.…..and they didn’t turn up!

By Suman Bhanoo, PRIA

Crowd of 40 people from diverse age groups were waiting for their arrival. Their wrinkled faces, blurred vision had hoped that they will turn up to listen their plight. With an element of expectation slum dwellers from the Bhojpura and Rajeev Nagar slum came to attend zonal level consultation. In series of consultations PRIA conducted 2^nd consultation on 25^th Feb, 2013 at Mahatma Gandhi Prakritik Chikitsa Evam Yog Mahavidyalaya, Jaipur. It was another democratic initiative by PRIA to raise voice of urban poor. Vast urban slums are deprived of fundamental civic amenities, such as water, electricity and sanitation. In this specific consultation, theme was “Sanitation”. Though urban poor are facing myriad of issues but to get the logical results of consultation PRIA had chosen one issue which was supposed to be answered by the authorities. So the main objective of consultation was to provide a common platform to authorities and slum dwellers, where they can share common dialogues.  It was an attempt to implement the “face to face encounter” and PRIA was the connecting link between the two. Many of the slum dwellers work as wage laborer, they skipped their daily wage just to share their piece of problems in front of authorities. The majority of the urban poor work in the unorganized sector and are surviving on 70Rs a day or less.

              Zone Commissioner, Ward Parshad and Social Development Activist were invited to listen the plight of urban poor but nobody turned up to answer their questions. India’s government is pretty aware that poverty is a huge barrier to overcome if it is to fully develop the nation. Still they act very carelessly. It is a sheer case of irresponsibility and negligence. At the last moment invited authorities either switched off their mobile phones or made lame excuses to show their unavailability to attend consultation. Are they escaping from the questions of deprived section of society or they are just following stereotype trend of bureaucracy? A resident from Rajeev Nagar stated “A wide range of anti-poverty policies have been introduced, but all these policies are “paper policies” they have been limited to shiny and glossy sheets of paper. I will die by the time I will get to avail all these schemes”. Availing all these schemes is hurricane task. Slum dwellers want a direct encounter with authorities to know why it is so time consuming process. Why they face s countless hurdles in spite of all available documents? Why poverty in India is still ubiquitous in spite of so many schemes?

           Seems inability, frailty, subsistence, bureaucratic consolation and expectations have become fate of slum dwellers. Corridors of power are so deaf and dumb that they can’t hear loud noise of slum dwellers. 

Addressing the Problems of Slum Dwellers

Shared by Suman Bhanoo, PRIA

As per UN-Habitat 2003, more than 900 million persons can be classified as slum dwellers, maximum surviving under life and health threating conditions. Issues associated with the concept of urban poverty are complex, complicated, unaddressed and largely unacknowledged. No doubt government has many lucrative schemes for the betterment of urban poor but still slum dwellers face many difficulties in availing all these schemes. In this regard, PRIA had a discussion with Mr. Pratap Khachariawas, MLA and brought into light in spite of all available documents slum residents face huge problem in availing pension and other government’s schemes. Mr. Khachriawas raised the question in Vidhan Sabha regarding removing all criteria for availing pension for old age, widow and disabled. It is an effective effort in making their voice heard in the corridors of power. The paper clipping of the point raised in Vidhan Sabha by Mr. Khachariawas is attached herewith. 

Adventures in Microplanning, Raipur Edition

By Eric Kasper,IDS and Deepika Pandey, PRIA

Stesalit, a professional agency from Kolkata, has been hired by Raipur Municipal Corporation (RMC) to survey all the slums in Raipur as part of the Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY). In 2006 RMC prepared a list of all 282 known slums in the city. Since that time, in part because of housing schemes such as BSUP, some of the slums have shifted. By the early stages of RAY implementation, RMC could identify only 240 of the originally listed slums, and Stesalit has been instructed to survey each of these.

PRIA has been working in Raipur on urban issues for many years. In February, 2012, PRIA took an initiative to list all the slums of the city and found 299 of them.  PRIA also found only 233 of the original 282 slums, but they also found an additional 66. What will become of these additional slums not counted in the RMC’s updated list?

Out of all the slums in Raipur, PRIA selected 10 slums for intervention, in order to organize the slum dwellers to effectively interact with the RMC and to demand proper facilities and basic services. Because Raipur is one of the four Chhattisgarh cities selected for RAY, this initiative of PRIA has also attempted to prepare the slum dwellers to participate in the implementation of RAY from the beginning. In Raipur, the Stesalit survey has already begun. They have surveyed all of the 240 slums. After the survey, they will be carrying out “microplanning” in each slum in which Stesalit will decide priorities for housing design and service needs with a group designated to represent the residents of a given slum.

PRIA has facilitated the process of forming Slum Improvement Committees in 7 slums out of the 10 slums originally chosen for intervention. Of these 7 slums, there are 2 slums – Chandrashekhar Nagar and Indira Bhata Kushta Basti – where the survey has not yet been carried out. So PRIA encouraged one of these, Chandrashekhar Nagar, to use the GPS to do a survey of their own. They have already accomplished this. To share this initiative and to know why these slums were left out by Stesalit, PRIA made a visit to Stesalit’s office. They shared the story of organizing in the 7 slums along with the initiative taken by Chandrashekhar Nagar and asked about the reason for leaving these two slums out.

These slums were not on the official list. They showed interest in learning more about the unlisted slums. In this discussion, they agreed to use the SICs as the main points of contact in those slums. We agreed to visit the slums together so that PRIA and Stesalit could collaborate on the microplanning process.

Stesalit and PRIA planned to meet on 5 March to start microplanning in any one of the 7 slums. Indira Bhata Kushta Basti was decided as the venue. Moumita (The representative of Stesalit) began a meeting and the SIC members and other residents gathered around. She explained that Stesalit has been contracted to carry out surveys and planning processes in all the slums of the city, and that they would like to do these things in their slum. The residents had many questions and concerns regarding how the process would work, including whether or not they would be forced to move from their land, which was not RMC land but Railway land. PRIA and Stesalit answered most of their questions, but there were some issues that neither group had the authority to answer. The decision about whether the slums will be able to stay in their current location must be resolved through negotiations with both the RMC and the Railway department.

 

During the discussion, it was realized that Stesalit had completed the survey for only one section of Indira Bhata Kushta Basti. The residents of this rather large slum consider themselves to be two separate entities. Only one of these has been surveyed, but not the area with an SIC. So it was decided that Stesalit would begin with the microplanning in the section already surveyed but delay microplanning with the SIC until a survey could be completed. They realized that they had missed this section in the previous survey, and the oversight was discovered as a result of this collaboration between PRIA, Stesalit and the SICs. Furthermore, Stesalit realized that since neither the second section of Indira Bhata nor the slum in Chandrashekhar Nagar were on the official list, they do not have authorization to include them as part of the RAY survey and planning process. They are now seeking approval to include them as “newly discovered” slums, even though these areas were highlighted on maps in Stesalit’s own office and have been known to PRIA for more than two years.

So in this situation, the community, organized in such a way to effectively interact with the implementers of RAY; the NGO working with the community; and the contracting agency responsible for carrying out the planning are all working together. This is how RAY was supposed to work, according to the policy guidance. However, where is the RMC? They are ultimately responsible for implementing this policy. It has been expedient for them to outsource some of the technical work, but some issues cannot be resolved by contractors. The negotiations over land rights and the inclusion of overlooked slums are important examples. How can the RMC meet its obligations regarding these issues? Should there not also be a representative of the RMC at these microplanning meetings?

Empowering the community through Self-knowledge – Lessons and process of slum mapping by the community in Patna

PRIA-Bihar

PRIA under its project of Strengthening Civil Society Voices on Urban Poverty has initiated empowering activities in various urban poor communities across India. In Patna, it has been successful in formulating Slum Improvement Committees (SIC) of the community members themselves, who thereby represent their own community, become a voice for and to them. One of these ‘empowering’ activities that have been undertaken by association of slum communities, SIC and PRIA has been of facilitating the community to recognise and map exactly where and how they live.

Most often than not, in Indian scenario most urban poor settlements do not find a place on the city map and its various planning documents. The slums are reflected as black blobs in the city map, as if these settlements do not even withhold the many residents that it does. Also, when for specific government scheme a surveyor comes to map a locality, he is oblivious to the ground realties and does not always depict the true picture and excludes the community in the process. The proposed process wherein the community, who know their own locality best and better than any surveyor, shall map their own locality is being encouraged and was initiated as a pilot in Kettari Mohalla of Patna.

Process of Mapping by and with the community

PRIA introduced the benefits of community mapping to the slum dwellers with help of a presentation that highlighted that the slum dwellers themselves can now have the opportunity and the right to portray the slum, its resources, present infrastructure as it exists in reality and not how it may be depicted in the ward or zonal plan (if any). It was highlighted how at present various slum communities do not find any recognition in physical presence on various city maps and that for certain creates an issue of exclusivity of these slum dwellers.

Various benefits of the community mapping to the community were highlighted such as:

1.       A map of your own community is an identity and a right

2.       With a map there is tangible and physical presence of your community that can be shared with all – through the internet

3.       Centrally sponsored schemes such as Rajiv Awas Yojana that is promoting a slum-free India requires that every slum should be located and mapped. When community themselves know what, where and how they live they shall be able to give correct information, participate in the survey and hold the surveyors and government accountable.

4.       Community mapping is also a participatory activity that encourages and strengthen your own community participation and relationships amongst each other

5.       It is also a fun activity

6.       It is an activity that shall give you the pride and sense of ownership for you own community

The youth was encouraged to take up this activity of community mapping in the slum settlements. The process of slum mapping with help of using a GPS and plotting the same back on to google earth/map was also explained and a separate guidebook for the same in hindi was also prepared.

With this facilitation, the youth of Ketwari Mohalla took upon them to map their own community! The map that they plotted can be accessed here: https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=215230729858609628543.0004d711acd95f304c6a7

What made the ‘mapping exercise’ work?

PRIA and the formulated Slum Improvement Committee in Ketwari Mohalla was able to introduce the idea of community mapping in the SIC-Community meetings and encouraged the youth to take up the activity- both boys and girls. Even though initially they seemed reluctant, but the inspiration of learning a new technology, holding a new type of instrument and doing a new task excited them to a point that both boys and girls were leaping to take up the activity!

What were the issues that came forward in the process of ‘community mapping’?

It was realised that even though a presentation of what ‘mapping’ can do for the community, the ability to comprehend a ‘map’ lagged. It is necessary to familiarise the community with what a map actually does! Most often in many PRA activities we see that community themselves is first encouraged to trace out on the ground a cognitive map of how and where they live. This physical understanding of how a locality is spatially formed could have been undertaken in this locality to give the community a greater understanding of what a map is.

Another aspect is that to translate a technology to physical reality is not as simple. It is important to provide the community with physical print of a map. A point in the GPS does not instantaneously translate to a point on the map, therefore the link between the GPS and the physical reality needs to be well explained in advance.

Also potentials of what all a map can show, depict and help tab the information of also should be further explained. For example the community initially did not have an idea of what all should they map in their slum. The fact that they can map the present social infrastructure, physical infrastructure, number of houses, where what facility is located to exact detail and then have a conversation with the governing institutions about lack of a particular facility should also be further explained.

Way forward

Learning from the above lessons and together with the experience of the youth and SIC members of Ketwari Mohalla, community mapping activities are also being encouraged in other slums of Patna

Slum’s Identity in the hands of its slum dwellers! Community-led Slum Survey and GPS Mapping in Chandrashekhar Nagar, Raipur

by Eric Kasper and Deepika Pandey

Chandrashekhar Nagar is a slum nestled along a railway line in Ward 25 of Raipur. It is one of 7 slum areas where  PRIA has been facilitating community activities under its 2-year long initiative to strengthen the voices of civil society on urban poverty. Each of these 7 communities has formed a Slum Improvement Committee (SIC) which has taken on the responsibility of representing the community and sharing all relevant information with residents. Residents of Chandrashekhar Nagar are working to mitigate the precarity of life in an informal settlement by building the strength to more effectively take collective action in their own interests. The log below highlights how the community of Chandrashekar Nagar  are becoming agents of their own development.

—————————————————————————————————————————————-

One major feature of the current policy climate in Chhattisgarh is the on-going program of the Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY), the central government scheme which aims to create “slum-free city”. It is to be the capstone project of the scheme related to Basic Services to Urban Poor (BSUP) and other housing schemes. The policy has received wide acclaim, but the details of implementation, as always, have the potential to derail the project and undermine the potential for real transformation. To this end, PRIA and the slum-dwellers of Raipur plan to be ready for the kind of meaningful community participation that will be absolutely necessary for successful implementation of RAY.

Raipur Municipal Corporation is the body that is responsible for the implementation of RAY in Raipur. However, in line with the policy guidance, which encourages public-private partnerships and technical assistance from civil society, most elements of the project are being tasked to contractors. Stasellite, a contracting organization has been hired to carry out the survey of all slums in Raipur to identify eligible neighborhoods and households. This survey has already begun in several slums. Communities have reported that surveyors enter the neighborhood and chalk numbers on houses without talking to anyone, even though one of the prime guidelines in RAY is community participation starting from the time of survey!

Slum Improvement Committees (SIC) that have been formed in certain communities are raising the concerns and voice of the community regarding this practice of surveying. For example in Kashiram Nagar, the SIC members objected on being not included in the survey process and not being provided enough and prior information regarding the same. They held a dialogue with the local councillor and demanded that the survey needs to be conducted again with involvement of the community members, and refused to sign on any survey form till then.

Various SICs together also facilitate knowledge and experience sharing. Durga Nagar slum for instance was able to familiarise itself with the process and requirements of RAY based on Kashiram Nagar’s experience prior to the survey activities. Chandershekar Nagar on other hand has initiated a self – survey of their locality, to be done by the community itself.

Chandershekar Nagar was facilitated by PRIA for this self-survey task, and a format for slum profiling that would include all relevant data about the residents, community resources, neighbourhood etc. was chalked out. This slum profiling was to be carried entirely by the community with the aim of self – knowledge and limiting any level of discrepancy at the time of RAY survey, such that rights of all are included. The slum profiling by the community themselves also aims to bringing in the community together and preparticiing them for the participation process in the RAY process.

PRIA introduced a Global Positioning System (GPS) device to the community and the SIC members. This GPS instrument was a tool for the community to map their own locality. The community was excited and eager to work with the GPS and prepare a database of their community. SIC members created a team of literate community members who could devote time to carry out the survey. PRIA provided a satellite image of the slum from Google Earth Maps with a GPS device and trained them to use the same. A questionnaire also supported this what recorded all RAY eligibility aspects along with other features of the slum such as residents’ access to electricity, toilets, water, Smart Cards, Shramik cards, and other things. The survey began in full swing in the month of February. The team was able to organise themselves and divide their tasks amongst themselves such as recording points on the paper map, filling questionnaires and recording points on GPS device.

Interestingly the team comprised mostly young enterprising mothers of the community! These young women were spending most time in the slums and the older women were able to support them and take care of their children while the younger women went for the mission of surveying their community! 

GPS team making the boundary “track”

The team began its task by making a “track” to record the boundary of the slum. Carrying the GPS, the team walked ceremoniously around the entire slum, starting at the Hanuman Mandir, walking down the main street to the corner, turning right, walking along the Public Distribution System offices, and then carefully following the railway tracks back to the beginning. The group saved the “track” and gave it a name in the GPS, and the group cheered their first success. A small crowd had gathered around, and the team explained that the SIC was making the survey as a community resource, and that it would help prepare for participation in the Rajiv Awas Yojana that would be starting soon.

The team then started marking points in the GPS for each house in the slum. For each one, the team would ask the questions from the questionnaire to whoever was at home. It took three afternoons, but information was recorded for each house in the slum, noting all those eligible to participate in Rajiv Awas Yojana, and alerting the SIC members that many families still had not received Smart cards or ration cards.

Slum Survey in Action

The team of young surveyors of the community also built up their knowledge and strength of participation and communication in the process. Initially for explaining the task they had initiated in their won slum to the other community members, they would look for support from PRIA representatives. But by the second day itself, the team themselves were equipped with knowledge and became leaders for their community!

The team and PRIA have also uploaded the GPS points on Google Earth and now the slum has a permanent and valid record of their existence and identity! The SIC and team members of Chandershekhar Nagar have a new vigour and zest in them. The believe that this whole self-mapping and survey experience has been transformative, giving them invaluable knowledge of their own community as well as the confidence to engage with others on technical issues. They are prepared to assist the RAY surveyors, and they are eager to help other slum communities carry out their own GPS-based slum survey.

Chandershekar slum – marked and mapped by the community

GPS team marks the points on Google Earth and  reflects on the experience

Participation and the “han ji syndrome” Part. II – What antidotes to genuinely strengthen the voice of the urban poor

By Hugo Ribadeau Dumas

Recently on Terra Urban (Participation and the “Han ji syndrome” ) we argued that opening participatory arenas is not sufficient to empower the most marginalized citizens. The urban poor often reveal to be uncomfortable, helpless if not apathetic when invited to participate in the public sphere. To put it very bluntly, organizing meetings and joyfully cheering citizens to “Speak up! Speak up!” does not appear as the most relevant strategy to make them “speak”. We coined the expression “han ji syndrome” to express the fact that destitute populations usually tend to passively say “yes” to whatever is proposed to them, rather than defending their own opinion.

In this article, we will try to reflect on the possible antidotes to this han ji syndrome. Rather than a miracle recipe, we will propose here some elements likely to generate within the urban poor a culture of public contestation. Similarly, instead of practical recommendations (that would be anyway hard to replicate universally) we will rather describe general guidelines. The objective of this article is to determine how is it possible to transmit fragile citizens the power to say “nahin” and enable them to truly seize the opportunity offered by participative arenas.

1) Instead of being normative, let us be rational: why the urban poor should participate?

Normative arguments will not suffice to convince marginalized communities to participate. Stating that the engagement in the public sphere is something good by nature is both poorly persuasive and inaccurate: participation can indeed be very costly (time and money wise), and even hazardous (when confronted to aggressive authorities), for weaker citizens. Therefore, generating a culture of public contestation requires the use of more rational arguments. To truly engage themselves in the participatory process, local communities should be able to visualize the concrete benefits that they could gain by raising their voice. Participation should make immediately sense to them rather than being an abstract theoretical democratic project.

However, making participation “concrete” is not necessarily an easy task. The major challenge here lies in the fact that slum dwellers are often submerged by very various sorts of urging issues and might have difficulties to focus their attention on one given problem. As a consequence, the participatory process often appears blurred to inhabitants, who do not perceive quite well where the project is taking them. This lack of horizon reduces their interest in the project, and eventually fuels the han ji syndrome. To tackle this difficulty, it is important to help the community to quickly set up priorities and, even more importantly, to stick with these priorities. Similarly, in order to make meaningful the participatory process, it is also indispensable to go beyond emergency, and to try to make inhabitants aware of the long-term coherence of their action (for instance by showing them that solving one issue might help them out to solve the next one).

2) Knowledge as the key to participation: yes, but how to “sustain” knowledge?

Appropriate information should be considered as the foundation of any successful participation. If citizens are aware of their rights and of the strategies to defend them, they will themselves feel the need to raise their voice. This affirmation has nothing revolutionary: informing has always been a central pillar of social work. The question we now have to ask ourselves is “how”. How to inject regular and updated information and how to ensure a satisfying level of penetration of this knowledge within the community?

The “Slum Improvement Committees” set up by PRIA in Patna, Biharsharif, Chhapra and Bodhgaya might provide an answer to this question. These committees, comprised of 5 members chosen among the inhabitants, work as channels of information for the neighbourhood: in constant interaction with PRIA, they are able to collect regularly the intellectual material relevant to their particular issues, and are then supposed to spread this knowledge to the rest of the community. For PRIA, this system is really helpful: it allows to save a lot time and to enhance the circulation of its message within the urban poor.

Yet, does this system of transmission of information – based on a constant connection with a NGO – truly help local communities? On the short-term, it does seem so: the inhabitants can get access to crucial information in order to combat their fights. But, on the long-term, is this channelling of knowledge sufficient to empower citizens? The answer seems here less categorical. Observations on the field suggest that, in such configuration, citizens become heavily dependent on the NGO. If they do not get the information provided by the NGO, they do not move on. Most often, indeed, inhabitants wait passively that the NGO tell them “what to do”. Henceforth, they do not have the capacity to be pro-active, to obtain by themselves the information they need, and eventually to tackle autonomously their issues. This dependency leads in the end to the perpetuation of apathetic behaviours (aka the “han ji syndrome”).

Therefore, while providing knowledge to the urban poor seems absolutely crucial, one should always have in mind that the transmission of information should not be alienating. Genuinely empowering marginalized citizens would imply to generate a “dynamic of learning” within the community and also to be able to extract ourselves from this dynamic afterwards. In a word: we should find a way through which citizens could inform themselves independently.  The challenge is here obviously immense and not necessarily gratifying for NGOs. But it should be in the horizon of any social worker aiming at “awakening” poorer citizens.

One alternative here would be to create a dense network of slum dwellers (and, possibly, of slum improvement committees) through which destitute communities could exchange their concerns, their successes, their strategies. Such internal circulation of knowledge – which could be possibly fostered by an NGO such as PRIA – would for sure allow a greater appropriation and autonomization of the process of information. 

Concretely, how about a gazette written and published, with the assistance of an NGO, by slum dwellers themselves and then distributed in all the slums of the city.  Such gazette would offer a platform for marginalized citizens to learn about the challenges (and possible solutions) faced by their counterparts, and thus favour an internal flow of information.

 

3) Are we ready to let the marginalized speak? Changing our way to interact with marginalized citizens

A third “ingredient” which could potentially spark a culture of “nahin” instead of “han ji” would be to stimulate a true sense of self-confidence within destitute communities. On this point, once again, social workers share a great responsibility. While it has become banal (if not fashionable) to invoke community participation as a tool for empowerment, the truth is that the voice of marginalized citizens is rarely put at the centre of the process.

In the last two months, I have attended a dozen of community meetings organized by different NGOs across the State of Bihar; all these meetings officially aimed at offering the urban poor the opportunity to learn and to speak up. In practice, however, inhabitants usually spoke for less than 5% of the total duration of the meetings. And when they spoke, it was usually to say “han ji”. It was striking to see how NGOs, while appealing at the very same moment for a greater participation of the urban poor, ended up invariably by monopolizing the microphone. Interminable monologues, disproportionate amount of time dedicated to deference vis-à-vis state officials, very little attention paid to feedbacks from the participants, etc… When interrogated about this disequilibrium, the organizers of the meetings would invariably reply that “inhabitants know nothing, so they need first to be informed, and then they will talk”.

If we add up to this approach other biases in the organization of the meetings – such as the fact that inhabitants would frequently sit on the floor while organizers would enjoy chairs, or the fact that excessive politeness would often be unilateral – the final result did not appear absolutely empowering for the participating citizens. One might argue that these elements are merely symbolical. But isn’t the symbolic of power highly meaningful? One might also point out that inhabitants themselves, especially in the Indian context, usually give credit to the hierarchical relationships; but isn’t it the role of social workers to change these mind-sets? The clear-cut divide between knowledge-providers and so-called populations to be enlightened seems to represent a real barrier in the emancipation of the latter.

Our argument here is that promoting participation is one thing, but truly considering marginalized citizens as equal intermediaries is another one. Too often, citizens are “invited” to speak but are not truly proven that their voice as an equal value. Rather than perpetuating hierarchical relationships (most of the time unconsciously), social workers should be the first to foster self-confidence within the targeted populations. It is the responsibility of NGOs to give up paternalistic approaches, according which inhabitants need to be lectured, and instead give a real room for the citizens’ voice. Offering them the possibility to speak right at the beginning of a meeting or, even more importantly, accepting ourselves to sacrifice our own airtime would be a good starting point.

 
An optimistic conclusion: NGOs can actually do something to eradicate the han ji syndrome.

What we wanted to show in this article is that NGOs have a prime responsibility in the han ji syndrome. They have the possibility to struggle against it, but they can also potentially feed it. Creating structures for participation is a first necessary step to enhance the capacity of destitute populations to defend their rights; but it must be complemented by further measures if we want to see citizens genuinely empowered in the public sphere. Creating sustainable channels of information, enhancing the self-respect of inhabitants, and making them integrate the possible benefits they can derive from participation are objectives that NGOs could easily implement. It might not be a miracle recipe, but it seems to be indispensable ingredients for empowering participation. 

Building Inclusive Cities – Delhi Declaration

Recently an International Conference on Inclusive Urban Planning was organised in Delhi by Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation. Result of this conference was a ‘Delhi Declaration’ that aims to articulate steps for an equitable and inclusive urban planning approach.

Terra Urban would like to know your opinion and comments on this Declaration. The declaration is as below: 

DELHI DECLARATION

ON

INCLUSIVE URBAN PLANNING

adopted on l9 February 2013

AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INCLUSIVE URBAN PLANNING

The Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation (Government of India), in partnership with the Department for International Development, UK, the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, the United Nations Development Programme,the Human Settlement Management Institute and the Support to National Policies for Urban Poverty Reduction project, held an International Conference on Inclusive Urban Planning in New Delhi on 18-19 February,2013. The objectives of the Conference included:

• Critical evaluation and introspection of the urban planning processes and outcomes;
• Cross-learning from select international experiences on the ways in which inclusion can be incorporated into urban planning:
• Exploring ways in which ‘inclusion’ can be firmly placed within the context of urban Planning

 Participated by over 100 policy-specialists and experts comprising the delegates from the Government of India and constituent States and cities, experts from North America, South America, Africa, Europe and the United Kingdom, South Asia, East Asia, representatives of the World Bank, Department for International Development, UK, Asian Development Bank, United Nations Development Programme, and research and teaching faculty from Indian institutions, the International Conference deliberated on issues of the inclusive nature of urban planning models, reviewed the planning models practiced in the world’s cities, and considered the institutional, legal and regulatory frameworks for urban planning.

Concluding therefrom that -

1. Cities in the developing countries have developed largely in an unplanned manner; in many countries, facing urbanization pressures, cities have expanded in a scattered low density form beyond the administrative boundaries, often in the absence of or with disregard to the building bye-laws;
2. There is a substantial proportion of the urban population whose livelihood spaces and activities, as well as spaces for living and working lies outside of the current formal planning system;
3. While in percentage terms, the proportion of urban poor is decreasing, in absolute numbers the urban poor and the changing nature of urban poverty presents a significant global policy challenge in terms of the pace, pattern, nature of urbanization, and urban poverty including the proliferation of slums, informality and social inequities that have accompanied urbanization ;
4. Current development regulations often prescribe high standards and complex procedures of land and infrastructure development which have proven inadequate to meet the needs of the-.urban poor, while also distorting urban land markets resulting in increasing inequality in cities;
5. Market-driven responses in respect of urban lands do not automatically “self-regulate”; therefore, the notion that an increase in the demand for urban land for the poor will spur its supply, has turned out to be flawed. Such responses, in many situations, are said to have produced uneven development and inequalities;
6. In spite of these challenges, the urban poor have responded by contributing significantly to the urban economy;
7. For sustainable urban growth, the inclusion of the poor in the formal planning process is, therefore, non-negotiable

And affirming its commitment to the following guiding principles:

1. Urban planning needs to respond dynamically to the changing realities of urbanization, economic processes and demand-driven development challenges;
2. Urban planning, and its related processes, regulations, institutions and funding must recognise the needs of the poor in terms of their spaces for livelihood, living and working as valid and crucial concerns of planning;
3. Urban planning should include women, children, the disabled, the aged and other socially disadvantaged groups to ensure that they have equal access to opportunities, infrastructure and services that urban areas offer. The delegates reject discrimination in urban planning, either in form or process;
4. Regulatory and institutional frameworks for planning require to be reformed such that that these are able to recognize the urban poor as stakeholders and ensure that their inclusion in the process is intrinsic to urban planning.
5. Mainstream and deepen community-driven, participatory approaches, embedded within inclusive city-wide policies and strategies by involving communities, neighbourhoods, and especially the poor in the informal sector in the preparation and implementation of city plans; and
6. Promotion of responsible planning with community involvement focusing on the urban poor will also help conserve and renew natural resources, reduce the urban carbon footprint, and preserve and promote culture and heritage, thus creating healthier and sustainable cities.

Civil Society Consultation at Bhopal: How to do an effective advocacy on Urban Poverty Issues

On 4th February PRIA and Samarthan initiated a dialogue on how to really achieve effective advocacy around urban poverty issues, through strengthening the civil society. The consultation was held at Bhopal. The consultations saw the presence of civil society members, ngos and cso including ction- Aid, Water Aid,  UN Habitat,PRIA, GHK, VJSS Indore, Population Foundation of India and Clinton foundation. The discussion revolved around ‘how civil society can be a bridge between the community members and the government’

There is always a concern as to how to make a dominant government work on issues of deprived and poor. These concerns grow up when government is cemented with strong bureaucratic structures and weaker community interface. Civil society, taking initiatives to strengthen community’s interface with the government and make it consider their problems and issues, grapples with the problem of ‘making government listen’ which could later lead to ‘making government work’. In the plethora of issues of urban poor, consolidating and strengthening the voice of civil society is a major objective of national and international organizations working for the betterment of the urban poor and to ensure inclusive governance. There is a need to strengthen informal networks, initiatives and social movements and turn into a structured effort of policy advocacy. The proposed Community of Practice (CoP)/ ‘working together on urban poverty’ consultation at Bhopal  discussed advocacy experiences of various prominent organizations on urban poverty issues in MP and explored possibilities of a shared and effective platform/forum in order to engage with the government.

Goals of the Meeting:

(1)To identify effective channels and process of advocacy

(2) To explore a common platform where a collaboration effort of advocacy on urban poverty can be taken.

(3) To finalize an action plan for the future to work collectively on urban poverty issue

Meeting started with an overview provided by Dr Yogesh Kumar, Executive Director, Samarthan, on the urban scenario in MP, major issues involved with the urbanization and scope of civil society organizations to intervene in collaborative manner. He also spelled out the objective of this meeting and need for a collaborative effort to place organized energy for the cause of urban poverty. A presentation was made on the issues and prospects of advocacy on urban poverty issues. Presentation discussed three major issues i.e. Advocacy by smaller civil society group; Advocacy on small towns; Advocacy in small towns,  that are pertaining to urban advocacy.

After presentation four major issues were placed for discussion:

• Efficiency versus delivery capacities of local urban administration: There are lowest scores in various services in small towns recorded through various report cards that Samarthan and other organizations have brought at times. Delivery mechanism is not able to deliver services with most efficiency.
• Exclusive nature of urban planning: Urban planning remains exclusionary in nature and do not accommodate common people. It is still being done by consultants or departments, not by local people.
• Lack of conversance among various departments and resource to implement components of urban planning.
• Low ability of elected representatives in engaging with the development process in the towns. Parshads (councilors)  do not know how to utilize the money and their individual grants.

Mr. Narendra Sharma from Action Aid emphasized that on the name of efficiency and transparency, most of the basic services are being privatized based on PPP model and becomes responsibility of private actors. He mentioned a study on water by Manthan to support his argument. Surendra Khadge from VJSS, Indore shared his experience from Indore that in the name of development and rehabilitation, 7000 people have been shifted away from city where they do not have access to basic facilities and they also lost their means of livelihood. In some places, rehabilitated families are forced to make their shift at 20 km away from the city. He also made a point on increasing urban slums in Indore from 599 in 2006 to around 800 in 2011.

Dr Pradeep Nandy from UN Habitat emphasized on the use of information and validation data to be used in advocacy. He stressed upon a point that whenever we use data for the said purpose, they should be validated by concerned authorities and also compared and consulted with previous studies.  Mr Sur from population Foundation of India shared that advocacy efforts with government authorities have not been very successful. So, he stressed upon the need that we should seek some alternative methods of effective advocacy. Binu Arickal from water Aid raised suggested that PPP should be used to ensure rights of the people. Jeetesh Rai from PRIA suggested to include violence against women in the agenda of urban poverty of the CSOs. Shyam Singh from Samarthan advised to include elected political leaders in the advocacy efforts. Dr Rose from Clinton Foundation also endorsed this point.

Dr Yogesh Kumar made point that Ashray Nidhi was way to get away from the system of rehabilitation of people. Nobody is representing the interest of economically weaker people. We need to look at Bread earner especially women, who have not been given priorities in planning. Poor may be willing to pay if they are provided better services. But indirectly, they are paying much. He also said that citizen collectives can play important roles in bringing changes. He emphasized on the need of building capacities of urban administration and elected representatives.

Way Forward:

Dr Yogesh Kumar suggested that we can put our programs together for our learning that organizations are gathering through their own interventions. Organizations can link with inter-connected issues. By using experiences from each of us and identifying the issues, CSOs can engage with the government collaboratively.  Some time administration also needs our support to strengthen good initiatives. He suggested all partner organizations to meet for 2-3 hours once in one or two months and share their experiences.

Narendra Sharma suggested we should bring more partners to these meetings.  We should discuss issues like earmarking of land to urban poor, security issues, planning and audit issues with priority. Binu Arickal said that we need to have regular dialogue through meetings. We also need to build civil society’s capacities. Meeting should be held every month.

Decisions taken:

1. Meeting or partners on the first Saturday of every month.
2. Meeting should be organized by partnering organizations in turn basis.
3. 2^nd meeting to be held at Samarthan premises on march 2^nd.

Participation and the “han ji syndrome”

The author of this article, Hugo Ribadeau Dumas, is a master student in urban governance (from Sciences Po, Paris). He is currently interning with PRIA in Patna, Bihar.

 

Photo: Slum dwellers during an “orientation meeting” organized by PRIA in Chhapra (Bihar), in February 2013

 “Han ji”(Yes sir). These two words could sum up very well the spirit of slum dwellers when interrogated about participatory processes they are involved in. Did you find today’s discussion fruitful? “Han ji”. Did you understand everything from yesterday’s training session? “Han ji”. Do you agree with the next steps we are suggesting you for the slum improvement committee? “Han ji”.

Whatever dry or disorganized meetings might be, the reaction of the inhabitants will almost invariably fit this “han ji framework”.  Social workers familiar with the field will probably agree with this point: the tendency to acquiesce without questioning too often characterizes interactions with the most destitute citizens.  The roots of this relative apathy are numerous: lack of skills (to speak in public, for instance), lack of confidence (“Won’t sahab be upset if I tell him I did not like his meeting?”) or simply lack of interest (“What difference does it really make if I did not understand?”).

But, more generally speaking, putting aside the reasons for this lack of critical reactivity, the “han ji syndrome” shows us that participation does not necessarily imply empowerment. Giving poorer communities the opportunity to raise their voice is for sure a decisive step in this direction. But it might be insufficient. What we can see on the field is that a great share of citizens involved in participatory institutions (such as the Slum Improvement Committees, set up by PRIA in various cities of Bihar, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh) actually follow instructions without integrating them: they accept to attend meetings, they accept the rules of the participatory programmes, but to which extent are they aware of their meaning and ultimate objectives? They often “participate” without truly grasping what it could potentially imply in terms of autonomization and community strengthening.

In other words, they do not necessarily see participatory processes as “theirs”, but rather as something ”higher than them” brought by outsiders. It is revealing that, when asked about the reason of their participation in a meeting, slum dwellers often answer “because somebody asked us to come”, without referring to their personal expectations. In the same vein, when interrogated about the agenda of Slum Improvement Committee’s regular meetings, it is not rare that inhabitants simply answer “whatever you want to talk about, Sir”. Such observations do not mean that slum dwellers do not care about the meetings; they are on the contrary usually extremely attentive to what is being said to them. But it shows that their participation remain largely passive, not active. Which explains the prevalence of the “han ji syndrome”.

The role of organizations such as PRIA, whose goal is to offer the urban poor the tools to combat their own fights, is surely to destroy this “han ji reflex”. A major challenge is to generate instead what we could call a “nahin posture” (a “no posture”).  In order to genuinely appropriate participatory arenas, citizens should be ready to say “nahin”: nahin, I did not understand what you told me; nahin, I do not agree with you;  nahin, I think what you are proposing us for the future will not work out. Such critical stand would prove that inhabitants have integrated the challenges implied by the participatory process, and that they truly feel part of it.  

It is our responsibility to help local communities to pass from “han ji” to “nahin”. By multiplying meetings, by spreading knowledge within the neighbourhoods, by encouraging debates, a certain culture of contradiction, contestation and protestation might emerge from these populations. It obviously requires time and a strong involvement at the grass-root level, not only of the inhabitants but also of supporting-NGOs. For promoters of community participation, like PRIA, it also implies encouraging inhabitants to be critical about the whole participatory process and therefore accept amendments from inside. 

Contrary to what one might counter-intuitively think, the success of participatory approaches should not be measured by the number of “han ji” pronounced by the participants, but rather by the frequency of the “nahin”. This objective should always be in the horizon of empowerment projects

“Hai ki nahin?”

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

For criticisms or to share some ideas on how to generate a “nahin posture” among the inhabitants, the author of this article can be contacted here: hugo.ribadeaudumas@sciences-po.org

The second part of this paper, which will include proposals on how to struggle against the “han ji syndrom”, will soon be published on Terra Urban.

Mastipur, Bodhgaya: story of an “incidental rehabilitation” scheme in the land of the Enlightenment

By Hugo Ribadeau Dumas and Abhishek Jha, PRIA

While the “city” of Bodhgaya might be characterized by a negligible demographic and geographic importance, its influence and prestige at the international scale is nevertheless undeniable. Officially labelled as a class-III town by the government, the nagar panchayat of Bodhgaya had a population of just 31,000 people according to the 2001 census. But it is at the same a major destination for tourists and pilgrims:  hordes of visitors come here from all over the world come to visit the Mahabodhi Temple, famous for being the stage of the Enlightenment of the Buddha, and recognized as a World Heritage Monument by the UNESCO in 2002.

The international dimension of Bodhgaya, and consequently its economic potential and its brand value for both India and Bihar, is a strong parameter in the urban development of the city. It is indeed interesting to observe that, despite its limited size, Bodhgaya was selected among the 63 cities all over the country that would initially benefit from the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JnNURM) and a City Development Plan was prepared under it in the year 2006.in 2011, the Government of Bihar (GOB) prepared again  a new ambitious City Development Plan in order “to develop Bodhgaya as an international tourist destination by preserving its cultural heritage and by providing all basic infrastructure services to its citizens and tourists in an eco-friendly way” (CDP, 2011).

Yet, despite the peculiar attention that Bodhgaya managed to draw, improvements at the local level have been actually very limited. According to the mapping conducted by PRIA in 2012, the situation in the 19 slums of the city is still critical. Sewage systems are quasi-inexistent in most of the slums, and a great majority of the inhabitants still do not have access to private toilets. The government efforts have so far failed to address effectively these issues; very few urban poverty programs have been actually implemented by the Bihar Urban Development Agency (BUDA), and the funds channelled through the National Slum Development Program (NSDP) have been insufficient to generate any substantive impact (CDP, 2006).

In this context of global visibility associated with a permanence of poverty, one slum singularized itself and experienced an unprecedented model of development. Mastipur, as the neighbourhood is locally known, underwent what we could call an “incidental rehabilitation”, as it benefited directly from its international exposure. The neighbourhood belongs to the ward 17 and is located in the vicinity of the Mahabodhi temple complex. Populated by Musahars (Scheduled Caste and Mahadalit Community as per GOB), the locality is today surrounded by the Japanese Buddhist temple and various hotels and guesthouses. In the early 1990s, Mastipur received an unexpected international assistance. The Sri Lankan President of that time, Ranasinghe Premadasa, who was himself a devout Buddhist, could not bear that the paramount pauperism of Mastipur could be sustained on such a holy land. To put an end to this situation, he decided to launch under his own patronage a Rs75-lakh in-situ up-gradation scheme with the funds of the Sri Lankan authorities.

View from the roofs of the slum, with a hotel complex in the background.

The built environment of the neighbourhood was radically altered. 100 new concrete housing units were constructed – each featuring two rooms, one kitchen, and one bathroom. Each home got a taped connection to water supply, which is particularly rare in a city where only 10.5% of the inhabitants have access to such service (GOB, 2011). Proper roads and a community centre were also built at that time. On April 1993, the renovated neighbourhood was inaugurated by President Pramadasa himself, and officially renamed as “Buddhagayagama”, which means “The village of the re-awakened people” in Sanskrit.

Board commemorating the rehabilitation scheme conducted by the Sri Lankan authorities.

However, the tale of Mastipur did not eventually end-up in a totally rosy-masti way. While the infrastructure of the neighbourhood is significantly better than most of Bodhgaya’s slums, its social situation is still highly problematic. The Sri Lankan project initially had genuine social ambitions. For instance, in order to address the livelihood issues, the Sri Lankan government provided thelas (pull carts), few cycle-rickshaws and training to make candles and incense sticks. The Government of Bihar issued licences to thela vendors for trading kerosene oil, but these licences soon became useless when a national law banned this activity.  President Pramadasa also had in mind to develop a long-term network of exchange between slums dwellers of India and Sri Lanka. But in May 1993, only two months after the delivery of the new Mastipur, Pramadasa was killed during a terrorist attack by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Since this tragic death, the involvement of the Sri Lankan State faded away, to finally disappear.

 

Such initiatives were not always fruitful. A Sri Lanka’s newspaper, the Sunday Time, for instance highlighted in May 1998 that the very rickshaws that had been distributed were quickly sold to be used in the trading activities of alcoholic products (http://www.sundaytimes.lk/980628/plus9.html). Field observations by PRIA also revealed a non-appropriate use of some infrastructures; the school, which was not part of the rehabilitation scheme, seems for instance more prone to shelter cows rather than students (see photo attached). Twenty years after the rehabilitation of the neighbourhood, the question of maintenance is also a matter of concern. Without material assistance available, the sustainability of the built-environment is today seriously questionable, and this problem will tend to be reinforced by the demographic growth which is adding up even more pressure on the infrastructures.

Maspitur’s school building

Mastipur’s story highlights that slum up-gradation, whatever significant and well-intended it might be, must be compulsorily accompanied by a well-rooted follow-up, not only of the State but also of the local population. As compared to other slum areas in Bodhgaya, Mastipur was lucky enough to experience this “incidental rehabilitation” – however, the empowerment of its inhabitants was relatively not outstanding. During the whole process of rehabilitation, the participation of the community was feeble, and in the years afterwards the inhabitants did not collectively organize themselves to sustain and capitalize on the benefits of the programme, as mentioned above. One of the challenges now for Mastipur dwellers will therefore be to forge a platform upon which common issues could be discussed and rationalized at the scale of the neighbourhood. It is under this approach that PRIA has initiated in Mastipur a community-based organization called “Slum Improvement Committee”. In this committee, local problems will be debated on a regular basis and will thus be made more visible in the public sphere, so that local citizens can negotiate with the government and other agencies for their rights and entitlements.