost basic unit and

shared between Government of India, State Govts and beneficiary. A minimum of 25 percent of

funds for IHHL are marked for SC/ST community and 3 percent of IHHL toilets are to be

constructed for disabled persons.

This is an important component of the TSC. These Complexes

can be set up in a place in the village acceptable to people and accessible to them.

Children are more receptive to new ideas and school is an appropriate

institution for changing the behaviour, mindset and habits of children from open defecation to the

use of lavatory through motivation and education. School Sanitation, and Hygiene Education,

therefore, forms an integral part of every TSC Project. Toilets in all types of Government Schools

i.e. Primary, Upper Primary, Secondary and Higher Secondary and Aganwadis are planned to be

constructed. Emphasis is laid on toilets for girls in the Schools.

The Administrative Charges include money spent on training, salary

of temporary staff deployed during project period, support services, fuel charges, vehicle hire

charges, stationery, and monitoring & evaluation of TSC project.

The TSC is being implemented in the districts of the States/ UTs with support from the GOI and the

respective State/ UT Governments. The States/ UTs draw up a TSC Project for the selected districts

to claim GOI assistance. Selection of districts is done by the respective State/ UT Governments. At

the district level, the Zila Panchayat implements the project. In case the Zila Panchayat is not

functional, District Water and Sanitation Mission (DWSM) implements the TSC. Similarly, at the block

and the Panchayat levels, Panchayat Samiti and respective Gram Panchayats are involved in the

implementation of the TSC.

2.2 Components

lStart-up activities:

lInformation, Education and Communication (IEC):

lRural Sanitary Marts and Production Centres:

lIndividual Household Latrines (IHHL):

lCommunity Sanitary Complex:

lSchool Sanitation:

lAdministrative Charges:

2.3 Implementation Mechanism

7

The different phases of TSC implementation have been listed below:

Project Proposal

Sanction by GOI

Baseline Survey (BLS)

Project Implementation Plan (PIP)

Identification of NGO, orientation of Panchayat functionaries and other stakeholders.

Social Mobilization

Capacity development of district officials including 3-tier Panchayat functionaries

Establishment of RSM/ PC

Demand generation through IEC

Construction of hardware with active involvement of users

Regular Monitoring and Evaluation

TSC is implemented on a campaign mode, taking district as a unit. Once the respective state decides

the districts for implementation of the TSC, TSC project proposals are prepared district wise

indicating baseline data related to sanitation, the requirement of hardware, IEC strategy, human

resource development plan, and implementation strategy. The projects are submitted by the State

Govt. to the Department of Drinking Water Supply, Ministry of Rural Development, GOI and are

scrutinized by Dept. of Drinking Water Supply. If found suitable and conforming to the TSC principles

and guidelines they are placed before the National Scheme Sanctioning Committee (NSSC), chaired

by the Secretary, Department of Drinking Water Supply, Ministry of Rural Development for approval.

. After NSSC approval, the Central share of the approved outlay is released to Project Implementing

Agencies (PIAs) in four installments.

BPL families are provided a subsidy for the construction of basic sanitation units. Before 2008,

beneficiaries were entitled to Rs 2000 or less, which has been revised since. The funding pattern for

construction of basic low cost sanitation unit /toilets is as below:

h

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

2.4 Sanction procedure

2.5 Financing Pattern

Table- 2.1 Cost of Unit

However, in Andhra Pradesh, Rs.550/- is given to each beneficiaries in addition to Rs 2500, for

construction of the toilets.

The Nirmal Gram Puraskar of the Government of India, introduced in 2004, is a scheme that offers

cash rewards to local government that achieves 100% sanitation i.e. they are 100% open defecation

free (ODF) and have tackled issues of liquid and solid waste management effectively. The amount of

incentive ranges from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 5 lakhs, based on population of the Gram Panchayat.

The activity under TSC has resulted in noteworthy progress in the country (Source: Towards Nirmal

Bharat, 2010). From 21% in 2001, the total sanitation coverage has reached 65% in 2010.

2.6 The Nirmal Gram Puraskar

2.7 Progress of TSC

Until 2008

Rs 900/-(60%)

0 Rs 300/-

(20%) 0 Rs 300/-

(20%)

Upto Rs 2000 Rs 900/-

(45%) 0 Rs 600/-

(30%) 0 Rs 500/-

( %)25

Upto Rs 1500

More than Rs 2000 0 0 0 0 100%

After 2008

Rs 2500 1,500

(60%) 0 700

(28%)

0 300

(12%)

Period Basic Low Cost Unit

Share

Central State Beneficiary

BPL APL BPL APL BPL APL

0

0

100%

0

8

In addition, about 22,000 Gram Panchayats have been awarded the Nirmal Gram Puraskar by the Government of India for achieving total sanitation. However there is wide disparity among the States in terms of sanitation coverage and range from near 100% coverage to less than 30%. During the last decade progress of construction of individual household latrines was 57% against the set target (Table-2.2).

Sl. No.

State

Target Achievement

Number Number %

1 Andhra Pradesh 10265917 6582250 64.12

2 Arunachal Pradesh 133861 53382 39.88

3 Assam 33810373381037 1142089 33.7833.78

4 Bihar 11171314 2615308 23.41

5 Chhattisgarh 33924533392453 1712726 50.49

66 D & N haveli 2480 37 1.49

7 Goa 45323 33753 74.47

8 Gujarat 5378487 3876704 72.08

9 Haryana 2095434 1837255 87.68

10 Himachal Pradesh 850737 879431 103.37

11 Jammu & Kashmir 1470803 276000 18.77

12 Jharkhand 3729495 1462976 39.23

13 Karnataka 5870915 3244326 55.26

14 Kerala 1073742 1101536 102.59

15 Madhya Pradesh 8467193 5210785 61.54

16 Maharashtra 9728343 6158279 63.30

17 Manipur 263254 45937 17.45

18 Meghalaya 301833 119273 39.52

19 Mizoram 108878 76540 70.30

20 Nagaland 211346 76327 36.11

21 Orissa 7056648 3240935 45.93

22 Puducherry 18000 2268 12.60

23 Punjab 1167568 734932 62.95

24 Rajasthan 6984333 3223828 46.16

25 Sikkim 87014 94600 108.72

26 Tamil nadu 8667088 6299753 72.69

27 Tripura 623774 565782 90.70

28 Uttar Pradesh 20676487 13631911 65.93

29 Uttarakhand 886301 521923 58.89

30 West Bengal 11616656 7078425 60.93

Table- 2.2 State-wise physical progress of construction of individual household toilets during 2001-10

1%4%

11%

3%

10% 11%14%

6%

17% 18%22% 22% 23%

27%31%

38%

45%

57%

65%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1980 1988 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1996 1997 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010

1980-90:Int'l Drinking Water Supply & Sanitation

1999 : Launch of Total Sanitation Campaign

2003 : Launch of Nirmal Gram Puraskar

1986-99 : Central Rural Sanitation

9

Findings

The overall status of sanitation coverage over the past decade in various states of India has

improved. However, the status of sanitation in rural India continues to be a challenge, with a large

section of the rural population having no access to sanitation facility. Taking the self reported figure of

69% of the rural population having access, about 30 million people in rural areas are still defecating in

the open or accessing unimproved sanitation (Table-2.3)

Table 2.3 Access to sanitation to the rural people in different states of India

S.No State / Union Territory Total HH in TSC (Including

Census with toilets)

Total Achievement including

Census 2001

%age Achievement against

TSC+Census

1 2 3=(2/1)*100

1 Andhra Pradesh 12566612 9092793 72.36

2 Arunachal Pradesh 211732 134217 63.39

3 Assam 5894841 3805356 64.55

4 Bihar 12932905 4713175 36.44

5 Chhattisgarh 3566447 1941644 54.44

6 Goa 113186 101616 89.78

7 Gujarat 6653010 5475381 82.3

8 Haryana 2798947 2585919 92.39

9 Himachal Pradesh 1154939 1433633 100

10 Jammu & Kashmir 1956237 776804 39.71

11 Jharkhand 3979287 1773600 44.57

12 Karnataka 7032174 4528234 64.39

13 Kerala 5093763 5154515 100

14 Madhya Pradesh 9193411 6600980 71.8

15 Maharashtra 11730279 8329379 71.01

16 Manipur 492916 288234 58.48

17 Meghalaya 434032 259819 59.86

18 Mizoram 172163 139825 81.22

19 Nagaland 382871 250067 65.31

20 Orissa 7579920 3895509 51.39

21 Punjab 2303094 2151420 93.41

22 Rajasthan 8029718 4429330 55.16

23 Sikkim 141452 149038 100

24 Tamilnadu 9855007 7894875 80.11

25 Tripura 1044358 1068217 100

27

Uttarakhand

1264297

949244

75.08

28

West Bengal

14622510

11145156

76.22

29

A & n islands

49653

21018

42.33

30

Chandigarh

21302

14598

68.53

31

D & n Haveli

8159

5716

70.06

32

Daman & diu

22091

7074

32.02

33

Delhi

169528

106608

62.89

34

Lakshadweep

5351

4984

93.14

35

Puducherry

33467

17735

52.99

26

Uttar Pradesh

Total

24635057

156144716

18653981

107899694

75.72

69.10

10

l

l

l

2.8 Total Sanitation Campaign in Four Project States

2.8.1: UTTAR PRADESH

There is a significant gap between coverage and usage. Much of the coverage achieved has

been through a supply driven approach without adequate demand. Therefore, as in the CRSP

era, there were huge gaps between infrastructure creation and its actual use (by all members of

the household at all times).

There has been slippage in the status of the NGP villages. Many of the NGP villages have gone

back to open defecation, as various anecdotal evidences and studies show. A study undertaken

by UNICEF in 2008 revealed that only 6 of the 162 Gram Panchayats studied were continuing

without open defecation, while more than 94 GPs had more than 20% of the households

practicing open defecation.

In addition to the challenges in achieving safe sanitation for rural households on a sustainable

basis, the other facets of sanitation also continue to be a challenge. These include adoption of

hygiene practices such as hand washing at critical times, and management of solid and liquid

waste to ensure environmental sanitation.

Physical Progress

In Uttar Pradesh, Total Sanitation Campaign is being implemented in 70 districts. The physical

progress in different districts of Total Sanitation Campaign during the period 2007-2008 is shown in

Annexure-I. The summary of the physical progress is shown in Table- 2.4.

Table- 2.4 Physical Progress of TSC in Uttar Pradesh during 2007-2010

During 2008-09, 1448 sanitary complexes were constructed, an all time high. The cumulative

achievement against the target is shown Table-2.5.

Table 2.5 Target versus achievement of TSC in Uttar Pradesh till Dec. 2010

Source: www.ddws.nic.in

Financial Progress

The summary of the financial progress of the programme during the period 2007-2010 is provided in

Table- 2.6 & Annexure-II

Table- 2.6 Financial Progress of TSC in Uttar Pradesh during 2007-2010 (Rs. in Crore)

Maximum disbursement was in the year 2008-2009 while the maximum expenditure was in the year

2009-2010 (133%).

Year IHHL (BPL) IHHL (APL) IHHL Total Sanitary Complexes

School Toilets

Balwadi Toilets

2007-2008 852048 1162476 2014524 63 60035 22058

2008-2009 1039797 1375357 2415154 1448 84045 33380

2009-2010 1159837 1509710 2669547 51 37933 22997

Total 3051682 4047543 7099225 1562 182013 78435

Parameter TOTAL IHHL SCW School Toilets Balwadi Toilets

Target 2,06,76,487 2,366 2,69,860 1,07,302

Achievement 1,36,31,911 2,379 2,25,720 86,714

Year Disbursement Expenditure % Achievement

2007-2008 275.98 272.07 98.58

2008-2009 808.28 512.68 63.43

2009-2010 506.72 674.91 133.19

Total 1591.00 1459.67 91.75

11

Year IHHL (BPL) IHHL (APL) IHHL Total Sanitary Complexes

School Toilets

Balwadi Toilets

2007-2008 191045 198197 389242 337 13888 957 2008-2009 180860 111837 292697 17 30727 1640 2009-2010 238305 367972 606277 13 2242 764

Total 610210 678006 1288216 367 46857 3361

Parameter TOTAL IHHL SCW School Toilets Balwadi Toilets Target 1,02,65,917 575 1,15,908 14,990

Achievement 65,82,250 914 1,00,483 5,810

2.8.2 : ANDHRA PRADESH

Total Sanitation Campaign in Andhra Pradesh was started in the year 1999-2000 but actually

accelerated from 2007-2008. The programme is being implemented in 22 districts in the state. The

physical and financial status till 2010 is as under.

Physical Progress

The details of the physical progress of TSC in different districts of Andhra Pradesh during the year

2007-2008 are shown in Annexure-III. The summary of different types of toilets constructed under the

programme is shown in Table-2.7.

Table- 2.7 Physical progress of TSC in Andhra Pradesh

The comparative status of the physical achievement during the period 2007 -2010 reveals that there

has been a substantial increase in construction of individual households in the year 2009-10. The

cumulative achievement of toilets construction against the target is shown in Table-2.8.

Table- 2.8 Target versus achievement of toilet construction in Andhra Pradesh till Dec. 2010

Source: www.ddws.nic.in

Financial Progress

The financial status of TSC in Andhra Pradesh during the period 2007-2010 is shown in Table -2.9. &

Annexure-IV

Table- 2.9 Financial progress of TSC in Andhra Pradesh

(Rs in Crore)

During 2007-2008, Rs 50.79 crore was disbursed. In the subsequent year, Rs 25.30 crore was

disbursed which is almost half that of the previous year. During 2009 2010, Rs 154.64 crors was

disbursed.

The maximum disbursement for TSC in the state was in the year 2009-10. During 2007-08 and 2008-09, expenditure under this programme was more than the disbursement. This is on account of tardy progress of the programme in the previous years resulting in accumulation of large undisbursed amount. But the expenditure towards implementation of the TSC activities during 2009-10 has not increased to that extent in spite of having sufficient fund at least during first half of the year.

The total amount disbursed during 2007-10 amounts to Rs 230.74 crore and the expenditure is Rs 196.37 crore. During the same period, a total of 12,88,216 household latrines were constructed in Andhra Pradesh.

Year Disbursement Expenditure % Achievement

2007-2008 50.79 67.78 133.45*

2008-2009 25.30 61.36 242.55* 2009-2010 154.64 67.21 43.46

Total 230.74 196.37 85.10

12

Year Disbursement Expenditure % Achievement

2007-2008 133.33 95.36 71.52

2008-2009 160.84 115.67 71.92

2009-2010 145.01 191.12 131.79

Total 439.19 402.17 91.57

2.8.3 MADHYA PRADESH

Physical Progress

TSC in Madhya Pradesh is being implemented in 48 districts. The details of the physical progress in different districts of the state during the year 2007-2010 are shown in Annexure-V, while summary of the physical progress for the period 2007-2010 is shown in Table- 2.10.

Table- 2.10 Physical progress of TSC in Madhya Pradesh

Construction of toilets in rural areas in Madhya Pradesh is also being done under other state

government schemes like Nirmal Vatika (discussed in separate chapter). Maximum construction of

individual toilets under TSC in the state was observed in the year 2009 -2010. Construction of

individual toilets has been higher in APL categories in Madhya Pradesh as well. This implies that

subsidy provided under TSC does not have great relevance, while better awareness among the

people may be of greater significance.

The cumulative achievement against the target is shown Table- 2.11.

Source: www.ddws.nic.in

Till December, 2010, in Madhya Pradesh, 8467193 Individual Household Toilets have been

constructed against the target of 5210785.

Financial Progress

The summary of the financial progress of TSC programme during the period 2007-2010 is depicted in

Table- 2.12. & Annexure-VI

Table 2.12 Financial Progress of TSC in Madhya Pradesh during 2007-2010

(Rs in Crore)

In 2009-2010, expenditure under this programme was more than the disbursement, which depict the

speedy progress of the programme in the state.

Total sanitation Campaign in Gujarat has been implemented in 25 districts. The physical and financial

progress achieved during this period is given below.

2.8.4 GUJARAT

Parameter TOTAL IHHL SCW School Toilets Balwadi Toilets Target 84,67,193 1,602 1,37,730 27,595 Achievement 52,10,785 785 92,358 20,519

Year IHHL (BPL) IHHL (APL) IHHL Total Sanitary Complexes

School Toilets

Balwadi Toilets

2007-2008 3,54,358 5,13,679 8,68,037 98 12,730 4,862 2008-2009 4,39,772 6,65,478 11,05,250 132 23,015 8,722 2009-2010 5,95,427 7,70,106 13,65,533 117 10,540 2,057

Total 13,89,557 19,49,263 33,38,820 347 46,285 15,641

Table 2.11 Target versus achievement of toilet construction in Madhya Pradesh till Dec. 2010

13

Parameter TOTAL IHHL SCW School Toilets Balwadi Toilets

Target 53,78,487 1,671 28,617 23,460

Achievem ent 38,76,704 1,739 25,160 23,189

Physical Progress

The details of the physical status of TSC in different districts of Gujarat during the period 2007-2010

are shown in Annexure-VII. The summary of the physical progress is shown in Table 2.13.

Table- 2.13 Summary of the Physical progress of TSC in Gujarat

Year IHHL (BPL) IHHL (APL) IHHL Total Sanitary

Complexes

School

Toilets

Balwadi

Toilets

2007 -2008 4,26,856 4,21,041 8,47,897 318 2,493 5,211

2008 -2009 4,83,175 5,01,025 9,84,200 215 3,180 1,834

2009 -2010 2,83,359 3,23,719 6,07,078 106 697 1,599

Total 11,93,390 12,45,785 24,39,175 639 6,370 8,644

In Gujarat, construction of toilets in rural areas are also being done under different state government

schemes like Nirmal Gujarat, Pay and Use toilets etc (discussed in separate chapter). Again,

construction of individual toilets in the state has been higher in APL categories, as compared to the

BPL categories, implying the insignificance of the subsidy given under this scheme. The subsidy

provided under TSC does not appear to be of great relevance on account of the prosperity prevailing

in the state. The cumulative achievement against the target is shown Table-2.14.

Table- 2.14 Target versus achievement of toilets construction in Gujarat till Dec. 2010

Source: www.ddws.nic.in

Till December, 2010, in Gujarat, 38,76,704 Individual Household Toilets have been constructed

against the target of 53,78,487.

Financial Progress

The financial scenario of TSC programme in Gujarat for the period 2007-2010 is shown in Table 2.15.

& Annexure-VIII

Table 2.15 Financial Progress of TSC in Gujarat during 2007-2010(Rs in Crore)

Year Disbursement Expenditure % Achievement

2007 -2008 130.23 68.40 52.53

2008 -2009 36.72 65.36 178.00*

2009 -2010 80.06 85.61 106.93

Total 247.02 219.38 88.81

The maximum disbursement for TSC in the state was in the year 2008-09. This is on account of tardy

progress of the programme in the previous years resulting in a large undisbursed amount.

The Comparative analysis of the status of TSC in project states is shown in Table-2.16.

2.9 Comparative analysis of Total Sanitation Campaign in the project states

S. No. State Achievement(no of IHHL)

Disbursement Expenditure Realization (%)

1. Uttar Pradesh 70,99,225 1,591.00 1,459.67 91.75

2. Andhra Pradesh 12,88,216 230.75 196.37 85.10

3. Madhya Pradesh 33,38,820 439.19 402.17 91.57

4. Gujarat 24,39,175 247.02 219.38 88.81

Table-2.16 Comparative progress in project states (2007-10)(Rs in Crore)

14

During 2007-10, construction of individual toilets as well as disbursement and expenditure was

maximum in Uttar Pradesh.

It is evident that the performance of TSC in the four project states is quite good as the realization

ranges from 85 to 92%. TSC in general accelerated in all the four project states especially in last three

years. However, overall information from all states (JMP report 2010) reveals that the programme

failed to achieve the expected target in the country.

The experience of ensuring the uses of safe sanitation facilities in the rural areas of the country,

through the CRSP and the total sanitation campaign has provided rich lessons, both positive and

challenging, which are summarized below.

1. The adaptation of a community led approach where the entire community was facilitated to

analyze their sanitation status through participatory approaches has resulted in better outcome of

a sustainable basis. Examples of this includes the state of Maharashtra, where a hundred percent

of more than 80% sustainability of NGP villages are very high (almost 70% of the villagers

studies), as compared to other state where this figure is below 50% (see results of NGP

sustainability study given in previous section).

2. An enabling environment for sanitation outcomes, which include policy, political and

administrative will, advocate adequate funding for software, hardware and incentives, has been

created at the National and at certain state levels. This has resulted in rural sanitation receiving a

high profile, and attention to reach outcomes.

3. The TSC and NGP has promoted and established the role of incentives to achieve and sustain

sanitation outcomes. The NGP has been instrumental in scaling of GP level sustainable

outcomes across many states; the states embraced the NGP in the true spirit to achieve the

outcomes, at the same time enabling decentralization and strengthening of Gram Panchayat. To

further strengthen incentives and ensure sustainability, several states also initiated their state

competitive reward programmes with their own budget, where annual competition for GPs across

a set of indicators are held to motivate and sustain their sanitation achievements.

4. The TSC is a paradigm shift from the CRSP where behaviour change was considered a priority

over infrastructure creation. The demand for adoption of safe sanitary behaviour was created,

followed by the construction of toilets. However, notwithstanding the guidelines of the TSC

reflecting the paradigm shift, on the ground, the shift from a supply driven approach to a truly

demand driven approach has been very slow. At present, some of the elements of the supply

driven approach, such as construction of toilets without involvement of the households, is evident

in some states. This is a major reason for the lack of usage and slippages have been noticed in

various states.

5. Sanitation, being a public good, needed outcomes at the community level so that public health

issues can be addressed. However, the TSC counts the construction of individual household

toilets as achievement, which results in lack of focus on getting the community to end open

defecation. Individual toilets are constructed in villages, but community as a whole does not

achieve total sanitation. The introduction of NGP had hoped to and did succeed, to some extent,

in focusing the community achievements but has not been effective all the way.

6. In continuation of the above, the addressal of sanitation has been found to be faster, effective and

sustainable, if the motivation is at a community level rather than just at individual household level.

The availability of incentives for BPL households has increased over a period of time, resulting in

an approach concentrated on construction of toilets for these households ignoring other villagers.

7. The focus has largely been limited to ensuring safe containment of human wastes. While this is

the most important threat and thus requires the bulk of attention as a first outcome, other issues

2.10 Nirmal Bharat

15

like adoption of hygienic practices and management of solid and liquid wastes has been relatively

neglected.

8. The Gram Panchayats, which has the mandate and responsibility for sanitation and which is best

placed to facilitate the adoption and long term monitoring of behaviour change, has not given the

primacy it deserves . Most often, the involvement has been in the form of facilitating construction

of BPL toilets than achieving sanitation outcomes.

Since the TSC failed to achieve its target, another programme NIRMAL BHARAT has been launched

by the Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of

India, in October 2010.

The Vision

The vision of Nirmal Bharat is the dream of a nation where every person has an aspiration and right to

live in an environment which is clean and healthy. It is where clean environment is a way of life.

Objectives of Nirmal Bharat

The strategic objectives of the strategic plan for rural sanitation are as follows:

Creation of Total Sanitation Environment: The end of open defecation and achievement of a clean

environment, where fecal waste is safely contained and disposed.

Adoption of Hygiene Practices: All people in the rural areas, especially children and care givers,

shall practice safe hygiene practice during all times.

Creation of clean physical environment in villages.

l

l

l

16

INTEGRATED LOW COST SANITATION SCHEME (ILCS)

33.1 Introduction

3.2 Objective

3.3 Selection of Towns

3.4 Eligibility

l

l

l

l

The Centrally sponsored Integrated Low Cost Sanitation Scheme for the liberation of scavengers

started during the year 1980-81 through the Ministry of Home Affairs and later on through the Ministry

of Welfare. From 1989-90, it is being operated through the Ministry of Urban Development and later

on through the Ministry of Urban Employment and Poverty Alleviation (now titled Ministry of Housing

& Urban Poverty Alleviation). The ILCS Scheme was implemented till December 2007 under the

earlier guidelines which was revised in January 2008 and named as Revised ILCS.

The objective of the scheme is to convert/ construct low cost sanitation units through sanitary two pits

pour flush latrines with superstructures and appropriate variations to suit local conditions (area

specific latrines) and construct new latrines where EWS households have no latrines and practice

open defecation in urban areas.

Rather than their population and proportion of EWS households, predominance of dry latrines forms

the basis of selecting towns from States and Union Territories. Schemes are applicable to all towns

where dry units exist or for persons who have no latrines and defecate in the open. Targets are fixed

depending upon the prevalence of dry latrines.

The scheme is on 'All Towns' coverage basis.

Proposals are submitted by the urban local body or organizations like the Housing Board, Slum

Clearance Board, Development Authority, Improvement Trust, Water Supply and Sewerage

Board, Cantonment Board, etc. duly authorized by the State Government to the State Urban

Development Authority for undertaking the programme.

The concerned urban local body/ organization gives an undertaking prohibiting dry latrines in the

towns thereafter.

The States select NGOs having adequate experience in the field who are funded to the extent of

15% over and above the total project cost borne by the Centre and States based on the ratio of 5:1

at different stages of implementation. Further, NGOs are required to conduct a survey for

identification of beneficiaries and the ULBs finalize the list of beneficiaries on the basis of survey

conducted within a year. NGOs also issue biometric photo identity cards, look after operation and

maintenance of the converted units, and organize training/ seminars for preparation of project 17

S. No Name of U Target

(Number)

Achievement

(Number)

Sanction ExpenditureLB

1 Agra 1723 1723 1.58 1.30

2 Aligarh 6735 3702 3.46 2.90

3 Allahabad 316 80 0.07 0.04

4 Ambedkar Nagar 1590 1260 1.47 1.21

5 Azamgarh 784 476 0.72 0.48

6 Badaun 12158 2884 9.72 4.69

l

3.5 Selection of Beneficiaries

3.6 Financing Pattern

l

l

l

l

l

3.7 ILCS Status in Four Project States

3.7.1 : UTTAR PRADESH

reports and estimates by Urban Local Bodies (ULBs)/ Development Authorities (DAs) after

ensuring willingness of identified beneficiaries.

The scheme covers all the EWS households and provides support to covert dry latrines as well as for

construction of new latrines where EWS Households have no latrines.

The scheme is implemented by the Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation directly. HUDCO

provides technical support such as appraisal of project proposals submitted by the State

Governments/UTs. HUDCO Headquarters scrutinizes the project proposals and submit for

consideration of the Central Coordination Committee of the Ministry. The role of Central Coordination

Committee is to consider the proposals submitted by HUDCO and release of funds.

The upper ceiling of Rs. 10,000/- is provided for the complete unit of a two pit pour flush individual

latrine with superstructure excluding States falling in difficult / hilly areas. For the States falling in

the category of difficult and hilly areas, 25% extra cost is provided for each two pit pour flush

latrine.

Central and state government subsidies for each latrine are 75% and 15% respectively. The rest

10% cost is being borne by the beneficiary. Hence there is no loan component.

The subsidy is released by Central Government directly. However, the second installment of

subsidy i.e., with reference to total funds earmarked for a given State/ UT, is released only after

the State's share for the first has been released.

Funds are released to State Urban Development Agency (SUDA), District Urban Development

Agency (DUDA) or any other agency designated by the State Government.

1% of total central allocation is retained by the Ministry every year, for MIS, Monitoring System,

Capacity Building and IEC components.

The ILCS scenario in projects states is discussed below. As data on ILCS in the project states are not

consistent in terms of number of continuation, project costs, disbursement and expenditure,

therefore, it is not possible to present a uniform format. Further, the ILCS in some states like Gujarat

has been modified to suit their own programme in course of time.

Integrated Low Cost Sanitation Scheme (ILCS) is implemented by State Urban Development

Authority (SUDA). Total 1,29,209 toilets have been constructed under this scheme against the target

of 2,38,253. The details of the status are shown in Table- 3.1.

Table-3.1 Status of ILCS in Uttar Pradesh

(Rs in Crore)

18

S. No Name of ULB Target(Number)

Achievement(Number)

Sanction Expenditure

7 Bagpat 3399 1188 0.94 0.75

8 Ballia 249 207 0.23 0.08

9 Balarampur 779 542 0.18 0.30

10 Barabanki 3621 2565 3.31 1.31

11 Bareilly 16698 6433 14.54 6.50

12 Behraich 3889 425 0.89 0.62

13 Bijnaur 9860 7278 8.52 4.80

14 Bulandshahar 4762 2523 2.41 1.65

15 Chandauli 905 497 0.21 0.41

16 Deoria 2945 1426 2.51 2.25

17 Etah 2847 1344 1.71 1.00

18 Etawah 2670 2153 2.44 1.41

19 Faizabad 521 521 0.48 0.21

20 Farrukhabad 4422 4272 4.05 3.37

21 Fatehpur 2713 2633 1.51 1.48

22 Ferozabad 2600 654 0.76 0.49

23 Gautambudh Nagar 476 476 0.44 0.36

24 Ghaziabad 4745 4745 4.34 3.48

25 Gorakhpur 885 523 0.54 0.49

26 Hamirpur 765 281 0.18 0.04

27 Hardoi 9249 2701 2.84 2.24

28 Mahamaya nagar 3418 1380 0.84 0.94

29 Jalaun 201 152 0.09 0.06

30 Jhanshi 324 308 0.08 0.04

31 Jyotiba phulle nagar 4700 3254 2.85 2.19

32 Kanpur Dehat 103 68 0.02 0.06

33 Kanpur nagar 913 913 0.84 0.70

34 Kushi Nagar 378 378 0.25 0.21

35 Kashi Ram Nagar 7131 2002 2.24 1.00

36 Kannauj 2995 2979 2.74 2.20

37 Lalitpur 187 151 0.10 0.04

38 Lucknow 2251 1222 2.06 0.68

39 Lakhimpur 1633 801 1.49 0.64

40 Mainpuri 903 837 0.79 0.66

41 Mathura 3219 1896 2.11 0.80

42 Moradabad 19166 11100 12.65 8.44

43 Meerut 31846 23458 11.58 13.78

44 Mirzapur 97 34 0.04 0.01

45 Muzzaffarabad 19755 8130 11.07 6.04

46 Pilibhit 4826 2757 3.23 2.58

47 Raebareli 219 211 0.06 0.07

48 Rampur 9217 2552 6.89 2.10

49 Saharanpur 8279 5013 7.58 3.71

50 Shahzehanpur 10575 3568 4.21 3.00

51 Siddarth Nagar 245 169 0.18 0.10

52 Sitapur 1614 1258 1.00 1.20

53 Unnao 1598 1056 1.41 1.09

Total 238253 129209 146.42 96.19 19

3.7.2 : ANDHRA PRADESH

The Integrated Low Cost Sanitation (ILCS) is implemented by Andhra Pradesh Urban Finance &

Infrastructure Development Corporation (APUFIDC) an agency under Urban Administration &

Development Department.

The Scheme was started in 34 municipalities in 1992 and subsequently extended to all the 113 urban

local bodies in three phases. The first and second phases were completed before 2007 and there

was no activity during 2007-2009. The scheme was again revived in the year 2009-10 as the third

phase, and Rs 8.54 Crore has been disbursed for the construction of 7423 toilets. So far only 18.8%

fund has been utilized (Table 3.2)

Table- 3.2 Status of ILCS in Andhra Pradesh(Rs in Crore)

Year Target (Number) Sanction Expenditure

2007 -08 - - -

2008 -09 - - -

2009 -10 7,423 8.54 1.60

Total 7,423 8.54 1.60

3.7.3 : MADHYA PRADESH

In Madhya Pradesh ILCS is administered by the Urban Administration and Development Department

(UADD) and is being implemented by the ULBs. All the schemes sanctioned under the previous

ILCS were for conversion of dry latrines into low cost twin pit sanitary latrines. There was no scheme

for construction of new individual sanitary latrines or community toilets. Out of 2,72,957 latrines

sanctioned for conversion, 2,44,513 were converted till March 2005. Thereafter programme

implementation was suspended until 2009. The scheme was revived in 2009 by the GOI with

widening of scope by making provision for construction of new toilets for EWS households having no

toilet facility. After the revival in 2009, a sum of Rs 8.53 Crores was sanctioned for construction of

7,423 toilets in seven towns. The details of the status are shown in Table- 3.3

Table: 3.3 Status of ILCS in Madhya Pradesh as on March 2011

(Rs in Crore)

Name of Town No. of Beneficiaries

Total

Cost

Central

Share

State

Share

Beneficiary

share

Achievement

Expenditure

Musakhedi 1014 1.17 0.89 0.18 0.10 254 0.29

Kolar 1500 1.72 1.31 0.26 0.15 375 0.43

Hoshangabad 2625 3.02 2.30 0.46 0.26 930 0.75

Nasarullganj 597 0.69 0.52 0.10 0.06 149 0.17

Sailana 265 0.30 0.23 0.05 0.03 240 0.08

Kukshi 610 0.70 0.53 0.11 0.06 500 0.18

Orchha 812 0.93 0.71 0.14 0.08 420 0.23

Total 7423 8.53 6.49 1.30 0.74 2868 2.13

The programme is being administered by the Urban Administration and Development Department of

the State Government under its Integrated Urban Sanitation Programme, which is discussed in detail

in Chapter 11.E. Six more schemes as given in the Table -3.4 have been approved by the GOI for

construction of new toilets. The State Government has proposed to build more that 85,000 individual

toilets through the revised scheme during next two years. 20

3.7.4 : GUJARAT

ILCS was implemented by the Gujarat Municipal Finance Board (GMFB), the agency under Urban

Development and Urban Housing Department, and a total of 1,29,528 toilets were constructed

achieving the 100% target. However, after 2007-2008 this scheme was discontinued and another

state sponsored sanitation scheme called “Nirmal Gujarat Sauchalaya Yojana” (NGSY) was

launched for construction of toilets in the urban areas. Under the NGSY all families having no toilet

facilities including non-BPL in municipal areas are targeted through an enhanced subsidy of Rs.

4500. The scheme is implemented with the help of NGOs.

As against the target of 2,61,000, a total of 1,15,737 sanitation units have been constructed utilizing

only 44.34% of sanctioned amount under NGSY during 2008-10 (Table 3.4)

Table- 3.4 Status of Nirmal Gujarat Shauchalaya Yojna in Gujarat

(Rs in Crore)

Year Target

(Number)

Achievement

(Number)

Sanction+ Expenditure

+

2008 -2009 1,00,000 84,616 4.50 3.80

2009 -2010 1,61,000 31,121 7.24 1.40

Total 2,61,000 1,15,737 11.74 5.20

+ Considering the unit cost as Rs 4500.

Apart from construction of individual toilets under NGSY, Pay & Use Community Toilets (CTs) are also

being constructed in the urban areas of Gujarat since 2005-2006. The State Government is providing

a financial assistance of Rs. 4.00 lakh for each Pay and Use toilet constructed in slum/ non-slum

areas. The construction and maintenance of such toilets are entrusted to NGOs. Family passes @

Rs. 10-15 per month are provided to each family in the slum areas. Use of toilet is free for children

below 12 years, women, handicapped and aged people. For operation and maintenance, an

assistance of Rs. 3,000 per month is also provided to the NGO in the slum areas. During 2005-10, a

total of 841 CTS were constructed against the target of 1,295, and 64.9 % sanctioned amount was

utilised (Table 3.5).

Table 3.5 Status of construction of Pay and Use Community Toilet

(Rs. in Crore)

Year Target Achievement Sanction+ Expenditure

+

2005 -2006 560 0 2,240 0

2006 -2007 250 30 1,000 120

2007 -2008 125 137 500 548

2008 -2009 180 285 720 1140

2009 -2010 180 389 720 1556

Total 1,295 841 5,180 3364

+ Considering the unit cost as Rs 4.00 lakh.

21

Name of ULB Scheme Target Achievement Disbursement Expenditure

Andhra Pradesh ILCS 7,423 NA 8.54 1.60

Gujarat ILCS 1,29,528 129528 - -

Nirmal Gujarat

Shauchalaya Yojana+

2,61,000 115737 11.74 5.20

Pay and Use Toilet+ 1,295 841 51.80 33.64

Madhya Pradesh ILCS 7,423 2868 8.53 2.13

Uttar Pradesh ILCS 2,38,253 129209 146.42 96.18

+State sponsored scheme

Comparative analysis of ILCS in project states

The Comparative analysis of the status of ILCS in 4 states is shown in Table-3.6.

Table- 3.6 Comparative progress in construction of toilets under ILCS in project states(Rs in Crore)

Out of the four states maximum number of toilets was constructed in Uttar Pradesh. Maximum

disbursement and expenditure is also observed in Uttar Pradesh.

22

NATIONAL URBAN SANITATION POLICY44.1 Introduction

4.2 Vision

According to Census 2001, 27.8% of Indians, i.e. 286 million people or 55 million households live in

urban areas1 projections indicate that the urban population would have grown to 331 million people

by 2007 and to 368 million by 2012.

12.04 mill ion (7.87 %) Urban

households do not have access to

latrines and defecate in the open. 5.48

million (8.13%) Urban households use

community latrines and 13.4 million

households (19.49%) use shared

latrines. 12.47 million (18.5%)

households do not have access to a

drainage network. 26.83 million

(39.8%) households are connected to

open drains The status in respect of

the urban poor is even worse. The

percentage of notified and non-

notified slums without latrines is 17 percent and 51 percent respectively. In respect of septic latrines,

the availability is 66 percent and 35 percent. In respect of underground sewerage, the availability is

30 percent and 15 percent. More than 37% of the total human excreta generated in urban India are

disposed unsafely. This imposes significant public health and environmental costs that contribute

more than 60% of the country's GDP. Impacts of poor sanitation are especially significant for the

urban poor (22% of total urban population), women, children and the elderly. The loss due to

diseases caused by poor sanitation for children under 14 years alone in urban areas amounts to Rs

500 Crore at 2001 prices (Planning Commission-United Nations International Children's Emergency

Fund (UNICEF), 2006). Inadequate discharge of untreated domestic/ municipal wastewater has

resulted in contamination of 75 percent of all surface water across India.

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) enjoin upon the signatory nations to extend access to

improved sanitation to at least half the urban population by 2015, and 100% access by 2025. This

implies extending coverage to households without improved sanitation, and providing proper

sanitation facilities in public places to make cities open defecation free.

The vision for Urban Sanitation in India:

All Indian cities and towns become totally sanitized, healthy and livable and ensure and sustain good

public health and environmental outcomes for all their citizens with a special focus on hygienic and

affordable sanitation facilities for the urban poor and women.

In 2001, about 285 million people, or 27.8% of India's 1.02

billion population, lived in 5,161 cities. About 37% lived in

35 million-plus metros, the rest being equally divided

between 388 large towns (0.1 up to a million) and 4,738

small towns (less than 0.1 million). Over the last five

decades, annual rates of growth of urban population

ranged between 2.7 to 3.8% - 2.7% being the growth rate

during 1991-2001. Projections estimate that 331 million

people would be living in Urban India by 2007, growing in

the Eleventh Plan period to 368 million by 2012 (Office of

Registrar General and Census Commissioner, Govt. of

India, 2006).

23

4.3 Key Sanitation Policy Issues under the Programme

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

4.4 Policy Goals

In order to achieve the above Vision, following key policy issues are to be addressed:

Poor Awareness

Social and Occupational aspects of Sanitation

Fragmented Institutional Roles and Responsibilities

Lack of an Integrated City-wide Approach

Limited Technology Choices

Reaching the Un-served and Poor

Lack of Demand Responsiveness

The overall goal of this policy is to transform Urban India into community-driven, totally sanitized,

healthy and livable cities and towns

The specific goals are:

A. Awareness Generation and Behaviour Change

a. Generating awareness about sanitation and its linkages with public and environmental

health amongst communities and institutions;

b. Promoting mechanisms to bring about and sustain behavioural changes aimed at adoption

of healthy sanitation practices;

B. Open Defecation Free Cities

Achieving Open Defecation Free Cities

All urban dwellers will have access to and use safe and hygienic sanitation facilities and

arrangements so that no one defecates in the open. In order to achieve this goal; the following

activities shall be undertaken:

a. Promoting access to households with safe sanitation facilities (including proper disposal

arrangements);

b. Promoting community-planned and managed toilets wherever necessary, for groups of

households who have constraints of space, tenure or economic constraints in gaining

access to individual facilities;

c. Adequate availability and 100 % upkeep and management of Public Sanitation facilities in all

Urban Areas, to rid them of open defecation and environmental hazards;

C. Integrated City-Wide Sanitation

Re-Orienting Institutions and Mainstreaming Sanitation

a. Mainstream thinking, planning and implementing measures related to sanitation in all

sectors and departmental domains as a cross-cutting issue, especially in all urban

management endeavours;

b. Strengthening national, state, city and local institutions (public, private and community) to

accord priority to sanitation provision, including planning, implementation and O&M

management;

c. Extending access to proper sanitation facilities for poor communities and other unserved

settlements;

D. Sanitary and Safe Disposal

100 % of human excreta and liquid wastes from all sanitation facilities including toilets must be

disposed of safely in order to achieve this goal, the following activities shall be undertaken:24

a. Promoting proper functioning of network-based sewerage systems and ensuring

connections of households to them wherever possible;

b. Promoting recycle and reuse of treated waste water for non potable applications wherever

possible;

c. Promoting proper disposal and treatment of sludge from on-site installations (septic tanks,

pit latrines, etc);

d. Ensuring that all the human wastes are collected, safely confined and disposed of after

treatment so as not to cause any hazard to public health or the environment.

E. Proper Operation & Maintenance of all Sanitary Installations:

a. Promoting proper usage, regular upkeep and maintenance of household, community and

public sanitation facilities;

b. Strengthening ULBs to provide or cause to provide, sustainable sanitation services delivery;

F. Implementation Support Strategy

Government of India recognizes that sanitation is a state subject and on-ground implementation and

sustenance of public health and environmental outcomes requires strong city level institutions and

stakeholders. Although there are some common elements across urban areas of India, there are a

number of factors, constraints and opportunities that are peculiar to specific situation of states and

cities with respect to sanitation, climate, physiographic factors, economic, social and political

parameters, and institutional variables, etc. Therefore each state and city needs to formulate its own

sanitation strategy and their respective city sanitation plan in overall conformity to the National Policy.

Towards achievement of the Urban Sanitation Policy Goals, the Government of India will do the

following:

a. States will be encouraged to prepare State Level Sanitation Strategies within a period of 2

years. Chapter on Draft Framework for Developing State Sanitation Strategies gives an

outline of the strategy.

b. Identified cities will be urged to prepare model City Sanitation Plans within a period of 2

years. Chapter on Draft Framework for a City Sanitation Plan gives an outline of the plan.

c. Provide assistance for the preparation of Detailed Project Report (DPR) as per city sanitation

plan as soon as requests for funding are received;

d. Promote public-private partnership in respect of key projects/ activities identified in the city

sanitation plan;

e. Provide technical assistance and support for awareness generation and capacity building to

states and cities within this financial year;

f. Periodic rating of Cities in respect of Sanitation, and recognition of best performers by

instituting a National Award within this financial year.

The Govt of India, wherever possible, will explore possibilities of providing assistance for funding

projects proposed as part of City Sanitation Plans through its schemes like JnNURM, UIDSSMT, 13th

Finance Commission, 10% Lump Sum for NE States, Satellite Township Scheme, etc. The emphasis

however is on converging financial resources from various schemes and programmes including PPP

projects.

However, the emphasis will be on improving the efficiency of existing sanitation infrastructure and

service delivery.

4.5 Financing Pattern

25

4.6 City Sanitation Plan in Four Project States

A. UTTAR PRADESH

In Uttar Pradesh, a total 10 cities have been selected in the first phase for preparation of City

Sanitation Plans (Table 4.1).

Table-4.1 Cities selected in first phase to have CSP in Uttar Pradesh

S No City Facilitating Agency

1 Kanpur ASCI

2 Agra ASCI

3 Ghaziabad ASCI

4 Jhansi ASCI

5 Gorakhpur ASCI

6 Bareilly ASCI

7 Aligarh ASCI

8 Varanasi GTZ

9 Pilakhua GTZ

10 Lucknow JICA & CRISIL

B. ANDHRA PRADESH

In Andhra Pradesh nine cities have been selected for preparation of City Sanitation Plans (Table 4.2)

Table-4.2 Cities selected in first phase to have CSP in Andhra Pradesh

S No City Facilitating Agency

1 Srikakulam ASCI

2 Eluru ASCI

3 Ongole ASCI

4 Nellore ASCI

5 Vizianagaram ASCI

6 Warangal ASCI

7 Ramagundam ASCI

8 Tirupati GTZ

9 Vikarabad ICLEI

C. MADHYA PRADESH

In Madhya Pradesh, City Sanitation Plans for 7 towns have been prepared on pilot basis. These CSPs have been supported by various external agencies as given in the following Table 6.3. City Sanitation plans of 37 Phase 1 towns are being prepared with the financial support from GOI and State Government. Work on preparation of CSPs of 35 Phase 2 towns is expected to begin shortly and ready one these CSP are expected to be ready in next six to eight months period. The Government has proposed to implement the programme Statewide and accordingly CSP of all remaining towns will be prepared in next two years i.e. by 2010. List of Phase 1 and Phase 2 towns in given in the Table 4.3.

Table-4.3 Cities selected in first phase to have CSP in Madhya Pradesh

Sr. No. ULB Name Current estimated Pop.(2010) Supporting Agency

Pilot Towns

1. Hoshangbad

Khajuraho

121066 WSP

2. 23966 WaterAid

3. Ashta 48407 WaterAid

4. Dewas 282640 USAID

5. Raisen 44365 WaterAid

6. Nasarullaganj 21423 UN Habitat

7. Gwalior 1027720 UN Habitat 26

53. Bhind 176815

Phase 1 Towns

8. Sarni 118069

9. Sailana 13530

10. Rau 25916

11. Sendhava 60818

12. Kushi 30213

13. Sardarpur 7602

14. Shahpur 22561

15. Vidisha 155896

16. Tikamgarh 85030

17. Kaimur 25040

18. Chitrakoot 27686

19. Orchha 10564

20. Amarkantak 8801

21. Maheshwar 24417

22. Omkareshwar 8222

23. Maihar 42675

24. Ujjain 535792

25. Shivpuri 182539

26. Chanderi 35174

27. Sanchi 8431

28. Bhedaghat 2287

29. Bhopal 1812329

30. Mandav 10617

31. Panna 64689

32. Kolar 65861

33. Ratlam 575540

34. Gautampra 16135

35. Mandla 56007

36. Indore 1854930

37. Jabalpur 1082794

38. Sagar 264239

39. Satna 302087

40. Burhanpur 239500

41. Singrauli 356245

42. Rewa 243099

43. Chhindwada 176585

44. Kahargoan 118965

Govt. of India/State Govt.

Govt. of India/State Govt.

Phase 2 Towns

45. Katni 231222

46. Khandwa 212941

47. Guna 157751

48. Mandsaur 135188

49. Damoh 147162

50. Chattarpur 125440

51. Murena 173603

52. Neemach 129780

Sr. No. ULB Name Current estimated Pop.(2010) Supporting Agency

27

Sr. No. ULB Name Current estimated Pop.(2010) Supporting Agency

54. Alirajpur 30696

55. Anuppur 20004

56. Ashok Nagar 70400

57. Balaghat 92716

58. Barwani 52743

59. Betul 102141

60. Datia 100961

61. Dhar 91956

62. Dindori 21244

63. Harda 78686

64. Jhabua 37304

65. Narsinghpur 68568

66. Rajgarh 29203

67. Sehore 112872

68. Seoni 109557

69. Shahdol 95921

70. Shajapur 70538

71. Sheopur 71177

72. Sidhi 55754

73. Umaria 32747

74. Aalot 26,246

75. Taal

Pilot Towns

15,949

76. Barwada 26,840

77. Lateri 17,162

78. Sironj 51,362

79. Amarpatan 19,965

D. GUJARAT

In Gujarat only one city, Sanad was preparing its City Sanitation Plan as reported during the period of

study.

Govt. of India/State Govt.

28

BASIC SERVICES FOR URBAN POOR (BSUP)55.1 Introduction

5.2 Objectives

l

l

l

l

l

5.3 Components

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

Basic services to the Urban Poor (BSUP) are one of the sub-missions of JnNURM. The main thrust of

the Sub-Mission is to have an integrated development of the slums through various schemes like

providing shelter, basic services and other related civic amenities with a view to provide basic utilities

to the urban poor in the identified 63 mission cities of India. The scheme strives for holistic slum

development with a healthy and enabling urban environment by providing adequate shelter and

basic infrastructure facilities to the urban slum dwellers.

Focused attention to integrated development of Basic Services to the urban poor living in the

Mission cities.

Provision of Basic Services to urban poor including security of tenure at affordable prices,

improved housing, water supply, sanitation and ensuring delivery through convergence of other

already existing universal services of the Government for education, health and social security.

Secure effective linkages between asset creation and asset management so that the Basic

Services to the urban poor created in the cities, are not only maintained efficiently but also

become self-sustaining over time.

Ensure adequate investment of funds to fulfill deficiencies in the Basic Services to the urban poor.

Scale up delivery of civic amenities and provision of utilities with emphasis on universal access to

urban poor.

The BSUP covers the following components:

Integrated development of slums, i.e. Housing & Development of Provision for shelter including

upgradation & construction of new houses.

Provision of Houses at affordable costs for slum dwellers/ urban poor/ EWS/ LIG categories.

Improvement/ rehabilitation of slums.

Development / improvement/ maintenance of basic services to the urban poor.

Construction and improvement of drains/ storm water drains.

Environmental improvement of slums and solid waste management.

Street lighting

Civic amenities like community halls, child care centers etc

Operation and maintenance of assets created under this component

Convergence of health, education and social security schemes for the urban poor 29

Type of City GoI Share State Share ULB Share

Mega City 35% 15% 50%

Million Plus City 50% 20% 30%

5.5 BSUP Status in four States during 2007-2010

5.5.1 : UTTAR PRADESH

The BSUP status in four states is discussed below:-

BSUP is being implemented by the State Urban Development Authority (SUDA). During 2007-2010,

Rs 2330.85 Crore, was sanctioned for 67 schemes. Against the disbursement of Rs. 554.90 Crore,

expenditure was only Rs. 425.75 Crore. A total of 67,992 houses were constructed. Details of the

BSUP are shown below.

Table- 5.1 Status of BSUP in Uttar Pradesh

5.4 Financing Pattern

Urban local bodies implement the programme with financial assistance from the Centre and State

governments. The pattern of sharing of resources is as follows:

S. No. City No. of Houses Amount in Crore % Sanction

Disbursement

Expenditure

1

Ag

ra

3640 127.27 29.46 19.48 66.1

2 2708 116.25 22.89 11.95 52.2

3 2335 95.18 18.53 17.55 94.7

4 1536 71.34 13.95 13.15 94.3

5 1360 51.98 12.21 9.79 80.2

6 950 39.78 7.8 7.33 94.0

7 604 35.14 6.82 3.72 54.5

8 2420 34.78 7.19 6.48 90.1

9 632 19.04 9.04 7.91 87.5

10 608 14.79 6.96 6.39 91.8

11

Alla

ha

ba

d

483 23.44 4.57 3.69 80.7

12 411 19.15 3.73 1.99 53.4

13 244 15.14 2.92 2.22 76.0

14 233 7.39 1.47 0 0.0

15 264 3.34 0.7 0.68 97.1

16

Ka

np

ur

887 36.68 7.2 7.64 106.1

17 871 36.51 7.3 7.42 101.6

18 854 36.07 7.19 7.56 105.1

19 793 31.36 6.28 6.52 103.8

20 726 30.66 6.12 6.43 105.1

21 704 29.39 5.78 6.08 105.2

22 753 28.56 5.66 5.88 103.9

23 816 28.5 5.55 5.78 104.1

24 343 14.02 2.76 2.9 105.1

25 3050 60.42 13.63 2.01 14.7 26 2950 59.86 13.54 9.7 71.6

27 639 35.51 7.08 7.99 112.9 30

31

S. No. City No. of Houses Amount in Crore %Sanction Disbursement Expenditure

31 1408 49.57 10.1 0 0.0

32 763 35.96 7.03 3.77 53.6

33 1632 32.53 13.71 16.35 119.3

34 487 26.62 5.17 4.8 92.8

35 346 19.33 3.75 1.95 52.0

36 336 12.56 2.55 2.25 88.2

37 176 5.95 1.23 0 0.0

38

Ma

thu

ra

2018 88.1 18.51 17.96 97.0

39 608 37.63 7.94 7.32 92.2

40 560 31.7 6.68 5.52 82.6

41 534 23.66 4.98 3.75 75.3

42 530 23.42 4.92 3.72 75.6

43 108 5.01 1.19 0.79 66.4

44 240 4.58 2.11 1.67 79.1

45

Me

eru

t

723 37.7 7.49 5.95 79.4

46 731 34.71 6.74 5.4 80.1

47 768 33.08 6.64 5.15 77.6

48 2000 32.84 14.55 13.83 95.1

49 677 31.66 6.28 5.15 82.0

50 629 30.98 6.23 4.76 76.4

51 852 30.45 6.03 5.19 86.1

52 655 29.01 5.86 4.71 80.4

53 694 28.84 5.84 4.84 82.9

54 632 27.32 4.7 3.93 83.6

55 1008 23.56 5.49 3.94 71.8

56 500 22.18 3.82 3.67 96.1

57 744 18.25 4.23 3.85 91.0

Lu

ckn

ow

58

Va

ran

asi

1305 56.74 11.77 8.68 73.7

59 1109 43.36 8.57 2.17 25.3

60 728 34.32 6.71 5.36 79.9

61 768 32.26 6.35 1.2 18.9

62 776 30.59 6.04 4.7 77.8

63 585 24.81 4.85 3.87 79.8

64 241 8.45 2.12 1.98 93.4

65 192 5.69 1.35 0 0.0

66 135 5.11 1.27 1.14 89.8

67 124 4.68 1.17 1.03 88.0

67992 2330.85 554.9 425.71 76.7

28 416 19.71 3.84 4.35 113.3

29 544 8.85 2.01 0 0.0

30 8896 177.53 88.75 62.77 70.7

32

S. No

City

Name of Work

No. of Houses

Amount in Crore%Sanction

Disbursement

Expenditure

1

Gre

ate

r H

yde

rab

ad

Infrastructure facilities in slums (division 1 to IV)

0

20.53

10.78 18.86

175.0

2

Infrastructure facilities in slums (division V to VIII)

0

34.22

17.96 25.7

143.1

3

Infrastructure facilities in slums (division IX to XII)

0

29.42

15.46 23.55

152.3

4

Infrastructure development of houses (VAMBAY)

0

49.73

26.11 42.75

163.7

5

Integrated infrastructure & housing dev Scheme (49000 houses & infrastructure)

49000

490

235.22 355

150.9

6

Integrated Housing Project : Construction of 4550 Houses and providing Infrastructure

4550

120.33

42.11 45

106.9

7

Phase 1 for construction of 1976 houses & infrastructure

1976

69.32

12.12 12.92

106.6

8

Phase 2 for construction of 1856 houses & infrastructure

1856

65.41

11.44 1.01

8.8

9

Phase 3 for construction of 1942 houses & infrastructure

1942

68.91

12.05 5.46

45.3

10

Phase 4 for construction of 2624 houses & infrastructure

2624

95.31

16.63 7.6

45.7

11

Phase 5 for construction of 2784 houses & infrastructure

2784

96.26

16.84 22.1

131.2

12

Phase 6 for construction of 2814 houses & infrastructure

2814

95.95

16.79 33. 38

198.8

13

Phase 7 for construction of 2800 houses & infrastructure

2800

97.12

17 1.02

6.0

14

Construction of 2800 Houses and provision of infrastructure facilities at Jawahar Nagar & Gachibowli

2800

95.35

0 0

15 Construction of 2800 Houses and provision of infrastructure facilities at Abdullapur met

2800 95.58 0 0

5.5.2 : ANDHRA PRADESH

BSUP is being implemented by AP State Housing Corporation Limited (APSHCL) in three cities, viz. Greater Hyderabad, Vijaywada and Greater Vishakhapatnam. APSHCL is also looking after the development of infrastructure facilities as standalone projects in the urban slums of the municipalities and municipal corporations. During 2007-2010, Rs. 3010.20 Crore was sanctioned for 36 schemes. Against the disbursement of Rs. 9084 Crore expenditure was Rs. 1224.31 Crore for the construction of 1.31 lakh . Details of the progress of BSUP are shown below:

Table- 5.2 Status of BSUP in Andhra Pradesh

S.

No

City Name of Work No. of

Houses

Amount in Crore

%Sanction Disbursement Expenditure

16

Construction of 2800 Houses and provision of infrastructure facilities at Jagadgiri Kotwal guda

2800

97.4

0 0

17

Vija

yaw

ad

a

Rehabilitation of Flood Victims (Construction of 15000 houses & providing infrastructure)

15000 258.74 135.84 149.5 110.1

18 Infrastructure Facilities in 8 Nos poor settlements in Circle 1

0 3.81 1.95 3.8 194.9

19

Infrastructure in 34 poor settlements of central & northern parts of Vijayawada (Circle 2&3)

0 26.48 13.5 17.3 128.1

20 Infrastructure in 34 poor settlements of central & northern parts of

Vijayawada (Circle 2) Houses & providing infrastructure in Circle-1area

0 59.83 30.49 55.45 181.9

21

6752 190.88 32.09 22.22 69.2

22

Repairs to dwelling units constructed under the VAMBAY in Ajit Singh Nagar, Vijayawada

0 7.74 4.06 5.9 145.3

23

Construction of 3200 houses and providing infrastructure at Gollapudi & Jakkam pudi

3200 97.98 0 0 0

24

Construction of 3200 houses and providing infrastructure at Alankar industries of Jakkampudi Village

3200 97.97 0 0 0

25

Gre

ate

r V

isha

khap

atna

m

Infrastructure inYathapalem 0 5.5 3.28 5.39 164.3

26 Infrastructure in Srinagar 0 2.4 1.23 2.35 191.1

27 Infrastructure in Vadiapudi

0 28 14.41 18.1 125.6

28 Housing & Civic infrastructure in 22 slums (7352 houses)

7352 90.99 47.59 74.5 156.5

29 Housing & Civic infrastructure in 6 (7968 houses)

7968 96.86 50.7 70.15 138.4

30

Infrastructure in poor settlements of Aganampudi & Vambay colony and Madurawada

0 97.2 33.8 48.5 143.5

31

Infrastructure in poor settlements of Gangavaram, Pedagantyada, TGR Nagar etc, in Gajuwaka (11)

0 95.12 48.96 59.65 121.8

33

S. No

City Name of Work No. of Houses

Amount in Crore%Sanction Disbursement Expenditure

32 Construction of 3616

Houses & infrastructure in Aganampudi

3616

90.71

15.79

32.44

205.4

33

Construction of 1839 Houses & infrastructure in Parawada

1839

48.88

8.5

14.19 166.9

34

Construction of 2080 Houses & infrastructure in Paradesipalem in SY No 178

2080

48.79

8.51

29.04

341.2

35

Construction of 544 Houses in Paradesipalem in SY No 179

544

13.8

2.39

7.24

302.9

36

Construction of 1024 Houses & infrastructure in Kommadi

1024

27.68

4.82

14.24 295.4

TOTAL 131321 3010.2 908.42 1224.31 134.8

S No

City

Name of Work No. of

houses

% Sanction Disbursement Expenditure

1

Rehabilitation Nagar, Rishi Nagar

of Shyam 1440

16 11.2

12.62

112.7

2

Integrated develof Indrapuri Kalpani Bhopal Nagar

opment

212

2.54

1.77

2.17

122.6

3 Development of weekly

Market at Kotra 512

9.36

6.55

7.75

118.3

4

Slum and Poor locality Integrated area development Scheme Phase-1

0

39.5

27.65

35.17

127.2

5

Slum and Poor locality Integrated area development Scheme Phase-2

0

41.11

28.77

39.75

138.2

6 Slum rehabilitation of

Roshanpura 3600

47.15

33

0

0.0

7 Rehabilitation of Baba

Nagar Shahpura 1872

26.61

18.62

27.06

145.3

8

Rehabilitation of Ganga Nagar and Aradhana Nagar

1848

3528

24.73

17.31

11.07

64.0

9

Rehabilitation of Arjun Nagar, Bhim Nagar, Madrasi Colony and Rahul Nagar

52.63

36.84

34.97

94.9

5.5.3 : MADHYA PRADESH

In Madhya Pradesh, BSUP is being implemented by Urban Administration and Development

Department. During 2007-2010, 22 schemes for Bhopal have been sanctioned. Sanctioned amount

was Rs 704.63 Crore out of which expenditure was Rs 315.04 Crore. Total number of houses

constructed is 40502. Details of the BSUP are shown below.

Table- 5.3 Status of BSUP in Madhya Pradesh

Amount in Crore

Bh

op

al

34

S No

City

Name of Work No. of

houses

% Sanction Disbursement Expenditure

10 Rehabilitation of Indira

Nagar Phase-1

1216

17.1

11.97

8.65

72.3

11

Rehabilitation of Bajpayee nagar,Police line Kohefiza, AyubNagar, Mata Madhiya and Belar colony

3328 50.84 35.58 51.29 144.2

12 Rehabilitation of Indira Nagar Phase -II

896 13.43 9.4 12.14 129.1

13

Slum Redevelopment and Rehabilitation of identified Slums (Housing Devp) Part-I Bharat Mata Nagar, Naya Basera & Arjun Nagar

2858 55.68 38.97 0 0.0

14

Slum Redevelopment and Rehabilitation of identified Slums (Housing Devp)

2299 46.76 32.73 0 0.0

15

Ind

ore

Bh

op

al

Slum and Redevelopment at different locations in Indore

4132 61.93 43.35 30.14 69.5

16 Slum rehabilitatiand resettlement Scheme number 134

on

885 12.8 8.96 1.34 15.0

17

Slum Redevelopment and Rehabilitation of identified slums (Housing Development)

3000 81.53 57.07 10.19 17.9

18

Ja

ba

lpu

r

Houses with Basic infrastructure (Lal Kuan)

2076 24.72 17.3 5.23 30.2

19

Houses with Basic infrastructure (Bagra Dafai)

2136 23.14 16.19 3.21 19.8

20

Houses with Basic infrastructure facility rehabilitation and resettlement of Basor mohalla choudhary mohalla and baiduy kori ki dafai

2144 25.43 17.8 1.44 8.1

21

Rehabiresettlement of Chui Khadan and Area behind Born Company

litation and

1200 14.24 9.96 6.85 68.8

22

Ujja

in

Slum rehabilitation scheme

1320 17.4 12.18 14 114.9

Total 40502 704.63 493.17 315.04 63.9

5.5.4 : Gujarat

In Gujarat, BSUP is being implemented in 4 cities (Ahmedabad, Surat, Rajkot & Vadodara) by Gujarat

Urban Development Mission. During 2007-2010, 16 schemes for Rs 1648.98 Crores were

sanctioned, against which only Rs 1014.24 Crores was spent. Total number of houses constructed

was 11760. Details of the BSUP are shown below.

Amount in Crore

35

Table-5.4 Status of BSUP in Gujarat

S No

City

Name of Work

No. ofhouses

Sanction Disbursement (GOI + GOG + ULB

Contribution)

Expenditure

(GOI + GOG + ULB) %

1

Ah

me

da

ba

d

EWS Housing (8000 units) in peripheral areas of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA)

8000 98.13 85.56 99.29 116.05

2 EWS Housing (5664 units) in peripheral areas of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA)

5664 87.06 100.09 100.09 100.00

3 EWS Housing (18976 units) in areas of Ahmedabad

18976 338.76 212.07 288.10 135.85

4

Su

rat

Housing for Urban Poor at Kasad DPR-1Slum Location

5572 62.74 45.89 62.72 136.67

5 Housing for Urban Poor at Kasad DPR-2Slum Location

5424 56.45 46.52 52.18 112.17

DPR Housing at Kosad

-3 EWS

5280 72.03 59.42 80.61 135.66

Housing for Urban Poor at Kasad (DPR4)

6752 91.50 76.33 106.80 139.92

6 DPR urban poor at Kosad

5 Housing for

7392 98.87 82.60 92.87 112.43

7 DPR for Construction of Housing units for Urban Poor at 11various locations at Surat (DPR- 6)

-

4032 61.66 23.43 31.95 136.35

8 DPR -7 7704 114.24 42.72 47.03 110.09

9 DPRat Bhimnagar Vasahat Udhan- Udyognagar

-8 Redevelopment

1176 29.48 5.51 0.00 0.00

10

DPRat Kamrunagar Vasahat

-9 Redevelopment

740 23.76 4.40 0.00 0.00

11

Ra

jko

t

Construction of 2640 DU at different EWS Housing purposed reserved plots at different TP schemes at Rajkot City

2640 34.16 20.78 31.75 152.83

12 Construction of 3400 DU for flood affected slum at different EWS Housing purposed reserved plots at different TP schemes at Rajkot City

3400 64.64 41.20 80.30 194.91

13 Construction of 2624 dwelling units for in-situ development for slum dwellers under BSUP housing scheme at Rajkot City (BSUP-III)

2624 56.87 0.00 0.00 0.00

Amount in Crore

36

14

Va

do

da

ra

DPR for Housing Development & Upgradation of Slums Phase-I

DPR for Housing Development & Upgradation of Slums Phase-II

DPR for Housing Development & Upgradation of Slums Phase-III

6668 88.61 55.07 79.78 144.86

15

5664 114.78 76.77 74.89 97.55

16

6096 155.24 32.54 0.00 0.00

Total 103804 1648.98 1010.90 1228.36 121.51

Comparative analysis of Utilization of funds of BSUP Projects in four Project States.The comparative

status of utilization of funds in the 4 status is given in Table 5.5.

Table 5.5 Comparative Status of utilization of funds of BSUP Projects in Project States

State No of Houses

Amount in Crores

Sanction Disbursement Expenditure %

Uttar Pradesh 67992 2330.85 554.90 425.71 76.71

Andhra Pradesh 131321 3010.20 908.42 1224.31 134.77

Madhya Pradesh 40502 704.63 493.17 315.04 63.88

Gujarat 103804 1648.98 1010.90 1228.36 121.51

It is evident from the above table that Andhra Pradesh is the best performer in comparison to

remaining three states. The expenditure in the state was more than the disbursement.

S No City Name of Work No. ofhouses

Sanction Disbursement (GOI + GOG + ULB

Contribution)

Expenditure

(GOI + GOG + ULB)

%

Amount in Crore

37

INTEGRATED HOUSING & SLUM DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (IHSDP)

66.1 Introduction

6.2 Objective

6.3 Component under IHSDP

l

l

l

l

Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme (IHSDP) has been prepared combining the

schemes of VAMBAY and NSDP to have an integrated approach for ameliorating the conditions of

the urban slum dwellers that do not have adequate shelters and reside in dilapidated conditions. The

scheme is made for all cities and towns as per the 2001 Census except the cities/ towns covered

under Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal mission (JnNURM).

The basic objective of the scheme is to strive for holistic slum development with a healthy and

enabling urban environment by providing adequate shelter and basic infrastructure facilities to the

slum dwellers of the identified urban areas.

The target group under the scheme is slum dwellers from all sections of the community. Allocation of

funds among States is done on the basis of the States' urban slum population.

States allocate funds to towns/ cities based on similar formula. However, funds are provided to only

those towns and cities where elections to local bodies have been held and elected bodies are in

position. The State Government prioritizes towns and cities on the basis of their felt-need. While

prioritizing towns, States take into account existing infrastructure, economically and socially

disadvantaged sections of the slum population and the slum situated in difficult areas.

The components for assistance under the scheme include all slum improvement/ upgradation/

relocation projects including

Upgradation/ new construction of houses.

Infrastructural facilities.

Water supply.

Sewerage.

Cost of land for such projects is not provided under the programme and has to be borne by the State

Government. In case the project is to be undertaken on private land, which is to be acquired by the

State, cost of land may also be part of the project costing only in the case of North Eastern States and

hilly States of Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Jammu & Kashmir.

Selection of Beneficiaries is done by SUDA/ DUDA/ ULBs/ Government Nodal Agency authorized by

the State Government. Minimum Floor Area of Dwelling Unit is not less than 25 sq. metres. Area and

preferably two room accommodation plus kitchen and toilet are constructed.38

Infrastructure Development and maintenance in the slums is done by the State Government who

ensures a separate provision for upkeep and maintenance of the public assets created under the

scheme. The Beneficiary Contribution is a minimum of 12% which in the case of SC/ ST/ BC/ OBC/

PH and other weaker sections is 10%.

6.4 Financing Pattern

6.5 IHSDP Status in four States during 2007-2010

The IHSDP scenario in projects states is discussed below.

In Uttar Pradesh, IHSDP is being implemented by State Urban and Development Authority (SUDA).

During 2007-2010, 1230.66 crore have been sanctioned. Total disbursement is Rs 443.45 Crore,

while expendituret during this period is Rs 256.77 Crore. Total number of houses constructed is

. Details of the IHSDP status are shown below.

Table- 6.1 Status of IHSDP in Uttar Pradesh

(Rs in Crore)

6.5.1 : UTTAR PRADESH

37652

Type of city Central Share State Share ULB share

Non-Mission City 80% 10% 10%

S. No Name of Municipality

Sanction Disbursement Expenditure % No ofHouses

1 Aligarh 17.77 7.78 7.8 100.3 660

2 Aligarh 15.37 6.77 6.77 100.0 558

3 Aligarh 4.4 1.93 1.93 100.0 168

4 Shankargarh 9.17 3.97 3.97 100.0 407

5 Lal Gopalganj 8.03 3.44 3.44 100.0 396

6 Kuraon 4.97 2.17 2.17 100.0 209

7 Kichhaucha 1.88 0.82 0.82 100.0 72

8 Binduna 14.73 13.13 7.96 60.6 600

9 Babapur 4.88 4.37 3.34 76.4 180

10 Achida 3.59 3.15 2.53 80.3 132

11 Dibiyapur 1.75 0.76 0.61 80.3 72

12 Fafoond 1.5 1.31 1.09 83.2 60

13 Bhekhampur 1.18 1.05 0.56 53.3 48

14 Azamgarh 12.65 5.55 5.16 93.0 465

15 Saraimeer 3.85 1.69 0 0.0 144

16 Ujhani 1.29 0.99 0.84 84.8 128

17 Barut 4.41 1.91 1.61 84.3 208

18 Utraula 1.74 0.79 0.79 100.0 60

19 Pachprewa 1.02 0.46 0.46 100.0 48

20 Bisanda 2.77 1.21 1.21 100.0 96

21 Naraini 2.1 0.98 0.98 100.0 72

22 Ramnagar 2.59 1.14 1.14 100.0 96

23 Sanoa 4.17 1.81 1.42 78.5 160

39

S. No Name of Municipality

Sanction Disbursement Expenditure % No ofHouses

24 Nawabganj 1.38 1.38 0.55 39.9 48

25 Basti 4.58 2.01 2.01 100.0 163

26 Salarganj 7.93 3.56 3.56 100.0 336

27 Bhadohi 8.76 3.81 3.24 85.0 360

28 Jhalu-II 5.78 2.41 2.31 95.9 450

29 Afzalgarh 2.57 2.28 2.27 99.6 184

30 Jhalu 1.5 1.02 1.02 100.0 56

31 Nehtor 0.7 0.62 0.62 100.0 48

32 Bugrasi 3.65 2.53 1.85 73.1 192

33 Chattari 2.69 2.38 2.38 100.0 112

34 Khanpur 2.21 1.85 1.77 95.7 96

35 Bulandshahar 23.87 0 0 750

36 Mugalsarai 7.45 3.26 3.18 97.5 273

37 Chandauli 6.88 3.01 1.88 62.5 263

38 Mugalsarai 4.22 1.82 0.86 47.3 168

39 Chandauli-phase II 3.95 1.76 0.97 55.1 168

40 Chaika 1.18 1.18 0.51 43.2 48

41 Manikpur 3.86 1.69 1.35 79.9 144

42 Lar 28.01 12.39 8.77 70.8 1527

43 Awagarh 2.59 1.14 1.14 100.0 96

44 Etah 2.58 1.14 1.1 96.5 96

45 Nidhulikalan 1.62 0.71 0.71 100.0 60

46 Jaswantnagar 6.02 4.39 3.65 83.1 240

47 Jaswantnagar 5.66 2.47 2.08 84.2 228

48 Faizabad 17.24 8.27 7.3 88.3 393

49 Beekapur 2.22 0.99 0.99 100.0 84

50 Gosaiganj 1.92 0.86 0.86 100.0 72

51 Mohammadabad 3.19 3.19 1.43 44.8 132

52 Farrukhabad 1.89 0.85 0.85 100.0 72

53 Fatehpur 5.17 2.25 2.2 97.8 216

54 Dadri 17.43 6.99 7.7 110.2 637

55 Jewar 6.7 4.52 2.29 50.7 272

56 Dadri 3.07 2.73 2.63 96.3 216

57 Rabupura 0.84 0.73 0.58 79.5 72

58 Dankaur 0.66 0.6 0.46 76.7 48

59 Ghaziabad 18.37 16.4 16.4 100.0 1236

60 Fareednagar 7.54 6.92 5.72 82.7 288

61 Arthala 5.62 3.94 3.84 97.5 208

62 Dasna 4.29 3.72 3.72 100.0 204

63 Sadat 0.93 0.42 0.42 100.0 36

64 Ghazipur 11.99 0 0

65 Gorakhpur 16.75 7.36 7.36 100.0 611 40

S. No Name of Municipality

Sanction Disbursement Expenditure % No ofHouses

66 Sahjanwah 1.94 1.69 1.47 87.0 72

67 Gorakhpur 17.44 0 0 628

68 Kurara 3.59 1.56 1.56 100.0 132

69 Gopamau 3.8 1.65 1.54 93.3 144

70 Orai 7.16 3.11 2.8 90.0 288

71 Kadura 4.25 1.85 1.7 91.9 156

72 Kalpi 3.29 1.44 1.17 81.3 120

73 Pichhor 4.01 1.75 1.42 81.1 144

74 Amroha 3.13 1.37 1.37 100.0 115

75 Joya 0.93 0.76 0.76 100.0 42

76 Hasanpur 0.81 0.66 0.66 100.0 36

77 Chibramau 15.91 7.13 5.02 70.4 648

78 Tirwa 11.7 5.18 0 0.0 528

79 Tirva 7.37 3.63 0 0.0 312

80 Chibramau 5.9 4.16 2.91 70.0 240

81 Saurikha 3.47 2.57 1.71 66.5 144

82 Jhinjhak 10.71 4.94 4.06 82.2 492

83 Sikandra 5.28 1.29 0.24 18.6 204

84 Rasoolabad 5.24 2.36 1.35 57.2 216

85 Shivrajpur 3.34 1.45 1.45 100.0 132

86 Shivali 3.33 0.81 0.6 74.1 108

87 Bithoor 2.86 0.78 0.57 73.1 72

88 Derapur 1.85 1.28 1.06 82.8 72

89 Amraudha 1.79 1.49 1.49 100.0 144

90 Ajuwa 3.45 1.51 1.35 89.4 120

91 Manjanpur 3.19 1.4 0 0.0 108

Ambedkarnagar 2 0.97 0.97 100.0 100

Maviyanagar 1.98 0.96 0.96 100.0 81

92 Singahi 3.13 1.37 1.2 87.6 120

93 Gola 3.12 1.4 0 0.0 144

94 Pali 3.92 1.71 1.62 94.7 762

95 Mahona 20.82 9.13 9.08 99.5 629

96 Kakori 16.95 7.44 7.44 100.0 148

97 Malihabad 4.05 1.76 1.78 101.1 84

98 Mahoba 2.61 1.14 1.05 92.1 384

99 Kosikala 8.82 3.81 2.68 70.3 224

100 Nandgaon 6.93 6.93 5.3 76.5 276

101 Vrin davan 6.31 3.72 3.72 100.0 88

102 Gokul 2.83 2.82 2.87 101.8 72

103 Mahawan 1.66 1.01 0.93 92.1 48

104 Chata 1.55 1.44 1.36 94.4 48

105 Raya 1.53 1.84 1.29 70.1 582 41

S. No Name of Municipality

Sanction Disbursement Expenditure % No ofHouses

106 Hastinapur 19.1 7.31 6.05 82.8 359

107 Lawar 8.38 3.64 3.25 89.3 359

108 Kharkhuda 2.66 1.21 1.06 87.6 96

109 Mirzapur 20.72 9.25 9.2 99.5 536

110 Chunar 5.97 2.62 2.57 98.1 216

Mirzapur 25.52 11.58 0 0.0 853

111 Umarikala 7.79 3.4 3.1 91.2 306

112 Thakurdwara 5.57 2.42 2.42 100.0 210

113 Bhatwali 5.43 2.38 2.19 92.0 199

114 Moradabad 1.31 0.57 0.57 100.0 48

115 Banat 10.36 7.78 4.45 57.2 476

116 Belha 18.19 7.99 5.52 69.1 676

117 Antu 15.05 6.59 5.49 83.3 579

118 Pratapgarh 14.13 6.2 5.15 83.1 531

119 Kunda 6.43 2.77 0.1 3.6 272

120 Rae bareli 20.85 9.43 4.85 51.4 353

121 Rae bareli 1.52 1.49 1.37 91.9 100

9.62 4.37 4.37 100.0

122 Rampur 11.29 4.92 4.93 100.2 462

123 Rampur 4.14 1.81 0.55 30.4 156

124 Saharanpur 11.75 5.14 4.64 90.3 456

125 Saharanpur 3.9 1.68 1.66 98.8 208

126 Biswan 6.44 2.67 2.51 94.0 252

127 Ghorawal 15.42 6.63 3.17 47.8 656

128 Hariharpur 8.47 1.3 0.61 46.9 252

129 Hariharpur 2 0.92 0.87 94.6 72

130 Hariharpur 1.97 0.75 0.75 100.0 72

131 Hariharpur 1.84 0.83 0.8 96.4 60

132 Sultanpur 3.14 1.55 1.55 100.0 116

133 Haiderabad 4.21 1.84 1.84 100.0 168

134 Nababganj 3.6 1.64 1.54 93.9 144

135 Ugu 3.06 2.67 2.57 96.3 120

136 Unnao 2.51 2.18 2.11 96.8 96

137 Parsadepur 34.5 36.5 15.42 42.2 1028

138 Maharajganj 11.42 11.42 5.06 44.3 399

139 Balia 9.07 4.02 4.02 100.0 313

140 Ki sni 21.04 9.28 9.28 100.0 748

141 Nuriya 25.37 11.15 0 0.0 886

Total 1230.66 443.45 256.77 57.9 37652

42

S. No Name of Municipality Sanction Disbursement Expenditure % No of houses

6.5.2 : Andhra Pradesh

In Andhra Pradesh, IHSDP is being implemented by Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Ltd. ere constructed. Details of the status are shown below.

During 2007-2010, 77 schemes have been sanctioned of which 34 are for housing and 43 are for infrastructure development in the existing slums (Standalone Improvement Project). Total sanctioned amount is Rs 1197 Crore; disbursement is Rs 547.54 Crore while expenditure during this period is Rs 426.42 crore . Total 47896 numbers of houses were constructed. Details of the status are shown below.

Table- 6.2 Status of IHSDP in Andhra Pradesh

(Rs in Crore)

1

Khammaam-Phase-I 8.60 2.93 2.93 34% 725

2 Rajampeta

4.21

1.55

1.55

37%

263

3 Rayachoti

16.72

5.87

5.87

35%

1272

4 Ramachandrapuram

9.96

3.15

3.15

32%

768

5 Sanga Reddy

6.80

2.33

2.33

34%

559

6 Zaheerabad

11.20

4.00

4.00

36%

800

7 Samartakota

13.51

4.48

4.48

33%

912

8 Siricilla

7.22

2.94

2.94

41%

766

9 Karimnagar

33.63

12.14

12.14

36%

2304

10 Anakapalle

1.54

0.61

0.61

40%

384

11 Gadawal

6.53

2.83

2.83

43%

513

12 Mahaboobnagar

9.65

4.24

4.24

44%

525

13 Waranparthy

3.57

3.06

1.53

43%

384

14 Gudur

12.01

10.18

5.09

42%

1559

15 Miryalaguda

7.89

3.35

3.35

43%

986

16 Nalgonda

3.37

1.44

1.44

43%

378

17 Surapet

12.45

5.29

5.29

43%

1556

18 Tirupati

55.34

41.20

38.40

69%

4087

19 Kadapa

7.63

3.25

3.26

43%

434

20 Kadapa

7.07

2.94

2.94

42%

600

21 Proddutur

19.07

13.26

13.26

70%

1500

22 Kakinada (Dummalapet)

10.52

6.95

3.47

33%

720

23 Rajamundry (Satellite)

41.63

17.96

13.15

32%

3192

24 Kurnool MC

25.46

17.96

17.42

68%

2112

25 Nizamabad

10.46

3.84

3.84

37%

1020

26 Kothagudem-Phase-III

11.26

7.69

3.85

34%

938

27 Tirupathi

66.35

20.14

10.21

15%

3360

28 Tirupathi

32.72

10.34

5.17

16%

1560

29 Tirupathi

45.41

14.43

7.22

16%

2136

30 Kakinada

54.50

13.35

6.68

12%

3120

31 Rajahmundry

55.68

13.99

7.00

13%

2832

32 Samartakota

36.61

10.47

5.23

14%

2008

33 Guntur

33.56

9.14

9.14

27%

1792

34 Peddapuram

34.50

8.99

8.25

24%

1831

43

S. No

Name of Municipality

Sanction

Disbursement

Expenditure

% No of

houses

35 Guntur 22.23 8.92 8.92 40% -

36 Surapet 27.47 10.47 6.07 22% -

37 Nalgonda 16.21 6.12 8.80 54% -

38 Miryalaguda 17.22 6.52 7.25 42% -

39 Kadapa 12.55 10.07 8.09 64% -

40 Mancherial 18.94 7.35 9.45 50% -

41 Narasaraopet 22.73 17.64 15.22 67% -

42 Janagaon 17.94 14.40 8.00 45% -

43 Anakapalli 4.22 3.15 1.75 41% -

44 Bhongir 12.63 9.44 6.75 53% -

45 Mahaboobnagar 16.35 11.51 7.57 46% -

46 Vinukonda 17.73 13.22 9.09 51% -

47 Kakinada 14.58 4.79 8.12 56% -

48 Wanaparthy 14.18 5.28 4.12 29% -

49 Narayanpet 15.53 5.66 6.29 41% -

50 Gadawal 4.42 1.60 1.60 36% -

51 Tandur 16.34 11.75 6.91 42% -

52 Bapatla 10.10 6.86 5.49 54% -

53 Bhimunipatnam 4.57 3.06 1.70 37% -

54 Chirala 4.73 1.59 1.76 37% -

55 Madanapatti 5.32 2.13 2.37 45% -

56 Adoni 5.55 2.23 2.48 45% -

57 Chittor 4.73 3.80 3.58 76% -

58 Ongole 4.40 2.55 1.56 35% -

59 Kavali 4.99 3.68 2.16 43% -

60 Kavali 1.71 1.30 0.76 45% -

61 Sattenapalli 15.61 12.53 8.06 52% -

62 Chilakaluripet 16.82 13.50 8.70 52% -

63 Macheria 16.81 13.50 8.69 52% -

64 Pulivendula 16.47 6.61 7.35 45% -

65 Siddipeta 4.80 3.57 1.99 41% -

66 Bodhan 6.25 2.81 3.13 50% -

67 Repalle 6.25 2.81 3.06 49% -

68 Yellandu 2.86 1.29 1.29 45% -

69 Tenali 5.36 2.41 2.68 50% -

70 Kadapa (Azad Nagar) 2.61 1.04 1.04 40% -

71 Dhone 2.24 1.01 1.01 45% -

72 Kadapa (Mamillapalli) 6.25 2.81 4.06 65% -

73 Palwancha 6.25 2.81 2.81 45% -

74 Kurnool 19.76 3.89 4.45 22% -

44

S. No Name of Municipality Sanction Disbursement Expenditure % No of houses

75 Nirmal 11.25 5.01 0.00 0% -

76 Ponnur 13.81 6.21 0.00 0% -

77 Machillipatnam 9.63 4.33 0.00 0% -

Total 1197.01 547.54 426.43 77.87% 47896

6.5.3 : MADHYA PRADESH

In Madhya Pradesh, IHSDP is being implemented by Urban Administration Development Department.

During 2007-2010, Rs 75.68 Crore was sanctioned for 18 schemes. But the expenditure during this period

was Rs 13.04 Crores, which is quite low. So far a total of 4886 houses have been constructed. Details of

the status are shown in Table- 6.3.

Table- 6.3 Status of IHSDP in Madhya Pradesh(Rs in Crore)

S. No. Name of Municipality Sanction Disbursement Expenditure % No of Houses

1 Sironj-II (Vidisha) 0.19 0.133 0.23 122% 47

2 Lateri (Vidisha)

0.45

0.315

0.21

47%

80

3 Ganjbasoda

1.71

1.197

0.72

42%

110

4 Hoshangabad 5.18 3.622 2.58 50% 297

5 Sironj-I (Vidisha) 1.61 1.117 0.69 43% 114

6 Petlawad 3.42 2.394

1.77 52%

240

7 Damoh 2.30 1.61 0.59 26% 104

8 Kurvai

0.96

0.672

0.25

26%

48

9 Depalpur 4.00 2.8 1.42 36% 96

10 Pansemal 2.94 2.058 0.41 14% 128

11 Vidisha

1.85

1.295

0.48

26%

217

12 Gautampura

3.96

2.772

0.37

9%

96

13 Betma

3.14

2.198

0.66

21%

96

14 Berasia

1.74

1.218

0.07

4%

160

15 Katni 29.18 20.426 1.56 5% 2182

16 Narsinghpur 8.40 5.88 0.50 6% 651

17 Khujnet 2.41 1.498 0.20 8% 100

18 Barela 2.25 1.575 0.33 15% 120

TOTAL 75.68 52.78 13.04 24.70% 4886

S. No Name of Municipality

Sanction Disbursement Expenditure % No. of houses

1.

Jamnagar

10.06

6.18

4.32

43%

864

2.

Amreli

10.65

4.11

3.69

35%

742

Table- 6.4 Status of IHSDP in Gujarat (Rs. in Crore)

6.5.4 : Gujarat

In Gujarat, IHSDP is being implemented by Gujarat Urban Development Mission. During 2007-2010, Rs

342.06 Crores was sanctioned for 32 schemes. Against the disbursement of Rs 90.18 Crores, the

expenditure during this period was Rs 41.28 Crores. Total number of houses constructed was 24,769. The

details of the IHSDP in Gujarat are shown in Table- 6.4.

45

S. No Name of

Municipality

Sanction

Disbursement Expenditure %

No. of houses

3. Bagasara 5.39 3.11 2.92 54% 386

4.

Dhangadhra

6.11

4.09

3.96

65%

564

5.

Patan

13.12

2.57

1.44

11%

1320

6.

Khambhat

7.21

1.32

0.00

0%

606

7.

Halol

6.09

4.11

3.72

61%

446

8. Una 13.44 2.72 0.51 4% 1272

9. Jetpur-Navagadh 16.20 9.07 7.35 45% 1130

10. Vapi 11.51 2.02 0.00 0% 1008

11. Unjha 9.40 6.24 5.20 55% 624

12.

Boriyavi

8.33

3.71

3.71

45%

611

13. Mandvi 19.54 3.70 0.01 0% 1548

14. Dharampur 1.76 0.33 0.00 0% 132

15. Dhandhuka 8.82 1.78 0.00

0% 666

16. Prantij 5.09 0.97 1.05 21% 449

17. Gondal 18.68 8.12 3.41 18% 1775

18.

Llmbdi

5.18

0.83

0.00

0%

384

19.

Upleta

5.62

0.98

0.00

0%

396

20.

Val sad

12.10

2.05

0.00

0%

926

21.

Umreth

11.33

2.11

0.00

0%

760

22.

Mahuva

6.66

1.05

0.00

0%

500

23.

Himmatnagar

15.20

2.64

0.00

0%

1296

24.

Kadi

14.06

2.42

0.00

0%

664

25.

Dahod

12.32

2.30

0.00

0%

480

25.

Dahod

12.32

2.30

0.00

0%

480

26.

Modasa

14.95

2.74

0.00

0%

576

27.

Anklav

12.22

2.21

0.00

0%

804

28.

Halvad

14.86

2.76

0.00

0%

828

29.

Navsari

14.46

2.79

0.00

0%

992

30.

Kaalol

5.97

1.13

0.00

0%

400

31.

Songadh

11.54

0.00

0.00 0%

784

32. Petlad 14.20 0.00 0.00 0% 836

Total

332.01

90.18

41.28 45.77%

24769

Name of ULB No of Houses

Sanction Disbursement Expenditure Achievement (%)

Uttar Pradesh 37652 1230.66 443.45 256.77 57.90

Andhra Pradesh 47896 1197.00 547.54 426.42 77.87

Madhya Pradesh 4886 75.67 52.78 13.05 24.7 0

Gujarat 24769 332.01 90.18 41.28 45.77

It is evident from the above table that Andhra Pradesh is the best performer out of the four states.

Table- 6.5 Comparative status of utilization of funds of IHSDP in Project States

(Rs in Crore)

Comparative analysis of Utilization of funds of IHSDP Projects in four Project States.

The comparative status of utilization of funds in the 4 status is given in Table 6.5.

46

RAJIV AWAS YOJANA77.1 Introduction

7.2 Objective

7.3 Component

7.4 Financial Pattern

Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY) is a programme launched by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty

Alleviation (Government of India) to achieve a 'Slum Free India' by 2014.

RAY envisages bringing existing slums within the formal system and enabling them to avail the same

level of basic amenities as the rest of the town while tackling the shortages of urban land and housing

that keep shelter out of reach of urban poor.

The scheme aims at providing Central support to States that are willing to assign property rights to

slum dwellers. Under this scheme affordable housing for the people living in the urban slum areas

through partnership have been proposed. Further, under this scheme, the infrastructural

development under the flagship programme of JnNURM would continue and the focus on

infrastructure, basic services and governance reform, increase support to cities would be

strengthened.

The scheme is to be taken up first in the cities having more than three lakh populations. For this states

concerned will have to chalk out city plans. The scheme is proposed to be implemented on private-

public participation basis. The draft guidelines of the scheme has been prepared and circulated to all

States/UTs/Central Ministries and experts/NGOs for comments.

At the initial stage developing a robust database on slums is critical for implementation of the

proposed Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY). The Ministry of HUPA has released funds for Slum/ Household/

Livelihoods surveys in 394 class I cities having more than one lakh population in the country.

This scheme aims at promoting a slum-free India in five years and would focus on according property

rights to slum dwellers.

It would provide basic amenities such as water supply, sewerage, drainage, internal and approach

roads, street lighting and social infrastructure facilities in slums and low income settlements adopting

a 'whole city' approach. It would also provide subsidized credit.

The Union Government will provide 50 percent of the cost to be incurred on construction of the

houses as subsidy. The rest 50 percent are to be borne by the State Government, the concerned

Municipal Corporation and the beneficiary. The share of the beneficiary would be 10 percent.

47

7.5 Rajiv Awas Yojana in four States

7.5.1 : UTTAR PRADESH

In Uttar Pradesh six cities have been included in the first phase for implementation of the RAY.

Table- 7.1 List of towns submitted for consideration under RAY in Uttar Pradesh

First Stage

Allahabad Rae Bareilly Varanasi

Meerut Lucknow Agra

7.5.2 : ANDHRA PRADESH

In Andhra Pradesh, 20 cities have been included in the first phase for implementation of the RAY

Table- 7.2 List of towns submitted for consideration under RAY in Andhra Pradesh

UL B

Greater Hyderabad

Municipal Corporation

Greater Vishakhapattnam

Municipal Corporation

Warangal VMC Nizamabad

Kadapa Guntur Kurnool Nellore Kakinada

Ramagundam Ananthapur Eluru Tirupathi Khammam

Dharmavaram Machilipatnam Ongole Suryapet Chirala

Zahir abad Sangareddy Nalgonda Yellandu Venkatagiri

7.5.3 : MADHYA PRADESH

In Madhya Pradesh, five cities viz Bhopal, Indore, Jabalpur, Gwalior, and Ujjain have been selected in

the first phase under RAY. Detailed report of these cities is being prepared. Preliminary survey is

being conducted to collect the base line data of the slum areas of the five cities.

Table- 7.3 List of towns submitted for consideration under RAY in Madhya Pradesh

First Stage

Ahmedabad Surat Vadodara

Rajkot Porbandar Bhavnagar

Jamnagar Junagardh Bharuch

Mahesana Nadiad

First Stage

Bhopal Indore Gwalior

Ujjain Jablpur

7.5.2 : GUJARAT

In Gujarat, RAY is being implemented in 11 towns in first phase.

Table- 7.4 List of towns submitted for consideration under RAY in Gujarat

48

URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE GOVERNANCE88.1 Introduction

8.2 Objective

l

l

l

l

l

l

8.3 Components

l

JNNURM was launched on 3rd December 2005 to address the long felt need of cities and towns to

augment infrastructure facilities to the people including those living in slums & poor localities in a

holistic manner. It aims at improving the quality of life in identified cities and towns across the country.

It is a reform-based window for redressing urban-rural resource inequity by fast tracking planned

development of cities with focus on efficiency, accountability and inclusion. It is aimed to provide the

policy context for urban renewal and redevelopment over the next 20-25 years with five-year stock-

taking breaks. Integrated and participatory development of urban poor housing with basic and social

services is at the core of the mission and nearly 50% of the mission funding to cities has been focused

on provision of Basic Services to the Urban Poor (BSUP). In a significant departure from earlier

policy, cost of housing has been proposed to be shared (between 10-12%) with the beneficiary and

the urban slum renewal agenda is a mandatory reform plan.

The scheme is extended to 63 cities including those with population of above a million, all state

capitals and other cities considered important from religious, historical and tourist point of view. The

scheme is the single largest central government initiative in the urban sector, with the provision of Rs

50,000 Crore for a period of seven years. In addition to grants-in-aid, the amount is also used to

leverage additional resources for financing urban development. The combined investment by the

Central Government, State Governments and Urban Local Bodies is expected to be over Rs 100,000

Crore in the next seven years.

Focused attention to integrated development of infrastructural services in the cities covered

under the Mission;

Secure effective linkages between asset creation and asset management so that the

infrastructural services created in the cities are not only maintained efficiently but also

become self-sustaining over time;

Ensure adequate investment of funds to fulfill deficiencies in the urban infrastructural

services;

Planned development of identified cities, including peri-urban areas, outgrowths, urban

corridors, so that urbanization takes place in a dispersed manner;

Scale up delivery of civic amenities and provision of utilities with emphasis on universal

access to urban poor;

To take up urban renewal programme, i.e., re-development of inner (old) cities area to reduce

congestion.

The Urban Infrastructure and Governance (UIG ) covers the following components:

Water supply including sanitation, 49

l

l

l

l

8.4 Financing Pattern

Sewerage,

Solid waste management,

Road network,

Urban transport and redevelopment of inner (old) city areas with a view to upgrading

infrastructure therein, shifting industrial/ commercial establishments to conforming areas,

etc.

Urban local bodies implement the programme with financial assistance from the Centre and State

governments. The pattern of sharing of resources is as follows:

Type of city Central Grant State S hare ULBs

Mega City 35% 15% 50%

Million Plus City 50% 20% 30%

8.5.UIG Status in four States

8.5.1: UTTAR PRADESH

The UIG status in four states is discussed below:-

The UIG component in Uttar Pradesh is being implemented by UP Jal Nigam. Twenty two schemes

on sewerage, solid waste management and storm water drainage projects with a sanctioned amount

of Rs 3186.58 Crore are being implemented in seven cities viz Lucknow, Varanasi, Agra, Kanpur,

Meerut, Allahabad & Mathura. Disbursement was Rs 1079.58 Crore, while expenditure was Rs

807.44 Crore. The status of sewerage projects under JnNURM scheme is shown in Table- 8.1

Table- 8.1 Status of UIG projects

S. No City Project title Sector Amount in Crore

Sanction Disbursement Expenditure

1

Ag

ra

Municipal solid waste management in Agra

Solid waste management 30.84

15.42

11.06

2

Jamuna Action Plan Phase-2 for branch and lateral sewer lines in northern zone and western zone in Agra

Sewerage 21.62 20.00 18.90

3Agra Sewerage SchemePhase-1 (part-1)

Sewerage

195.92

45.00

32.48

4

Alla

ha

ba

d Solid Waste Management forAllahabad

Solid Waste management

30.41

7.60

4.62

5 Sewerage System of

Allahabad City, Zone

-1 D Phase Sewerage

355.98

75.65

57.39

6

Ka

np

ur

Municipal solid wastemanagement in Kanpur

Solid wamanagement

ste 56.24

28.12

22.25

7Sewerage work of inner old city area of Kanpur

Sewerage

190.88

95.44

92.00

8Sewage treatment for Kanpur City Sewerage 101.00 25.25 0.00

9 Kanpur Sewerage works in district 4 in Kanpur City

Sewerage 207.36 50.00 33.58

50

S. No City Project title Sector Amount in Crore

Sanction Disbursement Expenditure

10

Lu

ckn

ow

Sewerage works for LucknowSewerage district-1 (Vol-1&2)

Sewerage 236.23 218.51 163.64

11 Municipal Solid waste management in Lucknow

Solid waste management

42.92 10.73 0.00

12 Sewerage works for Lucknow city Sewerage district3(Part10)

Sewerage 262.16 65.54 40.68

13 Storm water drainagefor Lucknow

Drainage/waterdrains

storm

325.21 138.22 122.30

14 Sewage works for Lucknow city, Sewerage district2(Part10)

Sewerage 214.43 53.62 37.09

15

Ma

thu

ra

Municipal Solid Waste Management in Mathura

Solid waste management

9.92 4.96 3.52

16 Storm water drainage Drainage / storm water drains

87.20 23.54 22.82

17 DPR for Sewerage works inSewerage zone-2 of Mathura City

Sewerage 60.36 14.06 0.97

18

Me

eru

t Municipal Solid Waste management

Solid waste management

22.59 11.30 7.95

19 Sewerage work in Sewerage zone 5 &7 of Meerut city

Sewerage 185.89 45.00 19.75

20

Va

ran

asi

Solid Waste Managementof Varanasi

Solid waste management

48.68 12.17 7.37

21 Storm water drainage works for Varanasi

Drainage / water drains

storm

191.62 46.82 44.96

22 Sewerage work for Varanasi Trans Varuna Area

Sewerage 309.12 72.64 64.11

Total 3186.59 1079.59 807.45

8.5.2 : ANDHRA PRADESH

UIG in Andhra Pradesh is being implemented by Andhra Pradesh Urban Finance and Industrial

Development Corporation (APUFIDC). Twenty three schemes on sewerage and storm water with a total

sanctioned amount of Rs 1703.88 Crore are being implemented in four cities viz. Greater Hyderabad,

Vijayawada, Greater Visakhapatnam and Tirupati. Disbursement is Rs 709.13 Crore, while expenditure is

Rs 605.52 Crore. Details of UIG status are shown below.

Table- 8.2 Status of UIG projects in Andhra Pradesh

S. No City Project Title Sector Amount in Crore

Sanction Disbursement Expenditure

1

Hyd

era

ba

d

Remodelling of storm water drainage-Murki Nala secondary drainage

Drainage /Storm

water drains 42.31 21.11 12.00

2 Remodelling of storm water

drainage-Murki Nala P-11,P-12 Drainage /Storm

water drains 32.99 16.48 5.82

3

Remodelling of storm water drainageKukatpally Begampat nalla

Drainage /Storm

water drains 31.36 27.42 19.80

4 Balkapur Channel Drainage /Storm

water drains 35.79 18.41 13.93

5

Rehabilitation and Strengthe-ning of Sewerage System in City area on South of Musli

Sewerage 251.25 53.51 53.21

6

Rehabilitation and Strengthe-ning of Sewerage System in Old City area on South of Musli

Sewerage

148.81

49.58

46.52

51

S. No City Project Title Sector Amount in Crore

Sanction Disbursement Expenditure

7

Implementation of Sewerage master plan in Seringampally Municipality of Hyderabad

Sewerage

200.38

39.53

50.18

8 Improvement of storm water

drainage in zone 1&2 Mch area Drainage /storm

water drains 124.10

31.02

2.27

9

Vija

ya

wa

da

Providing under ground drainage facilities to the unserved areas

Drainage /storm water drains

56.56

59.90

59.90

10 Providing sewerage system in

Krishna lanka Area of Vijayawada

Sewage

7.43

7.16

7.16

11 Providing sewerage treatment

plant at Singhnagar Sewage

9.49

27.14

24.02

12

Storm water drainage system for uncovered areas in circle1,2,3 and MG road of BMC

Drainage /storm water drains

49.12

39.93

32.29

13

Providing sewage facilities in unserved areas of BMC covering housing board colony, Gondala, Devinagar, Kedaresh warapet, etc

Sewage

19.85

19.40

19.41

14 Solid waste improvement

management scheme Solid waste management

58.05

14.51

14.30

15 Providing storm water drains at

Mangalagiri town in Vijayawada Drainage /storm

water drains

Drainage /storm water drains

Drainage /storm water drains

Drainage /storm water drains

Drainage /storm water drains

Drainage /storm water drains

30.16

0.00

0.00

16 Providing sewerage for northern

part of Vijayawada city Sewerage 178.15 32.00 15.11

17

Vis

ha

kh

ap

atn

am

Regularization of SL canal

3.39

3.35

3.35

18 Improvement of Yerri Gedda Storm

Water drain including bench drain 9.21

10.84

10.84

19 Providing sewerage system in old

city area

Sewerage

37.08

29.57

29.47

20 Providing Sewerage system to

central part of Vishakha patnam city Sewerage

244.44

163.23

141.19

21 Improvement of storm water

drainage in zone VIII 72.27

20.30

20.30

22

Tiru

pa

ti

Underground Drainage scheme for Tirupati

16.13

10.98

10.93

23 Storm water drainage system for

TMC

45.56

13.75

13.53

Total 1703.88 709.13 605.52

8.5.3 : MADHYA PRADESH

UIG in Madhya Pradesh is being implemented by Urban Administration and Development

Department (UADD). Six schemes on sewerage, solid waste management and storm water drainage

with a sanctioned amount of Rs 856.29 Crore are being implemented in three cities viz Bhopal, Indore

and Jabalpur. Disbursement was Rs 295.63 Crore, while expenditure was Rs 272.47 Crore. Details

of UIG status are shown below.

52

S. No City Project title Sector Amount in Crore

Sanction Disbursement Expenditure

1

Ah

me

da

ba

d

Renovation of existing sewage treatment plant at Pirana

Sewerage 69.22

83.97

83.97

2 Renovation of sewage treatment plant at Vasna

Sewerage 11.35

13.06

13.06

3 Storm water drainagesystem for west zone AMC area

Drainage /stormwater drains

59.14

67.20

63.66

4 Storm water drainage system for South and Central zone AMC area

Drainage /stormwater drains 120.88

120.88

112.62

5 Storm water drainage system for North and East zone of AMC area

Drainage /stormwater drains

122.83 107.48 89.97

6 Terminal Sewerage Pumping Station, Pumping main and Sewage Treatment Plant near Vinzol for east AUDA Area

Sewerage

36.81

32.21

29.01

7 West AUDA area terminal sewerage pumping station, pumping main and sewage treatment plant near Vasana

Sewerage

106.92

71.03

71.03

8 Catchmnent Development and Drainage for water bodies development and flood relief project

Drainage /storm water drains

104.75

67.01

67.01

9 Sewerage Network of WestAUDA area of Ahmedabad

Sewerage 235.41 63.61 33.12

10 Sewerage Network of East AUDA area of Ahmadabad

Sewerage 77.65 18.96 15.17

8.5.4 : GUJARAT

UIG in Gujarat is being implemented by Gujarat Urban Development Mission (GUDM), which has

been established as State Level Nodal Agency for JnNURM Projects. Twenty eight schemes on

sewerage and storm water drainage projects with sanctioned amount of Rs 2175.42 Crore are being

implemented in four cities viz Ahmedabad, Surat, Rajkot, and Vadodara.

Disbursement was Rs 1664.40 Crore, while expenditure was Rs 1473.36 Crore. Details of UIG status

are shown are shown below.

Table- 8.4 Status of UIG projects in Gujarat

S. No

City Project title Sector Amount in Crore

Sanction Disbursement Expenditure

1 Bhopal Channelization of nalla Storm water drains 30.57 15.29 14.99

2 Indore Indore Sewerage Project Sewerage 307.17 153.59 161.22

3 Solid waste management of Indorecity

Solid Waste management

43.25 32.43 33.44

4 Jabalpur Sewerage and Sewage Treatment Project-phase-1

Sewerage 78.01 19.49 23.69

5 Sewerage and Sewage Treatment Project-phase-2

Sewerage 70.81 17.71 14.65

6 Storm water drains at Jabalpur City

Drainage/storm water drains

326.49 57.14 24.49

Total 856.30 295.64 272.47

Table- 8.3 Status of UIG projects in Madhya Pradesh

53

S.No City Project title Sector Amount in Crore

Sanction Disbursement Expenditure

11

Ra

ko

t

Strengthening of Solid waste management phase-1

Solid Waste Management

8.67 6.07 5.46

12 Underground Drainage Phase -2&3

drainsSewerage

75.42 64.63 64.63

13Sewerage system phase -2 part -2 for Rajkot City

191.95

31.50

0.95

14

Su

rat

Upgradation of Anjana Sewerage Treatment Plant

Sewerage 10.98 15.72 15.71

15 Augmentation of Adajan Sewerage

Sewerage 11.93 12.54 12.54

16 Augmentation of Bhesan Sewage Treatment plant

Sewerage 15.09 27.77 27.77

17 Secondary Sewerage Treatment Plant at Bamroli

Sewerage 13.22 18.57 18.57

18 Storm water drainage Vesu area

Drainage/storm water Drains

49.95 55.64 55.63

19 Sewerage Disposal Networkand STP for Vesu Area

Sewerage 34.37 48.80 48.80

20 Storm Water Drainage System of Surat City

Drainage/storm water Drains

116.63 111.48 111.48

21 Sewerage and sewage treatment System for new east zone

Sewerage 110.66 66.94 66.94

22 Storm water disposal system for new zone

Drainage/stormwater Drains

34.27 31.34 29.36

23 Automation of SCDA of existing pumping station and STP of Surat Municipal Corporation

Sewerage 30.63 18.08 18.08

24 Sewerage System for newNorthern Drainage

Sewerage 184.04 96.96 92.96

25

Va

do

da

ra

Sewerage system for Vadodara City

Sewerage

105.15

154.13

101.57

26

Storm water drainage of Vadodara city

Drainage/stormwater drains

145.95

199.03

178.96

27 Solid waste managementfor Vadodara

Solid waste management

30.99 31.03 22.11

28 Sewerage system phase-2 for Vadodara City

Sewerage 60.56 28.76 23.23

Total 2175.42 1664.40 1473.37

Comparative analysis of Utilization of funds of UIG Projects in 4 Project States. The comparative

status of utilization of funds in the 4 status is given in Table 8.5.

Table- 8.5 Comparative statement of utilization of funds of UIG Project in Project States

Name of the State (Amount in Crore)

Sanction Disbursement Expenditure Utilization (%)

Uttar Pradesh 3186.59 1079.59 807.45 74.79

Andhra Pradesh 1703.88 709.13 605.52 85.39

Madhya Pradesh 856.30 295.64 272.47 92.16

Gujarat 2175.42 1664.4 1473.37 88.52

It is evident from the Table- 8.5 that Uttar Pradesh received maximum sanction, but utilization was

maximum in Madhya Pradesh.54

Drainage/stormwater

URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENTSCHEME FOR SMALL AND MEDIUM TOWNS(UIDSSMT)

9

9.1 Introduction

9.2 Objectives

l

l

l

9.3 Components

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

9.4 Funding pattern

Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Small and Medium Towns (UIDSSMT) is a component of

JNNURM for providing infrastructure facilities in small and medium towns of the country. All the cities

other than mission cities are eligible for availing fund for infrastructure facilities under UIDSSMT.

Urban infrastructure Development Scheme for Small & Medium Towns aims at improvement in urban

infrastructure in towns and cities in a planned manner. It has been conceived to subsume the existing

schemes of Integrated Development of Small and Medium Towns (IDSMT) and Accelerated Urban Water

Supply Programme (AUWSP).

The objective of Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Small and Medium Towns are:

To improve infrastructure facilities and create durable public assets and quality oriented services

in cities and towns;

To enhance Public-Private-Partnership in infrastructure development;

To promote planned integrated development of towns and cities.

Widening of narrow streets, shifting of industrial/ commercial establishments to reduce

congestion, replacement of old and worn out water pipes by new/ higher capacity ones;

Water supply and sanitation;

Sewerage and Solid Waste Management;

Construction and improvement of drains/ storm water drains;

Construction / up-gradation of roads, highways/ expressways;

Parking lots / spaces on PPP basis;

Development of heritage areas;

Preservation of water bodies.

The funding pattern between Central Govt and State Govt/ ULB/ Parastatal is 80:20. Priority has

been given for water supply, sewerage and road projects.

55

9.5 UIDSSMT status in four states

9.5.1 : UTTAR PRADESH

Under UIDSSMT components of UIG, six sewerage and storm water projects are being

implemented in five cities viz. Firozabad, Mainpuri, Ballia, Loni and Vrindavan in Uttar Pradesh. The

status of UIDSSMT in UP is shown below.

Thus in Uttar Pradesh Rs 147.10 Crore has been utilized against released amount of Rs 186.84

Crore for implementation of various sewerage projects under UIDSSMT

Under UIDSSMT, a total of 23 sanitation and solid wastes projects were sanctioned. The total

disbursed amount under this scheme is Rs 480.46 Crore while the expenditure incurred till 2010 for

implementation of these projects is Rs 253.56 Crore.

9.5.2 : ANDHRA PRADESH

Table- 9.1 Progress of UIDSSMT projects in cities of Uttar Pradesh

S. No City/ULB Sanction Disbursement Expenditure %

1 Balia - Sewerage 31.94 22.36 20.54 91.85

2 Firozabad - Sewerage 62.08 43.46 43.46 100.00

3 Loni - Sewerage 93.75 65.53 36.71 56.01

4 Mainpuri - Sewerage 34.81 24.37 24.69 101.31

5 Vrindavan - Sewerage 27.21 19.05 15.30 80.33

6 Vrindavan - Drainage 17.24 12.07 6.40 53.01

TOTAL 267.03 186.84 147.10 78.73

(Rs in Crore)

(Rs in Crore)Table- 9.2 Progress of UIDSSMT Projects in different cities in Andhra Pradesh

S. No City/ULB Sanction Disbursement Expenditure %

1. Nandyal – SWD 3.65 1.79 1.65 92.18 2. Medak – SWD 6.39 3.15 2.58 81.90 3. Chirala – SWD 12.49 8.80 7.94 90.23 4. Narasaraopet - Sew 30.627 21.60 19.29 89.31 5. Bapatala – SWD 34.293 27.15 22.24 81.92 6. Kadapa – Sew 55.63 39.18 24.93 63.63 7. Anakapalli – SWD 18.71 13.18 12.27 93.10 8. Nalgonda – Sew 33.27 23.43 20.86 89.03 9. Karimnagar – Sew 42.103 29.65 26.07 87.93 10. Miryalaguda – Sew 24.79 17.46 17.22 98.63 11. Nizamabad – Sew 57.55 40.53 35.72 88.13 12. Machilipatnam – SWD 17.22 12.13 10.67 87.96 13. Proddutur – Sew 3.32 2.34 0.00 0.00 14. Siddipet – SWD 11.60 8.17 7.17 87.76 15. Nagari – Sew 9.81 6.91 6.79 98.26 16. Yemminganur – Sew 28.28 19.92 11.82 59.34 17. Nalgonda – SWD 4.60 3.24 1.46 45.06 18. Mirylaguda – SWD 2.01 1.42 1.42 100.00 19. Surapet – SWD 0.88 0.62 0.00 0.00 20. Tadepalliguden – Sew 26.412 18.60 21.16 113.76 21. Nandyal – Sew 7.12 5.02 2.30 45.82 22. Vikarabad – SWD 44.37 31.25 0.00 0.00 23. Nizamabad – Sew 205.78 144.92 0.00 0.00

TOTAL 680.90 480.46 253.56 52.77

56

9.5.4 : GUJARAT

Under UIDSSMT, a total of 20 projects are being implemented in 20 towns. All the projects are related to water supply. So far a total of Rs 434.01 Crore has been released for implementation of the projects (Table-9.4)

9.5.3 : MADHYA PRADESH

Under UIDSSMT a total of 8 projects comprising of seven sewerage projects and one of storm water drainage are being implemented in eight towns. So far Rs 158.70 Crore has been approved and an amount of Rs 63.48 Crore has been released (Table-9.3)

Table- 9.3 Progress of UIDSSMT in different cities/towns of Madhya Pradesh(Rs in Crore)

(Rs in Crore)Table-9.4 Progress of UIDSSMT in cities of Gujarat

Table-9.5 Comparative statement of utilization of funds of UIDSSMT Project in the Project States

S No City/ULB Sanction Disbursement Expenditure %

1. Itarsi 10.05 7.08 2.83 40.00 2. Budni 2.769 1.95 0.78 40.00

3. Rehti 2.03 1.43 0.57 40.00

4. Vidisha 3.09 2.18 0.87 40.00

5. Jaora 4.17 2.94 1.18 40.00 6. Gwalior 94.43 66.50 26.60 40.00

7. Sagar 108.80 76.62 30.65 40.00

8. Malajkhand 0.397 0.28 0.22 80.00

Total 225.73 158.70 63.48 40.00

S No City/ULB Sanction Disbursement Expenditure %

1. Ahmedabad 10.93 7.70 5.86 76.03

2. Amreli 35.03 24.67 23.57 95.53

3. Anand 52.22 36.78 4.04 10.99

4. Banaskantha 5.90 4.16 3.32 79.76

5. Bharuch 18.72 13.19 15.15 114.84

6. Bhavnagar 35.08 24.71 23.77 96.19

7. Gandhinagar 6.07 4.28 72.09 16.84

8. Jamnagar 51.668 36.40 23.12 63.53

9. Junagarh 46.51 32.76 11.59 35.38

10. Kheda 55.32 38.96 29.69 76.21

11. Mahesana 48.80 34.37 25.65 74.64

12. Navsari 16.59 11.69 2.97 25.41 13. Panchmahal 32.56 22.93 13.06 56.95

14. Patan 3.195 2.25 1.63 72.49

15. Rajkot 90.32 63.61 51.06 80.27

16. Sabarkantha 27.71 19.52 16.20 83.02

17. Surat 12.02 8.47 5.57 65.74

18. Surendranagar 53.46 37.65 19.47 51.72

19. Vadodara 5.28 3.72 3.35 90.00

20. Valsad 8.78 6.19 4.30 69.49

Total 616.16 434.01 284.09 65.46

S. No State Disbursement Ex penditure %

1 Uttar Pradesh 186.84 147.10 78.73

2 Andhra Pradesh 480.46 253.56 52.77

3 Madhya Pradesh 158.70 63.48 40.00

4 Gujarat 434.01 284.09 65.46

(Rs in Crore)

Comparative analysis of Utilization of funds of UIDSSMT Projects in four Project States.The comparative status of utilization of funds in the four states is given in Table 9.5.

57

EXTERNALLY AIDED PROJECT 1010.1 : ANDHRA PRADESH

10.1.1 Andhra Pradesh Municipal Development Project (APMDP)

The Andhra Pradesh Municipal Development Project is an externally aided project for providing

high priority urban services in selected ULBs in the State. The total cost of the project is Rs 1670.55

Crore which is supported by the World Bank through International Bank of Reconstruction and

Development (Rs 1431.90 Crore). The state government share to this project is Rs 92.60 Crore

while contribution from the ULB is Rs 146.05 Crore (Table-10.1).

Table- 10.1 Sharing of Resources for APMDP project

Source Rs (in Crore) (US$M)

Government of Andhra Pradesh 92.60 19.40

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development 1431.90 300.00

Ur ban Local Bodies 146.05 30.60

Total 1670.55 350.00

Objective

Components

The project is aimed to finance works to build, upgrade, or improve efficiency of a full range of

municipal facilities like city roads, sewerage, water supply, sanitation, solid waste management,

street lighting, community centers, etc.

As per the terms and conditions of the project, ULBs have to bear 10% of subproject cost, and will

receive sub grants and sub loans, repayable over 15 years at an interest rate equal to the State's

borrowing cost plus 1% per annum. The implementation of the project is yet to start.

Under this project several components have been proposed in which Urban Infrastructure

Investment is one of the important ones. The details of the components are shown in Table-10.2

Table: 10.2 Components in Andhra Pradesh Municipal Development Project (APMDP)

Component Total cost IBRD Loan GoAP financing

(US $ m) Rs in Crore (US $ m) Rs in Crore (US $ m) Rs in Crore

State Level Policy and Institutional Development

92 43.91 8.8 42.00 0.4 1.91

Capacity Enhancement 14.0 66.8 12.7 60.62 1.3 6.20

Urban Infrastructure Investments

30.60 1460.54 259.70 1239.54 46.40 221.47

Project Management 20.0 95.46 18.10 86.39 1.9 9.07

Front – end Fee 0.75 3.58 0.75 3.58 0.0 0.0

Total 157.35 1670.55 300.0 1431.90 50.0 238.5 58

Progress:

10.2 : MADHYA PRADESH

10.2.1 Urban Water Supply and Environmental Improvement Project

Objective

l

l

Components

The project agreement has been signed on 22nd January, 2010 between Government of Andhra

Pradesh, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department and International Bank

for Reconstruction and Development.

The progress so far achieved is as under:

i. Service level benchmarking

APMDP initiated implementation of service level benchmarking

ii Governance and Accountability Action Plan (GAAP)

GAAP Framework is being implemented to ensure accountability and transparency in

managing various risks identified in implementing Project.

In Madhya Pradesh, Urban Water Supply and Environmental Improvement Project is an externally

aided project implemented by Urban Administration & Development Deptt, Govt of MP with the

support of Asian Development Bank.

While the Project is expected to benefit the entire urban community in general, some components

have been focused on upgrading the conditions of the poorest and most needy groups, particularly

in the slum areas. The Project is to have active participation of women citizens in municipal

management and project implementation, both as beneficiaries and as agents.

The primary objective of the project is to promote sustainable growth and poverty reduction in the

four project cities in Madhya Pradesh, and thereafter in the other cities in the state.

The project is specifically meant to:

provide sustainable basic urban infrastructure and services to all citizens of the four project

cities; and

strengthen the capacities of the project cities to plan and manage urban water supply and

sanitation system in a more effective, transparent, and sustainable manner.

The project has three components, given in Table 10.4 below. The total cost of the project is $ 275

million. To meet the estimated project cost of $ 275 million equivalent, ADB will provide a loan of

$242 million. Rest of the project cost is to be provided by State Government and the ULBs.

Total 13 ULBs selected for implementation of the project (Table-10.3)

Total: 10.3 ULBs for implementation of the APMDP project

Palasa Kasibugga Markapur Guntur Malkajgiri

Armoor Kurnool Vijayanagaram Kakinada

Manuguru Ananthapur Chittor Badvel

Nellore

59

60

10.2.2 Madhya Pradesh Urban Services for the Poor (MPUSP)

Objective:

Component

Funding and implementation

MPUSP is another externally aided project. It is a partnership between the Government of Madhya

Pradesh and the UK Department for International Development, operational in fourteen Municipal

Corporations, to achieve an overall poverty reduction and economic growth in urban Madhya

Pradesh.

It is a five-year (2006-11) programme to build capacity of selected urban local bodies (ULBs) to

deliver better services for the poor. MPUSP's activities are selected in coordination with the GoMP

priorities and other urban programmes in Madhya Pradesh.

The objective of MPUSP is to provide greater access to essential municipal services and help

improve livelihoods and hygiene practices of the poorest 25 percent in the four programme cities. It

seeks to work with the poor, and women in particular, to make sure they have a say in the planning

and management of services.

MPUSP is providing training and equipment, building new systems and processes, and assisting

with specialist advice and support to enable ULBs to help their poorest citizens.

The programme focuses on four ULBs: Bhopal, Gwalior, Indore and Jabalpur.

The major components of MPUSP are

1. Water and sanitation services

2. Waste collection

3. Roads

4. Drains

5. Streetlights

6. Livelihood

7. Financial and institutional reforms

MPUSP (Project Utthan) is funded through a £41 million grant from the UK government's

Department for International Development, working in partnership with the Government of

Madhya Pradesh. Around half of this will go to the four programme cities to carry out priority slum

improvements. The remainder will support state government and ULBs to bring about reform to

improve the ways in which they provide services to poor people.

The programme is being implemented by the Urban Administration and Development Department

of the Government of Madhya Pradesh.

DFID is providing Rs. 12.03 Crore towards construction of approx. 16,000 individual toilets in the

four project cities i.e. Bhopal, Indore, Gwalior and Jabalpur as given in the Table 10.15.

Component Total cost illion USD)(M

Urban water supply and environmental improvement

275

Urban water supply

Sewerage and sanitation

Storm water drainage

Solid waste management

Increase the awareness and participation of the project beneficiaries in project implementation

Project implementation assistance- unit (PMU) at state level and project implementation unit (PIUs) at city level, with activities immediately related to implementation of the Project

to support the project management

Total Cost

Table: 10.4 Components in Urban Water Supply and Environmental

Improvement Project (UWSEP)

C

B

A

10.2.3 Water for Asian Cities (WAC) Programme

Objective

Component

Poverty Mapping Situational Analysis:

Slums Environmental Sanitation Initiatives:

Community Managed Sewerage Scheme:

Solid Waste Management:

Water for Asian Cities (WAC) Programme is a collaborative initiative of the UN-HABITAT, the Asian

Development Bank (ADB) and Governments of Asia.

The Programme objective is to pursue the Millennium Development Goal 7 Target 10 of halving

proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation to half

by 2015.

The programme thrust areas include: pro-poor urban water and sanitation governance; promoting

urban water demand management and urban environmental sanitation; income generation for the

urban poor through community-based water and sanitation (WATSAN) services.

In Madhya Pradesh, the WAC Programme is supporting the ADB financed Urban Water Supply

and Environmental Improvement Project being implemented by the Government of Madhya

Pradesh in the cities of Bhopal, Gwalior, Indore and Jabalpur since 2005.

The major components related to sanitation under this project are given below:

A city wide Situational Analysis of the Poverty Pockets

(slums) for mapping the poverty and identifying environmental infrastructural deficiencies for

prioritizing interventions to improve access to water and sanitation in poverty pockets in the project

cities was carried out in collaboration with Municipal Corporations of Bhopal, Indore, Jabalpur and

Gwalior, Water Aid and local counterpart NGOs.

Based on the outcome of PPSA, a community-

based project on Urban Environmental Sanitation in 63 slums covering 20,000 households in four

project cities was implemented in partnership with Water Aid India and city Municipal Corporations.

Learning from the implementation of SESI, Government of Madhya Pradesh is piloting initiative for

improving water and sanitation services in 80 slum communities in 4 cities of Madhya Pradesh

using Area Improvement Fund and Community Initiative Fund under the ADB loan covenant. UN-

HABITAT in partnership with Water Aid Australia is providing support to demonstrate sanitation

options, community mobilization and capacity building of the community in creating water and

sanitation infrastructure and their O&M.

On the active demand from the community, UN-

HABITAT has supported the community having 1200 households in execution of a sewerage

scheme in the notified slums of Ramaji Ka Pura, Islampura and Subhash Nagar in Gwalior to

enable the households to construct individual household toilets.

UN-HABITAT has supported piloting a community-managed solid

waste disposal project in the five contiguous wards of Jabalpur city having a population of about

50,000 to create a zero garbage zone within the city, with ultimate goal of the Municipal

Corporation to upscale the initiative at city level. UN-HABITAT is supporting the Municipal

Corporation of Gwalior to promote door-to-door collection of segregated waste through city-wide

awareness programme.

Table 10.5: Details of individual toilets approved under DFID supported Project Utthan.

City No. of Slums Total No. households No of Toilet

beneficiaries

Total Cost

(Rs. in Crore)

Jabalpur 20 7816 3963 3.09

Bhopal 21 7721 3844 3.00

Gwalior 19 7788 3851 3.00

Indore 20 9079 4118 3.21

Total 80 32404 15776 12.31

61

Human Value Based water Sanitation & Hygiene Education (HVWSHE):

Integrated Urban Sanitation Programme (IUSP) and City Sanitation Plan (CSP) :

10.3 GUJARAT

10.3.1 Gujarat Municipal Sewerage Project

In partnership with

Centre of Environment Education (CEE), Ahmedabad, HVWSHE Classrooms in one school in

each of the 4 project cities were established, various resource and IEC materials were developed

and capacity building of teachers were organized to promote HVWSHE in schools. Now a project

focusing on development of communication tools, capacity building of teachers and class room

activities for students to promote HVWSHE is being implemented.

To support

the Integrated Urban Sanitation Programme (IUSP) of the state government, UN-HABITAT is

supporting the two urban local bodies, viz. Gwalior (population of more than 1 million) and

Nasrullahganj (population 21,423) in developing the city sanitation plans. Support to

Nasrullahganj is also being provided for demonstrating appropriate and integrated sanitation

options and technologies to ensure access to improved sanitation to all people.

The Gujarat Municipal Sewerage Project of Rs 760 Crore proposes strengthening of sewerage

network in 32 municipalities and its management for five years. GUDC is the nodal agency which

has approached JICA for funding.

Table: 10.6 ULBs selected under the project

1. Viramgam 2. Mohsana 3. Nadiad 4. Palanpur

5. Palitana 6. Vapi 7. Bardeli 8. Kalol

9. Kadi 10. Vaisad 11. Godhara 12. Billimore

13. Siddhupur 14. Dabhoi 15. Khambhat 16. Deesa

17. Unjha 18. Borsad 19. Visnagar 20. Bhavnagar

21. Himmatnagar 22. Petlad 23. Ankl eswar 24. Patan

25. Navsari 26. Dholka 27. Dahod 28. Anand

29. Modasa 30. Mahuva 31. Vijapur 32. Bharuch

Progress

The proposal was approved in 2008 and JICA has included the proposal in their rolling plan which

is now on the verge of clearance.

62

STATE SPECIFIC SCHEMES

1111.1 UTTAR PRADESH

11.1.1 Dr Ambedkar Gram Sabha Vikas Yojna

Objective

Component

This innovative scheme was launched by the Government of UP in 2007. Dr Ambedkar Gram Vikas

Department is the nodal agency, and Gram Sabha has been given the responsibility to select the

villages to be brought under this scheme.

The main objective of the scheme was to provide infrastructural and other basic facilities in the

areas dominated by SC, ST people so as to bring them in main stream.

Under these scheme 30 activities including 13 major ones of 14 departments have been identified.

The major activities that are implemented are shown in Table- 11.1

Table-11.1 Identified activities of Dr Ambedkar Gram Sabha Vikas Yojana

S No Identified Activities Executive Department

1 Connecting the Gram samba/ Gram with the main road PWD Dept

2 Electrification Energy Dept

3 Drainage / Kharanja Panchayati Raj Dept

4 Construction of Free Boring Minor Irrigation Dept

5 Construction of Health Center/ Dispensary Health Dept

6 Primary School Dept of Basic Education

7 Swarnjoyanti Gram Swarojgar Yojana Rural Development Dept

8 Rojgar Gurantee Yojana/ Sampurna Gramin Rojgar Yojana Rural Development Dept

9 Mini Dairy Yojana Dairy Dept

10 Development of Ration Industries Sericulture Dept

11 Distribution of Agricultural Land Revenue Dept

12 Distribution of surplus land from selling land Revenue Dept

13 Distribution of Patta for Fisheries Revenue Dept

14 Distribution of Patta to Kumharikala Revenue Dept

15 Old age Pension Yojana Social Justice Dept

16 Scholarship Yojana SocialJustice Dept

17 Bal Vikas Yojna/ Anganwari Dept of Women Welfare

18 Rehabilitation of Widows Dept of Women Welfare

19 Pension Yojana of Orthopedically Handicapped Orthopedical Welfare Dept

20 Tools for Orthopedically Handicapped Orthopedical Welfare Dept 63

S No Identified Activities Executive Department

21 Indira Awas Yojana Gram Vikas Vibhag

22 Distribution of residential plots Revenue Dept

23 Ensure Kobja to people holding land on Patta Revenue Dept

24 Toilets Panchayati Raj Dept

25 Potable water Gram Vikas Vibhag

26 Vaccination to animals Animal Husbandry Dept

27 Artificial insemination Animal Husbandry Dept

28 Vaccination to newborn child Health Dept

29 Education for all Education Department

30 100 % literacy Education Department

Financing Pattern

Dr Ambedkar Gram Sabha Vikas Yojna

Progress

is a unique convergence scheme where no expenditure

is incurred except for construction of RCC roads connecting the village to the main road. Under the

scheme funds are converged from TSC, ILCS & BRGF sources.

The details of the physical and financial progress of Dr Ambedkar Gram Sabha Vikas Yojana during

2007-2010 are depicted below.

11.1.2 Manyavar Shri Kashiram Saheri Garib Awas Yojana

The scheme was launched by the State Government in 2008 for providing one lakh houses every

year to people living below poverty line in the urban areas along with basic amenities like road,

electricity, drinking water and toilets. The scheme has been proposed to be completed in five years

period.

In first phase, houses are proposed to be constructed in 71 District Head Quarters in the first year.

The number of houses shall vary from 1000-1500, depending on population density.

In second phase, the scheme has been proposed to be implemented in all the Municipal Councils

in two years period while in the third phase, the scheme is proposed to be implemented in town

areas also in two years period; the number of houses to be constructed shall depend upon the

population.

Table- 11.2 Progress of Dr Ambedkar Gram Sabha Vikas Yojana during the period 2007-2010

S No Activity No of Gram

Sabha

Targeted Gram

Sabha

Physical

Progress

Sanctioned

Amount

2007 -2008

1 Con struction of Toilets 1887 1796 143,753 No 22.64

2 Drain /Kharanja 1324 1323 937. 4 KM 329.64

2008 -2009

1 Construction of Toilets 3711 3696 625,331 No 259.54

2 Construction of Pucca Drain 1439 1439 10825.9 KM 821.76

2009 -2010.

1 Construction of Drain 2195 2168 2,168 No. 730.76

2 Construction of Drain / Kharanja 2180 964 955 M 185.42

Till 2010 total 11,386 villages have been saturated with the targeted works

64

Objective

Components

Financing Pattern

Progress

The objective of the scheme is to provide houses free of cost to shelterless widows, handicapped

and SC, ST and OBC people living below poverty line.

Along with the house other basic amenities like road, electricity, drinking water and toilets are also

included in the scheme.

The funding for construction of houses is done from the 'Kashiram Integrated Housing

Development Scheme'. The houses would be distributed free of cost to the beneficiaries.

The implementation of the scheme is done under the supervision of District Magistrate. The

implementing agencies are District Urban Development Authority, UP Housing Development

Authority and other Development Authorities. The other basic amenities under this scheme are

provided from the concerned department.

In first phase (2008-2009), 101,000 total houses are being constructed in 71 ULBs, 1500 each in

60 ULBs, where population density is comparatively high, while 1,000 houses each are

constructed in remaining 11 ULBs. The details of the sanction are as shown below:

Table-11.3 Target for Phase I under Manyavar Shri Kashiram Shahri Garib Awas Yojana

S. No. City No. of Houses Sanction

1. Kanpur 1500 26.25

2. Lucknow 1500 26.25

3. Ghaziabad 1500 26.25

4. Agra 1500 26.25

5. Meerut 1500 26.25

6. Muradabad 1500 26.25

7. Varana si 1500 26.25

8. Allahabad 1500 26.25

9. Bareliy 1500 26.25

10. Bulandshahar 1500 26.25

11. Muzaffarnagar 1500 26.25

12. Firozabad 1500 26.25

13. Mainpuri 1500 26.25

14. Mathura 1500 26.25

15. Aligarh 1500 26.25

16. Bijnor 1500 26.25

17. Gorakhpur 1500 26.25

18. Saharanpur 1500 26.25

19. Jhansi 1500 26.25

20. Budaynu 1500 26.25

21. Unnao 1500 26.25

22. Shahjahanpur 1500 26.25

23. Rampur 1500 26.25

24. Seetapur 1500 26.25

25. Hardoi 1500 26.25

(Rs in Crore)

65

S. No. City No. of Houses Sanction

26. Jyotiba Phule Nagar 1500 26.25

27. Lakheempur Kheeri 1500 26.25

28. Jalon 1500 26.25

29. Farrukhabad 1500 26.25

30. Mau 1500 26.25

31. Itawa 1500 26.25

32. Peelibheet 1500 26.25

33. Jaunpur 1500 26.25

34. Mirzapur 1500 26.25

35. Raibariley 1500 26.25

36. Baliya 1500 26.25

37. Devariya 1500 26.25

38. Aazamgarh 1500 26.25

39. Faizabad 1500 26.25

40. Hathras 1500 26.25

41. Kashiram Nagar 1500 26.25

42. Banda 1500 26.25

43. Bahraich 1500 26.25

44. Fatehpur 1500 26.25

45. Barabanki 1500 26.25

46. Kannoj 1500 26.25

47. Eta 1500 26.25

48. Bagpat 1500 26.25

49. Ghazipur 1500 26.25

50. Sonbhadra 1500 26.25

51. Gonda 1500 26.25

52. Hameerpur 1500 26.25

53. Bhadoi 1500 26.25

54. Ambedkar Nagar 1500 26.25

55. Oraiya 1500 26.25

56. Chandoli 1500 26.25

57. Mahoba 1500 26.25

58. Sultanpur 1500 26.25

59. Pratapgarh 1500 26.25

60. Lalitpur 1500 26.25

61. Balrampur 1000 17.50

62. Goutam Buddh Nagar 1000 17.50

63. Kushinagar 1000 17.50

64. Basti 1000 17.50

65. Maharajganj 1000 17.50

66. Kanpur Dehat 1000 17.50

67. Koushambhi 1000 17.50

68. Sant Kabeer Nagar 1000 17.50

69. Sidhdharth Nagar 1000 17.50

70. Chitrakoot 1000 17.50

71. Shrawasti 1000 17.50

TOTAL 101000 1767.50 66

In the second phase (2009-2010), 57,180 houses would be constructed in 18 ULBs. The details of the

sanction are shown below:

Table-11.4 Target for Phase II under Manyavar Shri Kashiram Shahri Garib Awas Yojana

S. No. City No. of Houses Sanction

1. Saharanpur 0 0.00

2. Muzaffarnagar 700 12.25

3. Muradabad 1500 26.25

4. J.P. Nagar 0 0.00

5. Bijnor 650 11.38

6. Rampur 1500 26.25

7. Barailey 950 16.63

8. Peelibheet 0 0.00

9. Budayun 1500 26.25

10. Shahjahanpur 200 3.50

11. Faizabad 450 7.88

12. Sultanpur 250 4.38

13. Barabanki 300 5.25

14. Ambedkar Nagar 470 8.23

15. Jhansi 1500 26.25

16. Jalon 1500 26.25

17. Lalitpur 300 5.25

18. Basti 0 0.00

19. Sant Kabeer Nagar 0 0.00

20. Sidhdharth Nagar 1000 17.50

21. Hardoi 1500 26.25

22. Lucknow 1500 26.25

23. Lakheempur Kheeri 1500 26.25

24. Seetapur 1500 26.25

25. Raibarailey 1000 17.50

26. Unnao 1500 26.25

27. Farrukhabad 700 12.25

28. Kanpur Nagar 1500 26.25

29. Kanpur Dehat 800 14.00

30. Itawa 1500 26.25

31. Kannoj 1500 26.25

32. Oraiya 1200 21.00

33. Allahabad 1500 26.25

34. Fatehpur 100 1.75

35. Koushambi 1000 17.50

36. Pratapgarh 650 11.38

37. Aligarh 1500 26.25

38. Firozabad 1500 26.25

39. Mahamaya Nagar 500 8.75

40. Kashiram Nagar 1000 17.50

41. Mainpuri 300 5.25

42. Mathura 1400 24.50

43.

Eta

530

9.28

44. Agra 1500 26.25

(Rs in Crore)

67

45. Gonda 1500 26.25

46. Bahraich 1500 26.25

47. Balrampur 300 5.25

48. Shrawasti 1000 17.50

49. Varanasi 1500 26.25

50. Chandoli 0 0.00

51. Ghazipur 680 11.90

52. Jaunpur 0 0.00

53. Bagpat 0 0.00

54. Ghaziabad 300 5.25

55. Bulandshahar 1000 17.50

56. Goutambuddh Nagar 0 0.00

57. Meerut 0 0.00

58. Mirzapur 1000 17.50

59. Sant Ravidas Nagar 500 8.75

60. Sonbhadra 1500 26.25

61. Banda 1500 26.25

62. Chitrokoot 1000 17.50

63. Hameerpur 1500 26.25

64. Mahoba 1000 17.50

65. Gorakhpur 0 0.00

66. Kushinagar 0 0.00

67. Devariya 0 0.00

68. Maharajganj 0 0.00

69. Aazamgarh 250 4.38

70. Baliya 700 12.25

70. Mau 500 8.75

TOTAL 57180 1000.69

S. No. City No. of Houses Sanction

The standard unit plan, of the houses being constructed is shown below. The plinth area of each

house is 35 sq.m. with 2 rooms, kitchen, latrine, bathroom. Maximum cost fixed for each house is

Rs 1.75 lakh, including the cost of basic amenities like toilets, drinking water etc. Since this is a

time-bound programme, no extra cost is allowed. The houses are constructed on 'no profit-no loss

basis'. Each block proposed should be of at least 3 stories and total area should not be less than 10

hectare in each ULB.

The ratio of different categories of beneficiaries is as follows:

Distribution of Houses

S. No Category %

1 SC, ST 23

2 OBC 27

3 General 50

Maintenance

The responsibility for maintaining the basic services like road, street light, water, cleanliness rest

upon the concerned ULBs. House owners are exempted from paying any tax (e.g. property, water

tax etc.).

68

11.2 ANDHRA PRADESH

11.1.1 Indiramma Housing Project

Objective

Components

Financing pattern

INDIRAMMA (Integrated Novel Development in Rural Areas & Model Municipal Areas) is a flagship

programme launched in the year 2006 by the State government with an innovative approach to

ensure integrated and focused development of the villages and towns for providing better living

standards to all the people. It is a unique programme where fund from Indira Awas Yojna and Total

sanitation campaign have been converged for construction of houses and providing sanitation

facilities in the villages and urban areas. This programme is implemented in rural areas as well as

in model municipal areas.

The primary objective of this programme is to provide in every village pucca houses, drinking water

supply, individual sanitary latrines, drainage, power supply to every household, road facilities for

transport, pensions to eligible old age persons, weavers, widows and the disabled, primary

education to all, special nutrition to adolescent girls/ pregnant and lactating women and better

health facilities in all the villages over a period of three years in a saturation mode, to improve the

living standards of the people significantly. The major objective of Indiramma is to achieve hut-free,

slum less state in a phased manner by providing pucca house to every poor people.

There are several components under Indiramma like

1 Housing For All

2 Roads

3 Sanitation - Individual Sanitary Latrines (ISLs)

4 Drinking Water

5 Electricity to every household

6 Primary Education

7 Integrated Child Development scheme

8 Health For All

All together 65 lakh houses, 52 lakh in rural areas and 13 lakh in urban areas are being constructed

within a period of 3 years covering 1/3rd of the target each year.

The estimated costs of housing unit including toilet and bath facility in rural and urban areas are Rs.

54,250 and Rs. 73,000 respectively. These include loan and subsidy for construction of houses as

well as grant for toilet and bath facility. The pattern of financing the scheme are shown in Table-11.5

& 11.6

Table -11.5 Financial patterns for rural permanent housing (RPH)

Item (Rs.)

GOAP Loan: 17,500

GOAP Subsidy: 13,200

Beneficiary Contribution 500

Sub-Total 31,200

Bath cum Toilet (Grant) 3,050

SHG Bridge loan: 20,000

Total (i+ii+iii): 54,250

Additional loan of Rs 5,000/- is sanctioned for strengthening of foundation in Low lying areas

69

Under this scheme the fund is released by the State Government to State Project PD account

thereafter to the district level agency. The construction work is done by the beneficiary himself. The

disbursement is done only through individual accounts (Bank & Post Offices). The beneficiaries'

pass-books are maintained with the details of total eligibility of cash and material and actual

disbursement and are updated during the village/ ward visits of AE. The Pay slips are distributed in

the village by AE for every payment. The selection of the beneficiary under this scheme is done

through on spot verification of certain parameters like BPL status, Land status and Status of the

house (hut/ semi-pucca only) so as to finalize the eligible person. After verification, the sanction of

the house is done on the spot and in the name of the woman member. The beneficiary is asked to

construct the house by herself (self help basis). In certain cases the construction work is given to

the contractors (for G+ structures). To facilitate smooth construction of the houses, cement is

supplied at concessional rates through the supply centers (Nirmithi Kendras).

Under the Phase-I programme a total of 19.7 lakh houses and under Phase-II programme 22.9

lakh houses were allocated in 23 districts. Until April 2010, 64.55 lakh houses were registered and

30.49 lakh houses were completed. Budget allocation for the year 2010-11 is Rs. 2,158 Crore.

Progress

Table-11.6 Financial pattern for urban permanent housing (UPH)

Item (Rs.)

GOAP Loan: 35,000/ -

GOAP Subsidy: 6,000/ -

Beneficiary Contribution 2,000/ -

Sub-Total 43,000/ -

SHG Bridge loan: 30,000/ -

Total (i+ii): 73,000/ -

Table-11.7 Details of Houses Allocated under INDIRAMMA PHASE - I Programme

During 2006-2007

S No District Urban Rural including IAY

Flood Housing Total

1 Srikakulam 5922 69096 1875 76893

2 Vizianagaram 10362 67493 1755 79610

3 Visakhapatnam 5134 102989 1789 109912

4 East Godavari 14558 83091 5230 102879

5 West Godavari 13641 81120 1095 95856

6 Krishna 6287 60519 0 66806

7 Guntur 5179 71723 0 76902

8 Prakasam 4956 77296 19 82271

9 Nellore 12202 75486 0 87688

10 Chittoor 11704 92281 0 103985

11 Cuddapah 8457 103157 0 111614

12 Anantapur 10093 123806 0 133899

13 Kurnool 13711 95999 0 109710

14 Mahabubnagar 3939 97428 0 101367

15 Ranga Reddy 5364 35816 151 41331

16 Hyderabad 0 0 0 0

17 Medak 6943 61263 1979 70185

18 Nizamabad 7037 51378 5678 64093

19 Adilabad 11575 80911 939 9342570

20 Karimnagar 10697 54766 127 65590

21 Warangal 10256 88487 2681 101424

22 Khammam 7297 96830 1263 105390

23 Nalgonda 4306 89248 365 93919

Total 189620 1760183 24946 1974749

S No District Urban Rural including IAY Flood Housing Total

Table-11.8 Allocation of houses under Indiramma phase - II

S No

District Urban Rural

No of

Municipalities

No of Houses

No of

Panchayats

No of

Houses

1 Srikakulam 42 7286 404 75631

2 Vizianagaram 43 14660 323 114157

3 Visakhapatnam 20 3405 347 114721

4 East Godavari 74 13559 352 148604

5 West Godavari 93 16872 297 95356

6 Krishna 52 8792 374 55679

7 Guntur 134 14183 358 87765

8 Prakasam 42 6555 380 73668

9 Nellore 50 15722 370 97582

10 Chittoor 85 19692 534 125100

11 Cuddapah 80 12465 315 99943

12 Anantapur 108 33015 363 181595

13 Kurnool 63 12847 339 130107

14 Mahabubnagar 40 6308 518 155936

15 Ranga Reddy 148 3344 248 28193

16 Hyderabad 0 0 0 0

17 Medak 63 11548 341 92244

18 Nizamabad 57 10635 228 59177

19 Adilabad 80 16765 347 102858

20 Karimnagar 69 17540 451 77089

21 Warangal 30 11811 414 119207

22 Khammam 68 13343 278 125804

23 Nalgonda 46 8982 456 131416

Total 1487 279329 8037 2291832

Table-11.9 Status of Indiramma housing*

S No Particulars Houses in Lakhs

1 Registered 64.55

2 Completed 30.49

3 Under progress 15.36

4 Yet to be started 18.69

S No Particulars Rs. in Lakhs

1 State Share 1,29,000

2 IAY Central share 86,800

Total 2,15,800

+Status as on 30th April 2010

Table- 11.10 Budget allocation for housing under Indiramma Scheme (2010-11)

71

11.3 GUJARAT

11.3.1 Nirmal Gujarat Shauchalaya Yojana

The Nirmal Gujarat (NG) Mission launched by the Government of Gujarat, in the year 2007-2008,

is a unique convergence scheme for overall cleanliness. It is an attempt on complete behavioural

changes through communication and environmental consciousness, awareness, capacity

building, participation, best practices and guidelines. It involves senior citizen, NGOs, institutions,

communities, business groups, student groups, and women groups. Nirmal Gujarat is also about

implementing strategies, innovations, recycling and cleaner technologies, rules, and regulations,

incentives, administrative charges and special campaigns.

Although the scheme was launched in the year 2007-2008 the scope of Nirmal Gujarat slowly

unfolded with the convergence of all activities by involving more than twenty Department of the

Government from Agriculture to Women and Child Development Department.

Departments involved under Nirmal Gujarat

• Agricultural Department

• Energy and Petrochemical Department

• Education Department

• Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs

• Forest and Environment Department and GPCB

• Home Department

• Information and Broadcast Department

• Health Department

• Industries an d Mines Department

••

Labour and Employment Department

Narmada Water Resources and Kalpsar

• Ports and Transport Department

• Panchayat and Rural Housing Department

• Rural Development Department

• Road and Building Department

• Social justice and Empowerment Department

• Sports, Youth and Cultural Activities

• Tribal Development Department

• Urban Development Department :

• Water Supply Department

• Women and Child welfare Department

Department

Department

Department

Nagarpallikas (NP)

Objective

Components

Financing Pattern

Progress

The objective of the Nirmal Gujarat (NG) is to set up efficient system to reduce waste, recycling

resources and to become a way of life intended to be central theme of sustainable development

and clean environment Under Nirmal Gujarat number of sub-schemes are implemented by Gujarat

Municipal Finance Board (GMFB) and Gujarat Urban Development Mission (GUDM).

'Nirmal Gujarat' includes almost all the activities related with sanitation, solid waste disposal. It is

meant for regulating wastes generated in airport and railway stations, fairs, and temples, office

buildings and hospitals, roadside eateries, public toilets, streets, community halls, schools, land fill

sites, vegetable markets, and parking space.

Under Nirmal Gujarat (NG) Rs. 4,500/- is given to each beneficiaries as grant for construction of

individual toilets. For pay and use toilets Rs. 4.00 lakh is provided by the Government to the NGO

for construction of the Community Toilets. In addition to this Rs. 3,000/- is also given for operation

and maintenance.

The details of the activities done during the year 2007-2010 are shown in Table- 11.11.72

Table- 11.11 Status of Nirmal Gujarat Shauchalaya Yojana

Gujarat Municipal Finance Board (GMFB) Grant Received Total Expenditure

2007 -2008 68.60 68.60

2008 -2009 130.32 128.24

2009 -2010 140.00 124.49

338.92 321.33

2007 -2008 29.44 27.45

2008 -2009 134.42 130.13

2009 -2010 140.00 130.74

303.86 288.32

2007 -2008 108.05 106.05

2008 -2009 184.42 175.83

2009 -2010 176.00 166.74

468.47 448.62

GRAND TOTAL 1111.25 1058.27

Gujarat Urban Development Mission (GUDM)

Nirmal Urban (SCSP)

(Rs in Crore)

In Nirmal Gujarat every aspect of execution from strategic planning, defining the roles of about

twenty departments, implementing, systematizing, monitoring and reporting to the highest levels,

have been done to make Nirmal Gujarat Mission. Thus NG has become a unique and holistic

scheme by way of its innovation in converging sectoral activities of cleanliness, environmental and

public health issues, and covering its activities in the urban, rural and tribal areas under one

umbrella.

In Madhya Pradesh, the Integrated Urban Sanitation Programme (IUSP) was launched in the

State in February, 2009. The programme has been designed in consonance with the National

Urban Sanitation Policy, 2008 of the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India.

The programme is being implemented in 35 pilot cities in the first phase. The programme is being

implemented by converging resources from various schemes and programmes of State and

Central Government such as Integrated Low cost Sanitation scheme, National Urban Sanitation

Policy, National River Conservation Programme, DFID supported Project Utthan and ADB

supported Project Uday. Funds allocated under 12th and 13th finance commission are also being

channelised through this programme to ensure structured interventions. City Sanitation Plans

(CSP) of the pilot towns are being prepared under IUSP to assess the sanitation situation in the

towns along with analysis of funding requirement and implementation plans. Government of India

and State Government have been providing financial support to prepare CSPs. External agencies

such DFID, Water Aid, UN Habitat, USAID and WSP-SA are also supporting preparation of CSPs.

The objective of the programme is to eradicate the practice of open defecation by means of

construction of individual household toilets, by providing sanitation facilities in public places and

construction of community toilets, facilities for solid and liquid waste management and generating

public awareness. The programme targets to construct about 12 lakh individual toilets, 1500

community toilets and 1600 public toilets across the state in five years period.

The number of individual toilets to be constructed in Phase I towns during next three years time are

approximately 107693 at an estimated cost of Rs 123.84 crore as given in the following Table-

11.12.

11.4 MADHYA PRADESH

11.4.1 Integrated Urban Sanitation Programme (IUSP)

Programme implementation

Objective

Sub-Total

Sub-Total

Sub-Total

73

Table 11.12 Target for construction of individual toilets under IUSP

Name of the pilot city Households without toilet facility

Expected Expenditure (Rs in Lakhs)

1.Hoshangabad 2625 301.875

2.Nasarullganj 597 68.655

3.Khajuraho 1193 137.195

4.Aashta 586 67.39

5.Raisen 1129 129.835

6.Gwaliar 10000 1150

7.Dewas 1499 172.385

8. Sailana 265 30.475

9. Kukshi 610 70.15

10.Orchha 812 93.38

11. Kolar 1500 172.5

12.Vidisha 1996 229.54

13.Shahpur 1921 220.915

14.Gautampura 806 92.69

15.Mandav

994

114.31

16.Maheshwar 846 97.29 17.Maihar 1365 156.975

18.Tikamgarh 1044 120.06

19.Panna 1499 172.385 20.Sanchi 429 49.335 21.Chanderi 1675 192.625 22.Onkareshwar 801 92.115 23.Bhedaghat

331 38.065 24.Sardarpur 360 41.4 25.Shivpuri

3648 419.52 26.Amarkantak 1395 160.425 27.Rau 1155 132.825 28.Sendhava 2710 311.65 29.Kaimur 1116 128.34 30.Sarni 4317 496.455 31.Bhopal

32308

3715.42

32.Chitrakoot 1234 141.91

33.Ratlam 1044 120.06

34.Mandla 1675 192.625

35.Ujjain

331

38.065 36. Indore

NA

0 37.Jabalpur

NA

0 38. Sāgar 5456 627.44

39.Satna

NA

0 40.Burhanpur

7210

829.15

41.Singrauli

1051

120.865 42.Rewa

4372

502.78

43.Chhindwada

712

81.88 44.Kahargoan 3076 353.74

Total 107693 12384.7 74

The State Government has made provision of Rs 11.25 Crore in the year 2010-11 for IUSP, in

addition to State Governments contribution of 15% towards ILCS.

Besides construction of individual and community toilets, the scheme also includes other activities

like solid and liquid waste management, public participation and awareness activities.

The costs of public toilet and community toilets have been fixed as Rs 5 Lakh and 15 Lakh

respectively. The cost of individual toilets under ILCS has been fixed at Rs. 10000/- by GOI, which

is to be shared in the ratio of 75% provided by GOI, 15% by the State Government and 10% by the

beneficiaries. Financial requirement for other interventions such as waste water management,

solid waste management, etc is expected to be raised through various existing schemes of State

and Central Government. The City Sanitation Plans, as discussed in Chapter 6, are being

prepared to assess infrastructure gap, possible financial requirements and means of raising

finances.

Under this programme, works on construction of public toilets and community has already been

initiated in the selected towns. The city wise progress reported till 2010 is shown in Table-11.13.

Components

Financial Pattern

Progress

Table-11.13 Status of Community toilets / public toilets sanctioned in the Pilot Towns

Sr No Name of ULB CommunityToilets

Public Toilets Financial Allocation

(in Crore)*

1 Ujjain 8 - 1.06

2 Gwalior 6 - 0.51

3 Bhopal 10 10 3.42

4 Vidisha 5 - 0.56

5 Panna 2 2 0.25

6 Maihar - 2 0.29

7 Shahpur 2 - 0.23

8 Hosangabad 4 - 0.29

9 Sardarp ur - 4 0.09

10 Sendhwa 2 - 0.27

11 Mandav 2 2 0.44

12 Khajuraho 4 - 0.42

13 Sailana 1 - 0.15

14 Mandla 4 - 0.25

Total 50 18 8.08

*Includes cost of Individual Toilets.

Thus, till 2010 total Rs. 8.08 Crore has been allocated for construction of 50 community toilets and

18 Public Toilets. Another 50 toilet units are being approved in the financial year 2011-2012.

Work on construction of 7423 Individual toilets, as discussed in Chapter 3 has already been

initiated in seven towns under ILCS.

The State Sanitation Cell constituted under the IUSP is also providing technical support to the

ULBs in preparation of the City Sanitation Plans.

Nirmal Vatika Yojana is a sub plan under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme

(MGNREGA) which has been launched by the Government of Madhya Pradesh in all the rural

75

areas to ensure clean environment. Under the sub-plan, saplings of multi-utility trees are planted

in mini garden of houses or in the nearby government land along with the production of bio-fertilizer

from the leach pits connected with the toilets constructed under TSC.

Objective of the scheme is to improve the sanitation facilities in the villages through construction of

toilets as well as to ensure livelihood through production and use of bio-fertilizers.

The beneficiary family plants samplings of five multi-utility trees such as Neem, Aonla, Guava,

Mango, Banana, Papaya, etc. in the land of their own house or the nearby government land. A

couple of leaching pit is constructed for toilets for producing bio-fertilizer as per requirement of the

sub-plan approved by the Village Water and Cleanliness Committee.

Agencies are selected at the sub-division level for identifying beneficiary families of every village

and the list containing their names are sent to Village Water and Sanitation Committee. With the

help of a sub-engineer, the committee prepares the proposal for constructing leaching pits and

latrines for production of bio-fertilizers and plantation of trees. After the approval by the

Panchayat, the proposal is included for implementation.

In Nirmal Vatika, plantation and production of bio-fertilizer locally through low cost toilet leach pit

nearby individual household or on government land under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural

Employment Guarantee Scheme is done. The two leach pits are connected to the household toilet

for anaerobic decomposition.

For the works, concerning Gram Panchayat release funds in two installments to the committee.

The second installment is released after production of certificate about utilization of 60 percent

amount of the first installment. The concerning Gram Panchayat ensures that the work is

implemented as per the stipulated norms and design and is completed with technical finesse. This

is a convergence scheme with TSC. The beneficiary in addition to Rs 2500 from TSC is also given

about Rs 2000/- for construction of two leach pits and plantation of five fruit bearing tress from

NREGA. The composite amount of about Rs 4500/- become a large amount leading to better

constructed toilets.

The implementing agency for TSC and Nirmal Vatika is same i.e. Village Water and Sanitation

Committee (Swasthya Gram Samiti). Hence the sub-scheme of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural

Employment Guarantee Scheme has the convergence with another sub scheme of TSC i.e. Nirmal

Neer which has a provision of work of water conservation and water harvesting. Under this scheme

various structures like dam, well are also made for water conservation. Water recharging

techniques are also developed in the catchment area of well, dam, hand pump. The old structures

are also repaired according to need. This has been of much help in increasing accessibility of

water.

The cumulative progress is shown below of Nirmal Vatika is shown below.

Objective

Components

Financial Pattern

Progress

Table-11.14 Physical and Financial Progress under Nirmal Vatika Programme

N

o

.

Tot

al

pha

se

No. of

Gram

Panch

ayat

Units approved

Amount

Sanctioned

No. of

Units

Completed

Disburs

ement

No. of

Units in

Progress

Expend

iture

No. of

Trees

1 I 3325 114103 70.79 26621 13.58 77003 35.21 361283

2 II 4322 13609 24.26 2794 10.60 7662 13.29 17216

3 III 2391 10625 15.12 547 0.74. 4261 6.40 36520

Grand

Total

10038 138337 110.19 29962 24.93 88927 54.91 415019

(Rs. In Crore)

76

The scheme is being implemented in three phases. In first phase 3325 gram Panchayats have

been selected in which 114103 toilets are being constructed and 361283 trees have been planted.

Total expenditure incurred during this period is Rs 35.21 Crore.

In second phase 4322 Gram Panchayats have been selected. Total number of toilets constructed

is 13609 and total number of trees planted is 17216. Expenditure incurred is Rs 13.29 Crore.

In third phase 2391Gram Panchayats have been selected. Number of toilets constructed is 10625

and number of trees planted is 36520. Expenditure incurred is Rs 6.40 Crore

Hence, till date 29962 toilets have been constructed in 10038 Gram Panchayats with an

expenditure of Rs 54.91 Crore. Total number of trees planted in three phases is 415019.

Thus the Nirmal Vatika scheme besides strengthening the infrastructural facilities in the villages

also helps in livelihood promotion through production of bio-fertilizers as the concerning

beneficiary has the ownership rights over the bio-fertilizer produced in the leaching pits and the

fruits borne by the trees planted by him. The production of bio-fertilizers not only reduces the

overall cost of plantation but helps in solid and liquid waste management in the rural areas.

7777

No. of Individual Latrines for different categories

BPL APL Total

Target 199,542 377,972 577,514

Achievement 172,575 247,511 420,086

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PERFORMANCE OF DISTRICTS

1212.1 Uttar Pradesh (District Barabanki)

12.1.1 Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC)

In Uttar Pradesh, District Barabanki was selected as the sample district for evaluating the status of

the Sanitation Schemes. The progress of various schemes is described below:

Under Total Sanitation Campaign till February, 2011, total 420,086 individual latrines have been

constructed against the target of 577,514 with an expenditure of Rs 55.45 Crore. The details of the

progress are shown below:

Table- 12.1 Physical Progress of TSC in Uttar Pradesh

Table- 12.2 Financial Progress of TSC in Uttar Pradesh

Share (Rs in Crore)

Centre State Beneficiary Total

Sanction 33.73 13.00 6.56 53.30

Disbursement 27.41 27.70 7.34 62.45

Expenditure 24.51 25.26 5.67 55.45

12.1.2 MPLAD and MLA LAD

12.1.3 ILCS

No funds were sanctioned for sanitation works under MPLAD and MLA LAD during the period

2007-2010.

In the district, 3621 toilets are being constructed by Nehru Yuva Kendra, Barabanki. Total Project

cost is Rs 3.26 Crore, against which Rs. 2.38 Crore has been spent. Details of the ILCS project are

shown in Table - 12.3.

78

S. No Name Project Particulars

1. Urban Area Janpad, Barabanki

2. No of Toilets sanctioned 3,621

3. Sanction (Rs in Crore) 3.26

4. Disbursement (Rs in Crore) 3.26

5. Expenditure (Rs in Crore) 2.38

12.1.4 Integrated Housing Slum Development Programme

12.2 Andhra Pradesh (District Warangal)

12.2.1 Total Sanitation Campaign

One project costing Rs 2.59 Crore was sanctioned for construction of 96 houses in Nagar

Panchayat, Ramnagar, against this Rs 1.02 Crore has been spent.

Warangal district in Andhra Pradesh was selected to assess the status of implementation of

sanitation schemes. The progress of various schemes is discussed below.

Under Total Sanitation Campaign till February, 2011, total 705,182 individual latrines have been

constructed against the target of 468,440 with an expenditure of Rs 16.50 Crore. Thus

achievement is more when compared with the target. The details of the progress is shown below.

Table- 12.4 Physical Progress of TSC in Andhra Pradesh

No. of Individual Latrines for different categories

BPL APL Total

Target 330,260 138,180 468,440

Achievement 359,732 345,450 705,182

Table- 12.5 Financial Progress of TSC in Andhra Pradesh

Share

Centre State Beneficiary Total

Sanction 38.19 13.09 8.98 60.27

Disbursement 14.11 10.44 1.84 26.40

Expenditure 10.24 4.40 1.84 16.50

12.2.2 Indiramma Housing Scheme (IAHS)

AP Housing Corporation limited is constructing houses having Individual Sanitary Latrines (ISL) for

the beneficiaries. The fund for the latrines is drawn from Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC), State

Finance Commission (SFC) and Twelfth Finance Commission (TFC). During 2006-09,

construction of a total 33,289 individual sanitation latrines has been completed for which Rs 10.15

Crore has been spent. The details of the progress of construction of ISL during 2006-09 are shown

in Table-12.6

Table-12.6 Physical and Financial Progress under Indiramma Housing Scheme

(Rs in Crore)

(Rs in Crore)

10

S

No

Year No of ISL

sanctioned

Total no of ISL

completed

Total No of ISL in

progress

Amount

Sanction Expenditure

1 2006 -07 107,765 25,463 72,122 79.75 7.76

2 2007 -08 131,499 6,334 79,202 1.93

3 2008 -09 107,708 1,492 46,243 0.45

Total 346,972 33,289 197,567 79.75 .15

Table- 12.3 Status of ILCS Project in Barabanki District

79

12.2.3 MPLAD

Under MP Local Area Development, Rs 5.85 Crore has been sanctioned during the period 2007-

2010. Most of the sanitation sanctions were for storm water drainage Most of the sanitation

sanctions were for storm water drainage. Details of the utilization are shown in Table-12.7

Table- 12.7 Particulars of MP LAD Utilization

Financial Year Amount (Rs in Crore)

Sanction Disbursement Expenditure Utilization (%)

2007 -08 2.17 0.69 0.61 88.84

2008 -09 2.00 0.01 0.01 100.00

2009 -10 1.69 0.29 0.09 31.03

Total 5.86 0.99 0.71 72.03

12.2.4 MLA LAD

12.2.5 ILCS

12.2.6 Integrated Housing Slum Development Programme

12.2.7 Other Scheme

Under MLA Local Area Development Rs. 0.99 Crore has been sanctioned in construction of 57 side

drains.

No project has been sanctioned under this scheme during the period 2007-2010.

No project has been sanctioned during the period 2007-2010.

Toilets and side drains are also being constructed in the district using funds from various schemes

like BRGF, ZPP general fund, SFC and TFC funds. Under BRGF scheme 3507 side drains and 23

toilets have been constructed with an expenditure of Rs. 32.99 Crore. Under ZPP 79 side drains

were constructed with an expenditure of Rs. 0.95 Crore. Sixty three side drains have also been

constructed using SFC funds for which Rs. 0.69 Crore were spent. Total Rs 45.14 Crore has been

spent for construction of side drains and toilets under various schemes. The status of the various

schemes is shown in Table- 12.8

Table- 12.8 Financial statement showing the works sanctioned under various schemes

by Zila Praja Parishad, Warrangal

S. No Name of the scheme

Year Side Drain Toilets Total

Works Amount Works Amount Works Amount

1 BRGF 2007 -08 195 2.26 12 0.13 207 2.39

2008 -09 848 8.68 9 0.4 857 8.72

2009 -10 1691 14.44 0 0 1691 1.44

2010 11 773 7.42 2 0.0092 775 7.42

2 ZPP General Fund 2007 -08 26 0.32 26 0.32

2008 -09 34 0.36 34 0.36

2009 10 19 0.26 19 0.26

3 SFC 2007 -08 20 0.18 20 0.18

2008 -09 22 0.24 22 0.24

2009 10 21 0.26 21 0.26

-

Total 79 0.95 79 0.95

-

Total 3507 32.81 23 0.18 3530 32.99

-

Total 63 0.69 63 0.69

(Rs in Crore)

80

S. No Name of the scheme

Year Side Drain Toilets Total

Works Amount Works Amount Works Amount

4 TFC 2006 -07 0.4 4.00

2007 -08 0.2 2.00

2008 -09 0.2 2.00

2009 -10 0.25 2.50

Total 10.50 10.50

Grand Total 3649 34.46 23 10.68 3672 45.14

12.3 Madhya Pradesh (District Sehore)

12.3.1 Total Sanitation Campaign

In Madhya Pradesh District Sehore was selected as the sample district for evaluating the

implementation of sanitation schemes. The progress in various schemes is described below.

Under Total Sanitation Campaign till February, 2011, total 89,234 individual latrines have been

constructed against the target of 121,342 with an expenditure of Rs 9.49 Crore. The details of the

progress is shown below.

Table- 12.9 Physical Progress of TSC in Madhya Pradesh

No. of Individual Latrines for different categories

BPL APL Total

Target 34,355 86,987 121,342

Achievement 41,065 48,169 89,234

Table- 12.10 Financial Progress of TSC in Madhya Pradesh

Share

Centre State Beneficiary Total

Sanction 14.96 5.43 1.43 21.84

Disbursement 5.83 1.98 1.12 8.94

Expenditure 6.37 1.99 1.12 9.49

12.3.2 MPLAD and MLA LAD

12.3.3 ILCS

12.3.4 Integrated Housing Slum Development Programme

12.3.5 Public contribution scheme

No funds have been sanctioned from MPLAD and MLA LAD exclusively for sanitation work in the

district during the period 2007-2010.

No project has been sanctioned under this scheme during the period 2007-2010. During 2010-11,

Rs 57.70 lakhs has been sanctioned.

No project has been sanctioned under this scheme during the period 2007-2010.

In Sehore district several storm water drains and toilets have also been constructed through a

public contribution of 50% of cost in general areas and 25% of cost in areas having SC/ST

concentration. The details are given below:

(Rs in Crore)

(Rs in Crore)

81

No. of Individual Latrines for different categories

BPL APL Total

Target 31,305 87,900 119,205

Achievement 30,919 63,269 94,188

Table- 12.11 Sanctions under Public Contribution Scheme

12.3.6 Nirmal Vatika

12.3.7 Other Schemes

This scheme launched by the Govt of MP to improve the over all sanitation conditions in the

villages. Rs 4500 is sanctioned to each beneficiary from the NREGA for construction of a leach pit,

which results in convergence with the TSC. By 2010, against the target of 5000, beneficiaries

totaling 1080 have been brought under this scheme in the district.

Under Integrated Urban Sanitation Programme till Dec 2010 two projects, one at Astha and

another at Nasrullaganj, have been approved for construction of individual toilets as per details

below:

Financial

Year

Activity Amount (in Rs)

Contribution from Public

Contribution from state

Sanctioned Cost

2007 -2010 Storm Water drain in Chinnoda 250,000 250,000 500,000

Sauchalaya in Hospital 21,100 21,100 42,200

2008 -2009 Storm water drain in Bankheda 25,000 75,000 100,000

Storm water drain in Harniagaon 241,000 241,000 482,000

Storm water drain in Jila Hospital 32,300 32,300 64,600

2009 -2010 Storm water drain in Anusuchit Gati

Mahallya

50,000 150,000 200,000

Sauchalaya Baidakhedi 50,000 150,000 200,000

Storm water drain in Totoria 75,000 225,000 300,000

Table 12.12 Status of Integrated Urban Sanitation Programme

S No Urban area No of Toilets Amount ( Rs in Lakh)

Sanction Disbursement

1 Astha 1,531 153.00 -

2 Nasrullaganj 597 59.70 13.43

12.4 Gujarat (District Bhavnagar)

12.4.1 Total Sanitation Campaign

In Gujarat, District Bhavnagar was the sample district to evaluate the implementation of schemes.

The progress in various schemes is described below.

Under Total Sanitation Campaign till Feb, 2011, total 94,188 individual latrines have been

constructed against the target of 119,205 with an expenditure of Rs 8.03 Crore. The details of the

progress are shown below.

Table- 12.13 Physical Progress of TSC in Gujarat

Table- 12.14 Financial Progress of TSC in Gujarat

Share (Rs in Crore)

Centre State Beneficiary Total

Sanction 6.35 2.18 1.16 9.70

Disbursement 5.79 2.02 1.02 8.83

Expenditure 5.71 1.93 0.38 8.03 82

10.4.2 MP LAD

Under MP local area development, Rs 4.30 Crore was sanctioned during the period 2007-2010 for

execution of 61 schemes for the construction of storm water drains. The details of the progress are

shown below:

Table - 12.15 Particulars of sanitation expenditure from MP Fund

Financial Year No of work Sanctioned Disbursement Expenditure

2007 -2008 37 2.70 0.42 0.38

2008 -2009 24 1.60 0.35 0.34

2009 -2010 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 61 4.30 0.77 0.72

(Rs in Crore)

(Rs in Crore)

(Rs in Crore)

10.4.3 MLA LAD

Under MLA Local Area Development scheme, during 2007-2010, Rs 13.50 Crore was sanctioned

for sanitation programme. All the works were related to construction of storm water drainage

(Table-12.16)

Table - 12.16 Details of sanitation expenditure from MLA Fund

Financial Year No of work Sanction Disbursement Expenditure

2007 -2008 84 4.50 1.25 1.24

2008 -2009 58 4.50 0.90 0.90

2009 -2010 13 4.50 0.42 0.25

Total 155 13.50 2.57 2.39

12.4.4 ILCS

12.4.5 Integrated Housing Slum Development Programme

12.4.6 Other Schemes

No project has been sanctioned under this scheme during the period 2007-2010.

No project has been sanctioned under this scheme during the period 2007-2010

a. 15% Discretionary Grant

Under this scheme Rs 12.46 Crore was sanctioned during the period 2008-2010 for

implementation of 312 sanitation related schemes mostly for construction of public toilets and

drainage (Table- 12.17).

Table -12.17 Details of expenditure from 15% Discretionary Grantsanitation

Financial Year No of work Sanction Disbursement Expenditure

2007 -2008 103 411.35 136.40 136.31

2008 -2009 102 405.06 198.32 197.85

2009 -2010 107 430.15 227.67 148.77

Total 312 1246.56 562.39 482.93

b. 5% Incentive grant

Under this scheme Rs 122.10 Crore was sanctioned during the period 2008-2010 for

implementation of 17 storm water projects (Table-12.18)

83

S. No. Name Of Organization Sanction Expenditure

1 Utthan People’s Learning centre for water and

Sanitation (PLC WATSAN)

0.12 0.12

2 People's Contribution 0 0.10

3 VRTI (From WASMO) 0.15 0.15

Total 0.27 0.37

Table -12.18 Details of expenditure from 5% Incentive Grantsanitation

Financial Year No of work Sanction Disbursement Expenditure

2007 -2008 4 40.70 24.60 2.41

2008 -2009 9 40.70 6.50 6.41

2009 -2010 4 40.70 3.05 3.04

Total 17 122.1 0 12.01 11.86

c. Special Backward Area Grant

Under Special Backward Area Grant scheme Rs 74.90 Crore was sanctioned during the period

2007-2010 for implementation of 14 storm water projects (Table-12.19)

Table -12.19 Details of sanitation expenditure from Special Backward Area Grant

(Rs in Crore)

(Rs in Crore)

(Rs in Crore)

(Rs in Crore)

Financial Year No of work Sanction Disbursement Expenditure

2007 -2008 4 20.17 4.90 4.81

2007 -2008 6 20.17 7.60 7.54

2009 -2010 4 34.56 2.90 2.86

Total 14 74.9 0 15.4 0 15.21

d. 41 Developing Taluka Grant (Gogha)

Under Developing Taluka Grant (Gogha), Rs 200 Crore was sanctioned during the period 2009-

2010 for implementation of storm water drainage and construction of public toilets (Table- 12.20).

Table - 12.20 Details of sanitation expenditure from 41 Developing Taluka Grant (Gogha)

Financial Year No of work Sanction Disbursement Expenditure

2009- 2010 226 200.00 200.00 5.36

12.4.7 ILCS

12.4.8 Integrated Housing Slum Development Programme

12.4.9 Contribution of NGOs

No project has been sanctioned under this scheme during the period 2007-2010.

No project has been sanctioned under this scheme during the period 2007-2010.

NGOs have contributed to improvement of sanitation as well. The details of the toilets constructed

in the villages are shown below.

Table- 12. 21 Private Sector / NGO support for sanitation

12.5 Comparative Sanitation Scenario in the districts

The consolidated comparative status of expenditure in sample districts is as below:84

Schemes Expenditure in sample Districts

Barabanki Warangal Sehore Bhavnagar

Total Sanitation Campaign 55.45 16.50 9.49 8.03

ILCS 2.38 0 0 0

MP LAD 0 0.71 0 0.72

MLA LAD 0 0.99 0 2.39

Other Schemes 0 55.29 2.13 515.73

Total 57.83 73.49 11.62 526.87

The salient features from the interdistrict comparison are as below:

1. Expenditure of Total Sanitation Campaign across districts is as expected.

2. Among the sample districts, only Barabanki has project approved under IHSDP as well as

ILCS.

3. Two projects have been approved under the Integrated Urban Sanitation Programme in

Sehore.

4. In District Bhavnagar, there is a heavy expenditure on sanitation related activities from other

schemes like 15% Discretionary Grant, 5% Incentive grant, Special Backward Area Grant

and 41 Developing Taluka Grant (Gogha). The money received is used for construction of

public toilets and storm water drains.

5. Sanitation expenditure has been enhanced in Warrangal on account of the Indiramma

scheme. Large numbers of individual sanitary latrines (ISL) have been constructed by

Andhra Pradesh Housing Corporation limited under Indiramma.

85

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF STATES

13Financial Scenario in Sanitation Sector in Project States

13.1 Pure Sanitation Tied Scheme

13.1.1 Rural

i. Total Sanitation Campaign

The interstate comparison is discussed below in the following categories:-

1. Tied Schemes like total Sanitation Campaign, Integrated Low Cost Sanitation, Urban

Infrastructure Governance (UIG) and Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Small

and Medium Town (UIDSSMT).

2. Housing schemes like IHSDP, BSUP.

3. Analysis of externally aided schemes in Sanitation Sector

4. Analysis of State specific Schemes in Sanitation Sector like Indiramma, Dr. Ambedkar Awas

Yojna, Manyavar Shri Kashiram Saheri Garib Awas Yojna, IUSP and Nirmal Gujarat

Shauchalaya Yojna.

The Comparative analysis of TSC in the project states is shown below:

Table 13.1 Comparative Analysis of TSC in Project States

State Disbursement Expenditure %

Uttar Pradesh 1591.00 1459.67 91.75

Andhra Pradesh 230.7 4 196.37 85.10

Madhya Pradesh 439.19 402.17 91.57

Gujarat 247.02 219.38 88.81

(Rs in Crore)

Comparative Analysis of Performance of TSC in Project States

91.75

85.1

91.57

88.81

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

Uttar Pradesh Andhra Pradesh Madhya Pradesh Gujarat

%

Uttar Pradesh received the maximum funds amongst the four states. Utilization of funds across

states ranges between 85% to 92%.86

State Sanction Disbursement Expenditure %

Uttar Pradesh 267.03 186.84 147.10 78.73

Andhra Pradesh 680.90 480.46 253.56 52.77 Madhya Pradesh 225.73 158.70 63.48 40.00

Gujarat 616.16 434.01 284.09 65.46

13.1.2 Urban

i. UIG

The Comparative analysis of UIG in the project states is shown in table 13.2.

The utilization of funds disbursed is acceptable in Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh

whereas the Uttar Pradesh performance of 75% is comparatively poorer. It is noticeable that

Gujarat has received sanctions much greater than the proportionate allotment as per its size.

Table 13.2 Comparative Analysis of UIG in Project States

State Sanction Disbursement Expenditure %

Uttar Pradesh 3186.58 1079.5 9 807.4 5 74.79

Andhra Pradesh 1703.88 709.13 605.5 2 85.3 9

Madhya Pradesh 856. 30 295.6 4 272.47 92.16

Gujarat 2175.42 1664.40 1473.3 7 88.52

(Rs. in Crore)

(Rs. in Crore)

Comparative Analysis of UIG in Project StatesPerformance of

74.79

85.3992.16 88.52

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Uttar Pradesh Andhra Pradesh Madhya Pradesh Gujarat

%

Gujarat has received sanctions much greater than the proportionate allotment as per its size.

The Comparative analysis of UIDSSMT in the project states is shown below:

ii. UIDSSMT

Table 13.3 Comparative Analysis of UIDSSMT in Project States

Comparative Analysis of UIDSSMT in Project StatesPerformance of

78.73

52.77

40

65.46

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Uttar Pradesh Andhra Pradesh Madhya Pradesh Gujarat

%

87

Comparative Analysis of ILCS in Project StatesPerformance of

65.69

18.81

0 00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Uttar Pradesh Andhra Pradesh Madhya Pradesh Gujarat

%

Utilization of funds is acceptable in Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh. Here also Gujarat has been

sanctioned much higher amount than its proportionate size.

The Comparative analysis of ILCS in the project states is shown below.

iv. ILCS

Table 13.4 Comparative Analysis of ILCS in Project States(Rs in Crore)

(Rs in Crore)

State Disbursement Expenditure %

Uttar Pradesh 146.42 96.19 65.69

Andhra Pradesh 8.54 1.60 18.81

Madhya Pradesh 8.53 0 -

Gujarat 0 0 -

ILCS in the project states remained inconsistent in terms of regular implementation. Uttar Pradesh

has been the only state to have consistently implemented the programme. Andhra Pradesh and

Madhya Pradesh have revived the scheme after a gap of a few years. In Gujarat, no ILCS scheme

continued after 2008 as another state sponsored sanitation scheme (Nirmal Gujarat Shauchalaya)

was launched with enhanced incentives for construction of toilets in the urban areas.

The cumulative situation in tied scheme is reflected below:

13.1.3 Cumulative expenditure in Pure Sanitation Tied Scheme

Table 13.5 Cumulative expenditure in Pure Sanitation Tied Scheme in Project States

State TSC UIG UIDSSMT ILCS Total

Uttar Pradesh 1459.67 807.44 147. 09 96.19 2510.39

Andhra Pradesh 196.37 605.51 253.56 1.60 1057.04

Madhya Pradesh 402.17 272.47 63.48 0 738.12

Gujarat 219.38 1473.36 284.09 0 1976.83

Total 2277.59 3158.78 748.22 97.78 6282.38

88

Comparative Analysis of IHSDP in Project StatesPerformance of

57.9

77.88

24.72

45.77

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Uttar Pradesh Andhra Pradesh Madhya Pradesh Gujarat

%

Cumulative expenditure in Pure Sanitation Tied Scheme in

Project States

2510.38

1057.04

738.12

1976.83

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Uttar Pradesh Andhra Pradesh Madhya Pradesh Gujarat

Rs

in C

rore

Expectedly U.P. has made the highest expenditure while Gujarat has spent much higher than its

proportionate size.

The comparative analysis of IHSDP in the project states is shown below:

13.2 Comparative analysis of Housing Schemes incorporating sanitation

13.2.1 IHSDP

Table 13.6 Comparative Analysis of IHSDP in Project StatesPerformance of

(Rs. in Crore)

State Sanction Disbursement Expenditure %

Uttar Pradesh 1230.66 443.45 256.77 57.90

Andhra Pradesh 1197.01 547.54 426.43 77.88

Madhya Pradesh 75.68 52.78 13.05 24.72

Gujarat 332.01 90.18 41.28 45.77

Under this scheme Uttar Pradesh received the maximum sanction. However, Andhra Pradesh was

the most efficient state (77%) in terms of utilization. In Madhya Pradesh, utilization of funds is poor

compared to the other states.

89

Table 13.7 Comparative Analysis of BSUP in Project States(Rs. in Crore)

(Rs. in Crore)

Cumulative Expenditure in Housing Schemes

The cumulative expenditure in housing scheme (BSUP and IHSDP) in project states is shown

below.

Table 13.8 Cumulative expenditure in Housing Schemes in Project States

State Sanction Disbursement Expenditure %

Uttar Pradesh 2330.85 554.90 425.71 76.71

Andhra Pradesh 3010.20 908.42 1224.31 134.77

Madhya Pradesh 704.63 493.17 315.04 63.88

Gujarat 1648.98 1010.90 1228.36 121.51

Comparative Analysis of BSUP in Project StatesPerformance of

76.71

134.77

63.88

121.51

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Uttar Pradesh Andhra Pradesh Madhya Pradesh Gujarat

%

State IHSDP BSUP TOTAL

Uttar Pradesh 256.77 425.71 682.48

Andhra Pradesh 426.43 1224.31 1650.74

Madhya Pradesh 13.05 315.04 328.09

Gujarat 41.28 1228.36 1269.64

Cumulative Expenditure in Housing Scheme in Project States

682.48

1650.74

328.09

1269.64

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Uttar Pradesh Andhra Pradesh Madhya Pradesh Gujarat

Rs

in C

rore

It is evident that Gujarat has an expenditure which is out of proportionate as compared to other

states.

13.2.2 BSUP

The Comparative analysis of BSUP in the project states is shown below

Funds utilization is excellent in Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat.

90

Comparative analysis of State Specific Scheme in Sanitation Sector

5117.95

2158

11.25

1111.25

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Uttar Pradesh Andhra Pradesh Madhya Pradesh Gujarat

Rs

in C

rore

13.3. Comparative analysis of externally aided schemes in Sanitation Sector

The comparative analysis of schemes under implementation and sanctioned amounts in

sanitation sector in the project states from external aid is shown below:

Table 13.9 Comparative Analysis of the sanctioned amounts in Project States from external aid

State Name of the scheme Sanction

Uttar Pradesh None NIL

Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh Municipal Development Project 1670.55

Madhya Pradesh Urban Water Supply and Environmental Improvement Project

Madhya Pradesh Urban Services for the Poor

Water for Asian Cities (WAC) Programme

1249.81

Gujarat Gujarat Municipal Sewerage Project 760.00

(Rs in Crore)

(Rs in Crore)

Comparative analysis of externally aided schemes in Sanitation Sector

0

1670.55

1249.81

760

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Uttar Pradesh Andhra Pradesh Madhya Pradesh Gujarat

Rs in

Cro

re

Andhra Pradesh has got maximum approvals in sanitation sector amongst the project states.

The Comparative analyses of state specific schemes under implementation and sanctioned are

shown below.

state specific schemes

13.4. Comparative analysis of State specific Scheme in Sanitation Sector

Table 13.10 Comparative Analysis of in Project States

State Name of the scheme Sanction

Uttar Pradesh Dr Ambedkar Gram Sabha Vikas Yojna 2349.76

Manyavar Shri Kashiram Saheri Garib Awas Yojna 2768.19

Andhra Pradesh Indiramma Housing Project 2158.00

Madhya Pradesh Integrated Urban Sanitation Programme (IUSP) 11.25

Gujarat Nirmal Gujarat Shauchalaya Yojna 1111.25

Uttar Pradesh is spending the maximum in state specific sanitation schemes.

91

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

14It is evident from the analysis of the financing schemes for sanitation that funds are not a constraint in

India. However, effective utilisation is variable particularly in the smaller cities and for the poorer

sections. Utilisation of funds under the TSC is between 85 and 92 percent for the four states studied.

Utilisation of funds under schemes meant for urban sanitation, however, is less uniform across the states.

While the UIG funds meant for larger cities in the four states reported utilisation of 75-92 percent, the

utilisation of UIDSSMT funds meant for smaller cities was variable. MP reported an utilisation of only 40

percent, while UP could utilise over 78 percent. The utilisation of IHSDP funds, meant for housing support

for the poor in small towns not covered under JNNURM, as against the sanctioned amount is rather poor

across the four states (only between 12 and 35 percent). Therefore, while no significant difference is

noticeable in the utilisation rates for different schemes among the four states, there is a perceptible

difference in the utilisation rate for the different schemes themselves.

However, utilisation of BSUP funds show a marked difference, with Gujarat and AP utilising over 120

percent of the funds and UP and MP utilising less than 75 percent of the funds. This difference in

performance might be linked to the projects in mega cities like Ahmedabad and Hyderabad that are

prominently covered under the JNNURM, of which the BSUP is a sub-mission. The disbursement of

BSUP funds to Gujarat and AP is double that of UP and MP. This could also be a factor contributing to the

common perception that Gujarat and AP are among the better performing states with regard to sanitation

as compared to UP and AP.

The sanitation programs designed by the states have shown remarkable creativity in integrating various

on going schemes in order to benefit target populations in both rural and urban areas. While a degree of

political will is certainly evident in these endeavours, flexibility of schemes, quantum of resources and

administrative capacity (except, maybe, the small towns) might also be contributing to the success.

is a unique programme where funds from the Indira Awas Yojna (IAY) and the Total

Sanitation Campaign (TSC) have been converged for construction of houses and providing sanitation

facilities in villages and urban areas. A part of construction cost (Rs 45000/-) of the house is met by the

Indira Ayas Yojna while cost for construction of the toilet (Rs 2500/-) is utilized from TSC resources. The

state government provides an additional Rs 550 for construction of the toilet. Thus the beneficiary does

not need to pay any amount except Rs 250 which is taken as registration fee.

Interestingly, the programme also provides for pensions to eligible senior citizens, weavers, widows and

the disabled, primary education to all, special nutrition to adolescent girls/ pregnant and lactating women

and better health facilities in all the villages over a period of three years in a saturation mode, in order to

significantly improve the living standards of the people.

Convergence models

INDIRAMMA (Integrated Novel Development in Rural Areas & Model Municipal Areas) scheme of

Andhra Pradesh

92

Dr Ambedkar Gram Sabha Vikas Yojna

Extending the scope of convergence

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

is a unique convergence scheme where no expenditure is

incurred except for construction of RCC roads connecting the village to the main road. It concentrates on

social and economic upliftment of the people living in rural areas by converging all village level services of

concerned departments, like infrastructure, sanitation, social security, employment, land improvement,

scholarships etc. This, it believes, would ensure an improvement in the sanitation status of these villages,

even converting them to zero open defecation status. Fund are converged from TSC, ILCS & BRGF

sources.

Nirmal Vatika is a unique convergence scheme by the Govt. of MP for improved environmental sanitation

and construction of individual toilets in rural areas. In addition to Rs 2500/- obtained by the beneficiary

under the TSC programme, an additional amount of Rs 2000/- is sanctioned per beneficiary from NREGA

for the construction of leach pits and tree plantation. The composite amount of Rs 4500/- provide for

better constructed toilets on the one hand, while promoting bio-fertiliser and horticulture-based

livelihoods on the other. The production of bio-fertilizers not only reduces the overall cost of plantation but

helps in solid and liquid waste management in the rural areas.

Sarv Shikhisa Abhiyan (SSA) mandates the provision of separate toilets for girls and boys in each school.

Use of toilets is an opportunity for transformative education, by inculcating hand-washing and other

aspects of personal hygiene. SSA needs to develop child friendly material on sanitation and incorporate

sanitation as an integral part of the school curriculum.

School-going children may be used to pass the message of sanitation in the rural sector as agents of

change (Swachta Doot). Guidelines may be formulated for the purpose. Since the drop out of adolescent

girls from schools is often linked to issues related to “menstrual hygiene”, proper facilities and trained

female teachers are necessary. “Sanitary Napkin Vending” machines may be installed in schools where

girls may access these privately, while teachers may be encouraged to deal with related queries.

National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) and TSC share a common goal for integration of health, sanitation

and hygiene education through effective inter-sectoral convergence, contributing to the achievement of

MDGs. The key components could be:

Strengthening of Village Health and Sanitation Committees (VHSCs) in preparing and

implementing village health and sanitation plans.

Active involvement of the Accredited Social Health Activists (ASHAs) in the VHSC for raising

awareness on health, hygiene, nutrition, sanitation and safe drinking water.

Integrating activities of the State Water & Sanitation Mission (SWSM), District Water &

Sanitation Committees (DWSC) under the TSC with the State Health Society and District

Health Society under the NRHM.

Identifying functions and mechanisms for pooling of financial and human resources under

the TSC and NRHM.

TSC guidelines provide for incentives to motivators, which includes ASHA workers, for IEC.

Access to toilet in the household should be a pre-requisite for the selection of ASHA Workers.

The training curriculum for ASHA workers needs to include messages on good personal

hygiene, importance of the use of toilets, water and sanitation related illnesses and their

prevention.

Creating mechanisms for integrating the Nirmal Gram Puraskar Awardees as Model Village

and Training Centres for Health Programmes.

Adopting Guidelines for Training under RCH I Programme of the Ministry of Health and

Family Welfare for inclusion of messages on the importance of personal and food hygiene

practices by women, menstrual health and hygiene amongst adolescent women.

Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme can be utilized to inculcate the habit of using

toilets and motivating the kids to adopt hygiene practices at an early age. Child-friendly IEC material will

also make them understand the health impact of sanitation. 93

Indira Gandhi Matritva Sahyog Yojana (IGMSY) provides financial and medical support to pregnant and

lactating mothers through the Anganwadi Centers. These mothers can be educated and motivated to

adopt safe and hygienic practices while handling the faeces of their children.

The Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD) award “Stree Shakti Puraskar” to women for

their contribution to improved quality of life in society against all odds. These social entrepreneurs can be

engaged in the TSC programme.

At the field level, the TSC, SSA, NRHM and ICDS schemes are executed by the Public Health

Engineering, Education, Health and Women & Child Development departments of the State government.

However, all these functions have now been devolved to the District Panchayat, in keeping with the spirit

of the 73rd amendment of the Constitution.

The District Magistrate heads the District Health Society and District Water & Sanitation Committee. The

District Education Officer and the District Women & Child Development Officer also report to the District

Magistrate.

Hence, at the operational level, convergence boils down to coordination of the schemes implemented by

the District Panchayat and the District Magistrate, which is easily manageable.

1. WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water Supply & Sanitation, 2010

2. Towards Nirmal Bharat- Rural Sanitation and Hygiene Strategy 2010-2022, Department of

Drinking Water and Sanitation, Ministry of Rural Development Government of India, Draft 2.1, 18

December 2010

3. The Millennium Development Goals Report, 2010, UNITED NATIONS

4. www.ddws.nic.in

Operationalising convergence

References

94

List of Annexure

Annexure - I

DISTRICT-WISE PHYSICAL PROGRESS DURING 04/2007-03/2008

Sr. District Name IHHL (BPL)

IHHL (APL)

IHHL Total

SanitaryComp

School Toilets

Balwadi Toilets

RSM PC SLWM Total Sch.

covered

1 UTTAR PRADESH

1 AGRA 7760 45385 53145 0 1680 257 0 0 0 859

2 ALIGARH 9237 21005 30242 0 749 301 1 0 0 0

3 ALLAHABAD 7724 0 7724 0 0 116 0 0 0 0

4 AMBEDKAR NAGAR 19600 18019 37619 0 0 145 0 0 0 0

5 AURAIYA 13094 0 13094 0 296 310 0 0 0 0

6 AZAMGARH 12317 21361 33678 5 811 275 0 0 2 1338

7 BAGPAT 5801 11072 16873 0 129 226 0 0 0 0

8 BAHRAICH 14789 8655 23444 2 2174 800 0 0 0 1275

9 BALLIA 5947 12834 18781 9 321 0 0 1 20 1600

10 BALRAMPUR 7649 27062 34711 0 2613 64 0 0 0 1556

11 BANDA 11890 0 11890 0 154 105 0 0 0 0

12 BARABANKI 9740 64401 74141 0 216 308 0 0 0 0

13 BAREILLY 7078 34312 41390 0 402 199 0 0 0 0

14 BASTI 11706 4123 15829 1 1417 2000 0 0 0 2044

15 BIJNOR 0 19246 19246 8 893 0 0 0 0 2093

16 BUDAUN 6590 1087 7677 0 806 610 0 0 0 531

17 BULANDSHAHR 2559 40357 42916 0 510 337 0 0 0 0

18 CHANDAULI 11264 0 11264 0 137 69 0 0 0 411

19 CHITRAKOOT 0 5839 5839 0 223 81 0 0 0 0

20 DEORIA 8935 1149 10084 0 2678 88 0 0 0 1695

21 ETAH 45475 17821 63296 0 1045 277 0 0 0 0

22 ETAWAH 5921 0 5921 0 1051 228 0 0 0 882

23 FAIZABAD 7316 0 7316 0 429 962 0 0 0 0

24 FARRUKHABAD 9513 0 9513 0 506 87 0 0 0 1359

25 FATEHPUR 11040 8565 19605 0 1027 354 0 0 0 0

26 FIROZABAD 2504 17217 19721 0 463 229 0 0 0 152

27 GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR

1934 0 1934 0 194 138 0 0 0 226

28 GHAZIABAD 0 0 0 0 64 10 0 0 0 0

29 GHAZIPUR 14224 21238 35462 0 929 176 0 0 0 1233

30 GONDA 34993 31973 66966 0 536 10 0 0 0 0

31 GORAKHPUR 20118 23641 43759 0 1776 1186 0 0 1233 0

32 HAMIRPUR 19452 821 20273 0 621 129 0 0 0 0

33 HARDOI 21471 67509 88980 1 1493 950 0 0 0 2667

34 JALAUN 9305 1374 10679 0 988 378 0 0 0 1193

35 JAUNPUR 34328 51248 85576 0 3196 690 0 0 0 1493

36 JHANSI 8844 2019 10863 0 1280 244 0 0 0 516

37 JYOTIBA PHULE NAGAR 7140 9558 16698 0 389 78 0 0 0 0

38 KANNAUJ 7149 0 7149 0 1558 352 0 1 0 612

39 KANPUR DEHAT 11398 0 11398 4 1529 262 0 0 0 935 95

Sr. District Name IHHL (BPL)

IHHL (APL)

IHHL Total

SanitaryComp

School Toilets

Balwadi Toilets

RSM PC SLWM Total Sch.

covered

40 KANPUR NAGAR 3060 0 3060 0 912 47 0 0 0 910

41 KAUSHAMBI 6223 10346 16569 0 155 19 0 0 0 0

42 KUSHINAGAR 12266 31899 44165 5 3017 1327 0 0 0 1903

43 LAKHIMPUR KHERI 4770 11990 16760 0 53 5 0 0 0 282

44 LALITPUR 12143 4668 16811 0 331 3 0 0 0 836

45 LUCKNOW 6393 0 6393 3 302 183 0 0 0 700

46 MAHAMAYA NAGAR(HATHRAS)

4685 21771 26456 0 808 99 0 0 0 165

47 MAHARAJGANJ 0 18388 18388 0 1549 635 2 0 4 562

48 MAHOBA 3805 5216 9021 0 247 51 0 0 0 416

49 MAINPURI 14163 10902 25065 0 438 91 0 0 0 0

50 MATHURA 4499 44449 48948 0 68 321 0 0 0 374

51 MAU 48421 30450 78871 3 919 229 0 0 7 493

52 MEERUT 3588 2902 6490 2 771 489 0 3 0 0

53 MIRZAPUR 0 12754 12754 0 944 288 0 0 0 1633

54 MORADABAD 12927 25299 38226 0 612 286 0 0 0 0

55 MUZAFFARNAGAR 24323 35270 59593 1 515 780 0 0 0 983

56 PILIBHIT 17789 17958 35747 0 1075 342 0 0 0 344

57 PRATAPGARH 12357 17469 29826 0 205 234 0 0 0 0

58 RAE BARELI 8441 14501 22942 0 572 408 0 0 0 775

59 RAMPUR 9631 13216 22847 0 146 83 0 0 0 0

60 SAHARANPUR 9683 21807 31490 0 673 397 0 0 0 1053

61 SANT KABIR NAGAR 0 7620 7620 1 883 364 1 0 37 1520

62 SANT RAVIDAS NAGAR( BHADOHI)

12247 3704 15951 0 270 115 0 0 0 482

63 SHAHJAHANPUR 41088 47393 88481 0 800 517 0 0 0 1783

64 SHRAVASTI 21935 16235 38170 6 754 163 0 0 0 0

65 SIDDHARTHNAGAR 0 23451 23451 11 1699 569 0 0 0 932

66 SITAPUR 31665 34213 65878 0 3642 567 0 1 0 4388

67 SONBHADRA 7611 8289 15900 0 171 16 0 0 0 574

68 SULTANPUR 17237 40867 58104 1 950 263 0 0 27 1874

69 UNNAO 43869 33927 77796 0 1225 133 0 0 0 982

70 VARANASI 11424 6631 18055 0 46 3 0 0 0 376

Total 852048 1162476 2014524 63 60035 22058 4 6 1330 49010

DISTRICT-WISE PHYSICAL PROGRESS DURING 04/2008-03/2009

Sr. District Name IHHL (BPL)

IHH L (APL)

IHHL Total

Sanitary Comp

School Toilets

Balwadi Toilets

RSM PC SLWM Total Sch.

covered

1 UTTAR PRADESH

1 AGRA 3506 34155 37661 5 0 0 0 0 0 520

2 ALIGARH 9807 15734 25541 0 1980 173 1 0 0 1657

3 ALLAHABAD 38434 22884 61318 32 1563 717 0 0 0 3016

4 AMBEDKAR NAGAR 3407 38059 41466 18 424 1185 0 0 0 1286

5 AURAIYA 7955 42851 50806 50 214 0 0 0 0 1120

6 AZAMGARH 23401 21246 44647 37 2660 114 0 0 0 970

7 BAGPAT 3579 10495 14074 12 140 193 0 0 0 423

8 BAHRAICH 25997 21474 47471 8 2463 693 0 0 0 1200

9 BALLIA 39859 42272 82131 17 731 356 0 0 0 796

10 BALRAMPUR 6305 14874 21179 18 0 836 3 0 0 096

Sr. District Name IHHL (BPL)

IHH L (APL)

IHHL Total

Sanitary Comp

School Toilets

Balwadi Toilets

RSM PC SLWM Total Sch.

covered

11 BANDA 7916 2630 10546 10 1290 70 0 0 0 761

12 BARABANKI 49574 56730 106304 2 1317 722 0 0 15 3626

13 BAREILLY 18788 36620 55408 15 2913 797 0 0 0 2022

14 BASTI 0 19428 19428 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 BIJNOR 18061 31305 49366 2 1309 926 0 0 6 0

16 BUDAUN 11095 729 11824 153 3619 997 0 0 0 1920

17 BULANDSHAHR 2202 54068 56270 5 509 590 0 0 2 982

18 CHANDAULI 0 15695 15695 25 1876 911 0 0 0 1876

19 CHITRAKOOT 3005 8540 11545 0 1286 21 0 0 0 828

20 DEORIA 10833 38067 48900 9 0 53 0 0 0 98

21 ETAH 0 8932 8932 30 108 230 0 0 0 1352

22 ETAWAH 11323 36676 47999 40 975 347 0 0 0 580

23 FAIZABAD 12289 14639 26928 9 234 33 0 0 0 1801

24 FARRUKHABAD 31954 12843 44797 35 991 666 0 0 0 0

25 FATEHPUR 13274 12825 26099 15 2316 969 0 0 0 2318

26 FIROZABAD 4206 46696 50902 10 123 40 0 0 0 234

27 GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR

1363 10155 11518 15 856 454 0 0 0 368

28 GHAZIABAD 165 4063 4228 5 1110 407 0 0 0 842

29 GHAZIPUR 6756 9308 16064 10 2031 851 0 0 7 630

30 GONDA 5355 8587 13942 16 704 601 0 0 1 2172

31 GORAKHPUR 2116 303 2419 30 2397 0 0 0 0 2438

32 HAMIRPUR 5771 2461 8232 0 411 0 0 0 0 1070

33 HARDOI 32110 35272 67382 2 1945 893 0 0 0 2960

34 JALAUN 7151 10541 17692 20 1399 477 0 0 0 219

35 JAUNPUR 38718 11836 50554 47 949 1572 0 0 0 1094

36 JHANSI 1237 677 1914 20 822 367 4 3 135 888

37 JYOTIBA PHULE NAGAR 7133 12230 19363 0 408 95 0 0 0 913

38 KANNAUJ 15451 46063 61514 46 0 0 0 0 0 474

39 KANPUR DEHAT 21306 13362 34668 53 866 752 0 0 0 833

40 KANPUR NAGAR 6320 15437 21757 50 231 1188 0 0 50 0

41 KAUSHAMBI 20373 11561 31934 24 859 400 0 0 0 810

42 KUSHINAGAR 34863 26363 61226 20 826 793 0 0 0 1942

43 LAKHIMPUR KHERI 3678 12217 15895 20 1391 624 0 0 0 1391

44 LALITPUR 13194 3776 16970 6 1588 273 0 0 0 538

45 LUCKNOW 13066 2838 15904 22 2283 337 0 0 45 2332

46 MAHAMAYA NAGAR(HATHRAS)

881 18432 19313 10 0 361 0 0 0 907

47 MAHARAJGANJ 14176 9002 23178 55 1138 313 0 0 51 916

48 MAHOBA 13247 31499 44746 0 860 201 0 0 0 223

49 MAINPURI 10303 1248 11551 10 2656 834 0 0 0 1667

50 MATHURA 2830 6841 9671 5 0 55 0 0 0 0

51 MAU 8874 6182 15056 3 1508 0 0 0 4 754

52 MEERUT 8259 920 9179 15 1175 79 3 0 0 1137

53 MIRZAPUR 21714 27107 48821 50 689 560 0 0 0 38

54 MORADABAD 11729 20111 31840 0 1522 92 0 0 633 3170

55 MUZAFFARNAGAR 0 7838 7838 13 784 71 0 0 0 313

56 PILIBHIT 19241 8397 27638 21 1642 386 0 0 0 1049

57 PRATAPGARH 31128 48607 79735 46 1124 1294 0 0 0 1422

58 RAE BARELI 16185 22988 39173 25 1964 626 0 0 196 1057 97

Sr. District Name IHHL (BPL)

IHH L (APL)

IHHL Total

Sanitary Comp

School Toilets

Balwadi Toilets

RSM PC SLWM Total Sch.

covered

59 RAMPUR 5657 15324 20981 0 442 70 0 0 0 819

60 SAHARANPUR 5135 23234 28369 20 2343 379 0 0 0 2343

61 SANT KABIR NAGAR 15986 11666 27652 22 727 566 0 0 0 848

62 SANT RAVIDAS NAGAR( BHADOHI)

3992 11994 15986 30 123 52 0 0 0 123

63 SHAHJAHANPUR 32299 11382 43681 0 2746 829 0 8 0 638

64 SHRAVASTI 14982 9431 24413 4 1012 261 0 0 0 1232

65 SIDDHARTHNAGAR 10952 24369 35321 39 2264 912 0 0 0 1132

66 SITAPUR 64574 34418 98992 25 1486 309 0 0 0 1486

67 SONBHADRA 14580 7040 21620 45 1596 521 0 0 73 564

68 SULTANPUR 18722 32602 51324 5 1333 1143 0 0 0 1768

69 UNNAO 50349 40899 91248 18 3119 1463 0 0 0 1368

70 VARANASI 51106 46309 97415 20 1675 280 0 0 0 1675

70 Total 1039797 1375357 2415154 1448 84045 33380 11 11 1218 77949

DISTRICT-WISE PHYSICAL PROGRESS DURING 04/2009-03/2010

Sr. District Name IHHL (BPL)

IHHL (APL)

IHHL Total

Sanitary Comp

School Toilets

Balwadi Toilets

RSM PC SLWM Total Sch.

covered

1 UTTAR PRADESH

1 AGRA 4896 27626 32522 0 0 1000 0 0 0 652

2 ALIGARH 8787 27005 35792 0 146 174 0 0 0 151

3 ALLAHABAD 3500 57826 61326 0 2271 1333 0 0 0 0

4 AMBEDKAR NAGAR 20201 26402 46603 0 0 15 0 0 0 0

5 AURAIYA 29209 14266 43475 0 749 493 0 0 0 371

6 AZAMGARH 11972 27390 39362 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7 BAGPAT 5256 10868 16124 0 743 100 0 0 0 743

8 BAHRAICH 32920 2253 35173 0 151 0 0 0 0 76

9 BALLIA 33409 31475 64884 13 1332 1466 0 0 0 1332

10 BALRAMPUR 10074 3482 13556 0 0 303 0 0 0 0

11 BANDA 26170 12611 38781 0 1886 275 0 0 0 2647

12 BARABANKI 0 27989 27989 0 406 450 0 0 0 0

13 BAREILLY 36024 37127 73151 0 402 378 0 0 0 49

14 BASTI 29000 16729 45729 20 1651 0 0 0 0 0

15 BIJNOR 5412 29894 35306 0 0 0 0 0 28 0

16 BUDAUN 4416 76853 81269 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17 BULANDSHAHR 198 26556 26754 0 2114 1003 0 0 0 774

18 CHANDAULI 2474 11812 14286 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19 CHITRAKOOT 11927 12469 24396 0 264 296 0 0 0 132

20 DEORIA 31121 44165 75286 1 1110 810 0 0 0 555

21 ETAH 0 17235 17235 0 3760 1289 0 0 0 3868

22 ETAWAH 11500 19600 31100 4 0 233 0 0 0 0

23 FAIZABAD 8718 11559 20277 0 165 0 0 0 0 165

24 FARRUKHABAD 23724 13333 37057 0 767 424 0 0 15 212

25 FATEHPUR 12959 22886 35845 0 254 205 0 0 0 0

26 FIROZABAD 2597 39436 42033 0 2545 648 0 0 0 2846

27 GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR

1216 8752 9968 0 0 88 0 0 0 0

28 GHAZIABAD 135 6380 6515 0 0 155 0 0 0 0

29 GHAZIPUR 15094 21666 36760 0 0 433 0 0 0 098

Sr. District Name IHHL (BPL)

IHHL (APL)

IHHL Total

Sanitary Comp

School Toilets

Balwadi Toilets

RSM PC SLWM Total Sch.

covered

30 GONDA 14649 8204 22853 0 772 45 0 0 0 0

31 GORAKHPUR 96471 55169 151640 0 0 578 3 0 0 0

32 HAMIRPUR 23445 8976 32421 0 730 577 0 0 0 0

33 HARDOI 28142 35272 63414 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

34 JALAUN 13250 13866 27116 0 94 0 0 0 0 0

35 JAUNPUR 27665 81992 109657 0 0 1277 0 0 0 18

36 JHANSI 9218 2388 11606 0 0 24 0 0 302 0

37 JYOTIBA PHULE NAGAR 7133 11557 18690 0 1177 738 1 1 0 1107

38 KANNAUJ 24547 27611 52158 0 0 351 0 0 0 0

39 KANPUR DEHAT 20000 7217 27217 3 216 0 0 0 98 0

40 KANPUR NAGAR 17375 21279 38654 0 1655 57 0 0 0 745

41 KANSHIRAM NAGAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

42 KAUSHAMBI 24058 14382 38440 0 724 361 0 0 0 1238

43 KUSHINAGAR 62599 45305 107904 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

44 LAKHIMPUR KHERI 5418 33393 38811 0 1632 7 0 0 0 1632

45 LALITPUR 6353 1746 8099 0 0 32 0 0 0 0

46 LUCKNOW 14848 19918 34766 0 89 184 0 0 0 89

47 MAHAMAYA NAGAR(HATHRAS)

4560 17672 22232 0 382 472 0 0 0 0

48 MAHARAJGANJ 17641 9035 26676 0 0 394 1 0 6 0

49 MAHOBA 6802 5148 11950 0 144 212 0 0 0 72

50 MAINPURI 15260 17673 32933 0 0 384 0 0 0 0

51 MATHURA 4141 31307 35448 5 2562 88 0 0 0 1094

52 MAU 3890 2056 5946 4 0 566 0 0 0 0

53 MEERUT 2972 11207 14179 0 0 300 0 0 25 0

54 MIRZAPUR 19978 19093 39071 0 588 0 0 0 0 143

55 MORADABAD 8999 72122 81121 0 752 308 0 0 117 752

56 MUZAFFARNAGAR 1687 31588 33275 0 1363 1070 0 0 0 447

57 PILIBHIT 14383 21220 35603 0 0 144 0 0 0 0

58 PRATAPGARH 6654 10565 17219 0 33 0 0 0 0 17

59 RAE BARELI 32764 16349 49113 0 931 755 0 0 2 262

60 RAMPUR 8405 20302 28707 0 963 316 -2 0 0 72

61 SAHARANPUR 4929 16371 21300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

62 SANT KABIR NAGAR 8720 16108 24828 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

63 SANT RAVIDAS NAGAR( BHADOHI)

8405 12289 20694 0 997 733 0 0 0 797

64 SHAHJAHANPUR 25593 9510 35103 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

65 SHRAVASTI 8796 837 9633 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

66 SIDDHARTHNAGAR 25000 17760 42760 0 0 0 0 0 56 0

67 SITAPUR 63316 16231 79547 0 0 873 0 0 0 0

68 SONBHADRA 35286 14484 49770 0 701 0 0 0 0 351

69 SULTANPUR 19236 28778 48014 0 247 387 0 0 26 0

70 UNNAO 34340 2368 36708 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

71 VARANASI 0 15717 15717 1 465 193 0 0 0 0

71 Total 11598371509710 2669547 51 37933 22997 3 1 675 23409

99

Annexure -II

DISTRICT-WISE FINANCIAL PROGRESS DURING 04/2007-03/2008 (Release VS Expenditure)

S. no

District Name

Release Amount (in Lakhs) Expenditure Amount (in Lakhs)

Center State Beneficiary Total Center State Beneficiary Total

1 UTTAR PRADESH

1 AGRA 0 34.22 0 34.22 110.59 36.15 0 146.74

2 ALIGARH 420.6 106.84 49.13 576.57 257.41 99.03 45.31 401.75

3 ALLAHABAD 0 111.7 622.31 734.01 308.36 180.42 74.55 563.33

4 AMBEDKAR NAGAR 0 0.06 24.63 24.69 223.44 199.18 0 422.62

5 AURAIYA 0 123.3 71.87 195.17 197.48 112.48 73.8 383.76

6 AZAMGARH 0 0 0 0 521.41 127.23 0 648.64

7 BAGPAT 168.47 117.93 24.73 311.13 76.4 49.85 24.73 150.98

8 BAHRAICH 0 160.66 263 423.66 361.11 162.7 22.51 546.32

9 BALLIA 0 87.55 43.99 131.54 257.75 54.59 19.9 332.24

10 BALRAMPUR 387.66 90.48 33.62 511.76 231.93 50.23 27.81 309.96

11 BANDA 344.43 174.03 52.3 570.76 315.71 140.36 52.3 508.37

12 BARABANKI 0 94.05 150.17 244.22 145.31 64.02 115.28 324.61

13 BAREILLY 422.43 177.21 38.38 638.02 168.7 100.01 35.81 304.52

14 BASTI 0 0 211.13 211.13 355.79 123.79 211.35 690.93

15 BIJNOR 327.79 0 3.2 330.99 9.94 14.41 0 24.35

16 BUDAUN 374.43 145.33 75.44 595.2 31.06 19.16 60.98 111.2

17 BULANDSHAHR 0 7.15 0 7.15 114.4 30.41 0 144.81

18 CHANDAULI 148.69 0 101.99 250.68 28.84 49.61 165.33 243.78

19 CHITRAKOOT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20 DEORIA 342.36 182.03 42.91 567.3 283.05 26.01 65.69 374.75

21 ETAH 0 0 0.1 0.1 1.8 0 0 1.8

22 ETAWAH 478.83 58.25 7.5 544.58 64.8 0 7.5 72.3

23 FAIZABAD 0 27.95 116.68 144.63 217 106.35 78.11 401.46

24 FARRUKHABAD 489.65 276.41 108.66 874.72 594.55 209.91 108.66 913.12

25 FATEHPUR 563.34 124.77 61.91 750.02 311.87 139.69 57.48 509.04

26 FIROZABAD 0 77.81 13.6 91.41 105.52 71.14 13.6 190.26

27 GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR

50.79 3.9 7.05 61.74 17.72 4.78 13.27 35.77

28 GHAZIABAD 89.06 60.03 5.94 155.03 49.91 12.14 1.26 63.31

29 GHAZIPUR 0 73.59 89.3 162.89 374.84 116.43 70 561.27

30 GONDA 668.02 252.3 51.41 971.73 475.64 250.93 45.95 772.53

31 GORAKHPUR 0 0 80.36 80.36 808.84 224.02 94.1 1126.98

32 HAMIRPUR 387.99 77.54 1.2 466.73 6.11 5.81 0 11.92

33 HARDOI 0 310.83 0 310.83 39.31 63.3 0 102.6

34 JALAUN 0 130.35 34.94 165.29 248.24 104.32 51.58 404.14

35 JAUNPUR 1010.42 297.23 124.08 1431.73 440.44 287.6 124.09 852.12

36 JHANSI 326.68 258.66 35.38 620.72 296.58 170.92 90.32 557.82

37 JYOTIBA PHULE NAGAR 0 41.98 7.41 49.39 70.53 73.29 4.42 148.24

38 KANNAUJ 503.56 64.34 114.45 682.35 349.64 50.1 105.15 504.89

39 KANPUR DEHAT 502.01 247.75 278.15 1027.91 268.19 55.01 0 323.2

40 KANPUR NAGAR 61.25 47.52 28.24 137.01 61.26 39.06 28.24 128.56

41 KAUSHAMBI 231.11 0 0 231.11 0 0 0 0

42 KUSHINAGAR 0 161.43 149.74 311.17 761.87 310.8 139.74 1212.41

43 LAKHIMPUR KHERI 0 148.96 119.06 268.02 228.56 347.72 119.18 695.46

44 LALITPUR 179.7 69.37 49.78 298.85 158.81 63.02 42.4 264.23

45 LUCKNOW 290.51 142.35 0 432.86 309.09 323.93 2 635.02100

46 MAHAMAYA NAGAR(HATHRAS)

0 11.28 0 11.28 46.32 20.93 4.59 71.85

47 MAHARAJGANJ 642.91 398.21 121.33 1162.45 343.8 81.42 119.01 544.23

48 MAHOBA 0 0 3.42 3.42 48.46 21.73 5.85 76.04

49 MAINPURI 290.38 26.34 14.54 331.26 16.5 103.65 4.34 124.49

50 MATHURA 0 46.16 118.86 165.02 153.64 63.04 23.85 240.52

51 MAU 0 268.65 162.83 431.48 485.27 179.15 162.83 827.25

52 MEERUT 236.67 160.2 25.37 422.24 289.25 117.75 22.7 429.7

53 MIRZAPUR 445.86 127.64 386.76 960.26 371.96 397.97 66.61 836.53

54 MORADABAD 0 94.2 18.11 112.31 290.67 119.92 9.78 420.37

55 MUZAFFARNAGAR 350.53 158.26 117.91 626.7 417.76 152.13 111.57 681.46

56 PILIBHIT 0 0 60.85 60.85 368.12 16.62 53.2 437.93

57 PRATAPGARH 0 97.3 162.21 259.51 418.79 146.49 31.83 597.11

58 RAE BARELI 0 59.56 102.86 162.42 19.79 39.02 0 58.81

59 RAMPUR 204.8 64.26 3.03 272.09 151.25 61.18 1.29 213.72

60 SAHARANPUR 0 0 4.67 4.67 255.81 104.63 25.25 385.69

61 SANT KABIR NAGAR 0 84.03 0.06 84.09 200.7 59.7 40.66 301.06

62 SANT RAVIDAS NAGAR( BHADOHI)

0 0 9.95 9.95 74.68 64.14 1.6 140.42

63 SHAHJAHANPUR 786.32 0 344.48 1130.8 446.8 137.42 0 584.22

64 SHRAVASTI 0 127.42 49.96 177.38 210.77 99.29 50 360.06

65 SIDDHARTHNAGAR 807.9 66.07 114.12 988.09 552.66 119.81 74.81 747.28

66 SITAPUR 0 155.1 0 155.1 309.41 85.44 116.69 511.54

67 SONBHADRA 574.95 185.97 45.06 805.98 4.6 70.24 36.07 110.91

68 SULTANPUR 760.33 324.21 76.33 1160.87 416.04 237.95 82.54 736.52

69 UNNAO 704.29 193.47 30.28 928.04 147.28 172.52 39.28 359.07

70 VARANASI 510.39 22.81 10.1 543.3 166.18 121.59 0.8 288.57

Total 15085.11 7237 5276.83 27598.94 16466.3 7463.66 3277.54 27207.51

S. no

District Name

Release Amount (in Lakhs) Expenditure Amount (in Lakhs)

Center State Beneficiary Total Center State Beneficiary Total

DISTRICT-WISE FINANCIAL PROGRESS DURING 04/2008-03/2009 (Release VS Expenditure)

S. no

District Name

Release Amount (in Lakhs) Expenditure Amount (in Lakhs)

Center State Beneficiary Total Center State Beneficiary Total

1 UTTAR PRADESH

1 AGRA 0 310.2 40.23 350.43 0.07 195.56 21.86 217.49

2 ALIGARH 0 464.93 30.38 495.31 237.51 424.66 34.9 697.07

3 ALLAHABAD 983.18 866.39 0 1849.57 664.89 710.77 119.57 1495.23

4 AMBEDKAR NAGAR 547.1 578.43 0.27 1125.8 320.48 129.62 7.41 457.52

5 AURAIYA 549.62 573.6 30.9 1154.12 308.29 107.33 30.9 446.51

6 AZAMGARH 0 1173.67 0 1173.67 39.3 157.52 0 196.82

7 BAGPAT 0 124.78 12.19 136.97 154.1 114.88 12.19 281.16

8 BAHRAICH 901.19 1238.28 0 2139.47 1190.71 564.85 218.57 1974.12

9 BALLIA 746.4 634.89 111.67 1492.96 233.14 122.14 84.04 439.31

10 BALRAMPUR 260.87 476 10.67 747.54 362.63 424.37 21.49 808.49

11 BANDA 0 356.79 20.94 377.73 49.55 161.89 0 211.44

12 BARABANKI 377.16 903.08 11.48 1291.72 391.97 829.12 11.48 1232.57

13 BAREILLY 1290.38 304.48 10.34 1605.2 608.43 294.02 30.5 932.94

14 BASTI 0 544.88 0.09 544.97 0 0.01 0 0.01

15 BIJNOR 553.68 634.83 45.73 1234.24 487.68 142.8 48.81 679.28

16 BUDAUN 868.59 383.84 57.12 1309.56 756.52 214.27 57.12 1027.91

17 BULANDSHAHR 301.41 262.77 42.2 606.38 197.38 77.91 11.38 286.67

18 CHANDAULI 302.57 241.58 626.37 1170.52 297.54 212.6 98.07 608.21 101

S. no

District Name

Release Amount (in Lakhs) Expenditure Amount (in Lakhs)

Center State Beneficiary Total Center State Beneficiary Total

19 CHITRAKOOT 200.83 307.54 19.64 528.01 161.53 129.88 13.13 304.54

20 DEORIA 0 389.66 317.44 707.1 68.53 504.56 256.31 829.4

21 ETAH 507.44 346.8 52.68 906.92 371.53 190.39 9.75 571.68

22 ETAWAH 0 413.67 84.92 498.59 458.46 276.72 73.24 808.42

23 FAIZABAD 0 494.04 0 494.04 27.29 50.35 0.4 78.04

24 FARRUKHABAD 1424.52 486.73 0 1911.25 167.42 240.81 0 408.23

25 FATEHPUR 0 581.11 53.95 635.06 496.74 467.1 55.78 1019.62

26 FIROZABAD 279.04 143.83 2 424.87 260.67 112.98 2 375.65

27 GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR

148.21 123.76 16.8 288.77 192.15 78.47 18.68 289.3

28 GHAZIABAD 149.96 11.21 0 161.17 173.67 67.29 2 242.96

29 GHAZIPUR 471.32 650.45 18.76 1140.53 356.41 336.22 22.85 715.48

30 GONDA 0 346.61 0 346.61 207.14 79.45 0 286.6

31 GORAKHPUR 1587.09 919.84 100 2606.93 16.65 4.33 0 20.98

32 HAMIRPUR 137.53 556.15 0 693.68 417.8 316 0 733.81

33 HARDOI 919.43 1539.66 0 2459.09 753.07 1376.76 60.32 2190.15

34 JALAUN 491.25 533.75 197.97 1222.97 296.46 77.7 40.03 414.19

35 JAUNPUR 1693.19 735.87 325.82 2754.88 1094.51 393.24 244.78 1732.53

36 JHANSI 267.07 217.3 49.71 534.08 328.22 102.66 44.01 474.89

37 JYOTIBA PHULE NAGAR

440.61 274.29 0 714.9 235.78 294.79 33.79 564.36

38 KANNAUJ 789.5 476 20.23 1285.73 943.56 406.3 20.23 1370.09

39 KANPUR DEHAT 935.76 508.81 84.66 1529.23 416.08 544.42 177.36 1137.86

40 KANPUR NAGAR 374.51 0 51.18 425.69 321.16 5.14 41.06 367.36

41 KAUSHAMBI 948.47 728.62 420.82 2097.91 681.68 400.97 172.7 1255.35

42 KUSHINAGAR 1210.96 1148.01 110.17 2469.14 515.37 830.23 117.96 1463.56

43 LAKHIMPUR KHERI 149.78 799.06 19.1 967.94 225.38 681.26 11.08 917.72

44 LALITPUR 428.66 315.42 48.57 792.65 371.81 298.4 85.67 755.88

45 LUCKNOW 0 250.8 44.93 295.73 326.83 132.52 21.28 480.63

46 MAHAMAYA NAGAR(HATHRAS)

0 15.36 0.4 15.76 80.06 13.97 0.01 94.04

47 MAHARAJGANJ 961.37 540.39 126.75 1628.51 347.76 55.82 126.75 530.33

48 MAHOBA 381.28 296.5 73.58 751.36 255.5 75.87 51.31 382.68

49 MAINPURI 721.22 438.86 493.32 1653.4 657.5 393.52 88.55 1139.57

50 MATHURA 246.87 145.02 113.21 505.1 64.98 8.59 0 73.57

51 MAU 616.45 592.13 0 1208.58 1.95 1.31 0 3.26

52 MEERUT 0 195.47 33.87 229.35 92.14 8.08 40.06 140.29

53 MIRZAPUR 0 521.92 0 521.92 219.19 330.61 162.12 711.93

54 MORADABAD 640.04 805.99 88.23 1534.26 399 750.32 109.75 1259.08

55 MUZAFFARNAGAR 0 24.27 5.5 29.77 48.96 27.69 5.35 82

56 PILIBHIT 620.55 568.7 350.98 1540.23 551.44 326.62 278.64 1156.7

57 PRATAPGARH 822.93 553.31 123.44 1499.68 311.87 338.42 111.8 762.09

58 RAE BARELI 1373.66 984.02 0 2357.68 428.29 534.54 60.46 1023.29

59 RAMPUR 103.77 282.34 0 386.11 157.27 195.56 21.28 374.11

60 SAHARANPUR 370.65 481.2 37.28 889.13 275.48 324.86 44.42 644.76

61 SANT KABIR NAGAR

601.09 870.45 191.54 1663.08 218.36 451.38 47.76 717.5

62 SANT RAVIDAS NAGAR( BHADOHI)

0 213.21 31.27 244.48 140.3 102.69 13.1 256.09

63 SHAHJAHANPUR 1825.53 413.94 0 2239.47 762.25 293.95 0 1056.2

64

SHRAVASTI

430.89

536.61

53.42

1020.92

309.47

99.27

52.8

461.54

65 SIDDHARTHNAGAR 570.77 984.86 510.1 2065.73 688.33 867.48 164.15 1719.96

66 SITAPUR 2189.72 1168.17 175.87 3533.76 689.99 1058.78 152.62 1901.39 102

S. no

District Name

Release Amount (in Lakhs) Expenditure Amount (in Lakhs)

Center State Beneficiary Total Center State Beneficiary Total

67 SONBHADRA 1075.17 322.81 115.99 1513.97 628.32 282.06 26.99 937.38

68 SULTANPUR 307.58 961.2 65.95 1334.73 426.05 633.51 46.43 1105.99

69 UNNAO 2258.94 885.82 256.1 3400.86 1345.96 655.96 256.9 2258.81

70 VARANASI 784.19 503.33 73.85 1361.37 382.23 221.58 70.02 673.83

Total 38139.95 36678.3 6010.58 80828.83 25668.75 21335.71 4263.95 51268.41

DISTRICT-WISE FINANCIAL PROGRESS DURING 04/2009-03/2010 (Release VS Expenditure)

1 UTTAR PRADESH

1 AGRA 241.44 52.34 0 293.78 233.58 27.34 9.43 270.35

2 ALIGARH 456.66 384.72 45.74 887.12 186.96 130.39 41.18 358.53

3 ALLAHABAD 159.05 1323.56 129.79 1612.4 337.87 189.59 12.62 540.08

4 AMBEDKAR NAGAR 0 371.55 223.83 595.38 357.65 656.98 171.2 1185.83

5 AURAIYA 846.95 709.62 349.17 1905.74 589.66 632.16 335.63 1557.45

6 AZAMGARH 565.16 0 0 565.16 297.05 141.62 70.16 508.83

7 BAGPAT 209.04 132.7 32.97 374.71 194.85 26.6 29.79 251.24

8 BAHRAICH 0 358.58 33.61 392.19 776.16 959.02 1.01 1736.19

9 BALLIA 0 523.56 133.51 657.07 509.94 791.88 152.14 1453.95

10 BALRAMPUR 0 338.97 10.02 348.99 40.08 56.14 0 96.22

11 BANDA 608.51 1578.94 112.88 2300.33 568.77 1091.27 132.36 1792.4

12 BARABANKI 909.52 678.42 35.67 1623.61 660.25 461.88 35.67 1157.8

13 BAREILLY 0 879.75 885.94 1765.69 734.73 600.92 653.31 1988.96

14 BASTI 732.64 0 8.46 741.1 459.1 171.11 12.13 642.34

15 BIJNOR 0 407.19 3.37 410.56 373.25 165.61 17.37 556.23

16 BUDAUN 0 827.54 35.37 862.9 457.53 402.05 30.33 889.91

17 BULANDSHAHR 0 135.02 0 135.02 149.66 62.76 0 212.42

18 CHANDAULI 78.47 171.44 0 249.91 129.98 154.28 0 284.26

19 CHITRAKOOT 0 496.62 0 496.62 211.36 330.28 33.06 574.7

20 DEORIA 579.98 523 147.04 1250.02 583.64 516.46 147.04 1247.15

21 ETAH 0 275.16 1270.86 1546.02 614.26 386.63 346.98 1347.87

22 ETAWAH 493.87 225.85 32.35 752.07 206.54 203.29 43.54 453.37

23 FAIZABAD 419.18 448.75 17.93 885.86 483.88 558.4 35.88 1078.16

24 FARRUKHABAD 0 383.99 85.13 469.12 1270.03 664.88 78.08 2012.98

25 FATEHPUR 0 186.71 45.32 232.03 190.62 252.85 43.49 486.95

26 FIROZABAD 0 0 0 0 90.5 11.43 0 101.93

27 GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR

0 0 3.96 3.96 8.25 24.09 3.81 36.15

28 GHAZIABAD 0 25.33 13.15 38.48 90.85 21.16 13.19 125.21

29 GHAZIPUR 0 271.54 38.26 309.8 388.64 307.16 31.88 727.68

30 GONDA 877.15 30 51.82 958.98 268.67 146.27 35.34 450.28

31 GORAKHPUR 0 961.38 1126.97 2088.35 1460.53 1372.65 136.55 2969.73

32 HAMIRPUR 0 962.02 195.02 1157.04 253.61 888.73 122.09 1264.42

33 HARDOI 0 1349.85 233.02 1582.87 567.7 1535.18 231.4 2334.27

34 JALAUN 0 1137.93 8 1145.92 178.81 377.42 0 556.23

35 JAUNPUR 0 1128.16 146.32 1274.47 1000.14 1195 146.31 2341.44

36 JHANSI 0 190.46 70.65 261.1 266.62 268.84 69.85 605.32

37 JYOTIBA PHULE NAGAR

239.65 271.75 72.82 584.22 682.87 106.31 39.07 828.25

38 KANNAUJ 0 114.12 103.29 217.41 322.7 35.29 98.32 456.31

39

KANPUR DEHAT

0

0

78.47

78.47

736.9

70.92

78.47

886.29

40 KANPUR NAGAR 0 0 139.08 139.08 241.04 3.78 13.3 258.12

S.N0 District Name

Release Amount (in Lakhs) Expenditure Amount (in Lakhs)

Center State Beneficiary Total Center State Beneficiary Total

103

S.N0 District Name

Release Amount (in Lakhs) Expenditure Amount (in Lakhs)

Center State Beneficiary Total Center State Beneficiary Total

41 KANSHIRAM NAGAR

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

42 KAUSHAMBI 0 250.77 135.28 386.05 527.42 322.5 113.86 963.78

43 KUSHINAGAR 0 219.87 223.83 443.7 1338.36 572.9 224.9 2136.16

44 LAKHIMPUR KHERI 0 370.39 11.04 381.43 106 187.05 22.4 315.45

45 LALITPUR 0 171.96 0 171.96 181.16 116.9 0 298.06

46 LUCKNOW 557.63 301.99 0 859.62 322.1 488.03 8.49 818.62

47 MAHAMAYA NAGAR(HATHRAS)

170.35 257.37 42.82 470.54 183.65 210.5 37.7 431.85

48 MAHARAJGANJ 0 810.02 176.4 986.42 1460.11 1059.37 176.4 2695.88

49 MAHOBA 0 48.42 23.48 71.9 239.18 235.04 43.26 517.48

50 MAINPURI 0 286.04 0 286.04 395.26 324.02 69.1 788.38

51 MATHURA 0 0 50.22 50.22 229.16 71.84 14.4 315.4

52 MAU 0 0 37.79 37.79 672.78 207.73 37.79 918.3

53 MEERUT 216.04 858.23 24.72 1098.98 135.49 250.07 18.3 403.86

54 MIRZAPUR 961.7 1084.69 0 2046.39 547.66 588.52 95.13 1231.31

55 MORADABAD 558.96 368.69 10.16 937.8 332.04 133.82 2.27 468.13

56 MUZAFFARNAGAR 243.19 397.29 0 640.48 89.52 354.29 5 448.8

57 PILIBHIT 358.33 46.3 0 404.62 294.49 49.5 8.4 352.39

58 PRATAPGARH 0 619.57 180.89 800.46 315.02 298.17 283.68 896.87

59 RAE BARELI 0 637.74 14.86 652.6 1101.29 1107.76 10 2219.05

60 RAMPUR 249.71 216.67 21.28 487.66 249.76 225.92 7.03 482.71

61 SAHARANPUR 476.36 203.5 34.21 714.07 413.22 227.58 30 670.8

62 SANT KABIR NAGAR

0 0 0 0 382.71 39.78 43.01 465.5

63 SANT RAVIDAS NAGAR( BHADOHI)

295.32 195.22 100.24 590.78 249.42 333.31 120.67 703.41

64 SHAHJAHANPUR 0 435.47 25.44 460.91 633 225.91 237.8 1096.71

65 SHRAVASTI 0 179.22 57.67 236.9 327.59 490.14 55.6 873.33

66 SIDDHARTHNAGAR 0 558.5 278.58 837.08 578.84 312.13 156.71 1047.68

67 SITAPUR 0 1000.28 0 1000.28 1583.34 422.1 10 2015.44

68 SONBHADRA 0 1555.14 147.51 1702.65 945.32 1033.22 153.29 2131.83

69 SULTANPUR 0 576.01 55.41 631.42 376.96 257.64 76.94 711.54

70 UNNAO 0 1212.36 659.16 1871.52 1610.26 1223.62 659.16 3493.04

71 VARANASI 0 209.7 8.7 218.4 660.97 293.07 0.16 954.2

Total 11504.86 30927.91 8239.47 50672.24 33657.29 27661.04 6173.44 67491.77

Annexure- III

DISTRICT-WISE PHYSICAL PROGRESS DURING 04/2007-03/2008

Sr. District Name IHHL (BPL)

IHHL (APL)

IHHL Total

Sanitary Comp

School Toilets

Balwadi Toilets

RSM PC SLWM Total Sch. covered

1 ANDHRA PRADESH

1 ADILABAD 2288 28 2316 0 1289 33 0 0 0 0

2 ANANTAPUR 24734 0 24734 0 458 20 0 0 0 0

3 CHITTOOR 5899 125992 131891 0 852 51 0 0 0 0

4 CUDDAPAH 27730 18514 46244 0 1105 219 0 0 0 0

5 EAST GODAVARI 20030 0 20030 19 2347 39 0 0 7 0

6 GUNTUR 26970 4100 31070 0 366 24 0 0 0 0

7 KARIMNAGAR 10466 0 10466 0 345 55 0 0 0 0

8 KHAMMAM 5045 3610 8655 0 252 24 0 0 0 0

9 KRISHNA 6068 25548 31616 3 313 13 0 0 0 0104

Sr. District Name IHHL (BPL)

IHHL (APL)

IHHL Total

Sanitary Comp

School Toilets

Balwadi Toilets

RSM PC SLWM Total Sch. covered

10 KURNOOL 17614 0 17614 0 246 31 0 0 0 0

11 MAHBUBNAGAR 2391 0 2391 0 329 20 0 0 0 0

12 MEDAK 9181 14011 23192 0 319 71 0 0 0 0

13 NALGONDA 1443 0 1443 0 1417 0 0 0 0 4816

14 NELLORE 3044 376 3420 0 661 43 0 0 0 0

15 NIZAMABAD 2120 2 2122 0 1070 0 0 0 0 2323

16 PRAKASAM 2216 34 2250 0 558 33 0 0 0 0

17 RANGAREDDI 2590 1872 4462 0 180 31 0 0 0 0

18 SRIKAKULAM 6176 0 6176 0 257 74 3 0 0 0

19 VISAKHAPATNAM 10540 0 10540 0 430 17 0 0 0 0

20 VIZIANAGARAM 2300 0 2300 0 230 47 0 0 0 0

21 WARANGAL 0 0 0 0 627 67 0 0 0 2092

22 WEST GODAVARI 2200 4110 6310 315 237 45 0 0 0 0

22 Total 191045 198197 389242 337 13888 957 3 0 7 9231

DISTRICT-WISE PHYSICAL PROGRESS DURING 04/2008-03/2009

Sr. District Name IHHL (BPL)

IHHL (APL)

IHHL Total

Sanitary Comp

School Toilets

Balwadi Toilets

RSM PC SLWM Total Sch. covered

1 ANDHRA PRADESH

1 ADILABAD 366 4 370 0 1217 0 0 0 0 1838

2 ANANTAPUR 93708 0 93708 0 496 19 0 0 0 2128

3 CHITTOOR 1771 5371 7142 0 3097 234 0 0 0 7007

4 CUDDAPAH 1363 0 1363 0 118 0 0 0 0 2872

5 EAST GODAVARI 3438 0 3438 6 2038 0 0 0 0 3428

6 GUNTUR 5064 22500 27564 0 826 34 0 0 0 1781

7 KARIMNAGAR 1983 8370 10353 0 2765 85 0 0 0 3017

8 KHAMMAM 279 10 289 0 4036 12 0 0 0 3159

9 KRISHNA 5984 0 5984 0 695 26 0 0 0 1581

10 KURNOOL 8364 0 8364 0 1156 40 0 0 0 2127

11 MAHBUBNAGAR 0 0 0 0 1762 110 0 0 0 2349

12 MEDAK 1129 5047 6176 1 656 294 0 0 96 2269

13 NALGONDA 0 0 0 0 806 0 0 0 0 0

14 NELLORE 5020 0 5020 0 720 91 0 0 0 5188

15 NIZAMABAD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16 PRAKASAM 5120 862 5982 0 3527 521 0 0 2 3240

17 RANGAREDDI 1945 982 2927 0 770 26 0 0 0 2016

18 SRIKAKULAM 5302 43373 48675 1 1405 6 0 0 0 2275

19 VISAKHAPATNAM 33978 0 33978 2 2457 142 0 0 0 5949

20 VIZIANAGA RAM 1687 0 1687 0 630 0 0 0 0 2939

21 WARANGAL 0 0 0 0 1550 0 0 0 0 1104

22 WEST GODAVARI 4359 25318 29677 7 0 0 0 0 0 1987

22 Total 180860 111837 292697 17 30727 1640 0 0 98 58254

DISTRICT-WISE PHYSICAL PROGRESS DURING 04/2009-03/2010

Sr. District Name IHHL (BPL)

IHHL (APL)

IHHL Total

Sanitary Comp

School Toilets

Balwadi Toilets

RSM PC SLWM Total Sch. covered

1 ANDHRA PRADESH

1 ADILABAD 36866 0 36866 0 141 13 0 0 0 377 105

Sr. District Name IHHL (BPL)

IHHL (APL)

IHHL Total

Sanitary Comp

School Toilets

Balwadi Toilets

RSM PC SLWM Total Sch. covered

2 ANANTAPUR 0 1993 1993 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 CHITTOOR 12000 7191 19191 0 53 0 0 0 0 53

4 CUDDAPAH 1731 0 1731 0 322 5 0 0 0 398

5 EAST GODAVARI 18929 11578 30507 11 0 286 0 0 0 0

6 GUNTUR 9298 1000 10298 0 31 9 0 0 0 15

7 KARIMNAGAR 31644 6413 38057 0 1131 115 0 0 0 119

8 KHAMMAM 26000 0 26000 0 0 89 0 0 0 0

9 KRISHNA 39985 28000 67985 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 KURNOOL 2326 0 2326 0 0 42 0 0 0 55

11 MAHBUBNAGAR 18646 0 18646 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12 MEDAK 648 10100 10748 0 56 0 0 0 9 51

13 NALGONDA 0 0 0 0 74 0 0 0 0 0

14 NELLORE 7260 5726 12986 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 NIZAMABAD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16 PRAKASAM 4500 1805 6305 0 104 24 0 0 0 52

17 RANGAREDDI 2200 32180 34380 0 99 125 0 0 0 0

18 SRIKAKULAM 2238 0 2238 2 41 6 0 0 0 725

19 VISAKHAPATNAM 522 0 522 0 16 45 0 0 0 6

20 VIZIANAGARAM 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 1

21 WARANGAL 0 0 0 0 172 0 0 0 0 0

22 WEST GODAVARI 23512 261986 285498 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

22 Total 238305 367972 606277 13 2242 764 0 0 9 1852

S. No

District Name Release Amount (in Lakhs) Expenditure Amount (in Lakhs)

Center State Beneficiary Total Center State Beneficiary Total

1 ANDHRA PRADESH

1 ADILABAD 0 0 0.18 0.18 66.81 3.38 0 70.19

2 ANANTAPUR 0 0 0.04 0.04 87.58 160.51 1.04 249.13

3 CHITTOOR 0 0 0 0 28.72 11.21 0 39.93

4 CUDDAPAH 0 0 0 0 561.04 41.4 0 602.44

5 EAST GODAVARI 0 0 1.25 1.25 430.53 172.83 11.42 614.78

6 GUNTUR 0 0 0 0 167.17 47.83 0 215

7 KARIMNAGAR 0 0 15.99 15.99 249.47 97.38 15.99 362.84

8 KHAMMAM 512.4 201.47 21.22 735.09 172.08 37.78 46.24 256.1

9 KRISHNA 0 0 0 0 283.23 233.27 0 516.5

10 KURNOOL 0 173.65 22.52 196.17 72.54 2.67 30.32 105.53

11 MAHBUBNAGAR 0 0 0 0 73.75 2.13 48.49 124.37

12 MEDAK 0 803.9 117.02 920.92 151.43 47.81 87.72 286.96

13 NALGONDA 0 0 23.9 23.9 318.26 115.45 26.94 460.65

14 NELLORE 0 0 0 0 110.49 13.75 1.37 125.61

15 NIZAMABAD 0 0 1448.37 1448.37 62.63 80.96 0 143.59

16 PRAKASAM 0 0 0.48 0.48 48.35 15.1 0.48 63.93

17 RANGAREDDI 0 346.42 0.03 346.45 306.1 222.69 0 528.79

18 SRIKAKULAM 0 0 4.3 4.3 291.51 14.55 51.15 357.21

19 VISAKHAPATNAM 0 129.36 57.08 186.44 248.54 9.34 43.66 301.54

20 VIZIANAGARAM 0 0 0.65 0.65 42.55 17.19 0.65 60.39

21 WARANGAL 0 0 0 0 150.2 2.06 0 152.26

22 WEST GODAVARI 366.38 832.9 0.13 1199.41 168.38 832.46 140.38 1141.22

Total 878.78 2487.7 1713.16 5079.64 4091.37 2181.74 505.85 6778.96 106

DISTRICT-WISE FINANCIAL PROGRESS DURING 04/2007-03/2008 (Release VS Expenditure)

Annexure- IV

DISTRICT-WISE FINANCIAL STATUS DURING 04/2008-03/2009 (Release VS Expenditure)

S.N0 District Name

Release Amount (in Lakhs) Expenditure Amount (in Lakhs)

Center State Beneficiary Total Center State Beneficiary Total

1 ANDHRA PRADESH

1 ADILABAD 0 0 0 0 264.82 3.87 2.04 270.73

2 ANANTAPUR 0 0 0 0 26.45 0.79 0 27.24

3 CHITTOOR 0 0 0 0 39.95 24.5 0 64.45

4 CUDDAPAH 0 0 0 0 6.78 0 0 6.78

5 EAST GODAVARI 1391.81 228.45 0 1620.26 713.24 238.3 9.62 961.16

6 GUNTUR 0 131.6 0 131.6 125.72 56 5.97 187.69

7 KARIMNAGAR 0 0 0 0 720.6 206.05 0 926.65

8 KHAMMAM 0 0 48.31 48.31 522.42 187.65 48.31 758.37

9 KRISHNA 0 18.18 0 18.18 151.1 88.36 0.4 239.86

10 KURNOOL 0 0 13.23 13.23 105.38 115.69 13.97 235.04

11 MAHBUBNAGAR 0 0 0 0 75.86 0 0 75.86

12 MEDAK 0 248.5 3.39 251.89 161.58 58.63 3.39 223.6

13 NALGONDA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14 NELLORE 0 0 0 0 26.69 21.51 0 48.2

15 NIZAMABAD 0 0 0 0 100.28 0.53 0 100.81

16 PRAKASAM 0 0 0 0 317.76 91.66 3.14 412.56

17 RANGAREDDI 0 0 0 0 24.35 1.54 0 25.89

18 SRIKAKULAM 0 18.5 0 18.5 132.16 23.8 0 155.96

19 VISAKHAPATNAM 0 0 146.19 146.19 288.32 118.81 158.72 565.85

20 VIZIANAGARAM 0 0 0 0 173.25 147.52 0 320.77

21 WARANGAL 0 0 0 0 100.58 0 0 100.58

22 WEST GODAVARI 0 282 0 282 150.38 278.5 0 428.88

Total 1391.81 927.24 211.11 2530.16 4227.67 1663.7 245.55 6136.92

DISTRICT-WISE FINANCIAL STATUS DURING 04/2009-03/2010 (Release VS Expenditure)

S. No

District Name

Release Amount (in Lakhs) Expenditure Amount (in Lakhs)

Center State Beneficiary Total Center State Beneficiary Total

1 ANDHRA PRADESH

1 ADILABAD 0 0 0 0 140.37 52.44 91.46 284.27

2 ANANTAPUR 373.01 0 0 373.01 12.51 13.41 0 25.93

3 CHITTOOR 607.75 0 0 607.75 43 20.69 0 63.69

4 CUDDAPAH 546.45 0 0 546.45 184.33 0 0 184.33

5 EAST GODAVARI 1107.69 636.37 0 1744.06 690.39 329.3 0 1019.69

6 GUNTUR 962.31 573 37 1572.31 154.24 160.95 41.69 356.88

7 KARIMNAGAR 1082.49 0 0 1082.49 323.57 356.62 0 680.18

8 KHAMMAM 541.46 105.91 36.38 683.75 458.43 123.84 36.38 618.66

9 KRISHNA 0 0 0 0 5.93 0 0 5.93

10 KURNOOL 848.33 0 0 848.33 156.53 0 0 156.53

11 MAHBUBNAGAR 1166.66 0 0 1166.66 58.91 0 0 58.91

12 MEDAK 0 0 0 0 20.85 6.72 0 27.57

13 NALGONDA 295.54 0 0 295.54 115.07 60.01 0 175.08

14 NELLORE 600.09 0 0 600.09 31.84 6.36 0 38.2

15 NIZAMABAD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16 PRAKASAM 912.26 0 22.4 934.66 271.93 137.22 22.66 431.81

17 RANGAREDDI 525.61 0 0 525.61 266.43 8.95 0 275.38

18 SRIKAKULAM 0 0 0 0 5.05 0 0 5.05

19 VISAKHAPATNAM 689.18 2544.34 1.49 3235.01 315.21 869.78 3.23 1188.22

20 VIZIANAGARAM 511.74 0 0 511.74 9.73 9.75 0 19.48

21 WARANGAL 0 0 0 0 339.59 0 0 339.59

22 WEST GODAVARI 307.87 400 29.42 737.29 311.14 400 55 766.14

Total 11078.44 4259.62 126.7 15464.76 3915.05 2556.03 250.43 6721.51 107

Annexure - V

DISTRICT-WISE PHYSICAL PROGRESS DURING 04/2007-03/2008

Sr. District Name IHHL (BPL)

IHHL (APL)

IHHL Total

Sanitary Comp

School Toilets

Balwadi Toilets

RSM PC SLWM Total Sch. covered

1 MADHYA PRADESH

1 ANUPPUR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 ASHOKNAGAR 6237 6600 12837 0 600 39 0 0 0 0

3 BALAGHAT 17180 33350 50530 15 452 365 1 0 0 2350

4 BARWANI 2603 2015 4618 1 468 78 2 0 2 612

5 BETUL 6063 15941 22004 1 261 18 0 0 0 923

6 BHIND 1311 12137 13448 3 6 3 0 0 0 0

7 BHOPAL 4965 4820 9785 0 129 52 0 0 0 0

8 BURHANPUR 6295 11500 17795 3 104 29 0 0 0 0

9 CHHATARPUR 5743 23401 29144 7 988 33 1 0 0 1221

10 CHHINDWARA 13392 14981 28373 1 491 42 0 0 0 0

11 DAMOH 2179 3305 5484 0 142 1 0 0 0 577

12 DATIA 1375 3535 4910 0 15 0 0 0 0 0

13 DEWAS 4822 3136 7958 3 172 0 0 0 0 1275

14 DHAR 14500 23935 38435 3 450 89 0 0 0 1269

15 DINDORI 7430 7000 14430 1 473 10 0 0 1 759

16 GUNA 4179 3078 7257 0 31 0 0 0 4 0

17 GWALIOR 3850 975 4825 0 76 49 0 0 0 0

18 HARDA 555 1091 1646 0 42 15 0 0 0 312

19 HOSHANGABAD 10714 6939 17653 0 561 601 0 0 227 1424

20 INDORE 7133 10814 17947 0 0 90 10 0 45 745

21 JABALPUR 31195 42208 73403 7 174 67 0 0 0 0

22 JHABUA 8578 2400 10978 0 388 20 0 0 0 1366

23 KATNI 9788 21009 30797 0 560 0 0 0 0 0

24 KHANDWA(EAST NIMAR)

21198 27674 48872 2 561 198 0 1 6 842

25 KHARGONE 5416 24164 29580 18 491 433 0 0 306 1242

26 MANDLA 15293 2992 18285 0 232 78 0 0 0 0

27 MANDSAUR 8337 21511 29848 0 8 3 0 0 0 500

28 MORENA 359 411 770 0 230 0 0 0 0 592

29 NARSINGHPUR 16452 17374 33826 2 740 230 0 0 74 1600

30 NEEMUCH 1412 47309 48721 0 62 2 0 0 0 349

31 PANNA 5564 1517 7081 2 14 3 0 0 0 384

32 RAISEN 12360 9783 22143 5 887 869 0 0 0 0

33 RAJGARH 11846 7401 19247 9 238 147 0 0 0 954

34 RATLAM 5624 10789 16413 1 259 32 4 0 0 0

35 REWA 18081 7950 26031 1 226 36 0 0 108 1207

36 SAGAR 517 0 517 0 59 15 0 0 0 985

37 SATNA 8207 12823 21030 0 800 331 5 0 0 0

38 SEHORE 17275 4605 21880 1 12 0 0 0 7 1138

39 SEONI 11353 5895 17248 0 179 204 0 0 0 1411

40 SHAHDOL 2092 9985 12077 4 18 61 0 0 0 0

41 SHAJAPUR 1036 23477 24513 0 62 59 7 0 15 781

42 SHEOPUR 864 1713 2577 1 209 0 0 0 0 0

43 SHIVPURI 6434 9379 15813 2 179 20 0 0 0 0

44 SIDHI 1000 1410 2410 0 0 3 0 0 0 0

45 TIKAMGARH 2883 481 3364 0 242 28 0 0 0 0

46 UJJAIN 4820 10266 15086 3 170 421 9 0 3 710

47 UMARIA 34 0 34 2 0 0 0 0 0 534

48 VIDISHA 5814 600 6414 0 269 88 0 0 0 0

48 Total 354358 513679 868037 98 12730 4862 39 1 798 26062 108

DISTRICT-WISE PHYSICAL PROGRESS DURING 04/2008-03/2009

Sr. District Name IHHL (BPL)

IH(APL)

HL IHHL Total

Sanitary Comp

School Toilets

Balwadi Toilets

RSM PC SLWM Total Sch. covered

1 MADHYA PRADESH

1 ANUPPUR 28640 21596 50236 19 1695 969 4 0 0 1695

2 ASHOKNAGAR 2069 9516 11585 0 486 90 0 0 0 1086

3 BALAGHAT 30540 27374 57914 0 281 278 0 0 0 281

4 BARWANI 14081 15007 29088 3 402 513 0 0 8 362

5 BETUL 3124 7539 10663 0 415 17 0 0 0 415

6 BHIND 3111 1799 4910 2 406 75 0 0 0 1054

7 BHOPAL 2887 5580 8467 0 120 15 0 0 0 280

8 BURHANPUR 3877 2839 6716 15 242 126 2 0 0 346

9 CHHATARPUR 2132 8461 10593 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 CHHINDWARA 11948 12007 23955 10 1823 244 0 0 0 2331

11 DAMOH 1930 2511 4441 1 0 5 0 0 0 49

12 DATIA 4461 8969 13430 0 193 37 0 0 0 478

13 DEWAS 11057 11358 22415 2 0 5 0 0 20 102

14 DHAR 6723 5350 12073 0 2080 383 0 0 0 2080

15 DINDORI 3207 5590 8797 3 174 247 0 0 3 174

16 GUNA 4965 14688 19653 2 355 46 0 0 3 1140

17 GWALIOR 5676 16279 21955 2 968 93 0 0 0 1585

18 HARDA 3428 1912 5340 0 43 245 0 0 0 43

19 HOSHANGABAD 7063 7008 14071 5 132 54 0 0 0 132

20 INDORE 1491 31960 33451 0 581 12 0 0 0 581

21 JABALPUR 15660 18410 34070 3 196 77 0 0 700 1529

22 JHABUA 4738 8661 13399 0 423 207 0 0 0 781

23 KATNI 3569 3157 6726 0 120 0 0 0 0 1103

24 KHANDWA(EAST NIMAR)

11843 15189 27032 0 285 529 0 0 0 285

25 KHARGONE 13251 59092 72343 2 1306 92 0 0 0 1306

26 MANDLA 993 8596 9589 2 73 7 0 0 0 1415

27 MANDSAUR 7544 13445 20989 12 391 335 0 0 0 124

28 MORENA 8424 34104 42528 2 215 71 0 0 0 215

29 NARSINGHPUR 3948 4788 8736 2 43 481 0 0 0 43

30 NEEMUCH 4886 5453 10339 3 571 77 0 0 0 571

31 PANNA 10740 11193 21933 0 281 17 0 0 0 281

32 RAISEN 23255 24163 47418 11 501 0 0 0 0 2464

33 RAJGARH 5607 755 6362 1 209 42 0 0 0 209

34 RATLAM 16307 20260 36567 0 66 37 0 0 0 1250

35 REWA 7564 7074 14638 4 1810 4 0 0 0 1810

36 SAGAR 5434 4199 9633 3 1208 60 0 0 0 1102

37 SATNA 22416 17656 40072 12 1770 1488 0 0 15 3374

38 SEHORE 10455 6472 16927 2 3 0 0 0 0 3

39 SEONI 7113 28551 35664 0 176 582 0 0 0 176

40 SHAHDOL 21938 17289 39227 1 167 291 0 0 0 965

41 SHAJAPUR 3916 5954 9870 1 176 66 0 0 0 176

42 SHEOPUR 142 6583 6725 0 71 8 0 0 0 584

43 SHIVPURI 14400 44313 58713 1 1184 29 0 0 0 2173

44 SIDHI 31358 31964 63322 1 0 0 0 0 0 1872

45 TIKAMGARH 7404 12779 20183 0 192 0 0 0 0 1070

46 UJJAIN 10025 29024 39049 3 478 583 0 0 3 478

47 UMARIA 1261 5571 6832 0 55 165 0 0 0 55

48 VIDISHA 13171 3440 16611 2 649 20 0 0 45 1548

48 Total 439772 665478 1105250 132 23015 8722 6 0 797 41176 109

DISTRICT-WISE PHYSICAL PROGRESS DURING 04/2009-03/2010

Sr. District Name IHHL (BPL)

IHHL (APL) IHHL Total

Sanitary Comp

School Toilets

Balwadi Toilets

RSM PC SLWM Total Sch. covered

1 MADHYA PRADESH

1 ALIRAJPUR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 ANUPPUR 7030 26893 33923 4 245 0 0 0 0 245

3 ASHOKNAGAR 627 1459 2086 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 BALAGHAT 18745 16854 35599 4 1 0 0 0 0 1

5 BARWANI 22044 18762 40806 0 263 107 0 0 0 541

6 BETUL 3636 17867 21503 0 149 6 0 0 0 149

7 BHIND 1911 2755 4666 1 34 26 0 0 0 34

8 BHOPAL 5155 13038 18193 0 7 15 0 0 0 88

9 BURHANPUR 8515 4019 12534 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 CHHATARPUR 5409 666 6075 0 139 21 0 0 0 139

11 CHHINDWARA 11015 12207 23222 5 1723 0 0 0 0 700

12 DAMOH 6652 3864 10516 2 193 29 0 0 0 280

13 DATIA 2159 5741 7900 0 108 31 0 0 0 108

14 DEWAS 9169 13647 22816 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 DHAR 35947 58406 94353 0 0 42 0 0 43 0

16 DINDORI 9350 8625 17975 1 252 0 0 0 0 252

17 GUNA 7905 10197 18102 4 129 30 0 0 9 124

18 GWALIOR 7978 10664 18642 7 119 0 0 0 9 0

19 HARDA 4947 1842 6789 0 19 0 0 0 0 19

20 HOSHANGABAD 7386 7285 14671 10 61 0 0 0 0 61

21 INDORE 10090 28435 38525 0 176 619 0 0 72 176

22 JABALPUR 11254 6072 17326 2 478 88 0 0 160 478

23 JHABUA 31561 48923 80484 4 22 0 0 0 0 22

24 KATNI 7733 13712 21445 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

25 KHANDWA(EAST NIMAR)

17765 15092 32857 0 64 407 0 0 0 64

26 KHARGONE 21204 23033 44237 0 205 0 0 0 0 205

27 MANDLA 3898 6507 10405 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

28 MANDSAUR 7335 40902 48237 19 123 92 0 0 0 1

29 MORENA 2805 15142 17947 2 262 20 0 0 0 262

30 NARSINGHPUR 5150 17390 22540 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

31 NEEMUCH 7463 14401 21864 13 2 64 0 0 0 2

32 PANNA 4069 3451 7520 0 335 0 0 0 0 335

33 RAISEN 17120 16236 33356 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

34 RAJGARH 16127 36308 52435 2 1719 55 0 0 0 1760

35 RATLAM 8531 14002 22533 0 128 61 0 0 0 0

36 REWA 45007 55879 100886 2 611 0 0 0 192 611

37 SAGAR 23207 22085 45292 3 1425 9 0 0 640 995

38 SATNA 88673 30405 119078 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

39 SEHORE 4373 14165 18538 0 0 0 0 0 18 0

40 SEONI 9097 8000 17097 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

41 SHAHDOL 10658 18905 29563 0 0 190 0 0 0 0

42 SHAJAPUR 14073 19591 33664 7 325 81 0 0 0 325

43 SHEOPUR 5184 17163 22347 0 48 26 0 0 0 48

44 SHIVPURI 1695 11615 13310 2 18 0 0 0 0 18

45 SIDHI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

46 SINGRAULI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0110

47 TIKAMGARH 7833 6520 14353 2 20 0 0 0 0 20

48 UJJAIN 14019 13102 27121 4 286 0 0 0 87 286

49 UMARIA 8051 3342 11393 7 628 10 0 0 0 628

50 VIDISHA 15872 14937 30809 1 223 28 0 0 0 223

50 Total 595427 770106 1365533 117 10540 2057 0 0 1230 9200

Sr. District Name IHHL (BPL)

IHHL (APL) IHHL Total

Sanitary Comp

School Toilets

Balwadi Toilets

RSM PC SLWM Total Sch. covered

Annexure - VI

DISTRICT-WISE FINANCIAL PROGRESS DURING 04/2007-03/2008 (Release VS Expenditure)

S. No

District Name

Release Amount (in Lakhs) Expenditure Amount (in Lakhs)

Center State Beneficiary Total Center State Beneficiary Total

1 MADHYA PRADESH

1 ANUPPUR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 ASHOKNAGAR 0 75.45 25.57 101.02 128.15 48.08 25.57 201.8

3 BALAGHAT 0 0 108.86 108.86 272.5 63.7 33.47 369.67

4 BARWANI 221.69 70 0 291.69 168.73 77.16 2.61 248.5

5 BETUL 0 0 0.32 0.32 38.51 9.32 7.59 55.42

6 BHIND 0 43.94 0 43.94 40.3 9.93 3.36 53.59

7 BHOPAL 0 0 6.95 6.95 62.67 20.66 16.21 99.54

8 BURHANPUR 178.92 25.55 19.77 224.24 81.65 23.68 0 105.32

9 CHHATARPUR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 CHHINDWARA 515.58 175 82.47 773.05 137.64 44.6 39.66 221.9

11 DAMOH 0 83.07 37.8 120.87 110.49 6.43 20.68 137.6

12 DATIA 57.08 18.9 0.46 76.44 3.15 0.22 0.48 3.85

13 DEWAS 0 0 4.5 4.5 52.61 15.33 4.32 72.26

14 DHAR 767.81 233.77 49.31 1050.89 313.67 109.29 73.82 496.78

15 DINDORI 172.84 87.41 99.59 359.84 125.03 37.15 40.19 202.36

16 GUNA 0 53.87 239.76 293.63 136.68 44.9 18.17 199.75

17 GWALIOR 0 0.01 0 0.01 40.06 0 0.54 40.6

18 HARDA 102.27 0 9.4 111.67 12.69 3 2.64 18.32

19 HOSHANGABAD 271.84 60.46 42.83 375.13 196.88 60.76 22.14 279.78

20 INDORE 70.93 86.56 4 161.49 79.63 34.57 8.64 122.84

21 JABALPUR 0 156.42 170.15 326.57 443.58 146.98 169.95 760.5

22 JHABUA 0 0 31.54 31.54 72.11 27.27 21.46 120.84

23 KATNI 0 5.68 0 5.68 160.63 52.79 0 213.42

24 KHANDWA(EAST NIMAR) 105.66 0 7 112.66 139.18 10.13 3.89 153.2

25 KHARGONE 232.04 135.67 10.32 378.03 397.82 127.29 16.68 541.79

26 MANDLA 162.96 52.29 67.36 282.61 147.6 49.07 38.46 235.13

27 MANDSAUR 313.11 116.73 62.56 492.4 189.08 58.1 50.74 297.92

28 MORENA 137.47 0.01 0 137.48 36.62 13.99 1.33 51.94

29 NARSINGHPUR 352.65 111.6 53.87 518.12 179.73 58.55 53.87 292.15

30 NEEMUCH 199 12.72 7.83 219.55 7.16 0 0 7.16

31 PANNA 144.55 146.24 24.14 314.93 47.72 40.42 21.91 110.05

32 RAISEN 86.54 209.48 92.72 388.74 227.7 132.08 39.07 398.85

33 RAJGARH 721.78 295.41 1172.79 2189.98 152.43 51.38 40.79 244.6

34 RATLAM 349.73 145.22 25.53 520.48 221.78 66.9 35.08 323.75

35 REWA 153.36 186.72 149.05 489.13 227.66 91.42 142.07 461.16

36 SAGAR 0 0 87.29 87.29 129.58 45.03 41.06 215.67

37 SATNA 0 217.9 8.85 226.75 217.05 82.43 26.71 326.19

38 SEHORE 228.77 133.22 58.53 420.52 96.32 30.68 23.08 150.08 111

S. No

District Name

Release Amount (in Lakhs) Expenditure Amount (in Lakhs)

Center State Beneficiary Total Center State Beneficiary Total

39 SEONI 505.96 165 217.49 888.45 528.26 94.19 108.85 731.3

40 SHAHDOL 176.64 0 3.2 179.84 38.03 6.38 1.53 45.94

41 SHAJAPUR 0 107.03 36.79 143.82 77.3 26.58 19.4 123.27

42 SHEOPUR 0 0 6.61 6.61 21.5 28.31 1.07 50.88

43 SHIVPURI 223.39 69.01 19.61 312.01 162.88 53.12 46.68 262.68

44 SIDHI 0 2.01 0 2.01 1 0 0 1

45 TIKAMGARH 0 45.11 5.35 50.46 65.89 24.77 9.04 99.7

46 UJJAIN 0 0.72 12.65 13.37 45.46 19.24 13.21 77.9

47 UMARIA 0 35.24 7.18 42.42 68.38 22.54 10.89 101.81

48 VIDISHA 341.01 105 1.5 447.51 144.19 62.18 1.5 207.86

Total 6793.58 3468.42 3071.51 13333.51 6247.67 2030.59 1258.38 9536.65

DISTRICT-WISE FINANCIAL PROGRESS DURING 04/2008-03/2009 (Release VS Expenditure)

S. No

District Name

Release Amount (in Lakhs) Expenditure Amount (in Lakhs)

Center State Beneficiary Total Center State Beneficiary Total

1 MADHYA PRADESH

1 ANUPPUR 0 73.78 23.87 97.65 104.75 36.87 7.7 149.32

2 ASHOKNAGAR 0 0 6.38 6.38 64.9 26.7 6.38 97.98

3 BALAGHAT 0 104 1.2 105.2 3.61 55.81 0 59.42

4 BARWANI 692.82 310.11 3.68 1006.61 97.53 26.82 15.77 140.12

5 BETUL 110.11 82 41.05 233.16 188.83 57.88 0.26 246.97

6 BHIND 0 0 0 0 26.59 7.48 0 34.07

7 BHOPAL 0 0.41 1.01 1.42 5.99 1.7 0.34 8.03

8 BURHANPUR 0 62.69 25.69 88.38 97.01 47.76 35.26 180.04

9 CHHATARPUR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 CHHINDWARA 0 0 11.2 11.2 414.21 131.04 28.08 573.32

11 DAMOH 885.77 291.87 12.43 1190.07 17.9 7.78 1.94 27.62

12 DATIA 0 0 0 0 59.89 16.64 0.01 76.54

13 DEWAS 44.95 26.71 1.68 73.34 73.86 39.34 1.68 114.88

14 DHAR 0 0 58.26 58.26 312.68 115.48 27.06 455.22

15 DINDORI 0 1.79 13.29 15.08 103.04 60.91 14.5 178.45

16 GUNA 0 0 0 0 2.7 1.87 0 4.57

17 GWALIOR 347.48 127.18 17.5 492.16 158.51 107.8 24.19 290.5

18 HARDA 0 46.43 0.94 47.37 73.23 31.78 11.17 116.18

19 HOSHANGABAD 322.1 169.48 50.51 542.09 181.87 70.87 56.04 308.78

20 INDORE 0 0 8.5 8.5 127.27 31.09 4.95 163.31

21 JABALPUR 494.86 291.17 49.38 835.41 208.75 65.7 49.38 323.82

22 JHABUA 0 20.83 0 20.83 210.77 82.56 0 293.33

23 KATNI 384.83 189.33 0 574.16 69.14 2.46 0 71.6

24 KHANDWA(EAST NIMAR) 512.74 253.96 75.64 842.34 253.2 109.23 41.6 404.04

25 KHARGONE 578.35 262.46 115.06 955.87 279.21 99.89 62.26 441.36

26 MANDLA 0 0 4 4 21.71 2.44 1.7 25.85

27 MANDSAUR 0 43.92 35.42 79.34 183.28 73.44 36.52 293.24

28 MORENA 0 53.54 25.41 78.95 128.81 45.04 29.41 203.26

29 NARSINGHPUR 0 50 5.87 55.87 123.08 18.2 5.87 147.15

30 NEEMUCH 0 75.18 7 82.18 140.51 48.45 10.2 199.16

31 PANNA 0 5 32.22 37.22 88.27 35.89 26.55 150.71

32 RAISEN 727.31 150.62 88.26 966.19 245.07 51.43 43.98 340.48

33 RAJGARH 0 0 18.37 18.37 513.61 196.86 30.3 740.77

34 RATLAM 0 30 53.2 83.2 215.36 95.42 35.91 346.69112

S. No

District Name

Release Amount (in Lakhs) Expenditure Amount (in Lakhs)

Center State Beneficiary Total Center State Beneficiary Total

35 REWA 710 506.98 58.84 1275.82 211.42 264.04 65.82 541.29

36 SAGAR 1383.96 646.53 2.57 2033.06 237.51 184.14 11.18 432.82

37 SATNA 760.45 262.34 59.9 1082.69 723 317.4 93.12 1133.53

38 SEHORE 0 0 0 0 1.5 0.38 0 1.88

39 SEONI 0 0 290.08 290.08 45.46 71.26 13.06 129.78

40 SHAHDOL 512.52 181.48 100.41 794.41 261.4 102.96 23.99 388.36

41 SHAJAPUR 353.37 49.56 11.75 414.68 114.38 44.28 11.75 170.41

42 SHEOPUR 0 3.99 14.15 18.14 0 10.9 3 13.9

43 SHIVPURI 0 2.99 1.31 4.3 78.44 28.45 6.58 113.46

44 SIDHI 548.44 200.85 109.64 858.93 333.33 168.39 92.12 593.84

45 TIKAMGARH 0 0 27.43 27.43 82.64 23.54 15.52 121.7

46 UJJAIN 397.77 181.85 47.19 626.81 209.42 87.98 30.37 327.77

47 UMARIA 0 15.26 12.48 27.74 99.68 49.3 5.18 154.17

48 VIDISHA 0 6.32 13 19.32 182.91 42.26 13 238.17

Total 9767.83 4780.61 1535.76 16084.21 7376.23 3197.93 993.7 11567.86

DISTRICT-WISE FINANCIAL PROGRESS DURING 04/2009-03/2010 (Release VS Expenditure)

Sl District Name

Release Amount (in Lakhs) Expenditure Amount (in Lakhs)

Center State Beneficiary Total Center State Beneficiary Total

1 MADHYA PRADESH

1 ALIRAJPUR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 ANUPPUR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 ASHOKNAGAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 BALAGHAT 462.76 116.73 18.44 597.93 447.56 132.49 2.6 582.65

5 BARWANI 0 0.04 43.73 43.77 707.36 297.8 43.73 1048.89

6 BETUL 97.54 8.37 10.57 116.48 91.71 35.12 0 126.83

7 BHIND 142.59 85.38 0 227.97 65.29 24.86 0 90.16

8 BHOPAL 107.72 35.63 0 143.35 11.25 3.53 1.67 16.45

9 BURHANPUR 230.79 34.9 15.83 281.52 202.92 49.61 24.72 277.26

10 CHHATARPUR 724.07 166.14 41.96 932.18 389.9 138.96 33.82 562.69

11 CHHINDWARA 521.31 239.45 60.22 820.98 478.68 192.66 60.58 731.92

12 DAMOH 0 0 0 0 253.09 124.52 17.61 395.22

13 DATIA 64.72 35.79 0 100.51 36.6 16 0 52.6

14 DEWAS 393.02 54.75 0 447.77 146.65 55.02 0 201.68

15 DHAR 435.9 257.21 71.53 764.64 697.41 291.69 112.87 1101.97

16 DINDORI 171.96 100.71 32.98 305.65 202.63 89.52 33.54 325.69

17 GUNA 133.17 0 0 133.17 91.46 28.53 20.43 140.42

18 GWALIOR 133.94 60.12 45.56 239.62 245.59 86.56 45.56 377.71

19 HARDA 60 23.35 21.15 104.5 76.73 31.71 14.94 123.38

20 HOSHANGABAD 0 0 0 0 298.55 112.53 40.74 451.82

21 INDORE 407.27 62.56 0 469.83 167.15 42.8 0 209.95

22 JABALPUR 0 0 38.96 38.96 309.31 128.72 38.76 476.78

23 JHABUA 491.99 112.32 35 639.31 366 23.7 3 392.7

24 KATNI 0 0 0 0 237.89 159.3 0 397.19

25 KHANDWA(EAST NIMAR) 0 0 0 0 330.67 141.29 47.91 519.87

26 KHARGONE 344.28 135.77 3.89 483.94 393.95 184.88 58.17 637

27 MANDLA 176.49 126.66 60.71 363.86 305.26 84.78 58.07 448.11

28 MANDSAUR 322.38 32.01 13.63 368.02 149.92 57.3 14.07 221.29

29 MORENA 95.12 30.15 10.51 135.78 94.82 38.74 9.22 142.77

30 NARSINGHPUR 231.91 48 49.37 329.28 139.06 111.27 49.37 299.7 113

Sl District Name

Release Amount (in Lakhs) Expenditure Amount (in Lakhs)

Center State Beneficiary Total Center State Beneficiary Total

31 NEEMUCH 93.81 38.2 12.75 144.76 86.04 41.93 16.79 144.76

32 PANNA 196.37 0 11.88 208.25 111.52 49.28 11.88 172.68

33 RAISEN 0 0 22.37 22.37 284.53 123.55 14.57 422.65

34 RAJGARH 382.65 165.83 428.65 977.13 597.73 255.51 33.77 887.01

35 RATLAM 158.05 55.74 28.93 242.72 158.23 70.89 34.22 263.34

36 REWA 517.33 0 101.77 619.1 717.52 305.69 77.34 1100.54

37 SAGAR 0 0 0 0 613.11 162.15 68.69 843.95

38 SATNA 639.08 243.09 118.83 1001 778.25 290.71 118.91 1187.87

39 SEHORE 0 0 27.49 27.49 322.03 106.25 55.96 484.23

40 SEONI 319.61 104.34 32 455.95 274.4 114.15 32 420.55

41 SHAHDOL 0 0 13.84 13.84 156.73 105.59 29.48 291.8

42 SHAJAPUR 0 0 27.37 27.37 252.79 99.16 27.37 379.32

43 SHEOPUR 229.09 0 4.4 233.49 83.46 0 0 83.46

44 SHIVPURI 248.02 152.03 0 400.05 286.92 126.24 0.88 414.03

45 SIDHI 490.82 0 62.31 553.13 4.5 1.55 1.98 8.03

46 SINGRAULI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

47 TIKAMGARH 448.92 133.1 29.83 611.85 250.25 118.28 41.74 410.27

48 UJJAIN 0 1.11 49.13 50.24 222.97 77.99 49.18 350.14

49 UMARIA 240.88 46.77 26.12 313.77 292.41 47.97 22.32 362.69

50 VIDISHA 273.92 148.99 87.41 510.32 301.34 149.23 82.02 532.59

Total 9987.48 2855.24 1659.14 14501.85 12732.13 4930 1450.49 19112.62

Annexure -VII

DISTRICT-WISE PHYSICAL PROGRESS DURING 04/2007-03/2008

Sr. District Name IHHL (BPL)

IHHL (APL)

IHHL Total

Sanitary Comp

School Toilets

Balwadi Toilets

RSM PC SLWM Total Sch.

covered

1 GUJARAT

1 AHMEDABAD 11176 16810 27986 20 0 19 0 0 5 881

2 AMRELI 10691 7570 18261 9 50 135 0 0 0 546

3 ANAND 6226 8530 14756 9 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 BANAS KANTHA 31979 56281 88260 18 1195 247 0 0 0 0

5 BHARUCH 16091 11131 27222 1 64 227 0 0 0 426

6 BHAVNAGAR 6532 13050 19582 3 72 17 0 0 1 355

7 DAHOD 38530 15095 53625 54 0 272 0 0 0 0

8 DANGS 5425 1338 6763 6 0 26 1 0 0 0

9 GANDHINAGAR 2827 5812 8639 7 38 171 0 0 0 0

10 JAMNAGAR 2859 7316 10175 22 11 22 0 0 0 0

11 JUNAGADH 9701 11771 21472 14 182 26 0 0 0 0

12 KACHCHH 7330 9804 17134 2 69 0 0 0 0 0

13 KHEDA 17104 8489 25593 10 208 490 0 0 80 0

14 MAHESANA 19314 77271 96585 5 0 320 0 0 132 306

15 NARMADA 13747 3802 17549 3 72 27 0 0 0 0

16 NAVSARI 27913 2074 29987 2 209 180 0 0 0 410

17 PANCH MAHALS 41327 5386 46713 0 0 0 0 0 0 1667

18 PATAN 9334 17506 26840 18 31 25 0 0 0 0

19 PORBANDAR 3190 13278 16468 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20 RAJKOT 19674 12853 32527 23 226 0 0 0 0 0

21 SABAR KANTHA 28082 27636 55718 9 17 87 0 0 10 0

22 SURAT 19481 10878 30359 49 0 852 0 0 0 0 114

Sr. District Name IHHL (BPL)

IHHL (APL)

IHHL Total

Sanitary Comp

School Toilets

Balwadi Toilets

RSM PC SLWM Total Sch.

covered

23 SURENDRANAGAR 13225 19783 33008 16 34 10 0 0 0 0

24 VADODARA 39582 37922 77504 18 0 2036 1 0 0 0

25 VALSAD 25516 19655 45171 0 15 22 0 0 0 0

25 Total 426856 421041 847897 318 2493 5211 2 0 228 4591

DISTRICT-WISE PHYSICAL PROGRESS DURING 04/2008-03/2009

Sr. District Name IHHL (BPL)

IHHL (APL)

IHHL Total

Sanitary Comp

School Toilets

Balwadi Toilets

RSM PC SLWM Total Sch.

covered

1 GUJARAT

1 AHMEDABAD 17558 18280 35838 4 0 0 0 0 0 36

2 AMRELI 17158 17177 34335 10 274 191 0 0 0 284

3 ANAND 13401 13814 27215 17 0 32 2 0 0 515

4 BANAS KANTHA 25194 35787 60981 0 7 0 0 0 49 2065

5 BHARUCH 24892 13744 38636 12 250 127 0 0 0 250

6 BHAVNAGAR 1731 2320 4051 0 0 56 0 0 37 83

7 DAHOD 34158 11812 45970 0 0 0 0 0 0 1174

8 DANGS 6624 2134 8758 0 0 2 0 0 0 51

9 GANDHINAGAR 2011 6700 8711 4 461 320 0 0 0 598

10 JAMNAGAR 27056 39732 66788 17 58 49 1 0 0 473

11 JUNAGADH 23249 30196 53445 1 0 0 0 0 0 850

12 KACHCHH 10710 20854 31564 1 118 0 0 0 0 634

13 KHEDA 32787 9041 41828 4 424 296 0 0 0 1261

14 MAHESANA 8771 20000 28771 17 0 0 0 0 0 47

15 NARMADA 6841 1234 8075 0 41 104 0 0 0 416

16 NAVSARI 20651 55998 76649 1 182 0 0 0 0 171

17 PANCH MAHALS 36397 20938 57335 3 0 2 0 0 349 0

18 PATAN 9626 19553 29179 11 172 230 0 0 0 762

19 PORBANDAR 2888 2043 4931 0 0 0 0 0 0 180

20 RAJKOT 25416 18459 43875 22 691 182 0 0 0 2364

21 SABAR KANTHA 45738 57065 102803 8 55 22 0 0 14 1564

22 SURAT 27140 13173 40313 0 0 7 0 0 0 1096

23 SURENDRANAGAR 11442 42011 53453 10 91 11 0 0 2 445

24 VADODARA 23243 28872 52115 70 0 0 0 0 0 1104

25 VALSAD 28493 88 28581 3 356 203 0 0 0 379

25 Total 483175 501025 984200 215 3180 1834 3 0 451 16802

DISTRICT-WISE PHYSICAL PROGRESS DURING 04/2009-03/2010

Sr. District Name IHHL (BPL)

IHHL (APL)

IHHL Total

Sanitary Comp

School Toilets

Balwadi Toilets

RSM PC SLWM Total Sch.

covered

1 GUJARAT

1 AHMEDABAD 12855 7155 20010 2 0 65 0 0 10 0

2 AMRELI 4590 8649 13239 8 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 ANAND 23635 17234 40869 3 0 17 0 0 0 0

4 BANAS KANTHA 18326 21407 39733 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 BHARUCH 11253 14103 25356 18 0 16 0 0 0 0

6 BHAVNAGAR 7427 13202 20629 0 47 134 0 0 0 47

7 DAHOD 8535 2896 11431 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8 DANGS 6248 3027 9275 2 0 98 0 0 0 0 115

Sr. District Name IHHL (BPL)

IHHL (APL)

IHHL Total

Sanitary Comp

School Toilets

Balwadi Toilets

RSM PC SLWM Total Sch.

covered

9 GANDHINAGAR 1010 15683 16693 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 JAMNAGAR 4787 18086 22873 0 0 166 0 0 0 0

11 JUNAGADH 5219 22994 28213 0 66 62 0 0 0 0

12 KACHCHH 728 2850 3578 1 2 0 0 0 0 2

13 KHEDA 19273 9702 28975 0 148 99 11 0 0 148

14 MAHESANA 8385 15712 24097 13 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 NARMADA 16847 3677 20524 0 0 17 0 0 0 0

16 NAVSARI 1405 1110 2515 9 0 315 0 0 0 0

17 PANCH MAHALS 28381 32341 60722 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18 PATAN 13576 30030 43606 0 0 0 0 0 24 0

19 PORBANDAR 1356 558 1914 0 0 25 0 0 0 0

20 RAJKOT 8771 6620 15391 9 0 5 0 0 0 0

21 SABAR KANTHA 20841 29686 50527 2 392 1 0 0 0 392

22 SURAT 42706 33787 76493 0 0 45 0 0 378 0

23 SURENDRANAGAR 5484 6388 11872 36 42 534 0 0 0 42

24 VADODARA 3665 4815 8480 0 0 0 0 0 564 0

25 VALSAD 8056 2007 10063 0 0 0 0 0 0 379

25 Total 283359 323719 607078 106 697 1599 11 0 976 1010

Annexure - VIII

DISTRICT-WISE FINANCIAL PROGRESS DURING 04/2007-03/2008 (Release VS Expenditure)

Sl District Name

Release Amount (in Lakhs) Expenditure Amount (in Lakhs)

Center State Beneficiary Total Center State Beneficiary Total

1 GUJARAT

1 AHMEDABAD 313.11 190.95 100.64 604.7 21.3 49.9 65.97 137.17

2 AMRELI 265.83 111.01 4 380.84 104.7 33.11 3.56 141.37

3 ANAND 108.24 0 10.3 118.54 52.78 85.24 0 138.02

4 BANAS KANTHA 630.36 321.6 84.39 1036.35 583.61 161.36 82.9 827.87

5 BHARUCH 303.74 28.76 7.71 340.21 82.57 72.75 0 155.32

6 BHAVNAGAR 186.51 46.9 0 233.41 138.99 56.55 3.09 198.63

7 DAHOD 553.86 130.98 266.25 951.09 663.96 226.69 257.97 1148.62

8 DANGS 52.7 27.84 16.74 97.28 50.71 31 0.8 82.51

9 GANDHINAGAR 0 15.13 4.23 19.36 18.98 6.04 6.1 31.12

10 JAMNAGAR 306.24 0 5 311.24 24.7 6.4 4.08 35.18

11 JUNAGADH 425.65 9.85 44.22 479.72 151.41 40.92 27.45 219.78

12 KACHCHH 199.68 29.91 5.74 235.33 13.74 31.9 1.8 47.44

13 KHEDA 473.73 0 4.36 478.09 226 70.89 2.1 298.99

14 MAHESANA 294.05 94.73 59.3 448.08 82.02 33.12 27.6 142.74

15 NARMADA 0 57.58 83.51 141.09 136.5 87.91 0 224.41

16 NAVSARI 321.95 64.22 48.15 434.32 209.25 94.98 0 304.23

17 PANCH MAHALS 693 147.53 1463.51 2304.04 394.65 130.38 127.04 652.07

18 PATAN 411.9 0 32.53 444.43 118.04 38.09 30.46 186.59

19 PORBANDAR 65.76 36.54 0 102.3 4.29 38.31 2.36 44.96

20 RAJKOT 577.65 0 0 577.65 152.28 65.33 38.04 255.65

21 SABAR KANTHA 515.64 0 72.15 587.79 137.18 60.09 72.2 269.47

22 SURAT 720.39 128.1 163 1011.49 394.24 133.58 124.69 652.51

23 SURENDRANAGAR 275.64 10.79 90.23 376.66 256.53 37.84 18.95 313.32

24 VADODARA 554.85 234.93 148.18 937.96 116.56 139.28 0.15 255.99

25 VALSAD 277.85 94.05 0 371.9 57.68 19.32 0 77

Total 8528.33 1781.4 2714.14 13023.87 4192.67 1750.98 897.31 6840.96 116

DISTRICT-WISE FINANCIAL PROGRESS DURING 04/2008-03/2009 (Release VS Expenditure)

Sl

District Name

Release Amount (in Lakhs) Expenditure Amount (in Lakhs)

Center State Beneficiary Total Center State Beneficiary Total

1 GUJARAT

1 AHMEDABAD 0 191.43 114.19 305.62 210.61 93.26 114.19 418.06

2 AMRELI 0 132.41 7.2 139.61 148.78 66.07 11.39 226.24

3 ANAND 0 194.19 5.35 199.54 37.27 14.17 5.35 56.79

4 BANAS KANTHA 0 0 54.37 54.37 269.32 68.68 68.26 406.26

5 BHARUCH 0 6.51 0.24 6.75 269.5 39.39 8.24 317.13

6 BHAVNAGAR 0 0 0 0 91.55 23.93 9.8 125.28

7 DAHOD 0 16 17.5 33.5 84.63 23.1 17.5 125.23

8 DANGS 156.43 0 0 156.43 0 1 0 1

9 GANDHINAGAR 0 0 2.97 2.97 35.62 13.24 3.37 52.23

10 JAMNAGAR 0 29.48 75.72 105.2 288.96 104.72 72.8 466.48

11 JUNAGADH 0 2.6 22.2 24.8 142.03 38.46 34.79 215.28

12 KACHCHH 0 1.69 23.65 25.34 148.47 23.42 29.54 201.43

13 KHEDA 0 93.73 1.99 95.72 320.73 129.03 1.99 451.75

14 MAHESANA 0 0.06 0 0.06 86.22 32.08 12.56 130.86

15 NARMADA 387.66 109.46 50.49 547.61 82.55 41.36 69.04 192.95

16 NAVSARI 0 3.59 0 3.59 313.46 8.54 51.81 373.81

17 PANCH MAHALS 0 217.93 124.83 342.76 351.6 115.77 68.16 535.53

18 PATAN 0 81.3 30.78 112.08 99.36 29.75 14.21 143.32

19 PORBANDAR 26.81 6.67 0 33.48 53.25 18.5 0 71.75

20 RAJKOT 0 195.18 109.45 304.63 288.89 80.47 43.93 413.29

21 SABAR KANTHA 0 155.08 47.67 202.75 427.15 148.21 47.38 622.74

22 SURAT 0 105.47 60.6 166.07 290.46 89.26 85.56 465.28

23 SURENDRANAGAR 407.91 177.28 23.04 608.23 124.15 11.84 0 135.99

24 VADODARA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

25 VALSAD 0 82.57 118.39 200.96 177.98 95.47 114.27 387.72

Total 978.81 1802.62 890.63 3672.06 4342.54 1309.72 884.14 6536.4

DISTRICT-WISE FINANCIAL PROGRESS DURING 04/2009-03/2010 (Release VS Expenditure)

Sl

District Name

Release Amount (in Lakhs) Expenditure Amount (in Lakhs)

Center State Beneficiary Total Center State Beneficiary Total

1 GUJARAT

1 AHMEDABAD 136.72 0 92.23 228.95 274.15 32.79 92.23 399.17

2 AMRELI 117.47 0 22.88 140.35 120.56 40.96 12.52 174.04

3 ANAND 250.55 155.05 1.2 406.8 224.88 92.99 1.2 319.07

4 BANAS KANTHA 391.35 120.93 20.56 532.84 197.09 68.82 22.76 288.67

5 BHARUCH 0 265.62 144.23 409.85 78.23 185.15 136.23 399.61

6 BHAVNAGAR 0 15.87 65.83 81.7 89.94 28.23 0.95 119.12

7 DAHOD 322 333.2 0 655.2 305.78 101.92 0 407.7

8 DANGS 0 85.61 34.04 119.65 161.99 90.63 50.76 303.38

9 GANDHINAGAR 0 0 2.65 2.65 12.72 4.87 2.65 20.24

10 JAMNAGAR 214.33 298.5 37.85 550.68 125.87 51.98 18.29 196.14

11 JUNAGADH 0 68.92 19.61 88.53 74.83 22.92 10.15 107.9

12 KACHCHH 88.02 64.95 13.94 166.91 23.99 8.45 1.26 33.7

13 KHEDA 0 400 1.79 401.79 154.46 96.96 1.87 253.29

14 MAHESANA 0 4.34 17.88 22.22 81.63 26.83 12.79 121.25

15 NARMADA 0 141.9 0.1 142 364.78 110.95 49.61 525.34

16 NAVSARI 144.48 205.73 122.43 472.64 97.51 73.44 122.63 293.58 117

Sl

District Name

Release Amount (in Lakhs) Expenditure Amount (in Lakhs)

Center State Beneficiary Total Center State Beneficiary Total

17 PANCH MAHALS 467.56 212.4 657.12 1337.08 485.06 179.39 123.82 788.27

18 PATAN 0 61.83 24.78 86.61 172.01 75.05 44.5 291.56

19 PORBANDAR 39.28 143.7 0 182.98 79.25 64.3 2.04 145.59

20 RAJKOT 0 90.69 0 90.69 228.31 99 46.68 373.99

21 SABAR KANTHA 225.58 229.56 47.06 502.2 288.48 125.68 47.05 461.21

22 SURAT 517.95 489.59 151.26 1158.8 753.01 340.47 145.24 1238.72

23 SURENDRANAGAR 0 0.06 8.49 8.55 67.57 23.89 3.21 94.67

24 VADODARA 0 0 1.5 1.5 689.35 226.78 103.55 1019.68

25 VALSAD 121.62 93.95 0 215.57 2.89 182.8 0 185.69

Total 3036.91 3482.4 1487.43 8006.74 5154.34 2355.25 1051.99 8561.58

118

Water Aid, India403-408, 4th Floor, CNI Bhavan,

16 Pandit Pant Marg, New Delhi-110 001

India Wash ForumK-U, Pitampura, Delhi-110034

WaterAid IndiaWaterAid started working in India in 1986. Currently, WaterAid India (WAI) works in

10 states; Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chattisgarh, Delhi, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya

Pradesh, Orissa, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh. WaterAid India's objectives are to:

vEnable improved access to sustainable, safe and adequate water supply and

sanitation through water, sanitation and hygiene projects;

vCreate a knowledge base for promotion and dissemination of best practice and

advocacy at different levels;

vDevelop and foster an enabling environment for effective programme

implementation, in-country funding, organisational learning and growth.

India Wash Forum India Wash Forum is a registered Indian trust, started working in India in 2008. It is

affiliated to the WSSCC Geneva and is a membership based coalition of Indian

organizations and individuals working on water, sanitation and hygiene. India Wash

Forum’s objectives are to:

vPromote knowledge generation through research and documentation which is

linked to and supported grassroots action in the water-sanitation-hygiene

sectors.

vSupport field-based NGOs and networks in their technical and programmatic

work.

vUndertake policy advocacy and influence work through Monitoring and

evaluations, Media advocacy and campaigns, and Fact finding missions

vUndertake lobbying and networking to promote common objectives in the

sector.

Sanitation Sector Financing in IndiaThe present report of Sanitation Financing in India is an attempt to analyze the

quantum of money that is being spent under various Central and State sponsored

schemes towards improving sanitation in the country. The report is the outcome of the

study focused on four states, viz. Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh and

Madhya Pradesh, to document the flow of fund, utilization of the available funds under

various tied and untied schemes and effectiveness of financing in changing the

sanitation scenario of four states. The report is based on the information available from

urban and rural development departments of the four states, ULBs, District

Headquarters and NGOs involved in the sanitation related activities of the country.