An undeniable priority

Priority for urban infrastructure is evident in the Union Budget 2023-24 as it promises the highest capital outlay for railways (Rs 2.4 lakh crore), increase of 66 per cent in PM Awas Yojana (Rs 79,000 crore), and investments of about Rs 75,000 crore in 100 vital transportation infrastructure projects. For the first time the Union government announced the constitution of urban infrastructure development fund (UIDF) with an annual allocation of Rs 10,000 crore to ramp up urban infrastructure in Tier-2 cities and Tier-3 cities. It also assured encouragement to urban planning reforms by states, aimed at facilitating transformation into ‘sustainable cities of tomorrow’ with efficient use of land and enhanced availability with affordability, adequate resources for urban infrastructure, transit-oriented development and opportunities to all. The Budget marks a good beginning to that end. However, ensuring prompt execution and timely delivery of benefits are equally important to fulfil the dream. For example, it is reported that 428 road projects, 117 railway works, 88 petroleum projects and many more in coal, power, aviation and water, are delayed in execution by 1 to 5 years, leading to the revision of the project cost of 835 works from 10.88 crore to 14.07 crore. It includes 60 per cent of urban development projects as well, with a rise in cost from 1.59 lakh crore to 1.76 crore

The saga of urban development consists of a number of schemes rolled out since the 70s to address issues of housing, water, sanitation, drainage and roads in cities and towns. The turning point came in 2005 with the launch of Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), a comprehensive programme for planned development of identified cities with large-scale investments, central assistance and governance reforms. Universal service delivery for the urban poor in a mission mode was one of the thrust areas. Around Rs 48,000 crore were spent between 2005-2014 on a number of urban projects. However, the lion’s share of benefits, especially of JNNURM, went to mega cities (more than 50 lakh in terms of population), large cities (10-50 lakh) and small cities (1-10 lakh) whereas Tier-2 and Tier-3 towns received little or no relief. Even as the new UIDF begins its operation by roping in hitherto neglected Tier-2 and Tier-3 cities, the challenges persist as the ever-increasing migration to cities is a strain on the limited resources at the disposal of civic bodies. Presently, over 35 per cent of India’s population lives in urban areas (48 crore), and with an annual increase of 2.34 per cent, it is projected that by 2030, about 50 per cent of the Indian population will be living in urban areas. A report by WWF says that 30 Indian cities would face a severe water crisis by 2030. Alongside problems of civic amenities, socio economic issues like unemployment, poverty and gender inequalities also pose challenges in urban areas.

In 2014-15, four new schemes were commissioned aiming at developing fast-track urban infrastructure, replacing JNNURM. While Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT) focussed on drinking water and sewerage improvement, Smart Cities Mission (SCM) aimed at developing infrastructure in selected 100 cities. Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) was launched for sanitation and waste-management while HRIDAY was for development of heritage cities. The four new missions are more focussed on area-based approach, with wider and decentralised coverage, and aim at encouraging ‘cooperative federalism’. Urban Infrastructure & Governance (UIG) and Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Small & Medium Towns (UIDSSMT) have together been said to have covered 736 cities and towns under these four new missions. Incentive-based approach for additional allocations to states, other source funding, and private sector participation and external assistance are the features that distinguish these missions from JNNURM.

However, the growing numbers of slums, substandard living conditions of urban poor including a 100 million migrant workforce, inadequate provision of drinking water and insufficient healthcare, not to mention air pollution, all vouch for the fact that all is not hunky-dory with the urban development programmes. The annual floods in metros like Chennai, Bangalore and Mumbai, a 'new normal' today, are reflective of messed up drainage systems and indiscriminate construction activities. The most shocking fact is that most cities do not have sewage treatment systems, and 78 per cent of sewage goes into rivers, lakes and the sea, untreated.

As per the official data, until 2019-20 i.e., after four years of launching the schemes, only 7- 20 per cent of total allocations for AMRUT were utilised by most of the states, and more than 50 per cent of the projects were incomplete. Underfunding by state governments which are supposed to match the Central grants by 33-50 per cent — depending on schemes — and decrease in central funding created a financial crunch, and many states could not mobilise adequate support through PPP either. Since the schemes are of hybrid nature, inter-departmental coordination with PWD, NHAI, railways and other agencies, and capacity building among the officials are posing challenges. Complicated regulatory frameworks and approval hurdles slowed down the execution in Tier-2 cities. Even as the existing, inadequate public services are yet to be upgraded in these cities, the new schemes are struggling to kick off. Lack of political will, preoccupation with state priority schemes, rise in construction costs, and not to mention corruption, happen to be additional problems. There are also issues of monitoring due to duplication of works. For example, AMRUT and SBM overlap in sewerage works, toilet construction and waste management, and the same is true with SCM and AMRUT in selection of infrastructure projects. Special Purpose Vehicle provision in SCM disempowers municipal bodies, leading to indifference. AHP and BLC under PM Awas Yojana have issues of non-occupancy and wrong beneficiaries.

Growing population, exodus to cities and consequent pressure on civic amenities are problems we have to live with, for they have no permanent solutions. However, better performance of schemes can be ensured with proper coordination between the Centre, states and the local bodies, which helps in resolving various issues in selection, approval and execution of projects. Greater say for the states and local bodies is necessary since models of infrastructure may not work uniformly in all states due to geographical, climatic and demographic factors. Besides, greater freedom for states would encourage competition and ensure local accountability. Most importantly, it would be wise to focus on timely execution and monitoring of the existing schemes rather than complicating things by rolling out new ones.

Finally, in our eagerness to build world-class infrastructure we should not jeopardise the basic philosophy behind urbanisation — the socioeconomic transformation of a country. The marginalised classes arrive in cities to escape from social oppression in rural areas and search for a life with dignity. The majority of people who live in cities are from lower- and middle-income sections who contribute in various jobs to the growth of the economy. Infrastructure is not to create more millionaires but to help millions cross the poverty line. Ensuring basic infrastructure for delivery of public services will positively impact livelihoods, human development, gender equality and social mobility. But unfortunately, the flipside of urban infrastructure often happens to be demotion of hutments, and displacements of families. It is reported that in 2017, around 5,400 families were ousted in road widening works while in 2018 nearly one lakh slum dwellers lost their homes in anti-encroachment drives. Involvement of the marginalised classes is also important towards building well-planned and sustainable cities.

The writer is a former Addl. Chief Secretary of Chhattisgarh. Views expressed are personal