CDP-II: Skipping sectors, talking of sustainable devpt

By Kartik Lokhande 

Everyone talks of making Nagpur a city of future. All the political leaders and city fathers and administrators and consultants talk of sustainable development of Nagpur. But, unfortunately, the focus of the discourse in civic authorities and administration revolves mostly around the projects that receive funding. Obviously, this results in skipping of sectors that must be considered to prepare a better and more comprehensive City Development Plan (CDP).
This, exactly, is happening again during the ongoing process of revision of CDP. Of a total 14 sectors specified in JNNURM toolkit for preparation of CDP, only six figure in the presentation made by consultant agency Crisil Infrastructure and Risk Solutions Limited (CRIS) during the workshop held in December 2013. And, this has happened despite the toolkit stating clearly, “While the CDPs for many of the Mission cities have been prepared in the context of the JNNURM, the specific sectors covered in the plan should not be restricted to those eligible for funding under the JNNURM. All sectors that make a difference to the quality of life experienced by urban citizens should be covered in the CDP.”
The toolkit has specified 14 sectors to be considered while preparing plan for city’s development. These are: Water Supply, Sewerage and Sanitation, Storm Water Drainage, Solid Waste Management, Comprehensive Mobility Plan (with thought to Transit-Oriented Development), Housing and Basic Services for Urban Poor, Preservation and Rejuvenation of Water Bodies, Urban Environment, Cultural and Heritage Conservation, Local Economic Development, Disaster Prevention and Management Plan, Capacity Building, Climate Change and Sustainable Development, and E-governance.
The sectors mentioned under the head ‘Sectoral Strategies’ in CRIS presentation are: Urban Infrastructure -- Water Supply, Sewerage and Solid Waste Management; Urban Transportation, Economic Development, Revenue Mobilisation, Planning, Heritage and Social Infrastructure (Health and Education). Thus, not only has CRISIL Risk truncated the list of sectors and changed the nomenclature of the sectors specified in JNNURM toolkit, but it has also included sectors that are not specified under CDP-II!
Even a cursory look at sectors specified in JNNURM toolkit and those identified in CRIS presentation, reveals that attempt is being made to deprive the city of ‘sustainable development’. CRIS has ‘identified’ sectors by merging a couple of sectors and by introducing those not mentioned in JNNURM toolkit (guidelines). JNNURM toolkit identifies Water Supply, Sewerage and Sanitation, Storm Water Drainage, Solid Waste Management as different sectors while preparing plan for a city’s development. But, CRIS arbitrarily clubbed those together and had asked a few stakeholders, who were invited to the workshop it conducted in December 2013, to get divided into groups and suggest sectoral strategies along these distorted lines.
Further, CRIS left out the sector of ‘transit-oriented development’ that goes along with the concept of urban transportation. The areas of housing and Basic Services to Urban Poor (BSUP) also were not included in the so-called ‘visioning exercise’ CRIS conducted. The consultant agency arbitrarily brought Revenue Mobilisation, and Planning into the ambit of sectoral strategies. Besides, it clubbed together the sector of Heritage with Social Infrastructure (Health and Education). Apart from wrong and arbitrary clubbing of areas, CRIS also committed the sin of skipping important sectors of Preservation and Rejuvenation of Water Bodies, Urban Environment, Cultural and Heritage Conservation, Disaster Prevention and Management Plan, Capacity Building, Climate Change and Sustainable Development, and E-governance.
It is shocking and highly disappointing even for Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) authorities that they tolerated this. It is not a long time ago that the NMC leaders and vested entities interested in merely PR-driven campaigns had trumpeted the cause of ‘saving Nag river’ through mere photograph-oriented operations. Their commitment to the cause of city’s water bodies stands exposed with the utter neglect towards exclusion of the vital aspect of ‘Preservation and Rejuvenation of Water Bodies’ in the consultant’s sectoral focus. In JNNURM toolkit that aspect has been included very carefully considering the future requirement of water for the projected population growth.
Then comes the issue of Urban Environment. In all major and emerging cities across the globe, a serious approach is being adopted towards urban environment. JNNURM toolkit makes an interesting observation on this particular sector, “While healthy urban ecosystems provide cities with a wide range of services essential for their economic, social and environmental sustainability, damaged ecosystems have a very negative impact on urban residents, and in particular on the urban poor. An ad hoc approach to environmental issues is fragmentary, expensive and inefficient.” This sector comprises various aspects to be paid heed to -- water quality, air pollution, noise pollution, solid waste, sustainability of natural resource, wetlands/lakes, green cover, urban agriculture, and promotion of community awareness and education.
However, what has happened so far is an irregularly conducted exercise of ‘Tree Census’ and misleading NGOs working in environment protection sector into some superficial campaigns. While preparing CDP-II also, there appears to be no serious effort on part of city fathers or consultant or administrators.
Take the issue of Disaster Prevention and Management Plan. The photographs of submerged streets, damaged bridges, people and students being rescued from floor waters have not faded out of public memory. Choked storm water drains, waterlogging in shops constructed illegally in basements meant for parking of vehicles in many buildings, filth getting carried back to street-sides, dug-up roads, missing manhole covers, tree branches bent on roads are regularly features in Nagpur. There are several opportunities for disasters to happen. Against this backdrop, it is highly shocking and serious matter that the sector has not found a place in consultant’s presentation on sectoral strategies. Leaving out this sector means compromising with the NMC’s own stated vision of making the city ‘safe and liveable’.
The sector of ‘Climate Change and Sustainable Development’ also has become a victim of neglect while preparing CDP-II. When the world is talking of tackling challenges posed by climate change, and Nagpur has reputed institutions and scientists to consult, why has NMC tolerated exclusion of this aspect from the exercise of planning of city’s development, remains an unanswered question. Similarly, when all the city fathers nad administrators love talking of sustainable development, their inaction towards achieving it is frustrating.
Given the experience so far, one suspects if the sectors that ensure sustainable development in real sense are left out of planning exercise, purposefully. For instance, in almost all the multi-storeyed buildings in busy areas of the city, basement space was to be reserved for parking of vehicles. As most of these buildings are commercial establishments, the number of visitors is more. However, when the basement spaces were being converted into shops and sold out, none of the civic authorities noticed that.
When those shops were sold out and vehicles started using the space on roads for parking, civic authorities started talking about irregularities and violations. But, this talk had a purpose -- of devising ways and means to generate ‘revenue’ in the name of ‘compounding charges’. Such a collection of compounding charges may add to the kitty of the civic body, but it does not correct the course of urban planning that has gone wrong. And, here, the sense of the term ‘sustainable development’ stands defeated by the action (or, inaction) of city fathers and administrators. There are umpteen such examples of sheer apathy towards ‘planning’ the city’s development.
As far as Cultural and Heritage Conservation sector is concerned, some often construe it to be ‘anti-development’. However, it is not so. For, any structure raised as part of ‘development’ today becomes a heritage tomorrow. But, if the planners lack the vision and commitment for ‘sustainable development’, the so-called ‘development’ (read, constructions or projects) does not last long. Since the emphasis of the planners, consultants, and city fathers is merely on ‘projects’, they commit sacrilege on the very concept of development. The end up talking about capital investment plan involving funds while consigning to neglect the idea of economic development and growth.

(Tomorrow, Will CDP-II really think of urban poor?) 

Published in The Hitavada CityLine on March 1, 2014