What is the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor all about? Part II

Quick Note: This post is the second of a two-part series on the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor.

In the previous post, I discussed the scale and context of the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor. The project has been billed as so wide-reaching that its own objectives have been changing over the years. For instance, the development of MRTS projects and a solar plant have been added to the DMIC’s ambit, along with providing expertise for building a convention centre in the national capital![1] I broadly discussed some of the socio-economic concerns arising out of the project last time. In this post, I would like to focus on some specific environmental concerns raised as a result of going through with the project.

One, the foundational idea behind the corridor will enhance carbon dioxide emissions and increase vehicular traffic. Two, the corridor passes through extremely water-scarce regions in the country and will create an even greater stress on the water resources. Three, the corridor will pass through important bio-reserves and will create threats to the quantum of biodiversity in India. Let us look at each of them in detail.

First, the very idea of the industrial corridor is based on equating wider roads with better development. The plan to make a new, wide highway for the movement of private vehicles is going to promote the use of self-driven vehicles for private as well as commercial purposes. Carbon emissions will only increase due to greater usage of vehicles. Further, environment clearances have already been given for four thermal and gas-based power plants across the corridor.[2] Such conventional uses of energy will increase carbon emissions and add to the degrading standard of air quality in northern India. This clearly indicates that the idea of developing ‘smart cities’ is merely a cosmetic one because they are based in fuel generated by thermal power and increasing vehicular usage. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) has recognized the potential for reduction in carbon dioxide emissions through extensive use of the dedicated freight corridor in a report on the DMIC.[3] But this is made redundant by the use of fossil fuel resources for power generation and for the promotion of vehicular usage over large distances. It will also waste a lot of existing resources because there are a number of urban centers, such as Pithampur in Madhya Pradesh, which already have an inventory of unused factories etc. and the construction of entirely new zones will waste a lot of resources and impact the environment and worsen it.

Second, the project disregards the water needs for irrigation in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh or the needs of the farmers or residents of these areas.[4] The DMIC seeks to take two-thirds of its water needs from rivers and the remaining from groundwater.[5] Farmers and other users already face great strain while retrieving water for agriculture and other purposes. Even existing cities, such as Manesar, Indore, and Surat, along the corridor use water from the same resources and there has been no ecological assessment of how the DMIC could use water sustainably without affecting the needs and usage of the existing users. Rivers require at least 50% of their volume to remain in the rivers to ensure that they are able to self-replenish and self-clean.[6] However, if the DMIC plan is put into operation, then all the rivers will have no volume left for their preservation. In fact, such is the desperation that the DMIC seeks to draw water even from seasonal rivers such as the Luni, in Rajasthan.[7] Further, not only will this industrial plan destroy the rivers but it will also affect the groundwater levels and its quantity. The rise in new cities and increasing population settlements will take up a lot of the groundwater and the new industries being set up will also contaminate and pollute the groundwater simultaneously. The perspective plan of the DMIC itself acknowledges that two-thirds of the districts under the DMIC are in overexploited or critical stages as far as groundwater is concerned.[8]

Third, the DMIC is having a major impact on the wildlife and biodiversity along its route. In terms of forests/mangroves, towards the southern part of the project, a lot of mangrove forests as well the foothills of the Western Ghats are prone to being overrun by the expansion of roads and rail lines. The conversion of land use from the adjoining fertile land to industrial zones or airports will also cause ecological damage to the leeward side of the Western Ghats.[9]In a specific instance of directly impacting wildlife, the DMIC passes through Balaram Ambaji Wildlife Sanctuary that is known to contain sloth bear and leopard populations.[10] However, the National Board for Wildlife cleared the proposal for laying railway tracks through the sanctuary without requiring any preconditions such as the erection of fences.[11] More recently, the Board recommended doubling the width of a road passing through the same wildlife sanctuary.[12] Just as speeding cars have reduced the panther population in southern Rajasthan, speeding trains have now been granted authority to subject sloth bears and leopards to the same fate.

 

[1]About IICCL, DELHI MUMBAI INDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (DMICDC),http://www.dmicdc.com/iicc;About DMICDC – An Overview, DELHI MUMBAI INDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (DMICDC), available at: http://www.dmicdc.com/about-DMICDC.

[2]Power Projects: Environmental Clearance, DELHI MUMBAI INDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (DMICDC), available at: http://www.dmicdc.com/cpage.aspx?pgid=62.

[3]Prem Pangotra and PR Shukla, Promoting Low Carbon Transport in India, Infrastructure for Low-Carbon Transport in India: A Case Study of the Delhi-Mumbai Dedicated Freight Corridor, UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM (UNEP), August 2012, available at: http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/16964/DFC.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.

[4]Nitin Desai, This Corridor is Paved with Bad Policies, TEHELKA, August 11, 2012, available at: http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main53.asp?filename=Op110812corridor.asp.

[5]Romi Khosla and Vikram Soni, Delhi-Mumbai Corridor: A Water Disaster in the Making?, Vol. XLVII, No. 10, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY, March 10, 2012, p. 16, available at: http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/Delhi-Mumbai%20Corridor.pdf.

[6]Romi Khosla and Vikram Soni, Delhi-Mumbai Corridor: A Water Disaster in the Making?, Vol. XLVII, No. 10, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY, March 10, 2012, p. 16, available at: http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/Delhi-Mumbai%20Corridor.pdf.

[7]Nitin Desai, This Corridor is Paved with Bad Policies, TEHELKA, August 11, 2012, available at: http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main53.asp?filename=Op110812corridor.asp.

[8]Downloads, DMICDC, available at: http://www.dmicdc.com/frmDownloads.aspx?pgid=43; Romi Khosla and Vikram Soni, Delhi-Mumbai Corridor: A Water Disaster in the Making?, Vol. XLVII, No. 10, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY, March 10, 2012, p. 16, available at: http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/Delhi-Mumbai%20Corridor.pdf.

[9]Raksha Kumar, Delhi Mumbai Corridor, How the World’s Largest Infrastructure Project is Uprooting Indian Farmers, THE GUARDIAN, September 15, 2015, available at: http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/sep/15/indias-future-dmic-delhi-mumbai-industrial-corridor.

[10]Himanshu Kaushik, Bear Safety on Wrong Track, TIMES OF INDIA, January 28, 2015, available at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/Bear-safety-on-wrong-track/articleshow/46035984.cms.

[11]Himanshu Kaushik, Bear Safety on Wrong Track, TIMES OF INDIA, January 28, 2015, available at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/Bear-safety-on-wrong-track/articleshow/46035984.cms.

[12]Minutes of the 47thMeeting of the Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife, F.No. 6-4/2018 WL, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Wildlife Division), Government of India, February 7, 2018, http://www.moef.gov.in/sites/default/files/Minutes%20of%2047th%20meeting%20of%20Standing%20Committee%20of%20National%20Board%20for%20Wildlife%20%281%29.pdf.

City Game Session at Genwise

What do a bunch of adolescents between 12-14 years of age have in common? Capris, shorts and t-shirts when they don’t have to wear a uniform? Ask a lot of questions, are not afraid to say what they are thinking and have all seen the recent Black Panther movie. At least the group we conducted a City Game session for at the Genwise summer school had.

The City Game is designed to explore urban form and elicit a group/individual’s preferences about their city. The game also allows for its participants to reflect upon why we imagine our cities the way we do. The students in this group were a part of the course ‘Perspectives in Tackling Wicked Problems’ and they belonged to grades 7 to 9. As the ritual goes, we had a short round of introductions and then we proceeded to the session.

There were two parts to the session at Genwise. In the first part, the students were asked to silently reflect upon what they understood by a ‘smart city’.

The second part involved playing the City game.

“Do we build a democratic city? Are we placing social concepts or infrastructure?” asked one of the students. “It’s completely up to you”, I replied. “So then what kind of a city do we build?” “A city you want to live in”. With all the clarifications in place, the gameplay began.

Negotiations started early. The kids immediately jumped on to the blocks and started building roads, business parks, sewerage treatment plants, sports centre, foot over bridges, BRT corridors, a historic statue, airport and more. Some interesting highlights were that a jail was placed before a police station was conceived of. Road networks were placed around first in order to ensure easy mobility. A lot of blue, pink and yellow tape was ripped and stuck around to ensure that the BRT corridors don’t get confused by a highway or a metro line. Somewhere near the 5th round (or half time), one or two in the group began to panic as to whether the city has its basic infrastructure in place or not. As the group had started to break and move around and the energy seemed to dip a little, a list was put on the white board and a number of things were listed on them. “Now we can track what we are building and have something to reference in case we miss out”. Slowly fire stations, public toilets, schools, hospitals, a windmill field, a car showroom, five-star hotel, railway stations, a library, and even an orphanage showed up. By the 8thround, the city had been built and it was time for lunch.

“Would you like to live in this city?” “Yes!” said two, “No!”, said the others. “Why?” we asked. In the debrief session, the students reflected upon this city that was built. A city that despite being built around the roads and other transit systems, seemed congested. Where did the poor live in this city? Some expressed their disappointment that the city was not built for different kinds of people (especially the people they had listed on the post-its before the game). Some said that the city was too congested around the business park. One even said that the city is not the same as her home town Chennai, which is why she wouldn’t want to live in it. There were a lot of ways to move around in the city, but who all could move around was not clear.

What is the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor all about? Part I

Quick note: This post is the first of a two-part series on the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor.

“Initially, it used to happen once or twice a month, later it decreased to 2-3 times a year, and now we can just drive by without worrying about it at all”, claimed Shiva, a taxi driver who frequently drives between Udaipur, Rajasthan and Palanpur, Gujarat, a route that forms a significant area of influence under the upcoming Delhi Mumbai Industrial Corridor (DMIC). What Shiva was referring to is the number of panthers killed by speeding vehicles while crossing the highway from a lake to the forest.

The DMIC is an urban expansion project that aims to span the entire western sector of India. It is envisaged to include a high-speed road and rail corridor, with dedicated freight lines, as well as the construction of ‘smart cities’, new industrial regions and green field airports.[1] Along the entire corridor, it seeks to give impetus to industrial growth and create an industrial belt to achieve sustained economic growth for India. The plan has an influence area from Delhi to Mumbai covering over 400,000 square kms.[2] It is going to pass through the states of Uttar Pradesh, where it will begin in Dadri, Haryana, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Maharashtra, where it will end at the Jawaharlal Nehru Port, which is a distance of almost 1500 kms.[3]

The project is not a novel idea in terms of its substance. In fact, developing urban areas with large-scale infrastructure and investment in capital goods has for long been considered as a spur for urban and consequent economic growth. To provide some context for urban development, a couple of centuries ago the total urban population of the world was not more than 250 million, which was less than a fifth of the then existing population.[4] Today, India, at 34% of urban population, has more than double the people in urban areas alone than this entire figure.[5] For the first time in the history of the world, in this century, more people (4.1 billion, or 55% of the world’s population) are living in urban areas than in rural locations.[6] Given the push for urban development as a way to increase household incomes and wealth[7], this growth is seen most visibly in developing nations, with the largest urban agglomerate areas such as Mumbai, Mexico City, Sao Paulo, and Beijing, in developing countries.

By their very nature, large-scale projects, especially those in developing countries, are dependent on angel funding (either by States or private players) for their development. The sheer scale of some of these projects makes it crucial to discuss their potential implications on a variety of aspects – socio-economic, environmental, and financial.

The plan for the DMIC is in line with this strategy of building larger and new cities. It has been touted as a game changer for addressing India’s existing problems in messy urbanization. It is going to be a huge investment over a number of years, with the estimated project cost alone estimated at Rs. 6, 30, 000 crore or Rs. 6.3 trillion (USD 90 billion).[8]

It relies on policy measures that various urban growth models have experimented with, such as engaging the private sector for essential infrastructure development, building green field parallel to existing urban centers, and relying on different forms of international aid, soft loans, or State support for funding models. This can create a multitude of obligations in terms of monetizing land, sourcing requirements, conditional use of funds, and even bilateral relations (in cases of international funding).

The next question then is, given these financial risks, if such projects are at least meant to benefit the entire population. The answer, unsurprisingly, is no. Building MRTS systems or airports systematically excludes those who cannot pay for the high cost of such services. Further, these projects necessarily require continuous funding for the maintenance of the infrastructure. As a result, such attempts at growth often serve to increase the wedge of inequality in society by depriving locals of their land, privatizing profits from the area and creating livelihood insecurity for those living in the region.

In the next post, I will discuss some specific environmental implications of the DMIC.

[1]About DMICDC – An Overview, DELHI MUMBAI INDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (DMICDC), available at: http://www.dmicdc.com/about-DMICDC.

[2]Shantanu Guha Ray, A New Grand Trunk Road – For Industry, TEHELKA, February 16, 2008, available at: http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main37.asp?filename=Bu090208Grand_Trunk.asp.

[3]About DMICDC – An Overview, DELHI MUMBAI INDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (DMICDC), available at: http://www.dmicdc.com/about-DMICDC.

[4]Rakesh Mohan and Shubhagato Dasgupta, Urban Development in India in the 21stCentury: Policies for Accelerating Urban Growth, Working Paper no. 231, STANFORD CENTRE FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, STANFORD UNIVERSITY, October 2004, p. 1, available at: https://globalpoverty.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/231wp.pdf.

[5]Urban Population (in %), THE WORLD BANK, available at: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS(last accessed on August 29, 2018).

[6]Urban Population Growth, WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, available at: http://www.who.int/gho/urban_health/situation_trends/urban_population_growth_text/en/. (last accessed on August 29, 2018); Urban Population, THE WORLD BANK, available at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL(last accessed on August 29, 2018).

[7]Spence et al. (Eds.), Urbanization and Growth, COMMISSION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT (THE WORLD BANK), 2009, https://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTPREMNET/Resources/489960-1338997241035/Growth_Commission_Vol1_Urbanization_Growth.pdf.

[8]Metamorphosis – DMIC Overview, http://www.dmicdc.com/Uploads/Files/5df_dmic-overview.pdf.

On Janaagraha’s response to FoV’s critique of the ASICS survey

The Hindu had published Fields of View’s critique of the Annual Survey of India’s City Systems (ASICS report) by Janaagraha Centre for Citizenship and Democracy. We had critiqued the survey at two levels — the methodology used and the broader framing. The critique of the methodology examined the survey design, the questionnaire, and the ranking. The critique of the framing looked at the broader frame the survey subscribed to, that of looking as a ‘city as a service’.

Janaagraha wrote a response to the critique that was recently published in The Hindu. Overall, Janaagraha’s response is more of an iteration of what the ASICS report does (which has already been explained in the report) instead of a substantive argument responding to FoV’s critique. In the post below, we provide our argument as to why that is the case by examining Janaagraha’s response in its entirety. The post is divided into five parts, and every part begins with Janaagraha’s response in italics and our argument follows.

Part 1

“Life in India’s cities is an urban nightmare that we just cannot wake up from. Potholed roads, garbage fires, flooding, traffic congestion, air pollution are daily bugbears that our citizens have been facing for decades, clearly indicating a systemic failure of governance in our cities. Fixing urban governance is key to fixing our cities, and hence the importance of diagnosing and measuring what’s broken in our governance. ASICS aims to do just that. ASICS is an objective evaluation of 23 Indian cities across 20 States on 89 questions, covering 150 parameters, and 3,900 points of investigation. It takes a systemic, data-driven approach towards urban governance. ASICS is a diagnostic tool indicating the health of urban governance systems in a city and therefore, its ability to deliver good quality of life in the medium to long term. The evaluation is based on the ‘City-Systems’ framework consisting of four distinct but inter-related components — spatial planning, municipal capacities (both human and financial), political leadership, and lastly transparency, accountability and participation. ASICS is based on the premise that fixing systems across all these components are critical to city governance.”

The beginning of Janaagraha’s response is about what the ASICS report does; there is no new information, either to clarify the methodology or the framing.

Part 2 

“One of the significant criticisms raised by the authors was that ASICS argues for ‘city as a service’ model. ASICS see quality of life comprising of two distinct but inter-related aspects — ‘quality of urban infrastructure and services’ and ‘quality of citizenship’. Thus ASICS is not about evaluating the relationship between the city and the citizen as one of service provider-client, but rather about the extent of ownership and empowerment of both the city government and the citizens in the running of the city. ASICS evaluates the extent of devolution and empowerment of our Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) and strength of formal institutional platforms, such as ward committees and area sabhas, for citizens to participate and actively engage with their government in line with the provisions of the 74th Constitution Amendment Act (CAA). ASICS looks at parameters such as mayoral tenure, powers of the council over staffing practices, voter turnout in municipal elections, and extent of functional devolution in practice. It examines availability of information on civic services, service levels, financial information, status of public works, revenue collections, spending, etc , all of which would enable citizens to gain a better understanding of the functioning of the ULB and make their engagement more objective and meaningful.”

Janaagraha claims that the ASICS report does not argue for a ‘city as a service’ model, contrary to what FoV’s critique claimed. The evidence Janaagraha offers is that the ASICS report evaluates the quality of citizenship too, and not just quality of infrastructure. There are two aspects to our response:

 

  1. As we mentioned in the critique, when engaging with the primary question of ‘Who is a citizen?’, there is an inherently limited notion of citizenship that the survey espouses. For example, to gauge citizen participation, there are questions on online information access. This question, by its very conception, excludes wide swathes of citizens who do not have access to online resources. Incidentally, even though mobile phone penetration is high in India, smart phone is not. In addition, cities need to contend with multiple literacy-levels, and diverse languages. Even a preliminary engagement with the complexity of citizenship, and the associated challenge for cities would mean the parameters used for evaluation have to be expanded.
  2. Though quality of citizenship is said to be a criteria on which ASICS evaluates cities, the way the criteria is conceived demonstrates that it is still within the ‘city as a service’ frame. Citizen participation does not translate to just providing feedback about services, which is what a customer does. The relationship of a citizen to the city is that of responsibility, of ownership, and of being a guardian and a partner of the city’s future.

Part 3

“ASICS is based on an analysis of relevant laws, policy documents and websites of city & State governments. One may argue about the unfairness of evaluating cities based on the quality of State legislation. But given India’s quasi-federal governance structure, where governance of cities lies in the domain of the State governments, the quality of urban governance is also a commentary on the quality of State legislation. As the report clearly indicates, to deliver good quality of life in urban India, reforms are required across all levels of government — Centre, State and the city government, with the king’s share to be undertaken by the State governments.”

Above is Janaagraha’s response to what the critique has pointed out as the ‘unfairness of evaluating cities based on the quality of State legislation’. Janaagraha agrees that India has a quasi-federal governance structure. Knowing this, we are puzzled as to the rationale for designing a survey that penalises cities for something that is not under their control, by their very admission. It is, again, conceptually unfair and therefore, not well designed.

Here is a snapshot from just one section showing different questions that evaluate the cities, while the power lies with the State.

A snapshot of the issues with questions in ASICS Survey by Janaagraha

Question No. in Evaluation CriteriaQuestionIssue
1Is there a provision for a state spatial planning board which is mandated with planning policies and reforms for the state, and is the final approving authority for regional and municipal SDPs ?TC&P Act is created through a state passed law, therefore, either awarding cities points or docking points from such a score is irrelevant.
2Does the Act require 3 levels of SDPs (master plans) for metropolitan cities: regional, municipal and ward(s) /localTC&P Act is created through a state passed law, therefore, either awarding cities points or docking points from such a score is irrelevant.
2a, 2b, 2c, 3, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4, 5, 6-TC&P Act is created through a state passed law, therefore, either awarding cities points or docking points from such a score is irrelevant.
7a, 7b-Plans are made by the relevant city development authority, to score the ULB (elected city council) on the timeline and validity is irrelevant
8a, 8b, 8c-Whereas 8 looks at a "clear decentralised procedure" for approval of plans, 8a, and 8b go onto scoring the ULB based on the state's actions.
9, 10TC&P Act is created through a state passed law, therefore, either awarding cities points or docking points from such a score is irrelevant.
11Do the SDPs reflect a stated articulation of future vision and development priorities?The stated objective is to look at "objective" parameters, whereas in the evaluation of this question, the ULBs are evaluated on a score of 10 based on if the SDP mentions metrics for the objectives. Also, these plans are created by the respective city development authority/agency.
12Do the SDPs at each level, integrate the plans and priorities of various sectoral public departments and agencies?
14Are there provisions in the act for modifications to notified SDPs?TC&P Act is created through a state passed law, therefore, either awarding cities points or docking points from such a score is irrelevant.
15Has an MPC been constituted?The state constitutes the MPC, why is the ULB being scored on this point? Under Article 243ZE, Constitution of India

The ‘Town and Country Planning Act’ is a law passed by State governments. Hence, using its features as a marker for a city’s governance and functional processes is unfair. It may be argued that documenting and evaluating such absences of this law (or certain features of it) will push cities to negotiate with the state government in order to improve their urban governance. However, this assumes a high level of city-state government synergy, and more importantly, an inherent value in strengthening the law. When a city such as Bangalore, which receives high focus from the state government, has been unable to push changes to the state law to improve its urban planning or governance, it would be a monumental task for other cities, which include non-capital cities, to press for the same. Further, Town and Country Planning Acts have mostly enabled urban planning to take place in a top-down approach through city development authorities in direct contravention of the spirit of the 74th Amendment to the Constitution.

Part 4

“As the authors have rightly pointed out, lack of capacities in urban local bodies is a huge hurdle which affects institutional aspects such as maintenance of accounts, budget preparation, audits, and aspects of service delivery such as approval of building plans, environment protection, road design etc. ASICS believes in fixing the City-Systems and identifies that gaps in financial and human capacity is a significant handicap in the ability of ULBs to deliver better quality of life to citizens in a sustainable manner. The author’s assertion that the ASICS report recommends outsourcing of many functions of the ULB appears to be a misreading of the recommendations. Firstly, ASICS suggests exploring options such as ‘outsourcing’ only in functions such as revenue collection where the lack of adequate number of field staff has severely impacted the ability of the ULBs to collect their dues. States like Jharkhand have demonstrated that engaging professional agencies through a transparent tendering process can help ULBs to plug the personnel gaps due to significant vacancies in Accounts and Revenue departments. States and ULBs must explore a gamut of options such as building a professional Municipal Cadre, facilitating lateral hires, to address the debilitating levels of vacancies in key departments.”

 At the outset, we wish to state that we are in full agreement that personnel gaps, and skill-based gaps have to be filled.

We argue it is not a misreading when our critique states that ‘ASICS report recommends outsourcing of many functions of the ULB’. In the recommendations section of the ASICS report (page 17 & 18 at http://janaagraha.org/asics/report/ASICS-report-2017-fin.pdf), “outsourcing” is mentioned five times as potential ways to fix the problem under ‘Urban Capacities & Resources’. One could argue that it is ‘only’ five out of seventeen recommendations, and therefore not the primary motive. Unfortunately, as researchers we do place these five recommendations in perspective with the other recommendations and the survey questions. A few questions that arise are, are these recommendations only possible because of this ‘objective’ survey or have these recommendations been made in the past (10, 20 or 30 years) by other groups without the benefit of such an ‘objective’ study? Are the other recommendations feasible and under what conditions? If these recommendations are implemented and the status quo does not change? Would the fall back then be to ‘outsource’?

In the spirit of debate and engagement, it is wonderful when a response leads to further questions just as it is futile if the state of debate does not progress.

Image 1 – A screenshot of the recommendations in the ASICS report, with all the recommendations to outsource highlighted.

Part 5

“The authors have evocatively questioned the choice of benchmark cities in the survey — London, New York and Johannesburg. The benchmark cities were chosen to evaluate the institutional and governance mechanisms within a democratic framework which enabled these cities to provide the high standards of services and infrastructure to be recognised as global hubs of opportunity and talent. Cities are economic growth drivers, innovation hubs, job creators and providers of social, cultural and educational opportunities. It is undisputable that New York and London are melting pots of culture and diversity and global engines of economic growth and prosperity. These are qualities that most cities aspire to have, and these cities are desired destination to live, work and play because of the underlying strong institutions, policies and processes by which they are governed. ASICS is not about pushing Indian cities to become a London or New York, rather it suggests looking at these cities and seeing what Indian cities can learn from them. ASICS underscores the importance of systemic approach to solving urban India’s challenges and recommends that all of us must collectively do what is necessary to strengthen our ULBs as institutions, and the systems and processes of their governance.”

Janaagraha’s response still does not provide any reasoning as to why “looking at these cities” (these cities being London, New York, and Johannesberg) to learn from them is more useful than looking at any other city – Buenos Aires, or Beijing. The reason we questioned this choice of the three cities as any form of benchmark continues to be the following:

“For instance, in Mercer’s Quality of Living Ranking of 2017, London is nowhere in the first 10 or even 20; its ranking is 40. In The Economist’s World’s Most Liveable cities, both London and New York are not in the top 10. The recent edition of the UN Habitat’s biannual ‘State of World Cities’ report says that ‘the most unequal cities in the region, and probably the world, are in South Africa’. If it is not about quality of life, what do London, New York, and Johannesburg stand for?”

The response from Janaagraha is: “It is undisputable that New York and London are melting pots of culture and diversity and global engines of economic growth and prosperity.” (emphasis ours)

For starters, this claim has been disputed by Mercer’s, by The Econonmist and by UN Habitat. Moreover, as we argued in our critique, the budgetary inflows for Indian cities are limited as property tax is the only major source of revenue. Not only is this not true for London and New York, the budgetary and regulatory environment is also completely different. Consider this snapshot of London[1], New York[2], Mumbai[3], and Bangalore[4]:

Comparison of London, New York, Mumbai and Bangalore

ItemLondonNYCMumbaiBangalore
Population8.79 million (2016)8.55 million (2016)21.3 million (2016)11.5 million (2016)
Number employed by city council369,942(estd.)327,793 (2012)104000 (2017)18000 (2017)
Avg annual budget(last 3 years) US$31.5 billion (FY2014-2017)US$78.13 billion (FY2015-2018)US$4.9 billion (FY2015-2018)US$0.97 billion (FY2015-2018)
Sources of revenueRing-fenced education grants, Settlement funding assessment, council taxes, special and specific grants, HRAs, capital grants and receiptsBusiness taxes, capital IFA (Inter-fund agreements), Disallowance of Categorical Grants, Federal Categorical Grants, Miscellaneous Revenues, Other Categorical Grants, Other Taxes, Personal Income Tax,Real Property Tax, Sales Tax, State Categorical Grants, Unrestricted inter-governmental aidOctroi taxes and duty, property tax, various receipts, interests, grants, supervision charges, service charges, development chargesFees, fines, service charges, cesses, property taxes, recoveries, statutory deductions, GoI grants, GoK grants, interests
Avg exp on IT(LAST 3 YEARS) US$47.22 millionUS$515.4 millionUS$46 millionUS$160 million
Per capita (city council) employed0.042086689420.038338362570.0048826291080.001565217391
Per capita (city council) budget3583.6177479138.011696230.046948484.34782609

 

 

 

[1] http://ukpopulation2016.com/population-of-london-in-2016.htmlhttps://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/data-maps/nyc-population/current-future-populations.pagehttps://data.cityofnewyork.us/City-Government/Expense-All-Funds/am45-6syqhttp://www.nyc.gov/html/dcas/downloads/pdf/misc/workforce_profile_report_12_30_2013.pdf, https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/gla_migrate_files_destination/2015-16MayorsCapitalSpendingPlan.pdfhttps://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/gla_migrate_files_destination/2015-16%20Final%20Budget.pdfhttp://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/sites/default/files/images/londoncouncils/LGFrevenuefundingfinallargge.JPG, http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/node/4929http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Policy%20themes/Local%20government%20finance/Total_Funding_15-16_01_0.jpg.

[2] ibid

[3]https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/citizen-services-likely-to-be-hit-as-bbmp-employees-set-to-protest-on-monday/articleshow/62973932.cms, http://bbmp.gov.in/documents/10180/2746234/Final+BBMP+Budget+Book+Revised+9-6-2017+-+Copy.pdf/377be30a-60e8-46de-89d8-6c4c67da8b53http://des.kar.nic.in/docs/Projected%20Population%202012-2021.pdfhttp://bbmp.gov.in/budgets.

[4]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-41464636http://www.mcgm.gov.in/irj/go/km/docs/documents/MCGM%20Department%20List/Chief%20Accountant%20(Finance)/Budget/Budget%20Estimate%202017-2018/1.%20MC’s%20Speech/Budget%20A%2CB%2CG/ENGLISH%20SPEECH.pdfhttp://www.mcgm.gov.in/irj/go/km/docs/documents/MCGM%20Department%20List/Chief%20Accountant%20(Finance)/Budget/Budget%20Estimate%202015-2016/1.M.C’s%20Speech/English%20Speech%20Budget%20A,B,G.pdf.

[5] Appadurai, A. (1993). Number in the colonial imagination.

Prof. Solly Benjamin – Cities or Smart Cities?

For the fourth podcast of our Smart Cities podcast series, we have Prof. Benjamin Solly, associate professor at the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology – Madras (IIT-M).

Prof. Solly begins by talking about the notions of a city, before delving into “smart cities”. He says that in its most essential core, “a city is a lifeform, built around multitudes of people, and has density as one of its characteristics. But the density also means that the people who constitute this ‘coming together’ can do so in very different logics of economics, the way they get access to land, transport, and shelter. The city is also a social and a cultural space where identities themselves get reformed.”

In such a context, Prof Solly adds, the notion of a smart city gets contested. What we instead need to ask, is what cities are and how do we understand them. Giving the example of Chandigarh, and the notions of top-down planning of Corbusier and even Nehru, Prof Solly talks about how historically cities have been threatening to top down planning methods. In this context, the concept of “smart cities” comes out “of fear – a fear of urbanisation, a crisis of planning, and a lack of control”. The assumption that planners and policy makers have is that cities are uncontrollable processes, which have to be disciplined – and the visionary alternate for them thus, is the smart city.

Speaking of citizen participation and the data collection, Prof Solly asks whether the assumption that there is no participation now is accurate, or it is just that the State is of the opinion that people participate but do so in unruly ways to shape governance on their terms. He gives the example citizen participation around the regularisation of revenue layout in Bangalore, and the complex negotiations around these. The crisis of participation, he adds, is the “expert rule” of “progressive academics such as myself”, or the “consultant researchers”, both of who are still disconnected “conceptually and materially” from how people are actually engaging with the city and its administration using politics to create these spaces. Thus, he offers a critique of both the rhetoric around smart cities, and of people criticising it: “The critique of smart cities, in its core logic, does not look very different from those people who are promoting it!”

You can listen to entire podcast below:

 

Sumandro on data, people, and smart cities

For the second podcast of our Smart city podcast series, we have Sumandro Chattapadhyay, a Research Director at Center for Internet and Society (http://ajantriks.net/).

You can listen to the entire podcast below. We apologise for a drop in audio quality after 9.47 due to a technical glitch.

In case the embedded audio doesn’t work, you can download the entire podcast here.

Some of the highlights of the conversation are in the post below.

Smart cities is the usage of certain sensor-driven methods of measuring various patterns of urban life, analyzing that, and acting upon that analysis through various network actuators,says Sumandro. In the Indian context, smart cities are seen more as an “infrastructural initiative” where the Government is interested in developing more efficient systems for urban management, and attracting private investment for such initiatives. He points out two areas where it is probably still early to say how things will pan out. One is about the kind of responsibilities private investment will have when it comes to public infrastructure and the other is about how different government verticals will talk to each other. In the past too, the Government has attempted to use information as a resource to better manage different verticals such as water management, waste management, etc. The challenge continues to be integration of these verticals.

Given Sumandro’s ongoing work with open data, another area where he thinks more clarity would be welcome is about how the Government would share open data related to smart cities. Though the Government has spoken about initiatives like a data portal for cities, it is still not clear what shape such portals would take, and what potential there is for the different kinds of data to be compared and understood across cities.

There are a lot of concerns raised about people’s participation in smart cities, and according to Sumandro, “participation is not a smart city issue – participation is a city issue.” Drawing a distinction between people’s participation in administration, people’s participation in democratic governance, and people’s participation in technological decisions, he says that while we have a sense of how to involve people in administrative processes, it is still unclear how to do the same when it comes to technological decisions. Overall, he says there is more clarity required when it comes to different aspects of technological policy and urban policy, and the ways in which these two overlap and inform each other.

Citizen Engagement in the Indian Smart Cities Challenge

ISCC

The Government of India has initiated the Smart Cities Challenge, where they let the states nominate cities that meet the necessary criteria. Among the different entries submitted, 98 cities were shortlisted for the challenge.

Between August and October 2015, the selected cities will further develop their proposals for the final round. It is interesting to see the different approaches being adopted by the cities in this round, while one consistent theme being online modes of citizen engagement. The city councils are planning to interact with citizens in various ways to get feedback about the kind of smart cities they desire.

While cities like Trichy and Vishakapatnam have prepared a questionnaire to share with citizens, but I couldn’t find the links, not sure where they are hidden. Nagpur, on the other hand, wants to go door-to-door and interact with citizens for smart city concepts. Rajkot came up with a unique concept of wanting to paint graffiti on city walls with ‘social messages’; which is a lot of work for artists, says our in-house artist Kshiraja. Agra Municipal Corporation invited intellectuals, social workers, doctors, businessmen and other dignitaries of the city to discuss the smart city project; it does seem to leave out large sections of the general population. Hubli-Dharwad distributed 2 lakh leaflets to its citizens, but I do wonder how that would translate to collecting the citizens’ opinions. Indore on the other hand, has its own website. IMC launched a social media campaign to get feedback and suggestions from residents. The Mangaluru City Corporation organised essay writing competitions for students and general public about smart cities. Kakinada City is quite active on Facebook and they opted to use the digital route to collect data and suggestions from citizens.

City Modes of Engagement with Citizens
Trichy www.mygov.in/group-issue/ smart-city-tiruchirappalli
Vishakapatnam www.mygov.in
Nagpur Door to Door Citizen Engagement
Rajkot Wall Painting Competition
Agra Agra Municipal Corporation invited intellectuals, social workers, doctors, businessmen and other dignitaries of the city to discuss the smart city project
Hubli-Dharwad
Indore Social media campaign to invite suggestions from residents on smart city project, www.smartcityindore.org
Mangalore The Mangaluru City Corporation has organised essay writing competitions for students
Udaipur Udaipur sets up 100 booths asking citizens’ priorities for smart city
Kakinada http://facebook.com/smartkakinada
Bubhaneshwar Children Voice Opinions on Smart City

 

It’s really interesting to see how every city has got its own approach in reaching out to public for their opinions and suggestions. Bhubhaneshwar engaged with children and they got some interesting feedback about transportation, waste management and also how elders need to change their behaviour toward children. One step closer to being a child friendly city!

Here is the link of 98 nominated cities, every city page has got its own feedback link where you can share your opinion and suggestions.