Smart Cities Mission Work in Progress but WITH Hiccups

The government’s own figures suggest that flagship program of Smart Cities is going to miss its first deadline though the government claims that it is one of the fastest implemented projects of its kind anywhere in the world

A year after coming to power Narendra Modi government announced Smart Cities Mission. On June 25, 2015 the program was announced with much fanfare. The first set of twenty cities was selected on January 1, 2016 and subsequently another seventy were added and finally with addition of ten more this number reached hundred. It was dubbed as the most transformational urban mission. The stated objective was to ‘strengthen urban infrastructure through application of smart solutions and give a decent quality of life to citizens’.

Challenges of Smart Cities

The government had underlined the challenges when the mission began. It said “The Smart Cities Mission requires smart people who actively participate in governance and reforms. Citizen involvement is much more than a ceremonial participation in governance. Smart people involve themselves in the definition of the Smart City, decisions on deploying Smart Solutions, implementing reforms, doing more with less and oversight during implementing and designing post-project structures in order to make the Smart City developments sustainable. The participation of smart people will be enabled by the SPV through increasing use of ICT, especially mobile-based tools.”
This was probably the first time, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (then MoUD) used the ‘Challenge’ or ‘Competition’ method to select cities for funding and using a strategy of area-based development. It was termed as ‘competitive and cooperative federalism’. States and Urban Local Bodies were to play a key supportive role in the development of Smart Cities. It was stated that success of the mission will depend on smart leadership and vision at this level and ability to act decisively. It was also recognized that understanding the concepts of ‘retrofitting, redevelopment and greenfield development by the policy makers, implementers and other stakeholders at different levels will require capacity assistance.’ Further, it said that method adopted will be different from conventional DPR-driven approach.

Is time running out?

On January 1, 2019, the mission will complete three years when the first set of twenty cities was declared. As late as on January 4 this year, the ministry informed the Rajya Sabha of the progress under the mission and the data is startling. Only 5.2 per cent of the projects had been completed till that date and only 14 per cent of the budget used. A total of 2864 projects have been identified by the cities. Of these projects, 184 had been completed with an investment of 1872 crores. Work on another 407 projects had begun. 72 per cent of the identified projects were still at the stage of preparation of Detailed Project Report (DPR). Only 31 cities had completed at least one project. Twenty seven cities had not issued a single tender under the mission. This certainly does not present a rosy picture. As per the mission statement and guidelines the duration of the mission is for five years from 2015-16 to 2019-20. The Minister of Housing and Urban Affairs Hardeep Singh Puri says that there are procedural issues. He says “first the DPR has to be prepared that takes 15 to 18 months then tendering has to be done which takes another 15 months and then only work begins”. Well the question is being raised whether these factors were taken into account when such ambitious target was set. Another factor that is being pointed out by experts in the field is that the centre provides only rupees 500 crores as financial support to the selected city.
A matching contribution has to be provided by the respective state governments. Cities have to raise the balance funds. Now there are just two ways cities can do it. Either by raising it through their own resources or levying user charges. The fact is that many projects are stuck because of inability of local bodies to raise money using their own resources. Many cities are also facing problems because there is stiff resistance from citizens on imposition of user charges for services provided under the mission. That is also hampering of execution of projects.

Corporation Vs SPVs

Another point of contention from the beginning of the project has been formation of Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV). It was seen by elected representatives of municipal corporations as infringement upon their rights. They also thought that essence of ‘local self-governance’ will be defeated with specific focus on private sector driven SPVs. Now 92 chosen cities have formed SPVs. The ministry was not happy with secretaries or municipal commissioners doubling as SPV manager as well. But over a year’s period of time this issue has been settled and ministry has made its intention clear that if there is a conflict of interest it will crack the whip. It is also said that global experiences have been factored in while formulating SCM. The first part was how to select the cities and Bloomberg Philanthropies’ help was sought to overcome this challenging process. The government claims that cities were chosen impartially. Area based development is a unique feature of Smart Cities Mission which uses integrated planning approach.

Critiques of area based approach

It is this area based approach that has drawn much criticism from town planners, architects and other stake holders. They say it is too ‘project focused’ rather than evolving an integrated development plan and lacks non-discrimination approach to city development. A report prepared by Housing and Land Rights Network (HLRN) says that area based development zones cover less than five per cent of the geographic domain of many of the proposed smart cities. It fears that “the scheme could perpetuate existing biases and discrimination in national planning processes by aiming to impact the lives of only eight per cent of India’s population”. Shivani Chaudhry, Executive Director, HLRN, says “The Smart Cities Mission should reinvent itself as the Sustainable Cities Mission. A shift is required to bring about substantial and sustained improvement in the lives and livelihoods of not only the eight per cent of India’s population covered by the mission’s proposed ‘area-based development’, but for every inhabitant of this country.”
The report also flags off the point that SCM has just descended into a series of projects without a holistic plan. Critics of the mission also point out the lack of a city development model. They cite the example of absence of adequate standards to guide project implementation, including for housing, water, sanitation, health, and environmental sustainability and raise questions about whether the mission will really be able to deliver on its aims and ensure the fulfillment of rights and entitlements of all city residents.

Pace of progress

On his part, Hardeep Puri dismisses these apprehensions and even calls his critics ‘anpadh’ (illiterate). He also refutes the criticism that the progress of the mission is very slow. Puri claims that it is one of the fastest implemented projects of its kind anywhere in the world. To buttress his argument he says that people overlook this fact that first twenty cities were chosen in January 2016 and last nine in January 2018, so all smart cities cannot be at the same level of implementation.
From all accounts, it is quite evident that there is no way the mission is going to meet its target. Also there is a need to rethink the area based development approach. Unless the mission seeks to address structural inequalities and inadequacies in Indian cities, its piecemeal, project-based interventions are unlikely to succeed but the jury is still out on this.