CDP-II: Will it compensate for CDP-I's failings?

The Hitavada campaign on CDP-II  for Nagpur

By Kartik Lokhande 

Nagpur is growing. Nagpur is emerging as a metro. Nagpur is green. Nagpur is clean. Nagpur is rich in cultural heritage. Nagpur is this. Nagpur is that. Nagpur needs to be freed of encroachments. Nagpur’s water supply should improve. To ensure recycle and reuse of water, sewage treatment plants are proposed. Water bodies should be protected...
Almost every Nagpurian must have heard each of these or one of these lines in speeches of its leaders and civic authorities, on different occasions or periodically. However, little effort was taken, especially in the past three-four years, to make the people aware that all these features of the city intersect at one point -- City Development Plan, popularly known as CDP. There is scope to suspect that citizens were purposefully kept in dark about the start of the process for revising the CDP or preparing CDP-II for the city.
Even the Mayor and Municipal Commissioner were not aware of the procedure followed for CDP-II, and they expressed displeasure in this regard openly during the so-called ‘Stakeholder Consultation’ conducted in early December. This leaves one wondering if a fraud is being perpetrated on the city of Nagpur in the name of CDP-II. One also suspects if, in the name of CDP-II, views or projects of only ‘select’ individuals are being imposed upon the city.
Change in nomenclature of components mentioned in the CDP Toolkit issued in 2009, omission of certain sectors from the planning process, exclusion of citizens for whom city is to be developed, vague study, and many such serious issues have come to fore during the so-called consultation organised in December by Crisil Risk and Infrastructure Solutions Limited.
No one denies that the city needs to grow and climb up the ladder in provision of urban services. However, for the purpose, the civic authorities must identify the focus areas. The consultant agency is expected to work towards that direction and bring out the specifics. Unfortunately, and sadly, in the past also, the consultant agency did not do that much. Also, the city fathers and administrators did not care to consider the submissions of stake-holders while the first CDP was being prepared. The CDP document merely claimed that ‘vision and strategies are largely a product of stake-holders consultations’. Interestingly, only four consultations were organised for CDP-I and ‘rapid assessments’ were done to assess the city’s strengths and weaknesses. As a result, even in CDP-I, there were many unexplained areas and inadequacies.
It may sound like an allegation, but it is not. In fact, it is a part of an authentic record on critical appraisal of CDP-I. If one visits the official website for Centrally-funded ambitious scheme Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), one finds ‘An Appraisal Report’ on CDP and City-level Reform Agenda for Nagpur, dated March 14, 2006. The said report states in clear words, “The CDP of Nagpur needs substantial revision.” Besides, on City-level Reform Agenda, it observes without mincing words, “The city-level reform agenda is very weak.”
‘Substantial revision’ recommended in CDP-I within a short span since its coming into existence reflects poorly on what went into its preparation. In present context, when stakeholders are not being consulted with all seriousness, it will not be wrong to suspect that CDP-II also may prove to be merely a document and not a vision that translates into concrete action towards committed and planned development of the city. Even the eminent persons, who were consulted while preparing CDP-I and were invited for workshop for CDP-II held in December 2013, feel that manner in which consultations are conducted amounts to duping the people. All the suggestions they made, they said, were brushed aside during preparation of CDP-I that was to remain in effect between 2006 and 2013. And, they added, guidelines have been by-passed in the process of preparing CDP-II.
This defeats the very purpose of CDP. In the ‘Revised Toolkit for Preparation of City Development Plan’ document published under JNNURM in the year 2009, what constitutes a CDP is defined in the introductory chapter itself. As per the definition, “A City Development Plan is a comprehensive document outlining the vision and development strategy for future development of the city, prepared in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders to identify the thrust areas to be addressed on priority basis in order to achieve the objectives and the vision. It thus provides the overall framework within which projects are identified and put forward in a City Investment Plan.”
From the said definition, it becomes clear that the document must be ‘comprehensive’ and has to be prepared ‘in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders.’ But, as is the record, only ‘selective range’ stakeholders have been involved. The term stakeholders implies a variety of groups including corporators, administrators, businessmen, educationists, engineers, doctors, water experts, heritage conservationists, architects, town planners, teachers, hawkers, transport experts, police, etc. The thrust areas are to be identified by these stakeholders. Besides, it has to provide ‘overall framework’ for identification of projects for inclusion in City Investment Plan. Use of the word ‘framework’ implies specificity of components and deadlines. In effect, it is aimed at concrete action by civic authorities and not merely putting on paper the ‘vision’.

(Next: Vision formulation for CDP)

Report dubs CDP-I as ‘inadequate’,

city-level reform agenda ‘very weak’

While the process for preparing revised CDP or CDP-II has been ‘initiated’, it becomes necessary to take a look at the previous CDP. The appraisal report available on JNNURM website is helpful in looking back at the CDP-I experience.

The appraisal report comments on ‘inadequacies’ and certain things that remained ‘not clear’. For instance, with regard to mention of MIHAN in CDP, the report observes, “What is not clear from the CDP is (i) the current status of this proposal, and (ii) whether the proposed CDP takes MIHAN as a reality, or whether it leaves it out of reckoning.” Besides, it adds, the infrastructural status of Nagpur is ‘not entirely clear’ from the CDP.

The report goes on pointing out ‘noticeable services inadequacies’. It comments on the problems in non-revenue water, limited sewerage treatment facility, disposal of industrial effluent into the city rivers, limited road space (land use table), shortage of public transport system etc. “There is no discussion on the factors that might explain the problems of inadequate service levels. Then, there are basic data gaps. The CDP does not give even the status of lpcd or the number of hours water is available in the city, and how it affects the quality of life and efficiency of industrial plants,” it states.

CDP ‘does not explain’ the problems in NMCs finances and talks of low coverage of properties by property taxes, low collection efficiency, inefficient user charge etc. The appraisal report makes a scathing comment on ‘goody-goody’ picture often portrayed by city fathers even when octroi was there, and observes, “Merely having a surplus does not guarantee a good credit performance.”

In the CDP-I, problems were identified vaguely and remedies also were proposed in vague terms. This prompted the JNNURM Appraisal Team to comment that the remedies proposed were ‘not backed by specific proposals’. It has quoted an instance also. The CDP-I said that NMC would have autonomy in tariff fixation, but how would it secure autonomy in tariff fixation when any tariff revision was to be approved by the Government of Maharashtra was ‘not given’.

Further, the appraisal report dubbed the City-level Reform Agenda as ‘very weak’. “Reform agenda is not a mix of statements that the NMC will do this or that; it is a specific time-bound reform agenda with proper annual phasing and explanation,” it states. The report added that rapid assessments were ‘not adequate’.

The areas of concern pointed out in the appraisal report included: Use of existing baseline data and situation in developing the vision and strategies, identification of factors that have impeded infrastructure improvement, feasibility of achieving sector mission goals, no examination of institutional problems faced by city, re-examination of the city-level reform agenda – to what extent are the constituents of the reform agenda the problems faced by the city-level institutions?

Aren’t these observations adequate to highlight the need for a deeper insight and proper procedure to be followed for preparing CDP-II? 

 (Published in The Hitavada CityLine on February 26, 2014)