With a lot said and heard about ‘smart cities’ and
urbanization these days, there comes immense need of realizing this sold dream.
Unfortunately, historical facts, historically progressive
data, current data and current ground realities all are against the wave and
hence ask for very detailed analysis, thorough ground check and well systematized
implementation/upgrade and running of system. The responsibility lies with both
government and citizens.
What are Smart cities
and Urban Planning?
Though there is no concrete answer to how smart cities will
look like. Buzzing contexts include creative, cyber digital, e-governed,
entrepreneurial, wired, massive infrastructures, etc. But above all this, there
are very basic feature these urban areas must include and that is smart city
should be people centric. These cities should work for the people. It should
provide basic amenities like drinking water, electricity, sanitation etc. to
all its residents and migratory people. It should understand that all citizens
have right to migrate, be they poor or not. Hence, it should be able to grow inclusively
in future. Its growth should be commensurate with growth of nearby areas. The notion
of smart city is process rather than a goal.
Urban planning is way to realize the notion of urban area by
creating appropriate plan, upgrading existing plan, implementing it and running
for certain time period till again a planning is needed to accommodate the
prevailing situations. It must be recognized that urban planning cannot be
divorced from urban governance.
Why it’s in news?
Finance Minister on July 10, 2014 made budgetry allocation
of Rs. 7060 Crore for smart cities.
Currently India has 31% of people staying in urban location
which contributes to more than 67% of GDP. People living in urban areas is
expected to grow and contribute 75% to GDP by 2021.
Main reason behind growth of urban population is migration
of people from rural areas to urban areas. Currently, agriculture sector
contributes 14% in GDP while employs 53% of people. It’s evident that there
will be more people moving out of agriculture sector and moving to services and
industries sector and eventually major portion landing in urban areas for job.
This might have raised the need of more cities to
accommodate increasing urban population. A planned city will be definitely a
good idea.
Government activities
in Urban Planning post independence in relation with Five year plans.
Urban Planning is not a new concept; it started as early as
in 1st Five year plan in 1951. In 1st and 2nd (1951-56-61)
five year plan various organization like NBO and DDA were created. 3rd
Five year plan (1961-66) made it clear that the preparation of master plan is
responsibility of state and local governments. 4th and 5th
five year plan (1969-74-79) continued on similar agenda. Hence, important
organizations like MMRDA for Mumbai development and HUDCO to fund projects of
Urban Local Bodies (ULB) were created. Legislations like Urban Land (Ceiling
and Regulation) Act, 1976 were enacted to improve urban legislation. 6th
five year plan stressed development on development of small and medium sized
towns (< 1 Lakhs population). Hence, IDMST was launched in 1979.
7th five
year plan (1985-90) saw landmark initiatives. National Commission on
Urbanization submitted its report in 1988 and 65th constitutional
Amendment Act (CAA) was introduced but failed to be passed in Rajya Sabha.
However with some revision it passed as 74th CAA (The
Municipalities) in 1972 and came into force in 1993.
During 8th Five Year Plan (1992-97) – Mega Cities
Scheme was introduced (1993-94) covering 5 Mega Cities – Mumbai, Calcutta,
Chennai, Bangalore and Hyderabad. IDMST was revamped to boost employment
generation in small cities and town to curtail migration
9th Five Year Plan (1997-2002) emphasized on
decentralization and financial autonomy of ULBs. New programs were created and
old were merged.
Eventually, it was identified that funding for small and
medium towns were too low and didn’t covered all towns as well. E.g.: IDSMT
scheme covered 904 towns till end of 8th five year plan but central
assistance released so far was Rs. 283.96 Crores. Also, there were 4500 urban
centre which could qualify for small and medium towns (< 3 Lakhs) but only
1/5th were covered.
10th Five Year Plan (2002-07) recognized the fact
that urbanization played a key role in accelerating economic growth in 1980s
and 1990s as a result of economic liberalization. These were due to procedural
issues and limited budgetary allocations. It stressed that without
strengthening the democratic structure and institutional building of ULB, the
goal of urban development cannot be achieved.
11th five year plan (2007-12) focused on
Strengthening ULBs through capacity buildings and better financial managements,
deregulation and development of land, dismantling public sector monopoly over
urban infrastructure, establishing autonomous regulatory framework to oversee
functioning of public and Private sector, reducing incidence of poverty and
using innovation and technology in big way. Major emphasis on skill
development, self help group and micro finance for self employment.
In crux, it was too lately identified that we have done many
wrongs and a strong bid to rectify things started in 11th five year
plan. Till then, it had already led to many problems.
Firstly, enormous money spent and no one is accountable yet.
Unfortunately, even after that there is no clear picture of how planning will
go ahead.
Secondly, many cities and towns established with improper
planning. This has led to missing basic amenities even in mega cities like
Mumbai and Bangalore. Creation of slums and non-inclusion on need of poor are
other major issues.
Thirdly, this has led to wide gap between urban cities and
nearby areas. The main reason behind is lack of integrated planning.
Analysis of currently
running programs – JNNURM (Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission) and
RAY (Rajiv Awas Yojana)
Centre launched JNNURM in December 2005. Its emphasis was on
basic services to urban poor including housing, water supply, sanitation, road
network, urban transport, inner/older city areas development. Earlier
programmes like Mega City, IDSMT, NSDP and VAMBAY were merged with it.
JNNURM made mandatory
for each city (which fell under it) to formulate its City Development Plan
(CDP) and bring out long term vision for city. It included repealment of land
ceiling Act, 1976, empowerment of ULBs, PPP, leverage private sector, capacity
building and improvement in municipal accounting.
12th 5 year plan consolidated JNNURM by adding
Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY) to it for creating slum free India.
JNNURM hope was to harness potential of cities as growth
engine. It required huge funds but also there was need to develop CDPs.
Eventually JNNURM landed into multiple issues.
Firstly, CDPs didn’t plan for informal sector. Example:
areas under slums are not included as they are considered illegal. This is flaw
as informal sector provides majority of jobs. Hence it leads to another issue
as CDP hence involves only formal economies. This now led to flawed assumptions
of economic factors while planning.
Secondly, pressing
need of CDP led weak ULBs to outsource plan preparation to external
consultants. The plans had little buy-in as it usually didn’t involved local
people. Hence, there is often mismatch between DP and ‘Lived’ City.
Thirdly, the outsourced plan had parallel planning process
that had neither relation with DP nor each other nor legal backing. Moreover,
they remained an exercise to get funds which were usually invested on large
infrastructure projects and hence deviating from prime need of basic amenities
facilitation.
Fourthly, there is little space to intervene during creation
of plan. Hence, citizens and political network have challenged DPs resulting in
long conflicts.
Lastly, non clear policing and unknown accountability helped
states and cities which responded tactically revealing resistance, subversion,
negotiation and compliance where it suited their political and financial
interests.
Rajiv Awas Yojna
(RAY) was created to solve slum issues in the context of land
availabilities in cities for Mission, tenability of slum, eligibility of slum
dwellers and their affordability.
Lack of land availability and difference in perceptions of
definitions of tenability has made RAY a non-starter in many cities. Vested
interests while land identification and resistance of land owners (whose land
has been encroached upon) to use slum lands for rehabilitation has caused issues.
Land availability and tenability is supply side problem
while issues of determining eligibility of house hold and theory affordability
is demand side problem
There is problem of defining who will have title of house.
Problem with assigning title to individual is people can sell the property for
some money either due to their needs or when forced upon by unethical groups
and again start living in slums. Another problem is how to give housing to
those who doesn’t have any identity proof yet.
Issue with affordability is concerning too. Deepak Parekh committee decided on Rs. 3000 for per month as
loan repayment for housing but the problem is whether slum dwellers would be
able to pay taking into account that many households in urban areas still live
with Rs 5000 (approx) per month income. Thus the amount suggested is simply
exclusion of neediest. There is need of more subsidies as such.
RAY provides for in-situ upgradation, redevelopment or
resettlement options. Upgradation and resettlement have their issues with land
availability and tenability while resettlement opens other aspects. In many
cases related to resettlement, slum people deny to occupy houses as new settlement is often in out skirts of city. High transportation cost makes them skeptic of
moving out. Also, resettlement often breaks their current social network.
Hence, the programme is not well documented and well thought
over ground realities.
Current Situations
Current situation is worrying. Though India has been able to
transform people in urban style of living but basic necessities for urban
settlement is yet not present and these are due to multiple factors.
Firstly, the implementation of 74th CAA remains
half hearted as state governments have not fully empowered ULBs to carry out
tasks as per provisions.
Secondly, although urban development is in state list,
states couldn’t think of integrated urban development strategy and planning.
Thirdly, 74th amendment didn’t mentioned proper
devolution of financial autonomy. There is huge degree of financial control of
state government over local governments which is evident from fact that
Rajasthan and Haryana government abolished property tax without consulting
local bodies. But then again, local bodies also failed to utilize adequately
those taxes and fee power which are vested with them.
Fourthly, India’s Planning process has been top down and
sector based. Additionally, communication gap between planners at national
level and city level has caused more issues. NHSH and other reports tell that
urban planning in India is plagued with fragmentation, centralization and
outdated focus of planning.
Fourthly, urban areas are constantly stressed for civic
amenities like access to electricity, drinking water, sanitation, LPG, etc. Road
congestion, traffic, air/water pollution, waste management and disposal, law
and other areas are also there
Fifthly, urban bodies lack power and resources for creating
Development Plans. Hence, parastatal bodies like Urban Development Authority
have virtually taken over city promoting real estate and infrastructure.
Sixthly, there is constant issue with limited use of public
transport system. Bigger and ever expanding cities are one of the reasons,
which have caused more transportation time. Also, disperse population led to
absence of last mile connectivity. Hence, people prefer of their own vehicle.
Seventhly, there is huge shortfall of planners in India. As
per Institute of Town Planners of India (ITPI) there are only 1.32 planners per
lakh population while in U.K its 37.63 planners per lakh population. Again for
implementing and running the plan, there is need of management specialists. The
problem exaggerates when many of planners are employed by corporate
institutions like real estate management companies. Cash strapped ULBs are not
able to afford them. Hence, situation is worse.
Eighthly, planning violations has resulted in poor
realization of plan. The illegalities not only benefit slum dwellers but middle
and upper class also through informal plotting and sale of layout against laws.
Planning by deregulation is one cause of this which means “calculated
informality” where state government deliberately withdraws regulatory powers.
E.g.: in case if Solapur where planning authorities can reserve land for public
amenities. This has led to unethical build up at many such places either in
form of slum or commercial buildings. Officials pocket money in lieu of
neglect. Furthermore, these have opened a playground for politicians during
election and wield power after election as well.
Ninthly, rehabilitation of slums is one major area to be
worked on. Rajiv Awas Yojna (RAY) was created to achieve this but the programme
is not very successful.
Tenthly, there are actually villages in the city which come
into geographical area due to city expansion. People from these places hence
lost their land in the name of development or in the hands of land sharks.
These people started working in small and midsize industry and have income to
place them above poverty line but if we account factors like number of people
sharing single room, sanitation, drinking water, type of roof etc. there
household profile is still diminishing.
How to tackle issues
At present dearth of situation particularly in cases of
smaller towns and cities where planning has gone astonishingly worse, it’s not
easy to tackle issues. It would need concrete participation of both
administration and civil bodies to work with planning and morality to uplift
the city. There are a few important points though which can help existing urban
bodies in renaissance and setting up new cities. Many of them are even
re-iterated in Five Year Plans but not fully implemented.
Firstly, E-Governance is need of hour. Harnessing power of
Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) for proper implementation
would ensure transparency, accountability, proper issue management
Secondly, measures should be Proactive rather than reactive.
Planning ahead is smart idea. It needs to factor in future population growth,
rural to urban migration to ensure proper sustainability of cities by
delivering basic amenities and prevention of any further slum creation.
Thirdly, urban policies cannot ignore rural development. New
members of urban areas are strongly connected and influenced by rural areas.
Even overall urban population is affected by happenings in rural areas.
Fourthly, planning should be participatory and
decentralized. Planning should be based on actual experience not merely
technical expertise and local people/formal sections/informal sections of
society should be involved in every stage of planning. There is immediate need
for restructuring the institutional structure for planning and bringing the
responsibility of planning to lowest level of elected govt. Reading market
signals while re-planning is very important factor to consider.
Fifthly, to accommodate people migrating from agriculture
area or people coming under urban area by expansion of cities, there is a need
to create more jobs and also ensure that migrating population is skilled.
Failure to these will lead to transformation of rural poor to urban poor.
Sixthly, there is need for local government to generate
internal revenues. Internal revenue generation of municipality is a reflection
of quality of its governance, transparency and accountability of
administration. 12th Finance commission indicates that total revenue
of Indian Municipal sector in 2001-2001 was 0.67 % of GDP where municipalities
own revenue constituted merely 0.38 %. It’s quite low if compared to Brazil where
municipalities own revenue is 2.6% of GDP. Internal revenues can be elevated by
implementing good property tax system on the basis of – identification,
inventory management, assessment, collection and enforcement mechanism
Seventhly, market financing need to be generated for bigger
project implementation as and when required. Municipalities revenues need to be
in good health so that municipal bonds issued can be traded on low interest
rates. Even before that, municipalities have to demonstrate that it is capable
of generating stock of fund on an on-going basis to repay the maturity amount.
In case of smaller cities ‘Pooled Financing’ can be an option where number of
cities come together to avail benefits of scale and credit. In this, number of
small cities come together to prove their worthiness. There is need to market
making institutions also which can help in providing guarantees, investing in
lower rated bonds, underwriting and providing subordinate debts
Eighthly, new cities need to make sure that environmental
and social costs are quite high as in case of Gurgaon and poorer sections are
not completely ignored as in case of Jamshedpur.
Ninthly, there is need to promote more urban planners and
urban mangers, associate more planners with state, market and civil society,
educate civil society people in planning, balance generalist and specialist
planners, expand scope of planners from physical to integrated planning
Tenthly, it’s very important to provide detailed outline in
existing or any new governmental programs. One of the major areas of maximum
focus should be on non-ambiguity in policy. A well articulated vision and
objectives, phased goals, associated deadline and accountability will
definitely help.
Conclusion
Urbanization in real sense is real change. Important feature
of urbanization influencing politics and policies is: It undermines old form of
political mobilization based on caste and religious identities and favors local
issues to be resolved. Hence, it not only provides opportunity to curb social
issues but provides a way to attain ‘Growth for all and Growth of all’ policy.
But there are challenging issues and limited resources at
the moment. A very detailed planning along with proactive help from society can
only help, assuming that all other factors pertaining to unknown external
conditions fall in place.
This article is based on Yojana Magazine Sep 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment