Governance and Infrastructure Development Challenges … · Challenges in the Kathmandu Valley...

Governance and Infrastructure Development Challenges in the Kathmandu Valley

Final Workshop Report February 2009

Kathmandu, Nepal

Sponsored by the East-West Center's Urban Dialogue and Kathmandu Metropolitan City Government

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1

Map 4

Aims and Objectives 5

Report 6

Action Plan 9

Agenda 10

Biographies 13

Participant List 16

Appendixes

Kathmandu Valley Profile

Metropolitan Governance in India: An Overview of Selected Cities

Governance and Planning in Metro Manila

Metro Manila: A Case Study in Planning and Governance

Partnership for Urban Waste Management

Expert Presentation Questions and Answers

Complete Workshop Group Memory

Newspaper Articles

1

Executive Summary

At the invitation of the Kathmandu Metropolitan City, the East-West Center co-sponsored the workshop Governance and Infrastructure Development Challenges in Kathmandu Valley and took place 11-13 February 2009 in Kathmandu, Nepal. The workshop was organized to examine current urban development planning and land use policy issues in rapidly growing Kathmandu Valley. After a series of consultations among the officials of the Kathmandu Metropolitan City, national government and urban planners, two specific aims were developed for the workshop:

i. To investigate the efficacy of establishing a Kathmandu Valley Authority with clear and comprehensive planning and land use policy mandates

ii. To develop an action plan to establish a regional planning mechanism that incorporates greater decision making autonomy to Kathmandu Metropolitan City and other local governments in Kathmandu Valley

Workshop participants included the Chief Executive Officers (Mayors) of Kathmandu Metropolitan City, Lalitpur Sub-Metropolitan City, Bhaktapur Municipality, Kirtipur Municipality, and Thimi Municipality; high-level leaders and representatives from key National Government departments; and education, private sector, international and local NGOs; local urban planning experts; and international aid agencies such as the United States Agency for International Development, GTZ (Germany), Asia Development Bank, Japan International Cooperation Agency, World Bank, and the European Union. There were 50 participants in total with attendance by invitation only

The East West Center sponsored three urban planning experts who provided consultation with the participants over the three-day workshop. The experts discussed various frameworks for regional development authorities, presented case studies of regional development authority models, and efficient waste management practices. The following experts presented case studies:

Mr. K.C. Sivaramakrishnan, Chairman, Centre for Policy Research, and Senior Fellow, Institute of Social Sciences, New Delhi, India; Former Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development; and Former Chief Executive of the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority, India

Mr. Nathaniel von Einsiedel, Chairman/CEO, CONCEP, Inc., and President, The Urban Partnerships Foundation, Makati City, Philippines; Former Regional Coordinator for Asia-Pacific, UN Urban Management Programme; and former Commissioner for Planning, Metropolitan Manila Commission, Philippines

Mr. Badan Lal Nyachhyon, Director, MULTI Disciplinary Consultants (P), Ltd, Nepal

The participants examined the case studies presented on regional planning authority models from India, the Philippines, Kathmandu Metropolitan City and their applicability to Kathmandu Valley.

Throughout the 3-day workshop, participants identified and analyzed core problems facing urban development in Kathmandu Valley and agreed upon core objectives and actions needed to tackle the

2

problems through a Problem Tree Analysis exercise. They reviewed existing national and local government relationships with key infrastructure services in the valley including transportation, water, sewer, transportation, housing, and energy, and identified the lack of a regional coordination mechanism as a major constraint. It was evident from the problem tree analysis that the root causes of the problem of infrastructure failure was related to better planning, management and coordination between different level of government and line agencies.

Finally, they prepared a time-bound action plan that includes next steps and recommendations for creating a regional planning mechanism. This action plan recommended the establishment of a regional planning authority for better more efficient planning, management, and coordination among various actors within the Kathmandu Valley.

About the Partners East-West Center

The Governance and Infrastructure Development Challenges in Kathmandu Valley Workshop was an outcome of the Asia-Pacific-U.S. Urban Dialogue program. Since 2008, the East-West Center has been bringing together small groups of mayors and other high-level government leaders, urban planning practitioners, civil society and private sector representatives, and urbanization scholars from the United States, Asia, and elsewhere to examine and reflect on current trends, implications, policy options, and strategic visions for managing urban growth. The Center’s Urban Dialogue program facilitates a variety of peer-to-peer learning exchanges through informal, roundtable dialogues, workshops and forums, using a knowledge-based approach that integrates experience and data.

The East-West Center was established by the U.S. Congress in 1960 to promote better relations and understanding between the United States and the nations of Asia and the Pacific region. For 50 years, the Center has served as a vigorous hub for cooperative research, education, and dialogue on critical issues of common concern. It provides a meeting ground where people with a wide range of perspectives exchange views and experiences for the purpose of strengthening policy options. The East-West Center’s 21-acre Hawai‘i campus is strategically located midway between Asia and the U.S. mainland. It features research and residential facilities and an international conference center.

Kathmandu Metropolitan City Government

Kathmandu is the metropolitan city centre of the surrounding Kathmandu District. The city of Kathmandu forms this district with some 57 Village Development Committees. According to 2001 census, there are 235,387 households in the metropolitan city. The city is divided into five sectors namely the Central Sector, the East Sector, the North Sector, the City Core and the West Sector. For civic administration, the city is further divided into 35 administrative wards. The Council administers the Metropolitan area of Kathmandu city through its 177 elected representatives and 20 nominated members. It holds biannual meetings to review, process, approve the annual budget and make major policy decisions. The ward profile documents for the 35 wards prepared by the Kathmandu Metropolitan Council is exhaustive and provides information for each ward on population, the structure and condition of the houses, the type of roads, educational, health and financial institutions, entertainment facilities, parking space, security provisions and so forth. It also includes lists of development projects completed, on-going and planned, along with informative data about the cultural heritage, festivals, historical sites and the local inhabitants.

Kathmandu Metropolitan City Department of Physical Development and Construction

The Department of Physical Development and Construction is mainly responsible for promoting the city’s physical development plan and program including implementation of urban infrastructure projects including roads, drainage, parks and greenery, housing, and conservation of historic and heritage sites

3

within Kathmandu Metropolis in accordance with the Local Self Governance ACT. The department is also responsible for the promotion, implementation, and coordination of development projects in the Kathmandu Metropolis with support from international funding agencies and cities.

5

Workshop Aims and Objectives

1. To investigate the efficacy of establishing a Kathmandu Valley Authority with clear and comprehensive planning and land use policy mandates.

2. To develop an action plan to establish a regional planning mechanism that incorporates greater decision-making autonomy for Kathmandu Metropolitan City and other local governments in Kathmandu Valley.

Over the course of the 3-day workshop, participants will engage in large and small group discussions and interactive exercises led by a professional trainer/facilitator. These sessions will be strategically designed to encourage, team work, creative problem solving, and consensus building around the issues that will be addressed during the workshop—skills critical to ensuring a successful outcome that all participants can support.

Workshop participants will:

Identify, discuss, and analyze urban development and governance issues and their causal relationships-- including problems, strengths, and opportunities-- currently faced by Kathmandu Metropolitan City and the other local municipalities in the valley.

Review existing national and local government relationships governing the provision of infrastructure and services in the valley such as housing, waste management, and transportation.

Examine and discuss regional planning authority models- including structure, operation, and applicability to Kathmandu Valley- through case study presentations by outside experts.

Prepare a time-bound action plan that includes “next steps” to addressing identified issues within a regional planning framework, including recommendations on:

- Establishing new and/or expanded roles and responsibilities for Kathmandu Metropolitan City and local governments in Kathmandu Valley.

- How local governments can work collaboratively to plan and execute development activities, including human and financial resource management arrangements.

- How best to involve civil society organizations in the formulation and implementation of regional planning and development policies.

- How best to coordinate support of international donors and other organizations in national and local government efforts to create a regional planning mechanism

6

Report

Background

The workshop on Governance and Infrastructure Development Challenges in Kathmandu Valley was a direct result of Kathmandu Metropolitan City’s (KMC) participation in the East-West Center’s 2008 inaugural URBAN ASIA seminar in Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Through the URBAN ASIA seminar series, the East-West Center hopes to strengthen regional cooperation by promoting best practices, inter-disciplinary and multi-country dialogues, and collaboration among regional institutions, intergovernmental bodies and non-government research networks.

The inaugural URBAN ASIA seminar focused on metropolitan governance challenges. Through discussions with colleagues and peers from cities across the U.S. and Asia, the Kathmandu Mayor and the Director of City Planning expressed their interest in continuing to explore these issues with their local counterparts in Nepal, specifically the leaders and planning officials of the municipalities in Kathmandu Valley. They also wanted to bring in the views of local city planning experts, ngos, and academic researchers. The Kathmandu Metropolitan City officials suggested collaboration with the East-West Center to help them identify appropriate metropolitan governance experts who could present case studies on establishment and operation of metropolitan regional authorities. They also asked the East-West Center if it would be possible to assist in facilitating discussion and agreement around problem identification related to metropolitan governance issues in the Kathmandu Valley and the development of an action plan to move forward

Problem Identification

The workshop began with all participants engaging in a facilitated brainstorming process on metropolitan governance models. This process led to several agreed-upon problem statements. The group recognized that some of the items identified might be causes or effects of some of the larger challenges currently faced by the municipalities of Kathmandu Valley. Through a prioritization process, the participants concluded that infrastructure failure was a major problem, and after more discussion identified the Failure of Infrastructure in Kathmandu Valley as the main challenge that needed to be addressed. Using a problem tree analysis approach, the group then identified Root Causes (RC) with Sub-Root Causes (SRC) and Main Effects (ME) and Secondary Effects (SE) around the chosen problem. For the selected problem of Failure of Infrastructure in Kathmandu Valley, causes were categorized under six roots: management; education; coordination; economics; planning; and, manpower. The effects of the problem were identified under four major effects: social; health and environment; development; and, economics.

It was evident from the problem tree analysis that the root causes of the problem of infrastructure failure was related to better planning, management and coordination between different level of government and line agencies. By extension, other problems within the Kathmandu Valley also are related with the three identified major roots.

Regional Development Approaches and Case Studies of Development Authority Models

The second day of the workshop was devoted to providing participants with an understanding of regional development models and illustrated case studies of regional planning authorities in India and the Philippines. Invited experts Mr. Sivaramakrishnan and Dr. Von Einsidel gave brief presentations on models of city-region governance that they—during their long careers and vast experience in metropolitan government in India and the Philippines respectively—had helped to develop and institute in Kolkata and Manila, including: autonomous local government units; the mixed local and regional governance model; and the unified city-region model.

7

Several lessons learned were identified throughout the case study presentations. As cities continue to grow, there is a need to take a regional development approach—due to the nature of growth patterns, the boundary of the region is in itself dynamic. The need for a regional approach especially for the Kathmandu Valley is necessitated not just by the growth of the city itself, however, but also by its coalescing with the other urban settlements in the Valley, resulting in an expansive built-up area comprised of several local jurisdictions.

Another major challenge is the increasing environmental degradation which no single local authority acting independently can address. This problem, in turn, affects the Valley residents’ health, social well-being, and economic productivity.

Stakeholder participation—a hugely important component of the democratic process—is complicated and hard to fully materialize in an urban context. Stakes shift with stakeholders and the stakeholders themselves are always changing. Another important lesson learned is the need for sharing political power and to determine the non-negotiable attributes for all the institutions and stakeholders involved. Similarly a regional authority must have the ability to continually evolve, adopt and adjust to development in the area. While there are many models of regional authorities, Kathmandu Valley must create their own regional development mechanism in order to effectively meet the needs of its communities. Much emphasis was on the need to be flexible in regional coordination approach and to ensure participation as well as to understand the importance of obtaining the confidence of elected representative in the regional coordination process.

The establishment of a regional coordination approach depends significantly on appreciation by elected representatives and top level decision-makers of the basic rationale and benefits of urban (and regional) environmental planning which invariably requires inter-jurisdictional cooperation and collaboration. It appears that comprehensive and long-term planning is well understood and appreciated by technical personnel, but without the support of their superiors, their suggestions may not even be considered. There is a real need to deepen the understanding and broaden the appreciation of urban environmental planning and inter-jurisdictional cooperation among elected officials, without their support, a regional coordination approach will not come to fruition.

Action Plan for Regional Development Authority

The development of an action plan was a key outcome of the workshop. The plan was created on the final day of the workshop as a culmination of the work completed during in the previous two days. At the beginning of the action plan development process, participants were asked to define positions and interests of all four levels of government representation: national; state/district; municipalities; and wards. This activity provided an opportunity to understand different perspectives and to emphasize the commonalities and comprehend differences so that a pragmatic approach would be selected. As an exercise, each group listed the non-negotiable attributes for each level of the government.

Participants engaged in facilitated small and large group discussion designed to encourage consensus building around the following issues:

New and/or expanded roles and responsibilities of Kathmandu Metropolitan City and Local Governments in Kathmandu Valley.

Collaborative working arrangements to plan and execute development activities, especially in regard to human resources and financial management.

Civil society involvement in planning and implementation of regional planning and development policies.

Coordinated support of international donors and aid organizations for national and local government efforts to create a regional planning mechanism.

8

Participants differentiated local issues from regional issues, and by consensus agreed that local issues relate to those issues that have effect on people and land within the local area with no substantial effects beyond. On the other hand, regional issues have effects on people and land of the region and are not limited to a single lower government entity. The regional issues are also common to more than one local body and require a common platform.

At the conclusion of the consensus building discussion, participants were divided into four groups, and each group was asked to develop a schedule with tasks, a timetable and specific milestones required for the formation of a regional development authority. The groups were also asked to identify stakeholders whose interests should be represented in this process. Lastly, the group identified the appropriate agency/organization that would be responsible for each task. The final time-bound action plan consolidates the milestones developed in the workshop, and has been refined based on further discussion with Kathmandu Metropolitan City officials and key workshop participants.

The action plan calls for the establishment of an operational Kathmandu Valley Regional Development Authority (KVDA) by the end of year five. The key component of the action plan is the establishment of a steering committee mandated with the task of coordinating several stakeholders both within the central and local government. The steering committee will also act as a provisional secretariat, and KMC will provide leadership at the beginning.

A three-stage development process is envisaged in the action plan. First, a position document is prepared with the involvement of stakeholders and experts. This is primarily for generating wider discussion and to provide a probable input for constitutional provision. Since Nepal is currently in the process of writing a new constitution, it could be an opportune moment to incorporate a provision in the new constitution for mandating a regional coordination body for the Kathmandu Valley. The steering committee will oversee this critical task.

In the second phase of the action plan, along with detail outreach, modality of regional coordination mechanism will be investigated and determined. This phase will determine the geographical scope and domain, analyze interest and position of various stakeholders, and include analysis of resources, strength and weakness of the involved organizations. The outcome of the second phase would be a policy document providing a framework for establishment of a Kathmandu Valley Development Authority. The final phase of the action plan relates to developing enabling legislative provisions, regulations and operation guidelines.

Adopting a new policy such as a regional cooperation approach to planning and administration, and establishing a new organization such as a regional development authority, is a difficult and long-drawn-out process, especially in an environment of serious economic limitations. Because the proposed policy and organization are new and have never been tried in Nepal before, the policy-making process has high risks of being either misdirected along the way or postponed indefinitely. The process stands a better chance of being considered, accepted and implemented if the concept is demonstrated through a practical, real-life, local experience. This could be in the form of a valley-wide infrastructure project (e.g. sanitation) with a project management structure that mimics the proposed development authority. Such a project can probably be pursued simultaneously during the second phase of the action plan.

It is also recommended that this report and the recommended action plan for establishing a development authority body be submitted to the Ministry of Local Development, Ministry of Physical Planning and Works, National Planning Commission, concerned central government agencies, other municipalities and local governments in the Kathmandu Valley. Wider circulation of the workshop proceeding facilitates information dissemination and will be instrumental in initiating a discussion on regional coordination and establishment of the valley development authority.

Responsible Agency1 Constitute a steering committee of major interests and academics

2 Prepare a Position Paper with regard to Regional Authority ♦

3 Mobilize support for to be incorporating provision in the new constitution

4 Define the geographical limits/domain of the authority

5 Define interest of the people within the domain of the authority

6 Review current status and SWOT

7 Workout interrelation among central government, states, municipality and VDC

8 Prepare Policy Draft ♦

9 Build consensus among stakeholders/constituents

10 Prepare legal document

11 Enact RDA act and develop supporting regulation and operational guidelines

12 Regional Development Authority Established and Operationa ♦

Notes:KMC: Kathmandu Metropolitan CityNPC: National Planning CommissionMOPPW: Ministry of Physical Planning and WorksMOLD: Ministry of Local DevelopmentLocal Governments: District (State), Municipalities and Village Development Committees

S. N.

KMC, Local Governments, MOLD, MOPPW, NPC and Experts, MUAN - Municipal Association of Nepal KMC, Local Governments, MOLD, MOPPW, NPC and Experts, MUAN - Municipal Association of Nepal

Timeline

Year 5KMC, NPC

Task Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

Steering Committee

Steering Committee

Steering Committee

Steering Committee

Steering Committee, KMC

KMC, Local Governments, MOLD, MOPPW, NPC and Experts, MUAN - Municipal Association of Nepal

Steering Committee

Steering Committee

Steering Committee

Central Government, MUAN - Municipal Association of Nepal

Steering Committee

Central Government

Central Government, KMC and Local Governments

Action Plan for the Establishment of Regional Planning Authority in Kathmandu Valley

General Public, KMC, Central and Local Governments, MUAN - Municipal Association of Nepal Central Government, NPC and Legal Experts, MUAN - Municipal Association of Nepal Parliament and Steering Committee, MUAN - Municipal Association of Nepal

Involved InstitutionsKMC, Local Governments, MOLD, MOPPW, NPC and Experts, MUAN - Municipal Association of Nepal KMC, Local Governments, MOLD, MOPPW, NPC and Experts, MUAN - Municipal Association of Nepal KMC, Local Governments, MOLD, MOPPW, NPC and Experts, MUAN - Municipal Association of Nepal Central Government, KMC and Local Government, MUAN- Municipal Association of Nepal General Public, KMC and Local Governments, MUAN - Municipal Association of Nepal

10

Workshop Agenda

Wednesday 11 February 2009

9:00 – 9:30 Registration

9:30 – 9:40 Welcome

Mr. Devendra Dongol Department Head, Physical Development and Construction Kathmandu Metropolitan City

9:40 –10:00 Workshop Inauguration and Remarks

Mr. Narayan Gopal Malego Chief and Executive Officer Kathmandu Metropolitan City

10:00 – 10:15 Introductions and Objective of the Workshop

Ms. Meril Dobrin Fujiki Manager, URBAN ASIA: Challenges of Transition and Governance Seminar Series East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA

10:15 – 10:30 Morning Tea and group photograph

Sessions on teambuilding, problem solving, and problem tree analysis facilitated by Ms. Dee Dee Letts, President, Resolutions Hawaii, USA

10:30 – 11:00 Building a Successful Leadership Team Exploring the dynamics and importance of team building

11:00 – 11:30 Creative Problem Solving Techniques and Strategies Stimulating creative thinking skills among teams

11:30 – 12:30 Team Building and Problem Solving Exercises

12:30 – 13:00 Introduction to Problem Tree Analysis

Identifying core problems facing urban development in Kathmandu Valley and analyzing root causes, effects and relationships

13:00 – 13:45 Lunch

13:45 – 15:45 Problem Tree Analysis Group Exercise

15:45 – 16:00 Afternoon Tea

16:00 – 17:00 Overview of Regional Planning Models Panel discussion with invited experts on the basic models for a regional approach to urban development, facilitated by Ms. Letts

11

Mr. K.C. Sivaramakrishnan Chairman, Center for Policy Research, Senior Fellow, Institute of Social Sciences, New Delhi, India; Former Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development; and former Chief Executive of the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority

Dr. Nathaniel von Einsiedel Chairman/CEO, CONCEP, Inc., and President, The Urban Partnerships Foundation, Makati City, Philippines; former Regional Coordinator for Asia-Pacific, UN Urban Management Programme; and former Commissioner for Planning, Metropolitan Manila Commission

Thursday 12 February 2009

9:00 – 9:15 Opening Problem Solving Exercise

9:15 – 10:15 Review of Problem Tree Analysis Facilitated by Ms. Letts

10:15 – 10:30 Morning Tea

10:30 – 11:00 Expert Comments on Problem Tree Analysis Outcome

Mr. K.C. Sivaramakrishnan and Dr. Nathaniel von Einsiedel, facilitated by Ms. Letts

11:00 – 12:00 The Regional Development Authority Model Experience in India: Metropolitan Cities of Mumbai, Bangalore, Chennai, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Delhi Cases study presented by Mr. K.C. Sivaramakrishnan

12:00 – 13:00 Question and Answer on India Case Study

13:00 – 13:45 Lunch

13:45 – 14:00 Team Building Exercise

14:00 – 15:00 The Regional Development Authority Model Experience in the Philippines Case study presented by Dr. Nathaniel von Einsiedel

15:00 – 16:00 Question and Answer on Philippines Case Study


16:15 – 16:45 Partnership for Urban Waste Management in Kathmandu Valley Presented by Mr. Badal Lal Nyachhyon Director, MULTI Disciplinary Consultants (P), Ltd.

16:45 – 17:00 Question and Answer

12

Friday 13 February 2009

9:00 – 9:15 Problem Solving Exercise

Sessions on consensus building, action plan development activities facilitated by Ms. Letts

9:15 – 9:45 Consensus Building Elements, process, and value of negotiation, interests and positions

9:45 – 10:45 Consensus Building Exercise

10:45 – 11:00 Morning Tea

11:00 – 11:15 Summary of Proceedings, Days 1-2

11:15 – 13:00 Small Group Discussions on Action Plan Development

13:00 – 13:45 Lunch

13:45 – 14:00 Team Building Exercise

14:00 – 15:30 Group Reports


15:45 – 16:45 Action Plan Prioritization and Next Steps

16:45 – 17:00 Workshop Summary and Closing

Mr. Devendra Dongol and Ms. Fujiki

13

Expert Biographies

Kathmandu Metropolitan City

Mr. Narayan Gopal Malego Chief and Executive Officer, Kathmandu Metropolitan City, Nepal

Mr. Narayan Gopal Malego was appointed by the Council of Ministers (Cabinet) as Chief and Executive Officer of Kathmandu Metropolitan City in Oct 2008. Prior to this, Mr. Malego served as Acting Secretary, Government of Nepal, and Joint Secretary at the Ministry of Land Reform and Management, Government of Nepal. He joined the Nepal Government Service as a Section Officer in the Ministry of General Administration and has served in several Ministries in the Government of Nepal including as Chief District Officer, Joint Secretary of the National Planning Commission, Ministry of Home Affairs, and Director General in the Department of Information of the Ministries of Communication. Through these various appointments, he has gained broad experience in administrative, management and planning activities of various districts in Nepal and in national level issues related with planning, programming and policy formulation. He has attended several national and international seminars and conferences in various fields. Mr. Malego holds a master’s degree in public administration as well as bachelor’s degree in law from Tribhuvan University, Nepal.

Mr. Devendra Dongol Department Head, Physical Development and Construction, Kathmandu Metropolitan City, Nepal

Mr. Devendra Dongol brings 24 years of experience working in Kathmandu Metropolitan City in the field of urban planning and development, and urban infrastructure. He currently serves as the Head of the Department of Physical Development and Construction, where he plans and coordinates urban projects with support from international funding agencies and cities such as UNESCAP, UN-Habitat, GTZ, Japan International Cooperation Agency, European Commission, and Stuttgart City and University. In 1981, Mr. Dongol joined the Planning and Development Collaborative International/ United States Agency for International Development Kathmandu as a local consultant and worked for integrated rural development projects in various districts of Nepal.

In1995, he was promoted to the post of Department Head of the Urban Development Department of Kathmandu Metropolitan City. In this capacity, Mr. Dongol was actively involved in the promotion and implementation of the urban development plan and program which specifically focused on urban planning, land use, housing, environmental management, conservation of historic sites, and waste management. In 2002 he was appointed as a national co-director for the Kathmandu Valley Mapping Project in Kathmandu Valley (a European Union Grant Aid Project).

Mr. Dongol undertook study and research visits in the field of urban planning and development at the University of Stuttgart in 2001 and 2005 and participated in several urban planning and development workshops and conferences in France, Spain, Germany and Japan. Mr. Dongol holds a master’s degree in infrastructure planning from the University of Stuttgart, Germany (1995) and a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from Nagpur University, India.

14

Experts

Dr. Nathaniel von Einsiedel Chairman/CEO, CONCEP, Inc., and President, The Urban Partnerships Foundation, Makati City, Philippines; Former Regional Coordinator for Asia-Pacific, UN Urban Management Programme, Bangkok, Thailand; and Former Commissioner for Planning, Metropolitan Manila Commission, Philippines

Dr. Nathaniel von Einsiedel is an Urban Management Specialist as well as a licensed Urban Environmental Planner and Architect in the Philippines. He has over 30 years experience in urban development planning and management in government and the private sector as well as in technical assistance programs in developing countries. His government experience includes regional urban development policy, land use planning, housing for low-income families, and capital investments programming. For 10 years, Dr. von Einsiedel served as the Commissioner for Planning for the Metropolitan Manila Commission (MMC). The MMC was the Philippine's very first attempt at a metropolitan planning and management system for the country's National Capital Region comprised of 17 local government units. Since then, the MMC developed into the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority. As Commissioner of Planning, Dr. von Einsiedel prepared and managed Metro Manila's overall development plan and the coordination of the planning activities of the 17 towns/cities as well as of national government agencies for projects within Metro Manila.

His private sector projects have involved master-planned mixed-use communities, institutional and recreational developments, and heritage conservation planning. He also served as an urban development consultant to international development agencies such as the Asian Development Bank, World Bank, USAID, UNDP, and UN-ESCAP. Until 2003, he was the Regional Coordinator for Asia-Pacific of the United Nations Urban Management Programme, a technical assistance facility for improving city management in 22 cities in 11 Asian countries. He is Chairman/CEO of CONCEP and the President of the Urban Partnerships Foundation, a global knowledge-sharing network of urban practitioners. Dr. von Einsiedel holds a PhD in Public Administration from the Pacific Western University, Hawaii, USA; a diploma in development management (in developing countries) from the International Institute of Public Administration, Paris, France; a MS in urban planning from Columbia University, New York, USA; and a BS in architecture from the University of the Philippines.

Mr. Badan Lal Nyachhyon Director, MULTI Disciplinary Consultants (P), Ltd, Nepal

Mr. Nyachhyon has over 37 years of experience in various fields of engineering and management and currently serves as the Director of MULTI Disciplinary Consultants (P), Ltd. Under his leadership, the company successfully completed several design and construction of infrastructure development projects. Mr. Nyachhyon is the Founder of Zero Waste Nepal and Earthquake Safety Initiatives, as well as Founder and President of the Society of Consulting Architectural and Engineering Firms. He has presented several papers at various national and international forums, and attended several training seminars, workshops, and conferences including, “The Role of Private Sector in Transport Industry,” “Earthquake Resistance of Small Dams,” and Technical Consultancy Development Programme for Asia and the Pacific conferences in Bangladesh, Kathmandu, Pakistan, Malaysia and Korea. He has contributed significantly to national policy documents such as the “Public Private Partnership for Urban Waste Management” and “Enhancement and Development of Sanitary Sewerage Service in Urban and Semi-Urban Setting of Nepal” submitted to the Government of Nepal, the Ministry of Finance, and the Asian Development Bank. Mr. Nyachhyon holds a master’s degree in Seismic Design of Buildings from Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences, and project management training from CDG/MDF West Germany.

15

Mr. K.C. Sivaramakrishnan Chairman, Center for Policy Research; and Senior Fellow, Institute of Social Sciences, New Delhi, India; Former Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development; and Former Chief Executive of the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority, India

Mr. Sivaramakrishnan is currently the Chairman of the Center for Policy Research and a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Social Sciences in New Delhi, India. After joining the Indian Administrative Service in 1958 and holding various assignments in West Bengal, Mr. Sivaramakrishnan served as Secretary and Chief Executive of the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority. In 1985 he joined as first Project Director of the Central Ganga Authority which pioneered a program to combat pollution in the Ganges river and concurrently as Additional Secretary, Ministry of Environment. Later he became Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development in 1988 and was personally involved in the legislation to amend the constitution to provide a framework for decentralization and empower rural and urban local bodies. As Chairman of the Environment Law Committee of the Ministry of Environment, Mr. Sivaramakrishnan worked with a network of National Law Schools to enhance the capacity of the legal community, regulatory organizations and NGOs in environmental law enforcement and adjudication. After retirement from the Indian Administrative Service in 1992, he joined the World Bank as a Senior Advisor of Urban Management. Since his return in 1996, he has been associated with the Centre for Policy Research and the Institute of Social Sciences. Mr. Sivaramakrishnan was a Parvin Fellow at Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University in 1965, a Visiting Professor and Homi Bhabha Fellow at the Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta in 1977, and a Senior Lecturer at the Economic Development Institute of the World Bank from 1978 to 1982. He is a member of several associations, including the State Planning Board of Delhi, the Planning Commission (as part of the Expert Group on Urban Transport), and the Governing Council of the Center for Policy Research where he is also Chairman of the Executive Committee. He was also a founding member of the prestigious India Habitat Center in New Delhi. He received his M.A. in Economics in 1955 and his B.L (Law) in 1958, both from Chennai, India.

East-West Center Mr. Pradip Raj PANT PhD Candidate, East-West Center Graduate Fellow, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA

Mr. Pant has worked in the field of road transportation at both the technical implementation level and at the planning and policy level, first as an engineer and later as a Senior Divisional Engineer in the Department of Roads, Government of Nepal. As a Senior Divisional Engineer, he worked in the Departments Project Directorate (ADB) which is responsible for overall administration and management of Asian Development Bank funded road construction works. Subsequently he worked as the Division Chief of the Kathmandu Division. As a Division Chief he was responsible for the personnel, technical and financial administration of the Division Office which is responsible for the construction and maintenance of both strategic and core urban roads within the capital city Kathmandu.

Mr. Pant has a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from India and a Master of Civil Engineering degree from University of Queensland, Australia. He began his studies at the University of Hawaii at Manoa in fall 2006.

16

List of Participants

Kathmandu Metropolitan City

1. Mr. Rishi Raj Acharya Planning Officer District Development Committee

2. Mr. Sabir Ahmed Computer Technician Information System Unit

3. Mr. Narayan Babu Bhattarai Division Chief Public Work Department

4. Mr. Bhairab Bahadur Bogati Chief Road and Transport Division

5. Mr. Devendra Dongol Department Head Physical Development and Construction

6. Mr. Bhairab Gogati Engineer Public Work Department

7. Mr. Shankar Raj Kandel Chief International Relation Department Public Private Partnership for Urban Environment

8. Mr. Madhan Shrestha Madhan Bdo Junior Engineer Kathmandu Metropolitan City

9. Mr. Nuchhe M. Maharjan Junior Engineer Kathmandu Metropolitan City

10. Mr. Narayan Gopal Malego Chief and Executive Officer Kathmandu Metropolitan City

11. Mr. Nurnidhi Neupane Chief Metropolitan Reform Program

12. Mr. Nhuchhe Malasijan Nhuchhe Kapin Junior Engineer Kathmandu Metropolitan City

13. Mr. Nurnidhi Neupane Chief Metropolitan Reform Program

14. Mr. Ramhari Phuyal Engineer Kathmandu Metropolitan City

15. Mr. Ram Hari Phuyul Engineer Kathmandu Metropolitan City

16. Mr. Shanta Ram Pokharel Department Chief Administration and Organization Department

17. Mr. Surendra Prakash Rajkarnikar Section Engineer Kathmandu Metropolitan City

18. Mr. Bimal Rijal Department Chief Urban Development Department

19. Mr. Shaligram Rijal Under Secretary Kathmandu Metropolitan City

20. Mr. Roshan Man Shakya Engineer Public Work Department, KMC

21. Ms. Sudha Shakya GIS Assistant Information System Unit, KMC

22. Mr. Suraj Shakya Engineer/Architect Public Work Department

23. Mr. Madhav Bahadur Shrestha Junior Engineer Kathmandu Metropolitan City

17

24. Mrs. Archana Shrestha Architect, Division Head Urban Development Department

25. Mr. Kamal Babu Shrestha Engineer Kathmandu Metropolitan City

26. Mr. Prem Bahadur Shrestha Junior Engineer Kathmandu Metropolitan City

27. Mr. Manoj Singh Suwal Engineer Public Work Department, KMC

28. Mr. Sanat Kumar Thapa Division Chief and Senior Admin Officer Admin Department, KMC Kathmandu Valley Municipal Government

29. Mr. Babu Ram Gautam Chief Executive Officer Lalitpur Sub-Metropolitan City

30. Mr. Ram Prasad Pathak Chief Executive Officer Madhyapur Thimi Municipality

31. Mr. Narayan Sah Satya Chief of Engineering and Planning Unit Madhyapur Thimi Municipality

32. Mr. Hari Lochan Sharma Chief Executive Officer Bhaktapur Municipality

33. Mr. Prabin Shrestha Head/Senior Architect Urban Development Division Lalitpur Sub-metropolitan City

34. Mr. Gopal Prasad Parajuli Local Development Officer District Development Committee, Kathmandu

National Government 35. Mr. Kamal Raj Pande Joint Secretary Ministry of Physical Planning and Works

36. Mr. Saroj Kumar Pradhan Senior Divisional Engineer Department of Roads

37. Mr. Girija Prasad Gorkhaly Chief Urban Development and Physical Planning

38. Mr. Pramod Krishna Karmacharya Engineer Department of Urban Development, Building Construction

Education and Experts

39. Mr. Devendra Noth Gangol Consultant MULTI Disciplinary Consultant

40. Mr. Umesh B. Malla President/Urban Regional Planner Regional and Urban Planners Society of Nepal (RUPSON)

41. Mr. Badan Lal Nyachhon Director MULTI Disciplinary Consultant

42. Dr. Jagadish Chandra Pokharel Former Vice Chairman National Planning Commission; Chairman Development Resources Mobilization Network

43. Dr. Shankar Prasad Sharma Economist Former Vice Chairman National Planning Commission

44. Dr. Rajan Suwal Principal Khwopa Engineering College

18

International NGOs and Aid Organizations

45. Mr. Arjun Koirala Adviser, Urban Planning GTZ/UDLE

46. Ms. Lajana Manandhar Executive Director LUMANTI Support Group for Shelter

47. Ms. Bidya Pradhan Environmental Officer International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development

48. Mr. Laxman Rajbhandari Consultant Manager GTZ/UDLE

49. Ms. Laxmi Sharma Project Officer for Urban Development Asian Development Bank

50. Mr. Prafulla Pradhan Habitat Program Manager UN-HABITAT

Appendixes

Prepared for Governance and Infrastructure Development Challenges in the Kathmandu Valley Workshop 11 – 13 February 2009 Kathmandu Metropolitan City, Nepal

Kathmandu Valley Profile Briefing Paper Authored by Pradip Raj Pant PhD Candidate, East-West Center Graduate Fellow, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA Devendra Dongol Department Head, Physical Development and Construction, Kathmandu Metropolitan City, Nepal

of 13

Kathmandu Valley Profile Briefing Paper Location Kathmandu Valley lies between the latitudes 27º 32’ 13” and 27º 49’ 10” north and longitudes 85º 11’ 31” and 85º 31’ 38” east and is located at a mean elevation of about 1,300 meters (4,265 feet) above sea level. Climate and Precipitation The climate of Kathmandu Valley is sub-tropical cool temperate with maximum of 35.6°C in April and minimum of –3°C in January and 75% annual average humidity. The temperature in general is 19°C to 27°C in summer and 2°C to 20°C in winter. The average rainfall is 1400 millimeters, most of which falls during June to August. Administrative Division Kathmandu Valley comprises of three districts, Kathmandu, Lalitpur, and Bhaktapur, together which cover an area of 899 square kilometers, whereas the area of the Valley as a whole is 665 square kilometers. The Valley encloses the entire area of Bhaktapur district, 85% of Kathmandu district and 50% of Lalitpur district. The three valley districts have a total of 150 local administrative units (Village Development Committees and Municipalities) out of which five city governments have the highest population and economic activities. With more than 1.5 million people, (220,000 households) the Kathmandu Valley is the most important urban concentration in Nepal. Being a capital city, Kathmandu Valley in comparison to the rest of Nepal, possesses basic amenities like water supplies, electricity, gas, telecommunications, roads, sanitation, education, security, and transportation. New products and services are first launched in the valley and therefore the inhabitants have access to modern equipment and technology. New technologies and interventions come to the valley first, and this technological sophistication along with other amenities is an important pull factor for rural to urban migration. Kathmandu Valley (KV) is the urban center of Nepal and includes five major cities: Kathmandu, Lalitpur, Bhaktapur, Kirtipur, and Thimi (refer to map in page 3). Kathmandu Metropolitan City (KMC) is the largest city in Nepal and the cosmopolitan heart of the Himalayan region. With a history and culture dating back 2,000 years, the city, along with the other towns in the Valley, ranks among the oldest human settlements in central Himalaya. Old Kathmandu corresponds to the current city core, encompassing a compact zone of temple squares and narrow streets. The old royal palace complex of Durbar Square, is in the center of Old Kathmandu and has been designated as a World Heritage site by UNESCO.

of 13

Densely populated for millennia, Kathmandu’s present demography is very cosmopolitan in which Newars—the indigenous people of Kathmandu—still comprise a large segment of the population. Kathmandu’s culture has been inspired by the convergence of Hindu and Buddhist traditions in traditional customs, festivals, art, and literature. Population and Land Area The five municipalities in essence cover the core urban area of the valley with the highest population concentration. The 2001 census population along with the projected population is given below. Municipality 2001 Census Population Projected 2011 Population Kathmandu Metropolitan City 671, 846 1,011,105Lalitpur Sub- Metropolitan City 163,923 229,852Bhaktapur Municipality 74,707 105,561Kirtipur Municipality 37,877 46,477Madhyapur Thimi Municipality 39,988 49,767

Major Economic Activities Kathmandu is the centre for several major industries such as carpets, garments, finance and tourism, as well as health and educational services. This is mainly due to the lack of essential infrastructure and services in other parts of the country. According to one estimate, the Kathmandu Metropolitan City's economic output is worth more than Rs.170 billon per year. Trade accounts for 21% of its finances. Manufacturing comes next in importance with 19%. Kathmandu is a major manufacturer and exporter of garments and woolen carpets. Other sectors are agriculture (9%), education (6%), transport (6%) and hotels and restaurants (5%). Tourism is also a key component of the city's economy. Land Use A recent project looked at the land use in the five municipalities of the valley. The land use categorization made by the study is summarized below and detailed in the annex. Kathmandu Metropolitan City Dominant land use type in Kathmandu municipality is mixed which mostly comprises residential and commercial areas. It occupies 2592.7 hectares, or 48.88% of the total area. A total of eighteen land use types are found in this municipality. The road area also occupies a significant land area (386.52 hectare).

of 13

Lalitpur Municipality Residential and commercial area classified as mixed land use covers the largest part the Lalitpur municipal area, comprising 673.06 hectares, followed by cultivation and institutional areas. Bhaktapur Municipality Cultivation dominates land use types among all other types in the Bhaktapur area which occupies 383.97 hectares of the total municipal area. It is followed by mixed land use with 145.467 hectares. Institutional area falls third with 34.86 hectares. Kirtipur Municipality According to the area calculated from the GIS database, the largest portion in the Kirtipur municipality is occupied by cultivation, followed by plantation. Mixed land use, comprised of residential and commercial area, covers 163.05 hectares of the total area. Madhyapur Thimi Municipality Cultivation covers the largest portion of the Madhyapur Thimi municipal area totaling 712.26 hectares. Mixed area of residential and commercial type is second, followed by institutional area comprising 85.58 hectares. A review of the land use indicates that two municipalities: KMC and LSMC are dominated by mixed land uses, which are used for residential and commercial purposes. In the remaining three municipalities along with other Village Development Committees in the valley, a significant percent of land use is cultivation land. This past trend in urbanization indicates that these cultivation areas are most susceptible to haphazard urbanization. Political Context of Decentralization and Local Government During the Panchayat era (1962-1990), local authorities were placed within the constitutional framework, however, they had been used extensively as an extended arm of the central government and as a result became centrally driven and non-effective. Later, based on the recommendations from different committees and commissions the Decentralization Act 1982, regulation was enforced in 1984. While this initiated a significant process in decentralization—putting all district level line agencies under the umbrella of respective District Panchyats—in practice it gave less emphasis on fiscal decentralization and less orientation on local governance. Following the constitutional changes in 1990, three different Local Body (LB) Acts in 1992 took new initiatives to strengthen the political process involving people in the local governance system. The acts were the continuation of the past without much change in decision-making power, accountability, and resources without breaking sectoral implementation against decentralization. The increased expectation after the peoples’ movement in 1990 put pressure in favor of decentralization, leading to the formation of a high level Decentralization Coordination

of 13

Committee (1996) chaired by the prime-minister, which submitted a report to the government. Based on the recommendation of the committee, the Local Self Governance Act (LSGA) 1999 was promulgated and made effective. In the meantime, the Ninth Plan emphasized decentralized governance focusing on poverty reduction and rural development. The Tenth Plan also considered decentralization as a cross-cutting sector reassuring commitment for fiscal, administrative, and functional devolution along with capacity building initiatives focusing entirely on achieving the goal of poverty reduction. King Gyanendra suspended Nepal's democratically elected government in October 2002. After massive protests, the king reinstated Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba in June 2004. But in 2005 the king once more dismissed the government and assumed complete control of the country. Again faced with massive protests, the king restored executive power to the people in April 2006. In December 2008, Nepal’s interim parliament voted to abolish the monarchy. The official end of the world’s last Hindu monarchy came on May 28, 2008, when Nepal’s newly constituent assembly declared Nepal a federal democratic republic. The state structure and the exact role of local government are still unclear and will be enshrined in the constitution still to be drafted by the constituent assembly. Even then, with the federal republic framework already accepted, it is obvious that the new constitution can be expected to provide an unprecedented level of autonomy to the local bodies, both in terms of governance and use of resources. Present Municipality Government Structure Under the present system, the mayor heads the municipality. She/He is elected directly by the people for a five-year term. The deputy mayor who is also elected for a similar period assists the mayor. In addition, the residents of the municipality vote for a ward chairperson and five ward members (including a women member) in each ward within the municipality.

i Municipality Council: The Council of the municipality consists of elected representatives and nominated members. The council meets once a year to review progress, approve the annual budget and make major policy decisions. ii Municipality Board: The Municipality Board consists of the mayor, deputy mayor, the ward chairpersons and nominated members. The GON Ministry of Local Development also deputes a senior official in the municipality as secretary of the board and chief executive officer of the municipality.

The elected local representatives served for two full terms after 1990 until their terms expired in July 2002. Since then, the governments appoint executive officers that have been entrusted to act as the mayors of the municipalities. This present system should be taken as an interim arrangement as the new constitution is expected to make major structural changes at all levels and institutions of the state, including local government bodies.

of 13

Present Issues and Concerns The informal process of settlement development in the last several years has created several physical, social and environmental problems in Kathmandu Valley. The fragile KV eco-system is severely affected by ever-expanding urban development and incompatible economic activities. Some of the most visible consequences of the haphazard development are listed below. 1. River Pollution Drainage is a significant problem in Kathmandu. Due to an inadequate and technically unsound drainage system, water backlogging is very common in many areas of the city. In most places, both storm water drainage and sewerage has been combined. Many illegal sewerage connections into the storm water drains are common. At this time, there is no mechanism for KMC or other municipalities and the Department of Sewerage to check these illegal connections. Although there are some waste water treatment systems in Kathmandu Valley, these are not functional and as a result waste water from the drains and sewers are discharged directly into the Bagmati, Bishnumati, Dhobi Khola and other rivers of KV without treatment. Along with an increase in population and unplanned and haphazard urbanization, the city is becoming an example of a terribly polluted city with open sewers and unhygienic disposal of waste leading to the pollution of all the existing rivers in Kathmandu. The three major rivers—Bagmati, Bishnumati and Dhobi-Khola—which flow through the heart of KMC were in ancient times the jewels of the city, but have now turned into open sewer. Over the years the unplanned and haphazard growth of the city has caused an adverse affect on the condition of the rivers both environmentally and hygienically. The riverbanks have been encroached and squatter settlements are found in abundance in some stretches where other parts are barren or unused. The rivers are growing increasingly dirty and polluted due to the direct discharge of wastewater from the households. More than fifty percent of the population living in the city area is discharging their wastewater directly into these rivers. The disposal of the sewage from the manufacturing and industries into the rivers is also causing tremendous industrial waste discharge. The cumulative household, industrial, and manufacturing discharge of wastewater is having adverse hygienic and environmental effects on the river. For myriad of health, environmental, and economic reasons, the rivers are in dire need of attention. Careful sustainable planning and management based on a deep and shared knowledge of the technical and social issues linked to river management in the urban context is critical for the improvement and preservation of one of the most important environmental, social, and economic resources. The sustainable river management in urban areas is not well known and adopted in Nepal. Despite of their fundamental role since ancient times as the first place of urbanization, riverside areas are frequently afflicted by tremendous problems of overcrowding, conflicting uses, and pollution, often due to the absolute lack of planning and management. Sadly this has manifested into reality in the case of the Kathmandu Valley.

of 13

2. Air Pollution Unplanned settlements, poor road networks, and conflicting land uses lead to air pollution caused by emissions from vehicle plying along narrow and winding streets. To improve the air quality of Kathmandu, the government has banned diesel and gasoline based three-wheelers and closed down a local cement factory. In addition, better coordination between municipalities and Ministry of Environment need to be established and at the same time conflicting acts also need to be modified or amended to address the issue of air pollution. 3. Solid Waste Disposal Illegal dumping of waste in the common areas like riverbanks, public land, and unplanned settlements is still common. Those areas are either not served by the municipal solid waste collection system or the community is not organized to handle the problem. Due to rapid urbanization, agricultural lands are being developed into housing which poses serious problems such as the renewal of ground water resources, air pollution, and loss of greenery. Supplies of cereals and vegetables are mainly imported into Kathmandu. A new waste management technology and system urgently needs to be introduced to address the present waste problem due to rapid population growth, rapid urbanization, and a change in the composition of waste. Another perennial problem in waste disposal has been the use of landfill sites. The landfill sites have been a very sensitive issue for a long time, often arousing vicious opposition from the adjacent communities, severely interrupting waste collection and disposal in the city areas. 4. Traffic Congestion Conflicting land uses, unplanned and haphazard construction, inadequate road network, and inefficient transport management are creating severe traffic congestion during peak commuting periods in the city. Due to the lack of proper road networks connecting the city center and semi-urban areas, public transport cannot operate effectively in a semi-urban settlement. New roads connecting north-south of Kathmandu along the riverbanks in Kathmandu, inner and outer ring road construction need to be built to curb traffic congestion and air pollution in the city. 5. Land Speculation Due to the absence of the provision of social housing or the housing for the economically weak sector/society, there is a great demand of land especially for the construction of houses. There is no alternative option other than to buy a piece of land and build the house. As a consequence, the demand and the cost of land in Kathmandu is very high. Land speculation is a characteristic of urban development and this trend is detrimental to the planned growth of the city and proper expansion of basic services to the people. Land brokers and housing development companies hold huge parcels of land in urban fringe areas for speculative purposes.

of 13

6. Loss of Cultural Heritage Due to the excessive pressure of commercial activities along with unplanned and haphazard growth of the city, the cultural heritage of Kathmandu Valley is gradually eroding. Historic ponds, courtyards, public places and playing fields are being converted into public buildings and private property. Traditional “Guthi” (trust) responsible for management of public land have become inactive in preserving such land. Most of the lands belonging to the trust are slowly being converted to commercial uses by the private companies. These private companies acquire land from the trust on lease out basis and build commercial centers. 7. Substandard and Slum Housing Conditions This huge demand for housing plots in the land market have motivated rural land owners to sell agricultural land at lucrative prices and search for alternative employment. Besides getting cheaper housing plots, another motivating factor for new migrants to settle in rural areas is that there is no need to get a building permit from the local authorities. People can build anywhere and build anything they like, and there is no government intervention. One of the examples of unplanned settlements is the growth of substandard housing in the fringe of Kathmandu City. Lack of natural light and ventilation, inadequate water supply and sanitation, poor access and bad road condition are indicators of substandard housing. In recent decades such fringe development, often occupying government land illegally have accelerated, posing significant challenges to the urban municipalities. 8. Gaps in Supply and Demand for Basic Services Kathmandu Valley has always attracted people from the rest of the country. The rapid population growth and urbanization due to the migration of people in Kathmandu Valley from different parts of the country has increased demand for housing, water, electricity, drainage, road and other utilities. Development plots are very expensive and not available at affordable prices and people are forced to buy raw agricultural land cheaply without the provision of basic infrastructure services (road, water, drainage etc); subsequently local governments face increased demand for the provision of infrastructure after the construction of houses. The cost of the constriction of infrastructure services in such cases renders the housing on agricultural land more expensive in the long run than on developed land. Central government agencies and municipalities (with financial contribution from the local communities) are responsible for providing basic services, but most often the agencies and municipalities are not in a position to expand their networks due to shortage of funds, lack of their installed system, and lack of proper planning. Local authorities do not have the capacity to provide trunk infrastructure and services and their roles are limited to local-level infrastructure only. The rural areas of Kathmandu have experienced unprecedented land subdivision and building construction over the past several years. An influx of internally displaced people has suddenly created a demand for housing plots and basic services. Those who cannot afford land in municipal areas prefer to stay on the fringe areas of the cities and villages.

of 13

9. Urban Rural Development Issues The political power structure in KV is still dominated by Village Development Committees (VDC). Under this power structure, the development context is dominated by rural development issues which are usually supported by the District Development Committees (DDC) and numerous VDC easily outnumbering representation of the five municipalities which are concerned more to the urban development issues. Since the existing planning system does not recognize Kathmandu Valley as a single entity, it is virtually impossible to enforce development control tools that can address both rural and urban areas. The growth of settlements in the Valley is generally spontaneous, and there is very little planning intervention on the part of government. The government does not have the financial resources to acquire huge parcels of land where planned urban development can be promoted and the current constitutional provision does not allow the government to impose any kind of restriction on the use of private property. Therefore, the government has only one legal tool to regulate and use—the provision of infrastructure. This tool, however, has been grossly misused in Kathmandu, mainly due to political patronage. Existing Institutions Responsible for the Valley Various national and local institutions are involved in developing settlements and urban development activities of Kathmandu urban areas and the Valley as a whole. Apart from the KMC, LSMC and the three municipalities, there are several central government agencies working in KV. They are the Department of Land Reform and Management, Department of Housing and Construction, Kathmandu Valley Town Development Committee under the Ministry of Physical Planning and Construction, Department of Roads, Water Supply and Sewerage Corporation, Village Development Committees and District Development Committees. There is a lack of cooperation and coordination between these institutions for effective planning and implementation of urban infrastructure development activities within KMC and Kathmandu Valley. Policies for Long Term Development of the Valley The long-term development concept for the valley was approved by the government in 2002 and has adopted the following policies. These policies can be taken as the guiding principle for ensuring planned development of the city and valley as a whole.

• A valley wide apex body—e.g. Kathmandu Valley Development Authority—to be formed with proportionate representation of local bodies.

• Job opportunities shall be decentralized so that people can settle in any location of the

valley.

• Delineation of rural and urban boundaries so that separate planning standards can be enforced in rural and urban areas.

of 13

• Investments should be channelized to certain sectors only so that densification, development of new towns and allocation of future land can be delineated.

• A system of planning permitting and environmental impact assessment shall be

introduced.

• Tourism-related activities shall be promoted and polluting industries shall be relocated to other towns outside Kathmandu.

• Bhaktapur and other traditional settlements to be declared cultural towns.

• Kathmandu to be declared a single administrative entity.

• Protection of public parks and watershed areas.

• Development of Cottage industries.

• Relocation of security establishments to fringe areas.

Future Outlook of Kathmandu Valley Kathmandu will continue to grow in the future. If rational planning and development strategies are not formulated and implemented effectively, its growth will create severe consequences. Policies are required for the sustainable development of the Kathmandu Valley at both valley and local levels. Valley-wide strategies should address trunk infrastructures (drainage, water, road, solid waste management, etc). Local level strategies should address development of city or ward infrastructures drainage, water, road, solid waste management etc). The cooperation and coordination between national and local institutions are essential in promoting and implementing activities in an effective manner. Kathmandu Metropolitan City being the national capital means that the role of central and local bodies are equally important, however their specific role, responsibilities, and authority and accountability should be clearly defined. Kathmandu Metropolitan City has taken a lead role to coordinate with various national institution and international funding agencies and cities to promote and implement urban development activities in a planned and sustainable manner within the Kathmandu Metropolis. This Workshop The last few years have witnessed a remarkable change in the socio-political setup of the country. The state restructuring process will define the exact role of local government in the coming future. Given that the federal republic framework has already been accepted, an unprecedented level of autonomy to the local governments—in terms of governance and use of resources—can be expected in the new administrative setup. However, the problem and

of 13

challenges in terms of everyday management and long-term development of the Kathmandu Valley remains as daunting as ever. This workshop will provide a platform to discuss a crucial and important longstanding issue of coordinated Kathmandu Valley development. The workshop has the following aims:

1. Investigate the efficacy of establishing a Kathmandu Valley Authority with clear and comprehensive planning and land use policy mandates. 2. Develop an action plan to establish a regional planning mechanism that incorporates greater decision-making autonomy to Kathmandu Metropolitan City and other local governments in Kathmandu Valley.

ANNEX- Land Use in Urban Areas

Page 12 of 13

Kathmandu Metropolitan City Land Use

Sno Land use type Land class Area(hectare) % of Total 1 Mixed Built up 2592.7 48.89 2 Cultivation Cultivation 891.18 16.80 3 Open area Built up 571.17 10.77 4 Road Road 386.52 7.29 5 Institutional Built up 385.89 7.28 6 Plantation Plantation 190.72 3.60 7 Heritage Built up 63.57 1.20 8 River River 60.61 1.14 9 Waste land Waste land 53.72 1.01

10 Airport runway Airport runway 33.07 0.62 11 Industrial Built up 32.25 0.61 12 Playground Playground 17.05 0.32 13 Park Park 7.04 0.13 14 Pond Pond 6.5 0.12 15 Parking Built up 6.22 0.12 16 Road median Road median 4.4 0.08 17 Others Built up 0.48 0.01 18 Sandy area Sandy area 0.21 0.00 19 Total calculated area 5303.3 100.00

Lalitpur Sub Metropolitan City Land Use Sno Land use type Land use class Area (hectare) % of Total

1 Mixed Built up 673.0634 43.60 2 Cultivation Cultivation 395.123 25.59 3 Institutional Built up 173.7648 11.26 4 Road Road 95.2971 6.17 5 Open area Open area 57.5482 3.73 6 River River 38.8178 2.51 7 Waste land Waste land 29.9514 1.94 8 Pond Pond 20.4255 1.32 9 Plantation Plantation 17.1265 1.11

10 Industrial area Built up 14.2946 0.93 11 Park Park 11.4264 0.74 12 Heritage Built up 11.2467 0.73 13 Playground Playground 3.9795 0.26 14 Sandy area Sandy area 0.9144 0.06 15 Parking Parking 0.628 0.04 16 Road median Road median 0.1695 0.01 17 Total calculated Area 1543.7768 100.00


Page 13 of 13

Bhaktapur Municipality Land Use Sno Land use type Land use class Area(hectare) % of Total

1 Cultivation Cultivation 383.976 56.76 2 Mixed Built up 145.4679 21.50 3 Institutional Built up 34.8624 5.15 4 Road Road 33.6139 4.97 5 Open area Open area 19.8772 2.94 6 Plantation Plantation 14.5624 2.15 7 River River 10.4368 1.54 8 Heritage Built up 9.9443 1.47 9 Waste land Waste land 9.8821 1.46

10 Pond Pond 5.8786 0.87 11 Industrial area Built up 5.5212 0.82 12 Playground Play ground 1.4718 0.22 13 Park Park 0.5622 0.08 14 Parking Built up 0.4182 0.06 15 Road median Road median 0.0309 0.00 16 Total calculated Area 676.5059 100.00

Kirtipur Municipality Sno Land use type Land use class Area(hectare) % of Total

1 Cultivation Cultivation 944.08 59.71 2 Plantation Plantation 194.13 12.28 3 Mixed Built up 163.05 10.31 4 Institutional Built up 156.36 9.89 5 Road Road 41.33 2.61 6 Open area Open area 37.85 2.39 7 River River 25.02 1.58 8 Waste land Waste land 12 0.76 9 Pond Pond 4.8 0.30

10 Heritage Built up 2.39 0.15 11 Total calculated area 1581.02 100.00


Page 14 of 13

Madhyapur Thimi Municipality Sno Land use type Land use class Area (hectare) % of Total

1 Cultivation Cultivation 712.26 62.10 2 Mixed Built up 183.73 16.02 3 Institutional Built up 85.58 7.46 4 Road Road 51.93 4.53 5 Plantation Plantation 47.56 4.15 6 River River 27.25 2.38 7 Open area Open area 17.03 1.48 8 Waste land Waste land 9.45 0.82 9 Sandy area Sandy area 5.18 0.45

10 Parking Parking 1.83 0.16 11 Industrial area Built up 1.8 0.16 12 Park Park 1.17 0.10 13 Pond Pond 1.15 0.10 14 Heritage Built up 0.81 0.07 15 Road median Road median 0.11 0.01 16 Playground Playground 0.05 0.00 17 Total calculated area 1146.88 100.00

1

January 2009

METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE IN INDIA AN OVERVIEW OF SELECTED CITIES

K C Sivaramakrishnan and Arundhati Maiti

Centre for Policy Research: Delhi

This is an over view of the organizational arrangements as they exist presently in the

metropolitan cities of Bangalore, Chennai, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Mumbai and Delhi. This

is a background paper and not an extensive analysis. Information about the

establishment of the City Corporations and metropolitan level institutions have been

provided on a comparable basis to enable a preliminary understanding of their status.

Part I of the paper contains an account about how metropolitan areas are defined in

these cities for legal and other purposes. Part II contains brief city wide information in a

common format. At the beginning of this part a six city table has been provided for

various common items. Part III is a short outline of some persisting issues.

While this paper is being made available for use during the workshop on Katmandu

being organised in February 2009 with the collaborators of the East West Center,

Honolulu, Hawaii, it may be noted this paper is part of ongoing work in the CPR about

India’s urban future. This is not to be reproduced without the permission of the Authors

and the CPR.

2

Part I - Definition of a Metropolitan Area

Various terms such as mega city, metropolitan area, urban agglomeration, greater

urban area etc. are used by various scholars. The Indian census uses the term urban

agglomeration which comprises a core city, other contiguous municipalities and what

census considers as urban outgrowths. It is necessary to note that the Indian census

considers an area as urban only if it fulfills the following criteria:

(a) The population of the settlement should be 5000 or more

(b) Density of atleast 400 persons per sq.km

(c) Atleast 75% of the male workers engaged in non agricultural occupations

2. However, the Census is also required to recognise those settlements which are

given a formal status as a town by a state government. As a result, there are two types

of urban areas identified in the Census, the first being Census Towns fulfilling the

criteria and the second are called Statutory Towns. As of 2001 there are 1363 Census

Towns in the country and 3798 Statutory Towns making a total of 5161 urban centers.

This classification creates problems for comparative analysis of data across the States

and also inter censal periods.

3. In regard to size classes, the Census has a six-fold classification ranging from

class VI with a population of 5,000 to class-I with a population of 100,000 or more. Over

the years, some towns merge into the next higher level. In regard to class-I cities, the

Census recognises and presents data only for two categories namely those with a

population of 10 lakhs (1million) or more and the rest. According to the 2001 Census

there are 35 urban areas which have a million or more people which are commonly

referred to as million plus cities.

4. For these million plus cities the Census definition of an urban agglomeration

requires that it should be a continuous urban spread constituting a town and its

adjoining urban growths or two or more physically contiguous towns together with

adjoining outgrowths. Each of such outgrowth may not satisfy the minimum population

3

limit to qualify it to be treated as an independent urban unit but may deserve to be

clubbed with the principal town as part of an urban spread. However, the definition of

metropolitan areas adopted by the Planners in several cities however, much larger

areas including villages, whether urbanising or otherwise, but which are at the periphery

or intervening in an urban agglomeration.

5. In addition to these various definitions which make comparative analysis a

complex task for academics, the administrative and legal position is now derived from

the 73rd and 74th Amendments to the Constitution. Under these amendments which

became effective in 1993, every settlement in the country excepting military

cantonments and areas which are occupied principally by indigenous or tribal

communities which are identified as ‘Scheduled Areas’ in the Constitution itself, have to

be either a Panchayat if it is rural, or a Nagarpalika if it is urban. Panchayats are to be

organised at the village, intermediate level for a group of Panchayats usually a Taluk or

a Community Development Block and at the District level called a Zilla Panchayat.

Nagarpalika is a broad term covering a Municipal Corporation, a Municipal Council or a

Nagar Panchayat which is a settlement in transition from rural to urban. No population

criteria have been specified in the Constitution and it is left to different state

governments to constitute Panchayats or Nagarpalikas taking into consideration

population, occupational pattern etc.

6. The 74th Constitutional Amendment contains two very important and special

provisions in regard to planning at the District level as well as the Metropolitan level. For

this purpose a metropolitan area is defined in clause (c) of Article 243P as follows:

“Metropolitan area means an area having a population of ten lakhs or more, comprised in one or more districts and consisting of two or more Municipalities or Panchayats or other contiguous area, specified by the Governor by public notification to be Metropolitan area for the purposes of this Part”

4

7. For each metropolitan area, a Metropolitan Planning Committee has to be

constituted. Two-thirds of its membership comprises elected members of the

Municipalities and elected Chairpersons of the Panchayats falling within the

metropolitan area defined under Article 243P. Similarly, for each district a District

Planning Committee has to be set up. Its membership is to consist of elected

representatives from the Municipalities and members of the District level panchayat.

The mandate for both the DPC and the MPC are elaborate and serve as their term of

reference.

The two relevant Articles are reproduced below:

“243ZD. Committee for district planning – (1) There shall be constituted in every State at the district level a District Planning Committee to consolidate the plans prepared by the Panchayats and the Municipalities in the district and to prepare a draft development plan for the district as w whole. (2) The Legislature of a State may, by law, make provision with respect to- (a) the composition of the District Planning Committees; (b) the manner in which the seats in such Committees shall be filled;

Provided that not less than four-fifths of the total number of members of such Committee shall be elected by, and from amongst, the elected members of the Panchayat at the district level and of the Municipalities in the district in proportion to the ratio between the population of the rural areas and of the urban areas in the district;

(c) the functions relating to district planning which may be assigned to such Committees;

(d) the manner in which the Chairpersons of such Committees be chosen;

(3) Every District Planning Committee shall, in preparing the draft development plan-

(a) have regard to- (i) matters of common interest between the Panchayats and the

Municipalities including spatial planning, sharing of water and other

5

physical and natural resources, the integrated development of infrastructure and environmental conservation;

(ii) the extent and type of available resources whether financial or otherwise;

(b) consult such institutions and organisations as the Governor may, by order, specify

(4) The Chairperson of every District Planning Committee shall forward the development plan, as recommended by such Committee, to the Government of the State.

243ZE Committee for Metropolitan Planning – (1) There shall be constituted in every Metropolitan area, a Metropolitan Planning Committee to prepare a draft development plan for the Metropolitan area as a whole. (2) The Legislature of a State may, by law, make provisions with respect to- (a) the composition of the Metropolitan Planning Committees; (b) the manner in which the seats in such Committees shall be filled;

Provided that not less than two-thirds of the members of such Committee shall be elected by, and from amongst, the elected members of the Municipalities and Chairpersons of the Panchayats in the Metropolitan area in proportion to the ratio between the population of the Municipalities and of the Panchayats in that area;

(c) the representation, in such Committees of the Government of India and the Government of the State and of such organisations and institutions as may be deemed necessary for carrying out the functions assigned to such Committees;

(d) the functions relating to planning and coordination for the Metropolitan area which may be assigned to such Committees;

(e) the manner in which the Chairpersons of such Committees shall be chosen;

(3) Every Metropolitan Planning Committee shall, in preparing the draft development plan-

6

(a) have regard to- (i) the plans prepared by the Municipalities and the Panchayats in the

Metropolitan area; (ii) matters of common interest between the Municipalities and the

Panchayats, including co-ordinated spatial planning of the area, sharing of water and other physical and natural resources, the integrated development of infrastructure and environmental conservation;

(iii) the overall objectives of investments likely to be made in the Metropolitan area by agencies of the Government of India and of the Government of the State and other available resources whether financial or otherwise;

(b) consult such institutions and organisations as the Governor may, by order, specify;

(4) The chairperson of every Metropolitan Planning Committee shall forward the development plan, as recommended by such committee, to the Government of the State.

8. It was expected that the MPC would provide a representative basis with a

constitutional mandate for the planning and development of a metropolitan area. There

was a further expectation that this could be the starting point for an innovative form of

metropolitan management. These expectations have not been fulfilled so far. The MPC

has been set up only in one metropolitan area i.e. Kolkata. While the DPCs have been

set up in many states their composition and functioning is usually dominated by the

State level political leadership and the district administration.

7

Part II Background information

Metro Cities; Background Information

Sl No

Items Bangalore Chennai Hyderabad Kolkata Greater Mumbai

Delhi

1 Metropolitan Area/Regions (in Sq. km.)

8,022 1,189 7116 (Expanded HUDA)

1,855 4,355 33,578 (the NCR Region)

2 UA Area (sq. km.) Census 1,307 1,180 1,860 1,026 1,097 3 Total metro /

UA Population 5,840,155 6,560,242 5,742,036 13,205,697 16,434,386

4 Main City Area (sq. km.) 800 181.06 650 (GHMC) 185 468 1,483 5 Main City Population (2001 Census) 4,301,326 4,343,645 3,637,483 4,572,876 11,978,450 9,879,172 6 No. of other Municipalities, Cities etc. 11 21 12 72 27 52 (NCR) 7 No. of semi Urban Villages 284 233 527 >1000 165 (NCR) 8 Migration

(% of Total Migrants to the main city population) 1991-2001

17.7 10.0 13.7 18.0 20.8 21.4

9 Sex Ratio 908 955 931 869 822 822 10 Household size 4 4 5 5 5 5 11 Literacy Rate (in %) 74.9 76.8 68.5 74.9 76.8 70.2 12 Work Participation (in %) 38.5 34.2 30.4 34.8 36.6 32.9 13 Male Work Participation (in %) 57.6 54 48.7 55.6 56.2 52.3 14 Female Work Participation (in %) 17.5 13.3 10.7 10.8 12.6 9.3 15 Main Worker (in %) 36.3 31.4 27.9 32.2 34.5 31.3 16 Marginal Worker* (in %) 2.2 2.8 2.5 2.6 2 1.6 17 Non Worker (in %) 61.5 65.8 69.6 65.2 63.4 67.1 18 Percentage of Slum population 10 18.9 17.2 32.5 54.1 18.7 Note: For items 8 to 18, the information pertains to the main city. * Marginal workers are those who had worked for less than 6 months. Source: Census, State Handbooks and other published material for each city.

8

Part II Background information

1. Bangalore The City Corporation 1.1 The Bangalore Municipal Corporation was established in 1949 by merging the

City area and the Cantonment area. At that time its population was about 0.75 million

and it had only seven elected councillors. Progressively the area was expanded. By

1995, the municipal area was 226 sq.kms comprising 100 wards with one councillor

elected from each. In 2007, the Municipal Corporation was further expanded by

amalgamating eight adjoining municipalities as well as 110 peripheral villages. This has

been done under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1964. The

present area of the Greater Bangalore Municipal Corporation or Brihat Bangaluru

Mahanagara Palike (BBMP as it is called) is about 800 sq.kms and a 2001 Census

population of 5.8 million. The BBMP formally came into existence in 2008. The

delimitation of the municipal area into wards and elections for the Corporation have not

been held so far. It is expected the Corporation will have about 145 members.

Parastatals 1.2. A separate Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) was set up

in 1964 under a separate act. The entire system of water supply, sewerage and sewage

disposal is the responsibility of the BWSSB. Another organisation, the Bangalore

Development Authority was set up by a Special Act in 1976. Earlier there was a City

Improvement Trust Board. The BDA’s jurisdiction covers 1307sq.kms and thus much

larger than the Bangalore Municipal area right from the beginning. The BDA consists of

a Chairman, a Commissioner and full time members for finance and town planning /

engineering. Additionally, the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation and nominees

of other parastatal organisations like BWSSB as well as some members of the State

Legislature and Corporation Councillors etc are also included in the membership.

According to the Act, the BDA’s objective is planning, coordinating and supervising the

proper and orderly development of the metropolitan area and take up development

schemes. Over the years, the BDA has emerged as the dominant planning and land

development body with significant real estate operations.

9

1.3. Notwithstanding this, the Government considered it necessary to set up yet

another body namely the Bangalore Metropolitan Region Development Authority. This

body was also created by a Special Act in 1985. Its jurisdiction however is much larger

than that of the BDA covering 8072 sq.kms. The Chief Minister of Karnataka is the

Chairman of the Authority. The Minister, Urban Development is the Vice Chairman.

Secretaries to the State government in the related departments are members.

Additionally there is also a provision for the Mayor of Bangalore, members of the State

Legislature and representatives of the local authorities in the metropolitan region to be

nominated to the BMRDA. The mandate of the BMRDA is to prepare a structure plan for

the development of the metropolitan region, coordinate the execution of town planning

schemes, coordinate the activities of the BDA, the Bangalore Corporation, the BWSSB,

the Slum Clearance Board etc. Additionally there are local planning authorities whose

jurisdiction is separately defined. The Bangalore International Airport Area Planning

Authority (985 sq.kms), The Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Area (311

sq.kms), The Neelmangla Planning Authority (735 sq.kms) and five other similar

authorities are in existence. There are other important parastatal organisations such as

the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, the Karnataka Urban Infrastructure

and Finance Corporation, the Lake Development Authority etc.

MPC 1.4. Under the 74th Amendment to the Constitution, there is a provision for setting up

Metropolitan Planning Committees for each metropolitan area, having a population of

one million or more comprised in one or more districts and consisting of two or more

municipalities or panchayats and other contiguous areas. The Bangalore Metropolitan

area is thus required to have an MPC. Though an enabling law for this purpose has

been passed by the Karnataka government, the Metropolitan Planning Committee itself

has not been brought into existence.

The State Government’s role 1.5. It will be apparent that the Karnataka State government has been adding new

organisations to cope with the problems of urban expansion from time to time. On the

10

economic side Bangalore has witnessed considerable growth in the IT industry.

Compared to the industrial development which took place in Bangalore after

independence in the manufacturing sector, the IT industry has given significant visibility

to Bangalore in the global arena. In an effort to review and reorganise the city and the

metropolitan level institutional set up in November 2006, the Karnataka government

constituted an Expert Committee to review comprehensively the institutional situation in

the metropolitan region. The Committee submitted its report in March 2008 proposing

an extensive reorganisation of responsibilities in the expanded Greater Bangalore

Corporation as well as the BMRDA. The report also has made specific proposals on

how the constitutional requirements are to be fulfilled trough a significantly reorganized

BMRDA. The executive summary of the Committee’s recommendations are contained

in the attachment to this note.

1.6. After receiving the report the recently elected state government held an executive

consultation meeting with a cross section of political leaders, civil society organisations,

trade and industry, representatives and experts about implementation of the report. Yet

another Task Force, called the Bangalore Agenda Task Force has been set up under

the chairmanship of a former Government of India Minister to consider follow up action

and monitor other development projects in Bangalore. The outcome is awaited.

11

The City Corporation 2. Chennai 2.1. The Chennai Municipal Corporation covers 176 sq.kms. It is one of the oldest

Municipal Corporations in the country tracing its origin to the British colonial period. The

geographical area and the composition have changed from time to time. Presently the

Corporation Council consists of 155 councillors representing an equal number of

municipal wards. Previously the Mayor of Chennai was elected by and from among the

Corporation Councillors for a one year term. The Corporation was also under

supercession for nearly 24 years from 1973. After the 74th Constitution Amendment, the

Chennai Corporation Act was amended in 1996 to provide for a directly elected Mayor

for a five year term Mr. M K Stalin son of the State Chief Minister was elected as Mayor

in 1996 and again in 2001.

2.2. However, the political leadership in the State changed after the elections. The

new government brought an Amendment to the relevant Act preventing any persons

from holding two posts such as Mayor and member of the State Assembly. Mr. Stalin

resigned from the position of Mayor preferring to retain his membership of the

Assembly. His party came to power again and Mr. Stalin is now the Minister for Local

Government. Hence his government revoked the Mayor’s direct election system and

reverted to the system of indirectly elected Mayor in 2006. The executive powers of the

Corporation are vested principally in the Municipal Commissioner who is appointed by

the State Government.

Parastatals 2.3. A Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority was established in 1974 under

the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act mainly for the tasks of

preparing a master plan for the area as also planning and development of new towns

within the area. A Minister designated by the State government usually dealing with the

subject urban / municipal development is the Chairman of the BMDA. The Authority

consists of ten other officials of different agencies or departments of the State

12

government, two members of the State Legislative Assembly and four members of the

local bodies in the metropolitan area.

2.4. Additionally, there is a Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board

which was set up in 1978 responsible for the supply and distribution of water as well as

provision of sewerage and drainage. There are other parastatal organisations like the

Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the Metropolitan

Transport Corporation etc. Other important parastatal organisations and state

government departments active in the metropolitan area are the Slum Clearance Board,

the Housing Board, the Public Works Department etc.

MPC and the role of the State Government 2.5. As of now the Chennai Metropolitan Area covers 1183 sq.kms and consists of

one corporation, 16 municipalities and 224 urban / urbanising panchayats. The CMDA is

the dominant planning and development agency. In the case of Chennai also the

constitutional requirements of a Metropolitan Planning Committee has not been

implemented though an enabling act was drafted a few years ago.

13

3. Hyderabad The City Corporation 3.1. The Hyderabad Municipal Corporation came into existence in 1933. From time to time adjoining areas were merged into the Corporation. In 1955, the Corporation of

Secunderabad was also merged and the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation was

established under the 1955 Act.. The area became 170 sq.kms. Proposals to merge

another 12 adjoining municipalities into Hyderabad were pursued from time to time but

given up due to various reasons. Finally in April 2007, these areas were merged by

notification under the 1955 Act. As of now the area of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal

Corporation is 650 sq.kms and the 2001 Census population is 3.63 million.

3.2. As in the case of Tamil Nadu there was a provision for direct election of Mayors

and Municipal Chairpersons. About three year ago this was changed. The Mayors are

now to be elected from and among the elected Councillors of the corporation. However,

elections have not taken place since May 2007 when the Greater Hyderabad Municipal

Corporation was formed. The completion of the exercise for delimitation of the municipal

wards is stated to the reason.

Parastatals 3.3. Under the provisions of the AP Urban Development Act, 1975, Hyderabad was

notified as an urban development area with a jurisdiction of about 1348 sq.kms. which

included the 173 sq.kms of the Municipal Corporation areas as before as well as the

adjoining municipalities and semi urban villages. The Hyderabad Urban Development

Authority (HUDA) is responsible for master plans and zonal development plans in the

whole metropolitan area. The organisation has the authority to enforce the plan through

rules and regulations. Additionally, the authority has been engaged in planning and

executing major infrastructure projects in the urban area.

3.4 In addition to the HUDA, a Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage

Board was set up in 1989. Additionally, there are some other parastatal agencies

working in the Hyderabad area such as the Multi Model Transport System, AP Roads

14

and Buildings Departments, Power Transmission Corporation. AP Housing Board, AP

Infrastructure Development Corporation etc.

The MPC and the State Government’s role 3.5. Prompted by the Government of India, as part of the Agenda under the

Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission and in belated compliance with the

provisions of the Constitution, the AP Government provided for a Hyderabad

Metropolitan Planning Committee as envisaged under Article 243ZE under the AP

Metropolitan Planning Committees Act of December 2007. Since the composition of the

MPC is prescribed in the Act itself, there is little scope for deviation. Under the Act two

thirds of the MPC should comprise elected representatives of the urban and rural local

bodies in the metropolitan area. Since elections to the principal constituent of the area

i.e. the Municipal Corporation have not been held so far, the MPC has not been formally

constituted. Further more, the mandate of the MPC has been more narrowly construed

in the Act. The MPC is required to prepare a draft development plan by consolidating

the plans prepared by the Urban and Rural Local bodies and forward the same to the

State government. The relationship between this planning activity and the spatial

planning specifically conferred by the law on HUDA are not mentioned.

3.6. While elections to the expanded Municipal Corporation have not been held and

the MPC itself not constituted, the AP Government proceeded to enact yet another law

in April 2008 called the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008. This

law is probably one of the most comprehensive laws available as of now in the country

at the metropolitan level. Greater HUDA’s powers include planning as before i.e.

preparation and revision of master plans and zonal development plans, regulation and

control of development, undertaking developmental projects and also coordinate with

other public agencies the provision of urban infrastructure services and amenities.

Greater HUDA also has the powers to administer a metropolitan development fund. The

urban local bodies in the area are required to make a contribution to the HUDA’s fund.

HUDA has the power to issue directions to the urban local bodies and other agencies in

most matters connected with planning and provision of services in the metropolitan

15

area. The HUDA Act also provides for unified Metropolitan Transport Authority

responsible for planning, building and operation of transport services.

3.7. As of now the Act provides for 22 members. The Board is chaired by the Chief

Minister of the State. The Urban Development Minister is the Vice Chairperson and the

Mayor of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation a member. Provision has been

made for four elected representatives from the Urban Local Bodies and another four

from the Legislative Assembly / Council. The remaining 12 members are all officials and

other nominees of the State government. One representative of the MPC is also

included as a token. The HUDA has clearly emerged as the dominant body in the

metropolis but its composition is not representative. Given the preponderance of state

officials and chaired by the Chief Minister, it is obvious that HUDA is virtually an

extension of the State government.

3.8. The Metropolitan Planning Committee has the representative character but it has

no mandate of significance. On the other hand, HUDA has a highly visible and powerful

mandate but no representative character. It is also worth noting that in addition to

Greater HUDA, there are a few other separate development authorities which continue

to function such as Hyderabad Airport DA, Cyberabad DA, Budhapurnima Project

Authority and Quli Qutb Shah Urban Development Authority. The HUDA was formally

inaugurated in September 2008. Its interaction with the other organisations and the

outcome are yet to be assessed. A copy of the new Hyderabad Metropolitan

Development Authority Act of 2008 is annexed as an Attachment to this note.

16

4. Kolkata The City Corporation 1.1. The Corporation of Kolkata as it is presently called, was established as early as

1876. It has gone through several changes both geographical and legal from time to

time. The most recent was a new Calcutta Corporation Act which became law in 1980

and provides for the first time in the country a cabinet system of municipal government

with a Mayor-in-Council system. The Kolkata Corporation presently covers an area of

185 sq.kms and is divided into 141 wards with a councillor elected by each. Additionally,

there are 15 boroughs into which these wards are grouped.

4.2. Under the present system of Mayor-in-Council, the Mayor is elected by and from

among the Councillors. He, in turn, appoints a Dy. Mayor and 10 other councillors as

members of the Mayor-in-Council. While the MIC is answerable to the Corporation

Council, the Mayor has a preeminent position as the Executive Head of the Corporation.

The Commissioner is an official appointed by the State government but is answerable to

the Mayor. The Corporation Council itself is presided over by another person called the

Chairman of the Council. The Corporation is responsible for administering a variety of

services in the City including water supply, sewerage treatment and disposal of solid

waste management, building and maintenance of roads etc.

Parastatals 4.3. Late in the 50s, the Calcutta and its surrounding areas were seriously affected by

outbreaks of the cholera epidemic. In the 60s an elaborate exercise was organised with

the assistance of the Ford Foundation through an organisation set up for the purpose

called the CMPO (the Calcutta Metropolitan Planning Organisation). The Basic

Development Plan prepared by the CMPO proposed a series of functional authorities

with metropolitan wide jurisdiction such as water supply, sewerage, traffic and

transportation, parks and playgrounds etc. Two separate development authorities for

undertaking new town development on the west bank and east bank were also

proposed. A planning organisation at the top was to provide the strategy and

coordination. The Calcutta Metropolitan Water Supply and Sanitation Authority was

17

indeed set up under a special law but in the absence of any fund it became a non-

starter.

Metropolitan level initiatives 4.4. Between 1966 and 1970, the situation deteriorated further accompanied by

serious industrial recession and significant loss of employment. In 1971, a special

revival plan for Calcutta was put together with substantial assistance from the

Government of India borrowings. A special tax on goods entering the metropolitan

district was also levied by the State government and utilised to service market

borrowings for metropolitan development. A compact organisation called the Calcutta

Metropolitan Development Authority was created which was to administer the

metropolitan development fund, sanction projects, designate the agency to implement

the same and coordinate the work. Over the next 10 years some progress was made

but the organizational situation remained the same. In 1979, the Calcutta Metropolitan

Development Authority was designated as a Statutory Planning and Development

Authority under the West Bengal Town and Country Planning Act, 1979. It combined

powers of town planning as well as development. By then CMDA had become an

overarching command organisation with the CMWSA, the Calcutta Improvement Trust

and Howrah Improvement Trust as its subsidiaries. Most of the Municipalities were

under supercession with no elected body in position.

Role of the State Governments and the creation of MPC 4.5. From 1981 onwards elections to the Calcutta Corporation and other

municipalities became more or less regular. Ten years later, the 74th Constitutional

Amendment became law in 1992. Calcutta became the first metropolitan area in the

country to set up Metropolitan Planning Committee as envisaged under Article 243ZE

though this also took six years after the Constitutional Amendment.

4.6. The Kolkata Metropolitan area presently consists of three municipal corporations

namely Kolkata, Howrah and Chandan Nagar, 38 municipalities and nearly 600 non

municipal urban and urbanising panchayats and other settlements. When the CMDA

was set up in 1971, it had the Chief Minister of the State as the Chairman, two other

18

State Ministers and three representatives of the Municipalities nominated by the State

Government. Later on the KMDA was enlarged as a 11 member Board with the

Minister, Urban Development as the Chairman. The Metropolitan Planning Committee

i.e. the KMPC has 60 members. As provided in the Constitution, two thirds of the

members are elected from amongst the elected representatives of the urban and rural

local bodies within the metropolitan area out of these 40, 14 are elected by the elected

councillors of the Kolkata Corporation and remaining 20 are representatives elected

from the other urban areas in the Metropolitan District. Six members are from the rural

parts. Another 20 members represent the parastatal agencies and other officials. The

Chief Minister is the Chairman of the KMPC.

4.7. Over the past few years, the KMDA itself has emerged as the Administrative and

Technical Secretariat for the KMPC. The plans prepared by the KMDA are reviewed

and endorsed by the KMPC with necessary modifications. The KMPC does provide

representative character and political legitimacy for the metropolitan planning and

development set up.

4.8. In regard to the provision of services, the Corporations and Municipalities are

prima facie responsible for most of the day to day services like water supply and

sanitation. They also execute many of the projects included in the development

programme. Inter municipal projects and large scale infrastructure projects of

metropolitan significance are planned and executed by the KMDA. The KMDA’s

resources are mainly from special programmes of the Government of India and the

State government such as the JNNURM, the Ganga Action Plan, basic services to

urban poor etc. The KMDA also takes loans from the financial institutions. On the

revenue side, the entry tax which was introduced in 1972 was abolished and fixed

grants are given to the KMDA in lieu thereof.

4.9. During the past two decades, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation with its Mayor-

in-Council system has stabilized and survived political changes. The KMDA and the

KMPC have also evolved a positive working relationship. It has to be acknowledged the

overall acceptance of local self government and adherence to constitutional provisions

by the State leadership has been an important reason for this.

19

5. Mumbai The City Corporation 5.1. The Municipal Corporation of Mumbai is one of the oldest in the country. The Act

for its creation goes back to 1881. The corporation has an area of 603 sq.kms. The

Municipal Council consists of 255 elected councillors. Unlike other cities the wards in

Mumbai are multiple member wards. The Mayor is elected for a 2 ½ year term from

among the Councillors of the Corporation. The executive authority vests more or less

fully in the Municipal Commissioner appointed by the Maharashtra State Government

who has for long, been regarded as one of the most powerful officials in the City. He is

responsible principally to the State Government rather than the Mayor or the

Corporation.

5.2. Mumbai experimented briefly with the Mayor-in-Council model adopted earlier in

Calcutta. However, due to inadequate understanding of the system and insufficient

political, legal and administrative preparations the experiment was given up and the City

administration reverted to the ‘ceremonial mayor-executive commissioner’ model.

5.3. The Greater Mumbai Municipal Corporation is responsible for a wide range of

services and amenities. In addition to water supply, sewerage and drainage, the

Corporation also handles health care, including running of major hospitals and

education. The Corporation is also responsible for distribution of electricity and

operation of bus transport through a subsidiary called BEST. Under the provisions of the

Maharashtra Regional Town and Country Planning Act, the Corporation is regarded as

a Statutory Planning Authority responsible for land use and zoning plans as well their

enforcement through development, regulations and building controls. However, this

aspect of the Corporation’s powers have been steadily encroached upon by the State

government itself

Parastatals 5.4 The Mumbai Metropolitan region covers a much larger area of about 4355

sq.kms. nearly ten times the size of the Municipal Corporation. In addition to the

Corporation area, it covers seven other corporations namely Thane (147 sq.kms), Navi

20

Mumbai (163 sq.kms) Kalyan (137 sq.kms), and Ulhasnagar, Bhiwandi & Mira-

Bhayandar. There are 13 other municipalities and innumerable semi urban settlements.

The Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority was set up under an Act of

1974. Like other authorities it is responsible for the preparation of perspective plans,

promotion of alternate growth centers, strengthening of infrastructure facilities and

undertaking significant projects on its own. At present the MMRDA’s composition of 17

members includes the Minister for Urban Development as its Chairman, two other

Ministers, the Mayor of the Corporation, three members from the Legislative Assembly

and Council and five other officials. The Metropolitan Committee heads the office and

functions as its member secretary. There is a functional division for planning, transport,

energy etc. The total staff strength is about 30.

5.5. In addition to the MMRDA, the Metropolitan Housing and Area Development

Authority (MHADA) set up under an Act in 1976 is active in part of the Metropolitan

Region with specific housing and area development projects. A Slum Redevelopment

Authority was also enacted in 1995 to work on some of the mayor slums of Mumbai.

There are several other Departments of the Central and the State governments as well

as parastatal organisations emerged in providing several services in the Mumbai region

such as the Airport, the Mumbai Docks and Navasheva Port, the Western and Central

Railways, the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation etc.

The State Government’s role 5.6. The Maharashtra Government has not set up a Metropolitan Planning Committee

as required by the Constitution though enabling legislation has been passed under

which the MMRDA will function as the Secretariat of the MPC. In response to specific

litigations seeking the creation of the MPC, the State government has given repeated

assurances which are yet to be fulfilled.

21

6. Delhi The City Corporation 6.1 The Municipal Corporation of Delhi is one of the large corporations in the country

established under the Municipal Corporation Act 1957. It covers an area of 1397

sq.kms. It consists of 134 wards. A councillor is elected from each. The Mayor is elected

by these members and has a term of one year only. There is an elaborate committee

system in the Corporation comprising more than a dozen special committees and equal

number of ad hoc committees. The municipal and administrative powers are vested

principally in the Municipal Commissioner who is appointed by the State government.

For administrative purposes the Corporation is divided into 12 zones.

6.2 The New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) is another municipal body, but this

covers only an area of 42.74 kms. Unlike the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the NDMC

is a totally nominated body chaired by an official appointed by the Central government.

The NDMC has been set up under a separate Act of 1994. There is also a

Cantonment Board set up under the Cantonment Act of 1924 which is spread over an

area of 42.97 kms.

6.3 In addition to these three municipal bodies, there are some village areas as well.

Taking them all together the Union Territory of Delhi comprises 1483 sq.kms. In 1992, a

separate Act called the National Capital Territory Act was enacted under which the

Territory became a separate state. The Legislature comprising 70 members. This

Government is headed by the Chief Minister. However, the State of Delhi is not

completely on par with other states in India. Some of the responsibilities and authority

pertaining to the other states are exercised by the Central government in the case of

Delhi through the Lt. Governor of Delhi appointed by that Government. Land as well as

Law and Order are instances.

Parastatals 6.4 The most important parastatal body in Delhi is the Delhi Development Authority

(DDA) which was set up under the Delhi Development Act of 1957. The DDA has the

22

mandate to formulate master plans for the area, acquire, hold, manage and dispose off

land and other property and to carry out various development and building projects. The

DDA is chaired by the Lt. Governor. The Ministry of Urban Development in the Central

Government is its administrative ministry. The plans prepared by the DDA are

applicable to the entire area. A unified building code is administered by the three

municipal bodies within their respective jurisdictions but subject to the provisions of the

master plan.

6.5 The Delhi Urban Arts Commission which is another body nominated by the

Central government also exercises special powers for reviewing and approving major

development projects in the capital, from the spatial planning, architecture and heritage

points of view.

6.6 Another important parastatal is the Delhi Jal Board. This organisation functions

under the State Government of Delhi and is responsible for bulk water supply, leaving

internal distribution to the NDMC, the MCD and the Cantonment for some of the areas.

Similarly, the distribution of electricity is also handled by the State government through

the Delhi Vidyut Board which in turn operates the system through companies, given

area based contractual arrangements.

6.7 Other departments and agencies handling important development projects and

services in the Delhi area are the Public Works Department and the Delhi Transport

Corporation. It may also be noted that the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation has been set up

by the Government of India which is responsible for building and operating an extensive

multi model transport system in the area.

The Metro Region 6.8 Prima facie, it would seem that the Union Territory has a self contained

organizational frame work. However, this is not the case. Planners define a metropolitan

area which goes beyond the limits of the Union Territory and includes town such as

Gurgaon, Faridabad, Noida, Ghaziabad, Sonipat etc. When the Delhi development plan

23

exercise was initiated during the 1950s, it was realized that the problems of growth in

the Delhi area can be addressed effectively only with regional perspective. A National

Capital Region was identified accordingly. In 1985 this entity was given formal status

under the National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985. This Board covers a large

area of about 33,578 sq.kms including parts of the Haryana, UP and Rajasthan’s states

which adjoin the Union Territory. The Planning Board Act is a unique and special

purpose act enacted by the Parliament with the consent of the States. Its composition is

interstate and includes the Chief Ministers of the participating states, representatives of

the Government of India Ministries as also Departments of the participating State. The

NCR Planning Board has a full fledged secretariat functioning under the Ministry of

Urban Development.

6.9 The master plan for Delhi 2020 has gone through a process of public hearings

and objections and has been notified though its formal implementation is held up due to

litigation in the Supreme Court. Similarly a plan for the National Capital Region with a

time frame of 2021 has also been prepared which in turn has been approved by the

NCR Planning Board. The Board mobilizes and administers a fund which is given as

loans for the execution of projects of regional importance.

6.10 It is fair to say that nowhere in the country has so much resource and effort gone

into planning in general and spatial planning in particular as in the case of Delhi. It is

equally true to say that nowhere in the country equal effort has gone into diluting and

bypassing these plans. Contemporary Delhi is locked very much in the embrace of a

burgeoning real estate market. In spite of elaborate legal prescriptions, the command

and distribution of power within the Union Territory as also within the Capital Region

continue to be fragmented.

24

Part III – Persisting Issues

1. The Mayor as ceremonial or executive head of a city government; In most Indian cities the Mayor performs ceremonial functions with very limited

executive responsibilities. The Mayor-in-Council system in Calcutta is an exception.

There can be no accountability without authority; related to this is also the question of

tenure; in many Indian cities the tenure varies from one year to five years and in some

cases like Maharashtra, Gujarat 2 ½ years; direct or indirect election of the Mayor is

also an issue.

2. Should the Mayor’s office have a single person focus or should it be shared?

In Tamil Nadu and Andhra Mayors were directly elected until a few years ago. There

was no Mayor-in-Council system, but the executive powers of the Mayor were limited.

The two states have reverted to indirect elections now. If the Mayor is only ceremonial,

it does not matter if the post has a single person focus. If on the other hand if mayor as

the executive head is preferred a Mayor-in-Council or Chairman-in-Council system

which is similar to a cabinet or a Standing Committee arrangement involves the sharing

of power. In West Bengal and Madhya Pradesh for both Corporations and Municipal

councils this system is followed. However, the Mayor is the person who appoints

members of the Mayor-in-Council or President-in-Council.

3. How does one ensure the proximity of citizens to elected representatives

The 74th Constitutional Amendment provided for wards committees with the Municipal

Council as the Chairperson. The composition of the Committee and the manner of their

appointment are left to the State governments. Only in a few states the Ward

Committee system has been adopted. In these cases, either the Councillor or the

Council itself choose the membership. In some states like Maharashtra, ward

committees are for group of wards whereas in Kerala and West Bengal there is a ward

committee for every municipal ward. In Kerala extensive criteria is laid down for

choosing by a combination of selection and election the members of the Ward

25

Committee. The experience in regard to the Ward Committees is uneven and is

documented in People’s Participation in Urban Governance published by the Institute of

Social Sciences, Delhi.(>>>>)

4. How relevant and frozen are municipal boundaries? Municipal boundaries are rapidly overrun. There are serious limits to expanding

municipal boundaries though in a few cities like Hyderabad and Bangalore, the

expansion has been done. However, if the economy develops, spatial growth is

inevitable. So are agglomerations. Indian experience confirms that it is not possible to

provide for governance through a single, unitary and comprehensive municipal

framework.

5. Is multiplicity of authorities a problem? – Here again the Indian experience

shows clearly that there is no escape. Because the tasks to be performed in a

metropolitan area are highly varied, they require different actors and different structural

formats. While some congruous functions like water supply, sanitation, streets, street

lighting, solid waste ext. can be grouped as municipal, many other services are inter-

municipal and metropolitan wide in coverage especially transport, electricity, rail and air

connectivity etc. A minimum organizational set up is necessary to bring these important

agencies to a platform which can determine a metropolitan wide strategy, planning and

action.

6. What are these tasks? The identification of which tasks are to be performed at

the agglomeration or metropolitan level and which tasks are to be performed at the

State metropolitan level will vary from one area to another. An identification of tasks is a

prerequisite before considering an organizational set up. The guiding principle should

be, which tasks can be performed only at the metropolitan level and will go by default, if

not identified and provided for.

26

7. How does one accommodate the interests of a provincial or a national government in metropolitan management?; The Indian experience clearly shows that no state government is willing to give up

control of a metropolitan area. The fear of the large cities and in particular the fear of the

leadership in that large city as a potential threat to state and the national leadership has

existed for a long time. In India the Constitutional structure is a carry over from the

colonial period of the Union-State - Municipality. This three-tier system based on a

hierarchy of authority and responsibilities may not be adequate for managing an

agglomeration area or a metropolitan area. In India almost all the million plus cities and

their agglomerations are multi district and multi municipal. In all of them the State and

Central government agencies and departments are active. All of them also have

significant entities of trade, commerce and service provision in the private sector. It is

essential to recognise that a metropolitan area is an intergovernmental entity. A

major reason for the reluctance of state governments to devolve control over a

metropolitan area is the enormous financial and political clout that urban land and

therefore real estate operations carry. In many Indian cities, inspite of the Constitutional

Amendment stating very clearly that “urban planning including town planning” and

“regulation of land use and construction of buildings” as the first and second items in the

12th Schedule, these powers have not been fully devolved on municipalities.

8. Who should claim the metropolitan political turf?

In most Indian cities the Members of Parliament and Members of State Legislature

occupy the same constituency area. While the constituency of an MP may be very large

and covers a population of 2 to 2.5 million, the constituency of a State Assembly

member may be just 2 or 3 times the size of a corporation councillor’s constituency.

After the recently completed Delimitation of Lok Sabha and Assembly constituencies in

the country, on the basis of the 2001 Census, the number of MLAs in metropolitan

areas have increased because of the growth of population. MPs and MLAs cannot enter

each others legislatures and double membership is specifically forbidden by the

Constitution. However, in the case of city corporations, both the MP and the MLA are

eager and happy to join. In some state this is provided for formally, while in some others

27

this is by an invitation. Additionally, in almost all the States, there is a scheme called

Local Area Development Scheme under which an MP or an MLA is given a lump sum

allocation ranging from a few lakhs of rupees to one or two crores every year to be

spent at the discretion of the member concerned for development activities which are

very much within the purview of a municipality or a panchayat. The combination of both

political and money power thus renders the Corporation Councillor inferior in status and

power to am MP or an MLA. In some countries, it is possible for today’s mayor to

become tomorrow’s Prime Minister or President. That prospect appears quiet distant

from the Indian experience.

*************

1

Governance and Planning in Metro Manila

by

Nathaniel von Einsiedel (Former Commissioner for Planning of the

Metropolitan Manila Commission)

September 2008

Metropolitan governance was first introduced in the Philippines in 1975 when then President Ferdinand Marcos issued a presidential decree creating the Metropolitan Manila Area (MMA) and the Metropolitan Manila Commission (MMC) to manage the affairs of the country’s premier urban center. The MMA, with a total land area of 636 square kilometers and a population of about 7 million, comprised of 17 local government units, namely: Manila, Quezon, Pasay, Caloocan, Malabon, Navotas, Valenzuela, Marikina, San Juan, Mandaluyong, Makati, Taguig, Paranaque, Las Pinas, Pateros, Pasig, and Muntinlupa. Each of these local authorities had an elected Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councillors. However, at the time the MMA and MMC were created, the country was under Martial Law and the powers of local authorities had been severely curtailed. Thus, governance over the metropolis was placed in the hands of the MMC which was given both executive and legislative powers. Appointed Chairman of MMC and concurrently Governor of Metro Manila was then First Lady, Imelda Marcos. The creation of the MMC was prompted by the increasingly popular demand for effective solutions to nagging problems affecting many if not most of the local jurisdictions comprising the metropolis, such as the alarming increase in slum areas, traffic congestion, environmental degradation, crime, flooding, and lack of affordable housing. Prior to 1975, several studies had been conducted in Metro Manila about the problems brought about by its rapid population increase and urban growth, and all of these recommended the adoption of a metropolitan-wide approach to the planning and implementation of appropriate solutions. One of these studies was by the Task Force on Human Settlements, a policy think tank created in 1973 based upon the recommendations of the Philippines delegation who participated in the United Nations conference in Stockholm in 1972 where the concept of human settlements was first introduced. The Task Force particularly recommended the establishment of a metropolitan system of governance and the creation of an organization dedicated to addressing metropolitan-wide issues and challenges. As a commission-type organization, the MMC was composed of a Chairman/Governor, Vice Chairman/Vice Governor, and three Commissioners for Planning, Finance, and Operations. The Commissioner for Planning was responsible for overall development planning including the coordination of sectoral and local area plans; the Commissioner for Finance’s primary task was to raise funds, prepare and implement the metro-wide budget and coordinate the budgets of the component local authorities; and the Commissioner for Operations took care of delivering metro-wide services and coordinating the activities of component local authorities as well as of national sectoral agencies operating in Metro Manila. While the mayors of the component local

2

authorities formed a council, their role was mainly advisory inasmuch as the MMC exercised both executive and legislative functions. With the country under Martial Law, local elections had been held in abeyance and the mayors were simply appointed by the President. As can be expected, this spawned serious conflicts between the mayors and MMC. In spite of these circumstances, the MMC was able to introduce innovations in the planning and management of Metro Manila. Some of its major accomplishments include the establishment of a metro-wide land use plan and zoning ordinance, an infrastructure investments planning-programming-budgeting system, and the local government development planning system. Through partnerships with national government agencies, the MMC caused the implementation of the Metro Manila flood control system, the adoption of on-site upgrading of slums and informal settlements as a national policy, and the construction of medium-rise housing throughout the metropolis. It also introduced a coordinated solid waste management system which included the construction and operation of sanitary landfill sites, and a metro-wide traffic management system. Meanwhile, the population of Metro Manila continued to increase rapidly and the MMC and its component local authorities could not keep up with the necessary urban services. At the end of 1985, ten years since the creation of the MMC, the problems of the metropolis remained the same if not more severe. It was apparent that the MMC’s capacity could not keep up with the rapid and massive increase in population and urban growth. At the same time, the anti-Marcos movement was reaching its height. In February 1986, President Marcos was ousted together with his wife, Imelda. Through the now famous “People Power Revolution,” Corazon Aquino was popularly elected President. She immediately focused on restoring democratic processes in the country, including the reinstatement of Congress and the system of local administration. However, in dismantling the Marcos administration’s foothold, she ordered a government-wide reorganization and that all systems established during the Marcos era be discarded and replaced with new ones. This resulted, on one hand, in the return of powers to local governments including those comprising Metro Manila. On the other hand, it also resulted in the elimination of practically all of the positive improvements to metropolitan planning and management that had been earlier introduced. Consequently, the MMC was abolished and replaced by the Metropolitan Manila Authority, with the legislative powers over the metropolis given to the Metro Manila Mayors Council, and the executive powers to an appointed Chairman, a General Manager, and the Assistant Managers for Planning, Finance, and Operations. With the national economy at its worst, the management of Metro Manila during President Aquino’s term was practically at a standstill. Hardly any new infrastructure and housing was built, and almost no private investments were made. Thus, as population and urbanization continued to increase, the backlog in urban services also increased and the overall quality of life in the metropolis further declined. This was the situation inherited by President Aquino’s successor, President Fidel Ramos. During President Ramos’ term, Congress passed a law abolishing the Metropolitan Manila Authority and replacing it with the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) which exists up to

3

the present. The law streamlined the metropolitan management system and organizational structure, returning to the component local authorities most if not all the powers that were taken from them by the former MMC. The law also clarified the term “metropolitan-wide” which had caused some controversy between the metropolitan and local government officials, and reduced the metropolitan body’s intervention to regional planning, garbage disposal, and traffic management. In effect, the law removed from the metropolitan body the functions that are logically those of local governments and national government agencies, such as housing, garbage collection, and infrastructure development and maintenance. Another major development during President Ramos’ term was the passage of the Local Government Code which strengthened the autonomy of local authorities. This law did not make any distinction between local governments in the country and thus was also applied to those comprising Metro Manila. While it gave these local authorities more powers, the law in essence weakened metropolitan management inasmuch as all major actions by MMDA are subject to review and approval of the Metro Manila Mayors Council. At the root of the problem is the fact that the Chairman of MMDA is appointed (by the President) while the mayors of the component local governments are popularly elected. Under the present set-up, the mayors are first and foremost responsible to their own respective constituencies. This is their primary and full-time responsibility, while their involvement in metropolitan affairs is secondary and part-time. At present, the MMDA is widely perceived to be focused only on traffic management and garbage disposal. Its interventions in metropolitan (or regional) planning is hardly felt except in a few specific project-related instances where MMDA is a member of some inter-agency coordinating body, such as the Pasig River Rehabilitation Council and the Anti-Squatting Task Force. The metropolitan land use plan and zoning ordinance introduced by MMC have been replaced by individual and often uncoordinated local government plans. Fortunately, the infrastructure investments planning-programming-budgeting system which MMC also introduced has found its way into the guidelines for local governments known as the “Rationalized Planning System” that have recently been promulgated by the national government. Additionally, the system of local development planning that MMC also introduced in the ‘70s has been adopted and further strengthened by the Local Government Code and the Urban Development and Housing Act. Although population growth rates in Metro Manila have decreased dramatically over the last few years, its total population continues to increase and, together with this, the increase in slum areas and the backlog of urban services as well as the further deterioration of older areas. MMDA and the component local governments are faced with serious challenges to effective growth management together with serious financial constraints and inadequate institutional capacity. The conflict between them on matters of metropolitan versus local concerns will likely continue which will be likely addressed by reactive rather than proactive measures. Perhaps the solution lies in establishing a system of a special province where the Metro Manila governor is popularly elected, similar to the system in Bangkok, with appropriate powers to override individual mayors on matters affecting the metropolis as a whole.

METRO MANILA:A Case Study in Metropolitan Planning and Governance

NATHANIEL VON EINSIEDEL(Former Commissioner for Planning of

The Metro Manila Commission)

February 2009

INTRODUCTIONLocation of Metro Manila

INTRODUCTIONThe Metro Manila Area

Component Local Governments

1. Manila2. Quezon3. Caloocan4. Pasay5. Makati6. Paranaque7. Las Pinas8. Muntinlupa9. Taguig10. Pateros11. Pasig12. Marikina13. Mandaluyong14. San Juan15. Navotas16. Malabon17. Valenzuela

INTRODUCTIONBasic Information

Premier urban centerCenter of government, trade, commerce, finance, education, and cultureTotal Land Area: 636 sq. km.Total Population: 11,553,427Population Density: 18,650Annual Population Growth Rate: 2.11%Per Capita Income: P67,290Contribution to GNP: 32%

INTRODUCTIONOrigins of Metro Governance

Urban problems such as poverty, inadequate housing, proliferation of slum areas, water shortage, flooding, traffic congestion, uncollected garbage, and increasing crime were perceived to havereached critical levels in mid-1960s.

By late-1960s, there were many proposals from various sectors suggesting the establishment of a metropolitan governance and planning system.

In 1968, the Metro Manila Mayors Coordinating Council was organized as a voluntary organization of the 17 cities and townscomprising what was then called the ‘Greater Manila Area’. It existed for six years, accomplishing nothing.

In 1972, then President Ferdinand Marcos declared Martial Law, and in 1975 created the Metro Manila Commission (MMC).

RATIONALE FOR CREATING THE MMC(1975)

Problems in Metro Manila had reached critical levels, and attempts by the individual towns and cities to solve these have been failures.

These problems are too large, complex and widespread for individual towns and cities to solve. They don’t have the necessary financial resources, manpower and equipment.

National government has the whole country to take care of, especially regions which are much poorer than Metro Manila.

Most of the problems faced by Metro Manila’s towns and cities went beyond their traditional jurisdictional boundaries.

FUNCTIONS OF THE MMC

1. To act as a central government to establish, administer and provide services common to the Metro Manila Area;

2. To perform general administration, executive and policy-making functions;

3. To establish a garbage disposal operations center which shall direct garbage collection and disposal in the metro area;

4. To establish and operate a transport and traffic center which shall direct traffic management activities;

FUNCTIONS OF THE MMC (con’t.)

5. To coordinate and monitor governmental and private activities pertaining to essential services such as transport, flood control and drainage, water supply and sewerage, housing, health and environmental services, park development, and others;

6. To ensure and monitor the undertaking of a comprehensive social, economic and physical planning and development of the metro area; and

7. To study the feasibility of increasing barangayparticipation in their respective local governments.

MMC’s ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

COMMISSION OFFICERS

Governor / ChairmanVice GovernorCommissioner for PlanningCommissioner for FinanceCommissioner for Operations

OPERATING UNITS:

Environmental Sanitation CenterTraffic Operations CenterBarangay Operations CenterEngineering Operations CenterAction Center for Infrastructure DevelopmentHealth Operations CenterCultural Affairs OfficeOthers (Action Officers, each one corresponding to a “basic need”)

ISSUES AGAINST THE MMC(1982)

That MMC never accomplished its mandated tasks

That MMC had not solved the problems for which it was created to solve

That it had usurped the powers and functions of the local government units comprising the Metro Manila Area

That it was overstaffed with political appointees

That it continued to maintain offices which were created for special time-bound projects that had already been completed

That what it claims as its accomplishments (e.g., housing, flood control, etc) were actually implemented by national government agencies

ATTEMPTS TO REFORM THE MMC(1983-85)

Internal recommendations from the Office of the Commissioner for Planning (1983-84) recommending, inter alia, the repeal of PD which gave Mrs. Marcos sole authority to act on behalf of the MMC; activate the MMC as a true Commission; and redefine its roles, powers, functions, and relationships with other government units.

Recommendations of the University of the Philippines Law Center (1985), basically the same as above.

All these recommendations were not implemented as the People Power Revolution of 1986 overthrew the Marcos administration and installed Mrs. Corazon Aquino as President.

REFORMS UNDER THE AQUINO ADMINISTRATION (1986-1992)

Adoption of a new Constitution in 1987 with a specific provision on the creation by Congress of metropolitan political subdivisions whose jurisdiction “shall be limited to basic services requiring coordination.”

The same provision also states that “The component cities and municipalities shall retain their basic autonomy and shall be entitled to their own local executives and legislative assemblies.”

Repeal of the law creating the MMC and transforming it into the Metro Manila Authority (MMA) with the Mayors’ Council as the decision-making body but chaired by a Chairman appointed by the President.

But the MMA retained all the offices that existed under the MMC, as almost all the politicians were busy preparing for elections. It was business as usual.

REFORMS UNDER THE RAMOS ADMINISTRATION (1992-1998)

Passage of the 1991 Local Government Code, giving local authorities more powers, wider authority, and additional sources of revenues.

This further weakened the MMA and sparked the filing of several bills in Congress to abolish the MMA and replace it with something more relevant.

In 1995, RA 7924 was passed abolishing the MMA and replacing it with the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA), with a Chairman (with the rank of a Cabinet member) who is appointed by the President serving as CEO, and the Metro Manila Mayors’ Council as the governing and policy-making body.

REPUBLIC ACT 7924

Continued to recognize the special and unique situation and circumstances of the Metro Manila area.

Treats the metropolis as a special development and administrative region, but without prejudice to the autonomy of the affected local authorities.

Provides MMDA with the responsibility for planning, monitoring and coordination, and exercise of regulatory and supervising authority over the delivery of metropolitan-wide services within the metropolis.

Makes a distinction that purely local matters are the concern of the local authorities and therefore are outside the MMDA’s scope of authority

REPUBLIC ACT 7924

Defines metropolitan-wide services to be those which have metropolitan-wide impact and transcend local political boundaries, or entail huge expenditures such that it would not be viable for these services to be provided by the individual local authorities.These services are:

1. Development planning for the metropolitan area2. Transport and traffic management3. Solid waste disposal and management4. Flood control and sewerage5. Urban renewal, zoning and land use planning, and

shelter services6. Health and sanitation, urban protection and pollution

control7. Public safety, including disaster preparedness, prevention,

rescue operations, and rehabilitation

IN REALITY . . .

The MMDA Chairman has difficulties convening a quorum for the meetings of the Mayors’ Council.

The MMDA has become ineffective in development planning of the metropolitan area.

Among its several mandated functions, it is mainly focused on 1) transport and traffic management; 2) solid waste disposal; and 3) flood control.

Some local authorities in the metropolis do not implement or enforce the policies of the MMDA.

CONCLUSIONS

In the context of the Philippine political and public management system, there is an inherent conflict between metropolitan governance and local government autonomy.

To the Mayors of local authorities comprising the Metro Manila area, their primary and full-time concern is their constituency. Their participation in the affairs of the Metro Manila Mayors’ Council is secondary and part-time.

The differentiation between “metropolitan-wide services”and “purely local matters” is contentious since metropolitan-wide services invariably have local components.

A metropolitan governance system needs to be reviewed regularly (say, every 5 years), and reformed accordingly.

Thank you for your attention.

Partnership for Urban

Waste Management

BadanBadan L NyachhyonL NyachhyonMULTI Disciplinary Consultants (P) LtdMULTI Disciplinary Consultants (P) Ltd

Feb 11Feb 11--13, 200913, 2009

Solid Waste, Waste Water, and Environment

Solid Waste ManagementSolid Waste Management

In Jan 2009, for the 8th

time, KMC made Agreement to fulfill the demands of the SisdolStruggle Committee.

Major Disposal Site: Sisdol

The rationale of the struggle of Sisdol people is justified. No compensation can recover the living condition in Sisdol. Can we improve the hazard

created? Time and again, Sisdol people debar the disposal and SW problem flares up in Kathmandu.

Our City, Our WasteOur City, Our Waste

We We DumpedDumped

itit ]]

SW problem flares up as the tides in the Ocean. The July 24, 2007 event was remarkable with KMC dumping the waste at Tundikhel – the Centre of the City. The

situation was predicted back in 1996.

We live and We live and play hereplay here

Over 3 million People in Over 3 million People in KV produce SW > 800 KV produce SW > 800 Ton/day, Ton/day, ••300 Trucks/day300 Trucks/day••50% Thrown Away into 50% Thrown Away into Nature or Public PlaceNature or Public Place

Jan 2009 Kathmandu – For over 21 days the waste remained on the streets

Tree Plantation at Ring road was destroyed with SW Dump

Dumping at riverside destroyed culture and environment

Degrading Human ValueDegrading Human Value

Over 20,000 Children, Women and Waste Pickers engaged Over 20,000 Children, Women and Waste Pickers engaged in KV alone for living. Who cares about their health, in KV alone for living. Who cares about their health,

education?education?

The Only Cause of PollutionThe Only Cause of Pollutionis our habit is our habit

of of Throwing AwayThrowing Away

The SW Management is based on Dumping in Landfill site or elsewhere. The Approach has not been changed from last 30 years. No reforms, no changes and no innovation occurred in SW Management.

Recent News indicated KMC spends over NPR 2 Billion for collection and Dumping the Waste i.e. NPR 600/capita/year.

We need a radical change in ApproachWe need a radical change in Approach

Composition of SWComposition of SW

66%

25%

0%9%

Organic Market Hazardous Inert

Food, Vegetable,

Leaves

Packaging Materials

Sand, Brick, Stone

Waste generation in 58 Waste generation in 58 municipalities in 2005, municipalities in 2005,

T/dayT/day•Total Quantity 100% 1489•Organic 66% 982 •Inert and Others 9% 135•Recyclable 25% 372•Plastics 10% 148•Paper 8% 119•Glass 2% 30•Textile 3% 45•Metal 1% 15•Leather /Rubber 1% 15

Average Generation: Average Generation: 0.30.3--0.5 Kg/capita/day0.5 Kg/capita/day

Total Waste: 7,500 T/dayTotal Waste: 7,500 T/day

CompostingCompostingRecycleRecycle

Landfill/ Landfill/ Land Land

reclamationreclamation

Total = 761Market= 475Comp= 286Recycling, mln Rs.

Com

mun

ity P

artic

ipat

ion

Com

mun

ity P

artic

ipat

ion

Solid WasteHospitalConsumer

Domestic Activity

Municipal Activity

Industry

AgencyAgency

Disposal in Container & PS

Transfer Center

Dumping Site

MixingMixing

Reform Approach in SWMReform Approach in SWM

ZWAZWA

Mun

icip

ality

/Gov

t.M

unic

ipal

ity/G

ovt.

IndustriesIndustries

Clean Waste

Recycle Materials

Inert Material

SeparationSeparation

Biodegradable Material CompostingComposting

Landfill / Landfill / Reclamation Reclamation SiteSite

Low Value Products High Value Products

Zero Waste Approach and Landfill

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5

ZeroWasteLandFillNon-Recycled

Current time

z'Goz'Go sl;+u/sfsl;+u/sf] ] tl/sftl/sf

Zero Waste ApproachZero Waste Approach

nf08lkmn ;fO{6 nf08lkmn ;fO{6 tl/sftl/sfLand Fill Site Approach

Non-Recycled

Solution: Composting and RecyclingSolution: Composting and Recycling

Action MatrixAction Matrix

Ownership Developed

60% hazard reduced

70% hazard reduced

25% hazard reduced

60% Hazard reduced

Outcome

National / Local Councils

Study

Study

Incentives, Motivation, Tax exemption

Community based Initiatives

Actions

Policy Policy InterventionIntervention

Bio FuelBio Fuel

Waste to Waste to EnergyEnergy

RecyclingRecycling

CompostingCompostingMethodsMethods

Waste WaterWaste Water

Rivers polluted with Waste Water and Solid Waste

Bagmati River, Dec 2008

WW CompositionWW Composition

95% Domestic WW

5%Industrial

WW

• Population of Nepal: 25 million

• Domestic WW Discharge: 370 MLD (?)

• Industrial WW Discharge: 30 MLD (?)

Current Installed Capacity of Domestic WWT Plants:•Dhobighat (NIO)- 15 MLD

•Kodku- 1.1 MLD•Hanumanghat (NIO)- 0.4 MLD•Sallaghari (NIO)- 2.4 MLD

•Guheswori- 16.4 MLD

Industrial WWT Plant

•Hetauda Industrial District 1.0 MLD

Wetland (Reed Bed) WWT Plant

•Dhulikhel, Pokhara, Thimi,-12PlantsSource:ICIMOD/MOPE, 2000, HPCBSAIP

050

100150200250300350400

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

RW Diverted to WS

Rain Water for Cleaning

Waste Water System in KVLegendExisting WWTPProposed WWTPExisting WTPExisitng Water MainsExisting Sewage Collector Mains

Proposed Sewerage Systems

Source: Kathmandu Valley Water Supply Demonstration Project, Nov 2007 ADB/MWSDB

5. Promotion of Dry toilet Technology

Very Hh4. Waste Management at Source at HH

High3: Waste Management at neighborhood

Low2: Decentralized Package TP at outfall to rivers

Very low1: Sewage Collectors along major river with WWTP at Chobhar

Incidence of Water Borne Diseases

Options

Encroachment of river banks

Air Pollution

••Industrial EmissionIndustrial Emission••Dust PollutionDust Pollution••Road & Vehicle ConditionRoad & Vehicle Condition

Why To Pay Attention on UWM?Why To Pay Attention on UWM?

Air we breatheWater we drink

Water we use Food we eat

Bad smellBad aesthetics

Environment (S/W/A)Human Health

SW

It comes back through

Environment (S/W/A)

Global Climate

Environment (S/W/A)

Ozone LayerGlobal Climate

Water SupplyWater Resources

Directly Damages

DW

GW

LW

Waste

And brings Massive And brings Massive Health Hazard:Health Hazard:

No body is sparedNo body is spared

Wastedoesn’t

go away, It

comes back

through

Institutional Arrangement

Bottom up Approach

Bottom up Approach

GG

BB

AA

A/SA/SPPCC

Top D

own A

pproachT

op Dow

n Approach

Community NetworkingCommunity Networking ]]

RROOWW IIKK NNEE TTNN GGCommunity Based Planning and Network ExtensionCommunity Based Planning and Network Extension

National Council National Council

GG

PP CC

Recommendation• Review Past Experience and Lessons Learnt• Identify Good Practices• Review Policy and Programs• Identify Institutional Strengths• Promote Community Participation• Provide Motivation, Encouragement and

Incentives for Good Practices• Introduce Corporate and Citizens Responsibility

Encourage Enterprise Development • Accept WM at par with Infrastructure• Develop Ownership and consensus

1

Expert Presentation Questions and Answers

The Regional Development Authority Model Experience in India: Metropolitan Cities of Mumbai, Bangalore, Chennai, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Delhi

Mr. K.C. Sivaramakrishnan Chairman, Center for Policy Research, Senior Fellow, Institute of Social Sciences, New Delhi, India; Former Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development; and former Chief Executive of the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority

Questions and Answers

Question: How are smaller cities governed?

Answer

Municipality mayor and commissioners elected by their citizens Elected officials tenure of 4-5 years Elected municipality cannot be thrown out Different constitutional schedules Responsibilities of municipalities are defined and differ from each other depending on the

state interpreting the Indian Constitutional Amendment of 1993 Question: Why must you create a regional development authority? Why can’t you just give the power to the municipalities?

Answer: The history of India illustrates that national leadership didn’t feel it necessary to have the municipalities governed by local elected leaders. The municipalities did not have a huge amount of responsibility and power, and were therefore reduced to a bad state. The local municipal leadership felt shunned and wanted to have more power for their representation. With a new constitutional amendment, local municipal leadership was delegated more power and responsibility.

Question: How can trade and borrowing help KMC?

Answer

Municipalities must have an independent taxation domain. If there is not such a system, the core financial institution is not in place.

Octori tax -a tax that local governments impose on movement of commercial goods to their jurisdiction is an example. Many of the states in India have abolished this form of tax, with the exception of Mumbai.

State governments impose many restrictions defined through legislative amendments and therefore the municipalities are more restricted in their operations.

Question: Using West Bengal as an example, what can be learned?

Answer

2

City administration, should it be broad based on a single person focus? Should the elected mayor be all powerful or should it move towards collective power sharing with other people?

The West Bengal government created a coalition “dharma” —made up of many different committees and councils who have different responsibilities and share them among themselves.

West Bengal did not establish a metro planning committee as mandated by the constitution because the Marxist party felt they did a good enough job—why do we need a metro planning committee? Post elections, 10-12 local municipalities were won by opposition and they rethought the Metro Planning Committee recommendation as a way to circumvent those municipalities. So it was implemented, and now they deal with inter-municipal problems. Although initially used for control this system is now able to cut across party lines and they are able to deal with each other and some of their shared problems. The mayor, although a part of the same state party, is viewed and dealt with as somewhat autonomous with some power and not just subservient to the state.

Question: What are the problems that the municipalities face? Do development authorities work and solve problems?

Answer

Multi-level problems still remain, but the area cannot remain an exclusive metro area. KMC is multi municipal in character— this cannot be avoided. What is it that the Metropolitan Planning Committee’s (MPC) can do that the

municipalities cannot do? Using West Bengal as an example—what should the old textile factory land be used for? 1/3 of land should be given to Bombay; 1/3 of land should be utilized for affordable housing; 1/3 for capital for-profit development. This was the responsibility of the Bombay Municipal Corporation, but they ran into the problem of defining “open land?” Public and private interests clashed because under different definitions each party won or lost land. State government interfered and argued in the court that they’re superior and the municipality should defer to them.

Metropolitan Planning Committee had to fight as to whether their responsibility was to plan or plot. What was their responsibility? Remember when doing spatial planning, the reality is that they are planning real estate.

Every politician wants to succeed, but they also want insurance from failure. Must balance between short and long term gains.

Question: Are there district planning committees in smaller municipalities in India?

Answer

Better success rate in these smaller areas than the regional authorities in India. Gowa State good example—2 district levels and a number of small urban settlements. Lesson regarding the necessity of good information and data are extremely important to

consider. In Nepal, what is the reality of your database and all your information about soil, water, land conditions, etc.

o Must have accurate data and must be available to the public—a transparent process for the people and public and government.

In India, civil society and NGOs were attached to the government to help provide this critical information—with this information government was able to get a real picture of

3

the on-the-ground conditions and therefore the best possible way of helping to resolve their problems.

Being reluctance to share information is extremely detrimental.

Question: In the context of Kathmandu Valley (KV) the idea of a Regional Development Authority has been talked about ad infinitum. So what should KV do and more importantly not do?

Answer

Single command organization is not likely to work here. The search for one single authority is not likely to work. Therefore, do not be afraid of multiple bodies. They are not the problem because there are multiple tasks. E.g. heritage/conservation issues and tasks are different in different cities, and garbage collection and disposal require different skills. Therefore because of multiple tasks, multiple bodies can be positive. Even if you have one organizational setup it may have “1 letterhead” but underneath there can be multiple divisions, they do not have to agree to everything just because they are underneath this 1 letterhead.

Participation and decision debate. There is the argument that participation delays decision making and therefore delays efficiency, but this is a trap and should be avoided. It is much more important to talk about transparency and accountability. Without these, participation is worthless.

Must delegate accountability and responsibility clearly to people. In the experience of the neighboring countries are examples of what to AVOID and don’t

follow them because of the idea of “simplicity” or perceived ease of “replication” alone. You must design and implement what is right for KV drawing from the experience of

others but making you system unique to your needs and realities Question: In India are Regional Development Authorities (RDA) mostly involved in planning and development with most municipalities implementing their plans?

Answer: Not always, some regional development authorities actually implement too, e.g. Delhi. Since Delhi did this and financially profited, other areas in India got on-board.

Today most RDAs do planning and development. Another variation is RDAs limiting themselves to new areas only and inter-municipal facilities, e.g. Madras, Bombay. Yet another variation, the RDA does not execute anything and limits themselves to planning only.

There are many variations in India and it is not uniform throughout the country. The implementation reflects the unique needs, characteristics and realities of the area.

Question: State restructuring and vertical division of authority in Kathmandu, what do you think about this and how do you think it play out? How about in India?

Answer: In India there is a hierarchy which is fairly simplistic. With this vertical system between the 3 levels of Union, State and Local Bodies, it is possible to delegate responsibilities between these 3 levels—can be used as a model.

Nepal can begin with this hierarchical model. But with cities—especially in the future—this simplistic arrangement will be inadequate. E.g. Mumbai’s recent bombing; no one contacted the mayor of Mumbai. The police yes, but not the mayor. The mayor is not powerful. Who does Mumbai belong to—trade, citizens, provincial state, corporations? There is no answer to this

4

question today for Mumbai, must start the emerging debate and “think outside the box.” Compared to NYC after 9/11, Mayor Guillani was the key figure, not the governor. This is called the sovereignty trap. Even the most powerful cities in the world are not powerful enough to take on the national government; vice versa, the president cannot run NYC. Still need a new solution to deal with these new contemporary realities.

For Kathmandu Valley an inter-municipal model is not adequate. There needs to be a new solution.

Question: What about slums in Kathmandu Valley? No level of government (state, local) is talking about dealing with slums.

Answer: In the 1960s and 1970s in Asia the definition of slums: these slums are part of the housing stock of the cities. The slums are a response to the present economic factors. E.g. Calcutta, the slum dweller was not a squatter because he is paying rent for land. Since they are a part of the city, they can’t be eradicated by moving the inhabitants, the city must take them and up-grade them. It depends on how you define slum dweller—is it calorie intake or income level? In any case, they are economic resources. When city characteristics change slum definitions also change – there would be no one standard.

Other perspective: slums are part of urban real estate and occupy valuable land and therefore they must be replaced. This results in “De-housing” I believe that this type of policy is short sighted.

Labor forces will continue to increase in cities and alternative employments must be created. In KV, migration is motivated by villagers trying to escape rural poverty, not necessarily attracted by “the lights” (world class facilities). As agriculture technology increases, it is easier to grow more food with less people. That is another factor as to why the rural population is migrating into cities. No country can exclude rural migration into cities.

Slum growth is not a negative factor; it is a challenge and an indicator of the present economics and can be harnessed.

Question: India’s Regional Development Authorities… good model? Lessons learned?

Answer: As Chairman of the Calcutta Regional Development Authority, I superseded the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. Lesson learned: this was not a good solution. One acting body should not have all the power. Cities must have an elected representation from ALL levels, and one is not a substitute for another. RDAs are NOT a substitute for elected municipalities.

Participatory representation is a must RDA is not a substitute to the elected bodies

The Regional Development Authority Model Experience in the Philippines

Dr. Nathaniel von Einseidel Chairman/CEO, CONCEP, Inc., and President, The Urban Partnerships Foundation, Makati City, Philippines; former Regional Coordinator for Asia-Pacific, UN Urban Management Programme; and former Commissioner for Planning, Metropolitan Manila Commission (MMC)


5

Question: Why didn’t the MMC follow the Madras, India model? Or the London Development Authority two-tier approach?

Answer: The MMC examined other models including Bangkok, Toronto, Vancouver, London, etc. They picked best practices/ideas from these case studies to create their own regional authority because Metropolitan Manila (MM) is unique. There was no single model that fit the needs of MM 100%; MM had to create a model that they felt best suited their needs.

Nothing in this field is static. No regional authority model provides the one right solution. It must continually change because urban development is a “moving target.”

There is currently a long standing push to create a MM Transportation Development Authority since MMDA is one of many authorities involved in transportation in Metro Manila.

Comment: There has been lots of discussion about transportation and road development in the KV, but nothing written in clear terms and therefore no real agreement between national and local government. It always comes back to, “to whom does the city and its resources belong?”

Question: Political influences usually seem to overpower rational decision – how do you avoid this?

Answer: MM planning and development cannot be divorced from politics. MMDA provides a way for participation to take place. Politics in the Philippines is extremely pervasive in everyday life.

Question: How will small municipalities benefit from the regional authority?

Answer: Local Government Code gives more authority to the municipalities in the MM region. There is a new law in Marikina outlawing sidewalk vendors. Now the vendors are in the “people’s mall” which are created pedestrian-only areas with a roof over them.

There are many what I call management oriented mayors being elected to office, but they still need the politics to win. Many of these types of mayors are women. Partnership for Urban Waste Management in Kathmandu Valley

Mr. Badal Lal Nyachhyon Director, MULTI Disciplinary Consultants (P), Ltd.

Question and Answers: There were none

A member of the workshop raised the thematic question that ran throughout all three presentations: Who does the city and its resources belong to? Who is responsible for the care and maintenance of all these resources?

Comment from Dr. Nathaniel von Einseidel Zero Waste NGO in the Philippines tried several different strategies. First strategy they spoke with the house owners this did not work. What worked were educational workshops focused at lower income communities. These citizens are housekeepers and they are the ones that throw away the trash in the upper class communities. Now there are some sanitary landfills and the national government is slowly coming on board. There is improvement but it is slow. This was all instigated by grassroots community involvement and prodding. The question you are asking has

6

many levels and depends on the issue you are trying to address and the level at which you want to address it.

Comment from Devendra Dongol, Department Head, Physical Development and Construction, Kathmandu Metropolitan City

One of the main problems is that KMC has not been able to implement the proper technology for waste disposal. They used to have a composting element, but that no longer exists. Now KMC is completely changed, so it needs a new approach.

A huge amount of this problem lies in behavioral changes: citizens (throw away trash differently), the bureaucrats (don’t want to take responsibility for their trash), workers (scared they will lose their jobs); municipal borders (no one wants trash dumped in their backyard). So how do you institute change? How do you get everyone on board? As you educate people, they will become more proactive in conscientious waste disposal.

1

Complete Workshop Group Memory

Prepared by Ms. Dee Dee Letts

President, Resolutions Hawaii

This Group Memory is intended for use of the participants and reflects the key elements and points of their conversations and work over the three days. The Group Memory is arranged by day with the exception of the problem tree development which progressed over several sessions but is consolidated in one place in this report.

As facilitator it was a pleasure to work with this group as they move forward to develop a regional planning authority for Kathmandu Valley to provide a better quality of life to their residents through an improved public service infrastructure system.

The aims of the workshop besides providing limited leadership skills and training to the attending were twofold:

1. Investigate the efficacy of establishing a Kathmandu Valley Authority with clear and comprehensive planning and land use policy mandates.

2. Develop an action plan to establish a regional planning mechanism that incorporates greater decision making autonomy to Kathmandu Metropolitan City and other local governments in Kathmandu Valley.

Day 1, Wednesday 11 February 2009

The conference opened with a welcome from Devendra Dongol, Department Head, Physical Development and Construction, Kathmandu Metropolitan City, there was also a message from the Honorable Narayan Gopal Malego, Mayor of Kathmandu Metropolitan City.

The group then introduced themselves and adopted some guidelines to work with over the course of the conference.

Guidelines

Be on time Be prepared to work Be prepared to discuss issues openly and honestly Listen for understanding Recognize it is all right to disagree and that these disagreements provide better opportunities to

address the problem Be open to having fun!

2

Building a Successful Leadership Team

There was a short presentation on team dynamics, team building and team management. The group was then asked to break into small groups and discuss some of their experiences working on teams both what worked and what did not work. The outcomes of these discussions were then shared and discussed. The items that were identified in these discussions are listed below.

What worked?

Clear defined role and authority for the team leader Clear goal and objectives for the team Transparency and taking the effort to not cause mistrust between team members Work to lower divisiveness among members—work to make potential competing and/or divisive

interests into complimentary interests Selection of teams that understand, and support goals as well as the power and authority to move

the goals forward Ability to communicate and understand the substance of the team’s work Norms and guidelines that are clear to all team members Team composition that includes all points of view—stake holders, different organizations, etc. Clarity of roles and responsibilities for all members

What didn’t work?

Vertical hierarchy in teams does not work well Conflicting interests that keep the team from moving forward Lack of goals and objectives or goals and objectives are not clear Too many hidden agendas

o However, hidden agendas go away as people build mutual trust No transparency No motivation Unmanageable, too large No process for regular communication

Creative Problem Solving Techniques and Strategies

There was a short presentation on problem solving and creativity in problem solving. The presentation focused on the seven steps of problem solving and methods used to generate ideas that look “outside the box” for solutions.

The group again broke into small groups to discuss the problem of the delivery of electricity in Kathmandu Metropolitan City. The exercise asked each individual to think about a few ideas to improve the delivery of electricity in the area that are innovative and would not require a lot of money. Then they should discuss their ideas with their teammates and reach consensus on two ideas to propose to the entire group. The list of ideas from this exercise is presented below.

Look at alternative ways of generating waste to energy o 80% of waste is biodegradable so burning it to produce electricity which would also help

with our solid waste problem o Need to do our homework and ensure it is cost effective and it works

Decentralize distribution of electricity to stakeholders

3

Change utilization pattern of electricity—educate the public to be wise consumers in their use of energy

Better management of production capacity Lower demand—subsidize CFL lights and other energy saving devices Look at our building codes and encourage new development to build to an Eco city model Lower/minimize use of electricity through education and incentives Use and encourage the development of more efficient systems All ideas need to be looked at for cost/effectiveness Need to look at the composition or our waste stream so we can best utilize the waste we produce

to benefit our residents through electrical generation or other re-use methods

Team Building and Problem Solving Exercises

The group next participated in a team building exercise – the lessons learned from this exercise about working in teams are noted below.

Teams need to have a say in setting timelines and deadlines for their work—pressure and deadlines can be good or bad for team functioning and this tool needs to be available to the team

Incorporating past experiences and expertise when looking at new problems is essential and a successful team process must allow time for this and get the right stakeholders to the table

Teams can sabotage themselves intentionally and unintentionally—to avoid these pitfalls teams need to have a method and commitment to openly communicate and work to create a trusting environment

Every member of the team needs to know and accept their responsibility—they must have that focus

Introduction to Problem Tree Analysis

There was an overview of Problem Tree Analysis. The purpose of the overview was to assist the participants to understand the basic principles of analysis of problems by identifying major problems and the main causal relationships related to the problem. The steps include problem identification, identification of direct and sub causes and direct and secondary effects as they relate to the problem. In a traditional Problem Tree Analysis the problem becomes the trunk of the tree, the root causes and sub-causes become the roots, and the effects and secondary effects become the branches.

An example was shared: Problem: Getting an agency to adopt and implement developed work plans for emergency preparedness – Root Causes: lack of ownership, subjects lack of high level support, no direction or support from ministries, issues addressed by work plans not a priority, resistance to change, perception that implementing would mean more work same hours and pay, implementation viewed as additional burden, etc.) – Main effects: public perception that their safety is not a priority and they are not safe, communities less safe, more disease outbreaks, anger loss of confidence in government, increased loss of life, capacity building and training lacking to deal with disasters, limited understanding and coordination of disaster planning, lack of training for personnel, demoralized staff , etc.

The participants were then asked to work in groups to develop problem statements that could benefit from a problem tree analysis in moving regional issues forward.

Problems generated by participants:

Weak institutional base to deal with current challenges Violation of building laws Inadequate technology for waste management

4

Migration of people into community Lack of coordination in valley among stakeholders Lack of responsible behavior on the part of the stakeholders Negligence underlying economics of actions Low level of resource mobilization Poor functioning of solid waste infrastructure Lack of political will and vision Low priority on urban development and management Weak decision making processes and strategies for projects Poor IT application and capital investment Lack of understanding of values

It was recognized that some of the items identified above might be causes or effects of some of the larger problems. Through a prioritization process the group recognized that infrastructure failure was a major problem that included several elements of the above identified problems. The group by consensus chose the problem of Failure of Infrastructure in Kathmandu Valley to work on. The group then developed the Root Causes (RC) with Sub-Root Causes (SRC) and Main Effects (ME) and Secondary Effects (SE) around the chosen problem. These are noted below. ROOT CAUSE (SC) and SUB-ROOT CAUSES (SRC):

Management (RC)

No regular maintenance of infrastructure systems (SRC) Weak project cycle management (SRC) Lack of supervision (SRC) Lack of committed leadership (SRC) Lack of enforcement of rules and agreements (SRC) Using low quality materials (SRC) Lack of efficient and effective resource utilization (SRC) Lack of maintenance plan (SRC) Lack of process for effective participation by the beneficiaries (SRC) Lacking responsible monitoring system (SRC) Weak institutional strength (SRC) Over centralization of social and economic political opportunities in the valley (SRC) Poor ICT application (governance) Inadequate monitoring/maintenance of base services (SRC)

Education (RC)

Knowledge gaps (SRC) Conservative thinking of society (SRC) Lack of educated public awareness of proper uses (SRC) Lack of public awareness/knowledge on proper utilization of infrastructure (SRC) Lack of mechanism for public input to the process (SRC)

5

Coordination (RC)

Overlapping planning and development functions in Kathmandu Valley (SRC) Inter agency coordination and communication lacking (SRC) Poor coordination (SRC) Unresolved powerful interest group influences(SRC) Policy confusion at central government level; two ministries MLD and MOP responsible for

urban sector (SRC) Weak and ineffective Kathmandu Valley Development Committee (SRC) Lack of single institution (having many institutions) (SRC) High level of politicization (SRC) Lack of development control: overlapping responsibilities of KMC and KUTDC (SRC)

Economics (RC)

Lack of monetary funds for high technology (SRC) Low level of resources available (SRC) Overdependence on external assistance/foreign aide (SRC) Inadequate local financing i.e. no local direct tax base tied to service (SRC) Unsustainable technological solution when these are built with foreign aide and we have no want

to maintain them (SRC) Indirect tax base—not link to service/infrastructure (SRC) Lack of continued commitment of public resources (SRC)

Planning (RC)

No long term spatial (land use) development framework in Kathmandu valley (SRC) No proper planning (SRC) Weak planning practices (SRC) Lack of clarity of goal/objectives for planning (SRC) Lack of long term planning (SRC) Poor planning (SRC) Lack of infrastructure planning (SRC) Increased population (SRC) Design failure (SRC)

Manpower (RC)

Lack of competent city planning staff and processes in KVTDC (SRC) Lack of adequately trained manpower resulting in poor workmanship (SRC) Insufficient adequately trained human resources for management of infrastructure (SRC) Lack of skilled human resources at all levels (SRC)

MAIN EFFECTS (ME) and SECONDARY EFFECTS (SE)

Social (ME)

Long term vision for the Kathmandu Valley (KV 2020 document) not complied with (SE) Social problems and frustrations (SE)

6

Mistrust of people for government (SE) Poor urban quality of life (SE) Irrational demand trapping the investor (SE) Reduced willingness of people to pay taxes (SE) Unnecessary effort and undesired results (SE) General people dissatisfied with government systems (SE) Indifference of beneficiaries toward infrastructure (SE)

Health and Environment (ME)

Unhygienic conditions (SE) Open drains (no waste treatment) (SE) Environmental health problems (SE) Environmental deterioration—soil, water, air pollution (SE)

Unmet Utilization Needs (ME)

Delay of project completion (SE) Misuse of resources (SE) Poor outcomes (SE) Inefficient urban management system (SE)

Resource (ME)

Delay and cost increases as a result (SE) Wastage of resources and time (SE) Dormant resources (SE) Resources moving away from investment in infrastructure due to lack of success in infrastructure

development – resources are moving to different sectors due to this (SE) Inefficient Development Patterns/Physical Plant Effects (ME)

Inefficient projects implemented (SE) Unplanned growth of settlements (mushrooming) (SE) Breakdown of existing infrastructure (SE) Haphazard building construction (SE) Poor quality of infrastructure (SE)

The workshop then moved into more formal presentations regarding Regional Planning Models. Highlights of the presentations and questions and answers are captured below.

Overview of Regional Planning Models

Comments from Dr. Nathaniel von Einseidel Chairman/CEO, CONCEP, Inc., and President, The Urban Partnerships Foundation, Makati City, Philippines; former Regional Coordinator for Asia-Pacific, UN Urban Management Programme; and former Commissioner for Planning, Metropolitan Manila Commission

2 types of regional planning authorities

7

o 1 regional planning authorities only focuses planning and nothing else Pro b/c allow to prepared the plan, but Con for implementing because lack of

enforcement These examples morphed into regional planning and development organizations

which did both implementation and planning—Miami, o 1 regional planning and development authorities

Bangkok Authority for the Bangkok Metropolitan Area o Chairman of Bangkok Authority elected o 15 districts with 1 manager appointed by governor

MMDA, Philippines o Housing, squatters, traffic, transportation were some the issues that served as the impetus

for the creation of this authority o Mixed regional model o Always tension between the appointed MMDA officials and the elected mayors of the 17

cities within the authority Recommendation to have the MMDA chairman elected but mayors fight it

because they don’t want another level to report to—mayors only want to report to the President and their constituents

Strategic planning approach (UNDP-style)

o Regional approach to planning o Looks at metropolitan region in terms of commonality of issues in consultation with the

more rural areas—rings of metropolis from very dense urban center, and in the rural areas more land conservation approach

Comments from Mr. K.C. Sivaramakrishnan

Chairman, Center for Policy Research, Senior Fellow, Institute of Social Sciences, New Delhi, India; Former Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development; and former Chief Executive of the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority

New approach to city planning—regional planning approach Cities are growing bigger and their boundaries are growing increasingly blurred Regional approach as cities grow bigger Chinese cities as examples…Beijing, Poudong, the city as the head of the province

o No distinction between inner Shanghai and outer Shanghai o Beijing

Limits to extending boundaries of a municipality—can only be stretched so far Multi-city approach, two-tier arrangement—UNDP regional approach

o London o Toronto o Must coordinate, sophisticated division of responsibilities—what will be done at the

municipal and sub-municipal levels Council of Governments—no regional authority but coordination between participating bodies

o Chicago—huge region approach o NY—metro region

Region is a working definition—dynamic and can be defined relatively, case by case basis

8

o KV must define—perhaps use mountains as a boundary Dreams of “World Class City” comes with expectations from all parties and parties to report to

o Bangalore Participation and Stakeholders

o “Stake” will shift from one stakeholder to the next—this idea of a stakeholder is fluid and they and the stakes change.

o Hard to devise a method that allows the sharing of political power Must be a sophisticated method Must not exclude people Must have an organized micro and macro level participation

Any regional authority model is dependent on the sharing of political power Any method is a struggle and balance of many different levels: geographic, economic

connectivity, micro and macro participant, sophisticated power sharing between municipal and regional authorities

Any regional authority must always evolve, adapt, adjust. There is no one solution. An authority cannot be static and the solution today may not be the solution tomorrow—the authority must evolve to keep current

No one solution available today—extraordinarily difficult and challenging, but also dynamic and exciting


Q: What does participation of stakeholders in KV mean?

A: Identify the potential losers and gainers in terms of the project. The theory of stakeholder participation must be carefully addressed at the site planning level, it may be impossible at the city/municipal level as there are too many stakeholders, too many people, can’t satisfy everyone and nothing gets done

Q: Do you think we have to redefine the role of urban planners in regard to KMC and KV?

A:

The conditions are constantly changing—like a soccer game where the goal posts move As a planner you must anticipate changes, not just adapt KMC and KV currently face a severe loss of heritage sites

o Government faced with choice between selling these heritage sites for economic profit and “modernity” or not and falling behind

Conflicting ideas between lower level and higher level government expectations Urban planning will always have some level of arbitrariness which gives cities their different

designs o D.C. no building can be higher than the national monument o Statues in Mumbai—building-up and tearing down

Need to ask the question - What are your non-negotiable points for the development of KV? Water? History? Heritage? City development must name them immediately, and then proceed on this basis.

9

Day 2, Thursday 12 February 2009

The day began with a review of the Problem Tree Analysis of the day before with some changes being made by the participants.

Revised Problem Tree Analysis

Problem: Failure of Infrastructure in Kathmandu Valley ROOT (RC) and SUB-ROOT CAUSES (SRC):

Management (RC)

No regular maintenance schedule/plan for infrastructure systems (SRC) Weak project cycle management (SRC) Lack of supervision (SRC) Lack of committed leadership (SRC) Lack of enforcement of rules and agreements (SRC) Lack of control or organized planning for development leads to corruption of process (SRC) Lack of efficient and effective resource utilization (SRC) Lacking responsible monitoring system (SRC) Weak institutional strength (SRC) Over centralization of social and economic political opportunities in the valley (SRC) Poor ICT application (governance) Inadequate monitoring/maintenance of base services (SRC)

Education (RC)

Knowledge gaps (SRC) Conservative thinking of society (SRC) Lack of educated public awareness of proper uses (SRC) Lack of public awareness/knowledge on proper utilization of infrastructure (SRC) Lack of effective mechanism for participation by beneficiaries in the process (SRC) Lack of modern technology (SRC)

Coordination (RC)

Overlapping planning and development functions in Kathmandu Valley (SRC) Lack of inter agency coordination and communication (SRC) Unresolved powerful interest group influences(SRC) Policy confusion at central government level; two ministries Ministry of Local Development

(MLD) and Ministry of Physical Planning and Works (MOPW) responsible for urban sector (SRC)

Weak and ineffective Kathmandu Valley Development Committee (SRC) Lack of single institution for coordination (SRC) High level of politicization (SRC) Lack of development control: overlapping responsibilities of KMC and KUTDC (SRC)

10

Economics (RC)

Lack of monetary funds for high technology (SRC) Low level of resources available (SRC) Overdependence on external assistance/foreign aide (SRC) Inadequate local financing i.e. no local direct tax base tied to service (SRC) Unsustainable technological solution when these are built with foreign aide and we have no

ability or resources to maintain the technologies once built (SRC) Indirect tax base—not link to service/infrastructure (SRC) Using low quality materials (SRC)

Planning (RC)

No long term spatial (land use) development framework in Kathmandu valley (SRC) Weak planning practices (SRC) Lack of clarity of goal/objectives for planning (SRC) Lack of long term planning (SRC) Lack of or poor infrastructure planning (SRC) Increased population locating in areas with no link to infrastructure availability (SRC) Design failure (SRC) Lack of continued commitment of public resources (SRC)

Manpower (RC)

No qualified competent city planning director in Kathmandu Valley Town Development Council (KVTDC) (SRC)

Lack of standards and training results in poor workmanship (SRC) Insufficient human resources for management of infrastructure (SRC) Lack of skilled adequately trained human resources at all levels (SRC)

EFFECTS (ME = Main Effect and SE = Secondary Effect)

Social (ME)

Long term vision for the Kathmandu Valley (KV 2020 document) not complied with (SE) Social problems and frustrations (SE) Mistrust of people for governance and planning (SE) Poor urban quality of life/services (SE) Reduced willingness of people to pay taxes (SE) Unnecessary effort and undesired results (SE) General dissatisfaction of residents with government systems (SE) Indifference of beneficiaries toward infrastructure (SE) Poor service delivery due to poor service/breakdown of existing infrastructure (SE)

Health and Environment (ME)

Unhygienic conditions/increasing illness (SE) Open drains (no waste treatment) (SE) Environmental health problems (SE)

11

Environmental deterioration—soil, water, air pollution (SE)

Development (ME)

Delay of project completion (SE) Inefficient urban management system/development patterns (SE) Irrational demand trapping investor (SE) Unplanned growth of settlements (mushrooming) (SE) Haphazard building construction (SE)

Economics (ME)

Delay and cost increases as a result (SE) Wastage of resources and time (SE) Resources not fully utilized (SE) Resources moving away from investment in infrastructure due to lack of success in infrastructure

development – resources are moving to different sectors due to this (SE) Misuse of resources (SE) Resources mobilized in different sectors than infrastructure due to prior investment in

infrastructure being unsuccessful (SE)

The two experts attending the conference were asked to comment on the Problem Tree Analysis. The experts had the following comments and suggestions based on what the Problem Tree identified as the causes and effects.

Look at linkages between identified areas such as better planning and management Work on the identified need to coordinate a larger sphere of management Management may have many levels that you need to bring to the table at various times and

around differing issues Need to look at coordination both vertically and horizontally to address some of the identified

issues Use this analysis to help look at areas of interest that donor agencies might support such as

o Capacity building o Policy work o Public education/infrastructure

Important to allow time to put irritations out on the table Public perceptions often go only as far as the problem and are not aware solutions - perceptions

may also vary according to levels and audiences One key challenge shown here is the challenge in reconciling the differing levels and developing

a way to work effectively with all levels Change will happen as this moves forward must be willing to be flexible and adjust Defining the concept of stakeholder and how and when they are included will be a challenge also

12

DAY 3, FRIDAY 13 FEBRUARY 2009

Consensus Building

There was a short presentation on elements of consensus building including negotiation and the use and difference between positions and interests and pitfalls in reaching consensus. It was pointed out that one key place that consensus falls apart is when a team is faced with either/or decisions and that these types of spaces need to be avoided. If a group finds itself approaching this situation it should discuss ways of combining the various ideas called “both/and”. A group could also set up some trial periods to test the various ideas or a system to evaluate the various ideas by using objective criteria, in other words asking the question “What makes a good solution and what does that solution have to do for us.

The difference between positions and interest was explained as positions are statement of what you want; interests are why you need it and what it needs to do for you. Understanding various parties positions and interests allows you to craft your input and ideas in a way that meets the other person or entities interests. Other parties are much more inclined to work with you if you are meeting and acknowledging their interests then if you are just stating your positions.

The group then spent some time in small group discussion about what the positions and interests might be of those organizations that would need to come together to form a regional planning authority. The results of this exercise are captured below.

Positions and Interests Exercise:

Central Government o Position

We make policy We are in charge Guardian position

o Interests Balanced development Address macro issues effectively Uniformity of standards and adherence to standards Exert authority

District /State o Position

Development that is in line with a plan they support Central coordinating body Need other players

o Interests To have an equal say in decisions and power Balance between districts—authority and development To have a populace that supports them

Municipality/Village Development Coalition

o Position Control over what happens in their area They delivery the services Implementation control Give us the money and let us do what we need to do

o Interests Sharing resources

13

Maintain identity, individual character Getting credit for things from the residents Respect and identity

Wards o Position

Recipient—give us what we want, how we want it Community supports us

o Interests Implementation of projects Using the least of their resources Better/maximum services/resources for their supporters

When a Regional Development Authority is formed one of the things that will have to be determined is what is negotiable and what is not. It is important that all members agree and understand this from the earliest stages of the formation of the group. The group spent some time developing what items should not be negotiable in their opinion. They discussed these in general and then looked at whether there were others that might be unique to one or another governmental subdivision. All of the items identified below would need to be further defined by the group as to what the terms meant as at this point they are vague and open to interpretation.

Not Negotiable

General

Natural conservation Defense/security Sovereign function Foreign affairs Human rights Heritage conservation Currency Social inclusion Standards for basic services—health, etc. Geographical boundaries Destruction or degradation of natural resources

Not Negotiable

Central Government o Destruction of national resources o Good governance o National conservation

District/State

o Decentralization of power

Municipal o Autonomy o Service delivery control

Wards

14

o Quality service o Inclusive participation

Prior to beginning the discussion around development of an Action Plan the Facilitator summarized key comments made by the guest experts during their presentations on the second day.

Distilled Comments from Expert Presentations

Up to you to decide on model that works for you and your circumstances Learn from others mistakes Developing, getting agreement and support for definitions within your group is important - from

the question of how you define the metro area on down through all discussion levels Just because you require it does not mean it will happen or work Set up local participation—how, what, role, levels Development authority—if you remove the planning function from the local level, they become

real estate developers—and the local level loses expertise and control of their future How membership is constituted/elected /appointed— how you assure balance is key Clear definition, scope, and mandate is necessary for the organization Work to create buy-in, otherwise attitude is “not our business” Create clear lines of authority, responsibility Address and deal with real versus perceived power Elected versus appointed officials provides for reflection of municipality and creates political

entity Pay attention to municipalities coordinating special planning of investments, attention to common

resources What happens if structure is viewed as a threat to established power entities—how do you

overcome? Municipalities must have an independent taxation domain Coordinating body will not solve all problems—define what crosses boundaries Recognize multiple levels of coordination in different subject areas with one letterhead – so have

subgroups of the authority such as one to deal with water, one for solid waste etc. - don’t be afraid – need different expertise for different issues

Think about how you avoid or minimize plotting versus planning (hidden agendas, etc.) Don’t depend on divine intervention Look at potential consequences of chosen path ID data needs how you get and create a complete picture— data as well as process must be

transparent and available to anyone interested Don’t be afraid of multiple bodies around multiple functions Account for participation - may slow decision making and it provides for accountability Don’t just adopt a model, create a custom model for your needs

A very brief overview of strategic planning was provided. There was a brief description and discussion on the elements of a plan including a vision statement, mission statement, the creation of a SWOT (Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats), and the development of goals, objectives and action plans. An example of a goal which should embody something you are always striving toward was given as “All basic serves have a planned maintenance schedule to assure optimal functioning”. An example of an objective for this goal would be that a “Maintenance service schedule is in place for solid waste management in ______ by (date)”.

15

It was noted that objectives must pass the SMART test – S (Specific), M (Measureable), A (Attainable), R (Relevant), T (Trackable). Small Group Discussions on Action Plan Development

The group started their discussions with beginning the definition process as to how a Regional Authority would define “what is a local issue that should be handled at the local level”.

How do you define what is a local issue to be handled at the local level?

Effect the people and land within the local area and not having substantial effects beyond Makes the life of citizens easier to live, work, and play Deals with instant service to the people Improves the local environment, housing, traffic congestion, etc. Helps to encourage the participation of locals in different development Deals with basic need and expectation of local people Local problems

o Solved by local government o Contribution of resources by local level o Participation of local residents

Those aspects concerned within a defined administrative region/area for which a local body has scope in terms of

o Responsibility o Accountability o Offering management in the form of immediate and accessible government

How do you define a regional issue to be handled by a regional authority?

Effects the people and land of the region but not limiting to a single lower strata organization Deals with the connectivity between local communities, e.g. highways, Deals with coordination with different local areas Concerns the use of or impact on common natural resources Regional level problems which cannot be solved by a local authority Related to more than two local authorities Those aspects common to more than one local body for which a common platform is essential are

regional issues—the scope underlying in between the central and local governments The group through this exercise developed an understanding of how essential and complex developing definitions that meet the needs of a broad group of stakeholders is.

The next exercise the group was asked to participate in involved breaking into small groups and developing a milestone that would have to be accomplished to move the formation of a Regional Development Authority forward. Those milestones should include a strategy for reaching the milestone, the interests that need to be involved and who would convene and be responsible as well as a timeline.

Milestone Strategy (Group 1) 3 year timeline

Identify interests and get them involved in discussion (1 year) Preparation and approval of rules and regulation (6 months after that) Convince the local people and local authority and establish the policies (1 year after that) Establish the authority (6 month after that)

16

Timing recruit and train human resources for authority to forward (2 years after that) Set up funds and then manage them (2 years after that) Implementation

Comment—clarity of milestones around interests and responsibilities needs to be further fleshed out; timeline very optimistic; who’s going to do this and who are the stakeholders?

Milestone Strategy (Group 2) No timetable

1. Consensus is built among specific local authorities for the commencement of regional authority (milestone 1)

2. Constitutional provision is made for the establishment of regional planning authority (milestone 2) Strategies

o Interactive workshop o Drafting organizational structure for the authority o Tabling/lobbying the constitutional assembly to get it approved

Interests o Integrated approach to address issues beyond one authority but common interests of

levels and interrelations o Maximum utilization of resources o Standardization of infrastructure and services o Manageable teambuilding

Who? o Ministry of Local Development and Ministry of Physical Planning and Works

Comments— who’s going to do this and who are the stakeholders?

Milestone Strategy (Group 3)

1. Interaction between all interests (6 months) 2. Formulation of steering committee 3. Strategic formulation in visioning to make better region in deferent theme 4. Implementation

Interest o Betterment of the quality of life for the citizens for the region

Strategies Who

Comment—is item 4 procedural or milestone? Implementation needs to be further defined. Need timeline and milestones. Who’s going to do this and who are the stakeholders?

Milestone Strategy (Group 4) 5 year timeline

Milestones 1. Define the position as regards federal and structural piece (year 1-2) 2. Constitute committee of major interests and academics (first 6 months) 3. Comment—must define the geographical limits/domain of the authority 1st before step 4 4. define interest of the people within the domain of the authority (year 2, and 1st 6 months

of year 3) 5. review current status and SWOT (2nd 6 months, Year 2, and 1st 6 months of year 3)

17

6. interrelation among states, municipality and VDC (Revenue, resources, organization structure) (year 2)

7. policy draft (year 2) 8. stakeholders/constituents build consensus (year 3, 1st 6 months for year 4) 9. draft legal documents (year 4) 10. enactment (year 5)

Comments— who’s going to do this and who are the stakeholders?

Comments from Dr. Nathaniel von Einseidel

Basic assumption that KV should set up a regional authority, but so far no consensus as to what it is supposed to do and perform

There is a need for these major steps:

1. Preparation of formal draft proposal of what the authority should be Formal proposal should clearly identify between the local authorities and the

regional authority—is this a 2-tier system? This could be written by a small (1-2) person group and could be distributed to

the stakeholders Give 2-3 alternative options

If you only propose 1 option and it’s rejected, then you’re back to square one. Not “do you like this?” but “which one do you like?”

2. What would the roles of the local, national government authorities and officials be? 3. Who are the organizations and people that you need to convince? What are their

interests? Develop your strategy to incorporate their interests Once they are convinced, you still need to get to the chairman Do your homework, find the people that are the “gate keepers” of power How do you do it and who is the best person to do it?

4. Involve the media - get them on board. With the media’s support, this applies pressure to politicians and forces them to be proactive rather than just reactive.

5. Needs to be agreement on the goal of the proposed, prospective authority 6. Who are the stakeholders?—local authorities, KV municipalities, and solicit citizen

comments 7. Stakeholders should be formally organized and they should meet on a regular bases—

formalization of a stakeholder group Summary of Workshop

The facilitator next did a brief summary of the workshop. She noted that most of the tools shared were normally presented in 2 to 5 day workshops and that what had been presented at this workshop were overviews of the tools and how they could be used to increase a successful outcome in developing a Regional Planning Authority.

Tools and skills to help develop a Regional Planning Authority were shared. We looked at: o Leadership skills o Team building skills and how to work with all types of people o Creative problem solving skills o The importance of defining and getting agreement on negotiable versus non-negotiable

items

18

o Problem tree analyses as a tool for planning around a central problem - including root causes and key effects

o Decision making and the value of consensus—when everyone is on-board things move quickly, but to get there takes time

o Definitions are a critical component of the development o Negotiation and the importance of identifying various stakeholder’s positions and

interests prior to negotiation o Elements of strategic planning

Information about models used in other areas was shared and a dialogue started between the attendees and guests speaking on other models

Outcomes

Participants have an increased tool box to deal with various issues that will arise during the formation of a Regional Planning Authority

Better understanding of the task ahead and how it might be handled as it moves forward Understanding of other models and that no one model is right for KV but that you need to look at

pieces that fit your situation and build a model for your unique needs – multiple groups under on letterhead is OK

Interests, positions, and how you sell your project. How do you make your interests their interests?

The importance of teams and diversity of teams The need for communication and transparency of process

Issues that need discussions as the next steps

What will be the responsibilities of the Authority? What will the physical boundaries of the Authority’s area? Who are the key players and how do you get them to the table?

The East West Center and Resolutions Hawai`i thanked the participants for their attendance and hard work over the last three days. They also expressed their best wishes for future deliberations regarding the formation of a Regional Planning Authority and their willingness to assist in the future.

Governance and Infrastructure Development Challenges … · Challenges in the Kathmandu Valley...

Documents

Transcript of Governance and Infrastructure Development Challenges … · Challenges in the Kathmandu Valley...