Context
Habitat III held at Quito from October 17 to 20, 2016 is
successfully over, declared UNHABITAT. The communiqué from UNHABITAT also
states that the ‘New Urban Agenda’ has been adopted by the countries. The
Habitat Conferences are events to set urban development agenda for the next 20
years and hence in this context, the New Urban Agenda is an important document.
The first Habitat Conference was held in 1976 in Vancouver and the second was
held in Istanbul in 1996. The New
Urban Agenda has been set out also in the context that more than half the
population in the world is now residing in urban areas, cities and towns,
across the world. Many more will transit to urban areas in the next two
decades, particularly in Asia and Africa.
Therein lies the importance of New Urban Agenda for India. India is
on the path to urbanize, expecting 600 million residents or 40% are expected to
be residing in the cities and towns in India by 2031. If urban India were to be
a country, that it would be the second largest country in the world! The full
pdf document of the New Urban Agenda is available on the Habitat III website
link: https://habitat3.org/the-new-urban-agenda/
The New Urban Agenda
The New Urban Agenda says all the right things. The agenda
acknowledges that: “Since the United Nations Conferences on Human Settlements
in Vancouver in 1976 and in Istanbul in 1996, and the adoption of the
Millennium Development Goals in 2000, we have seen improvements in the quality
of life of millions of urban inhabitants, including slum and informal
settlement dwellers. However, the persistence of multiple forms of poverty,
growing inequalities, and environmental degradation, remain among the major
obstacles to sustainable development worldwide, with social and economic
exclusion and spatial segregation often an irrefutable reality in cities and
human settlements.”
“We are still far from adequately addressing these and other
existing and emerging challenges; and there is a need to take advantage of the
opportunities of urbanization as an engine of sustained and inclusive economic
growth, social and cultural development, and environmental protection, and of
its potential contributions to the achievement of transformative and
sustainable development.”
“By readdressing the way cities and human settlements are planned,
designed, financed, developed, governed, and managed, the New Urban Agenda will
help to end poverty and hunger in all its forms and dimensions, reduce
inequalities, promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth,
achieve gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls, in order to
fully harness their vital contribution to sustainable development, improve
human health and well-being, as well as foster resilience and protect the
environment.”
The New Urban Agenda rests heavily on the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) set up in 2015 to be achieved by 2030. The SDG 11 is: to achieve
“inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable human settlements”. The SDG 11 is about both urban and rural
settlements. But, since the expected transition is towards urbanisation, this
goal becomes extremely important for urban settlements. The New Urban Agenda
has principles and commitments. It then lays out implementation plan with
regards to:
i)
The Transformative Commitments
for Sustainable Urban Development in the areas of (a) Sustainable Urban Development
For Social Inclusion and Ending Poverty, (b) Sustainable and Inclusive Urban
Prosperity and Opportunities for All and (c) Environmentally Sustainable And
Resilient Urban Development
ii)
Effective Implementation
through (a) Building the Urban Governance Structure: Establishing a Supportive
Framework, (b) Planning and Managing Urban Spatial Development, and (C)
Creating Means of Implementation.
iii)
Follow-Up and Review.
Urban Planning in the New
Urban Agenda
Urban Planning has been recognised as an important tool for the
implementation of the New Urban Agenda. The agenda talks about integrated
planning and balancing of short term and long term needs of the cities. The
agenda does talk about relating urban spatial planning with social and economic
conditions. It talks about promoting planned urban extensions; infill;
prioritising urban renewal, regeneration and retrofitting (primarily to contain
urban sprawl) as appropriate; providing high quality buildings and public
spaces; promoting integrated and participatory approaches involving all stakeholders and inhabitants; avoiding
special and socio-economic segregation and gentrification; preserving cultural
heritage; and preventing and containing urban sprawl. The urban renewal
commitment includes upgrading of slums and informal settlements. The agenda
states that “We will promote …..” the above. Hence, lets investigate each one
of these commitments from our Indian experience of how urban planning has
worked out or not worked out.
The first issue is with regards to containing urban sprawl through
planning. Urban sprawl in the Indian cities have happened due to the real
estate interests in cahoots with those in the executive and elected wings of
the government. The mid-2000s saw expansion of urban boundaries of many
metropolitan cities namely Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Hyderabad etc. Ahmedabad’s
boundaries were expanded from 198 sq km area to 466 sq km area, that of
Bangalore from about 250 sq km to about 800 sq km. and so on. The purported
idea was to have planned development within the new jurisdiction. Also, their
respective urban development authorities’ boundaries too were extended to
undertake planning in the peri-urban areas, i.e. laying of physical
infrastructure lines of water and sanitation and put in public transport
system.
Has that happened? Yes, the roads have been laid out. In case of
Ahmedabad (I have close experience of this city) the roads have been laid out
without appropriate footpaths and edges. Public transport system has not
followed. This has created need for more private transport and hence already,
the roads are getting clogged even before the densities have increased. The
water and sanitation infrastructure is also not yet in and hence infrastructure
in the extended areas are private, provided by the residential estates
themselves in case of formal developments and by host of informal water
providers in the informal settlements. Our research at the Centre for Urban
Equity (CUE) in one large informally developed area shows that this has led to
multiple conflicts (See http://cept.ac.in/centre-for-urban-equity-cue/policy-briefs;
http://www.crdf.org.in/cue/saic/). The formal residential estates in the city,
due to lack of centralized water system are mining the ground water, at the
peril of sustainable development!
Source:
http://www.crdf.org.in/cue/saic/
The sprawl has followed revoking of the Urban Land Ceiling and
Regulation Act (ULCRA) in 1999, which led to possibility of accumulation of
large parcels of land by the developers. These lands were purchased on the
city’s periphery. Their prices would not have sky-rocketed if they were not
brought within the municipal limits. Once a few real estate projects come up in
the newly extended boundaries of the city, the municipal government is forced
to put in at the least roads, which then pushes up the land market prices
benefitting those who have accumulated lands in the newly extended city limits.
Ricardian principle of land rent states that as more and more lands are brought
in use, the price of best lands increase as some uses are ready to pay more for
central or best location. Thus, new land supply not necessarily reduces land
prices, but on the contrary increase the land prices. Thus, the new real estate
projects on the city’s periphery comes at high prices than expected while the
city sprawls and makes it all the more difficult for the municipal government
to invest in infrastructure. But, the high-end real estate projects that come
up cannot wait till the municipal water and sanitation network comes in. They
invest in their own; septic tanks for sewerage and groundwater mining tube-wells,
the latter leading to depletion of ground water.
Affordable Housing and
Planning
If the city has already sprawled, what needs to be done. The obvious
answer is refill, as the New Urban Agenda suggests. But, these refills also
come at high costs as the land prices have already increased on account of
sprawl. The refill therefore does not address the requirements of low-income
housing in the city. The land prices going up makes all plots precious and
hence are not available for squatting by the poor. The first phase of informal
settlements’ or slums’ development in the cities have been on the public lands.
Post enactment of the ULCRA, the private lands were brought by the owners under
informal settlements to avoid their acquisition under the act in case these
were categorised as surplus. At least, informal housing was possible within the
city limits. But, post revoking of ULCRA, this option has gone for the
low-income households. The informal settlements then developed on the
sub-divided agricultural lands outside the municipal limits. The CUE study of
Bombay Hotel area is one such informal settlement that developed in 2000s (See http://cept.ac.in/UserFiles/File/CUE/Working%20Papers/Revised%20New/31CUEWP%20-31-Bombay%20Hotel.pdf).
The circumstances of its development is also unique, but, we do not go into
this at the moment.
The infill in the sprawled parts of the city would be affordable for
the low-income housing unless public lands are made available and the municipal
government decides to use these for this purpose than selling them for raising
finance. Consequently, the Basic Services for the Urban Poor (BSUP) schemes
under the Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) and recent Affordable
Housing schemes are all largely outside the city limits or on the periphery of
the extended city limits. Already, the economic segregation has happened
through the land market logic. In cities with social segregation, another layer
of segregation is added to the economic segregation. Can such divided city structures
be undone now through urban planning interventions? What would such an
intervention be?
The New Urban Agenda talks about relating spatial planning with
socio-economic goals. It also talks about doing away with segregation in the
city on the class, caste and religion basis. The pathways to such an city
future is more public housing at affordable rates than leaving housing to the
market.
Provision of ‘Housing for All’ will require first of all lands
available at affordable rates. Land price escalation due to urban sprawl does
not help. In particular, the poor prefer locations near their place of
employment and would prefer in-situ redevlopment in case of slums or central
location in case of new housing. Does urban planning have mechanism for the same?
Yes, in the case where Town Planning Scheme (TPS) mechanism is used, under
which a certain percentage of private lands are acquired by the planning
authority in lieu of providing infrastructure. These become the public lands,
used for raising finance and also for public housing. This mechanism is useful
if it is used with the right spirit. All depends on the orientation of the
state government in using such lands for low-income housing. Availability of a
mechanism does not mean that it would be used. In Ahmedabad, such public lands
– these are called lands reserved for Socially and Economically Weaker Sections
(SEWS) lands – have been used for the purpose. But, not always. A great amount
of such lands have been encroached upon for other uses.
As mentioned earlier, planning often comes much after the
developments have already taken place. The permissions for formal real estate
projects are given even when the TPS is in draft stage. The informal
developments happen whether there is TPS or none. When the TPS comes to an
informal settlement, the land appropriation for public purpose can lead to
significant demolitions. In instances where informal developments have already
happened, a new mechanism of planning has to be introduced; it has to be
flexible and negotiated solution. These have to be tripartite negotiations,
between the occupants, the planning authority and original landowner. Hence,
urban planning automatically would not lead to the goals of the New Urban
Agenda or the SDG 11. There has to be inclusive governance mechanism in place
for urban planning to play a transformative role for equitable cities.
In all, there are multiple challenges to be faced if urban planning
has to meaningful and address SDG 11 of inclusive and sustainable urban
development. I have not discussed here the issues of resilient and safe cities,
as this would be another article. It is clear from this discussion that urban
planning as practiced now will not rise upto the challenges of urban development
in the present state of Indian cities. Planning has to be redefined; its
mechanisms have to be redefined and associated legislation need to be modified
to truly address the requirements of creating habitable cities that would
respond to the socio-economic needs of the current population. Do we have this
courage to be self-critical and bring about much needed reform in urban
planning approach and mechanisms. If yes, the urban future in India is bright.
