Public Participation in Town Development

SARVAJANIK EDUCATION SOCIETY

SARVAJANIK COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY

SURAT affiliated with

GUJARAT TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

AHMEDABAD

P. G. CENTER IN

CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

Report entitled

Public Participation in Town Development

In the partial fulfilment of the requirement for the award of degree of

MASTER OF ENGINEERING (CIVIL) TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING I

SEMESTER II

Submitted under

URBAN PLANNING TECHNIQUES & PRACTICE (2724801)

By:

Under the guidance of

Prof. Himanshu J. Padhya

Associate Professor in CED

Prof. Sejal Bhagat

Prof. Palak Shah

Assistant Professor in CED

(MARCH, 2015)

Pathik Chaudhari (Enrolment No.140420748011)

M. E. CIVIL (TCP) I Semester II

Department of Civil Engineering

SARVAJANIK COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY,

SURAT

(2014-15)

Declaration

I hereby declare that the work being presented in this Graduate Report entitled Public

Participation in Town Development by Pathik Chaudhari M., of Semester II, ME Civil (Town & Country

Planning) - I bearing Enrolment No: 140420748011 submitted to the Civil Engineering Department at

Sarvajanik College of Engineering and Technology, Surat; is an authentic record of my own work carried

out during the period of odd semester 2014-2015 under the supervision of Prof. Himanshu J. Padhya and

Prof. Sejal Bhagat.

Neither the source there in, nor the content of the seminar report have been copied or

downloaded from any other source directly. I understand that my result grades would be revoked if later

it is found to be so.

______________________

Pathik M. Chaudhari

(140420748011)

Department of Civil Engineering

SARVAJANIK COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY,

SURAT

(2014-15)

Certificate

This is to certify that Graduate Report entitled Public Participation in Town Development is presented

and report is submitted by Pathik M. Chuadhri of Second Semester for partial fulfilment of requirement

for the degree of MASTER OF ENGINEERING IN (CIVIL) TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING of Sarvajanik College

of Engineering and Technology, Surat during the academic year 2014-2015.

Prof. Sejal Bhagat Prof. Himanshu J. Padhya

Assistant Professor Associate Professor & Head

Civil Engineering Department Civil Engineering Department

External Examiner

Date: ______________

Place: ______________

Public Participation In Town Development Pathik Chaudhari (140420748011)

Graduate Report in UPTP M.E. Sem-II (TCP)-2015 SCET

1 | P a g e

INDEX

1. INTRODUCTION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

1.1 MAJOR CONSIDERATIONS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4

2. POINT OF ENTRY FOR PUBLIC INPUT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5

2.1 THE PLANNING PROCESS: IDEALIZED CONCEPT ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5

2.2 POINTS OF ENTRY FOR INITIAL PARTICIPATION -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5

3. IMPORTANCE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 7

4.1 A BETTER DECISION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7

4.2 STRONGER DEMOCRACY -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8

4. PREPARING FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 9

4.1 CREATING A PARTICIPATION STRATEGY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9

5. RECOMMENDATIONS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10

5.1 ESTABLISHING PURPOSES FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION EFFORTS ----------------------------------------------------- 10

5.2 IDENTIFYING THE PUBLICS PERSPECTIVE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11

5.3 TIMING AND APPROACHES TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ---------------------------------------------------------------- 11

5.4 IDENTIFYING CITIZEN PREFERENCES AND SATISFACTION LEVELS. ------------------------------------------------------ 11

5.5 DECIDING HOW TO INCORPORATE INFORMATION INTO DECISION-MAKING ----------------------------------------- 12

5.6 PROVIDING FEEDBACK TO THE PUBLIC ON HOW THEIR INPUT HAS BEEN USED --------------------------------------- 12

6. CASE STUDY: SURAT CITY SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM ------------------------------------------ 13

6.1 OBJECTIVES FOR AN INNOVATIVE & MODERN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT: -------------------------------------- 13

6.2 THE NEW AND MODERN APPROACH TO THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ----------------------------------------- 13

6.3 PRESENT STATUS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14



2 | P a g e

6.4 PRIMARY COLLECTION THROUGH DOOR-TO-DOOR GARBAGE COLLECTION ----------------------------------------- 15

6.5 BENEFITS FROM THE PROJECT-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16

7. CONCLUSION ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17

POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17

POTENTIAL RISKS OF PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 18

REFERENCES ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19

Table 1 Present status of Surat SWM system source : SMC website(2015) ........................... 15



3 | P a g e

1. Introduction

Building on access roads, waterways and unauthorized places had remained one of the

major problems confronting city and town managers over the years.

The situation is more disturbing in major cities where private land developers have

consistently ignored laid down drawings and plans and continue to build haphazardly, resulting

in near slums in urban residential areas.

It has also been said that lack of capacity on the part of the Town and Country Planning

Department to enforce laws and regulations on area and site planning schemes, as well as the

inability of city authorities to control physical developments in their areas have compounded

the problem. Traditional authorities and landowners have also been blamed for intentionally

allocating waterways and reserved areas to private developers for their own selfish interest.

However, one could equally put the blame on the current town and country planning

regulations and systems in the country, which is centrally controlled and does not give

opportunity to the stakeholders in the communities to participate in the development of

planning schemes in their areas.

Traditional rulers, landlords, developers and other opinion leaders, who have vital

information, which are needed for proper planning, are denied the opportunity to make

meaningful contributions before area and site planning schemes are prepared for the

community. As a result, most of the stakeholders, especially chiefs and landowners see these

plans as "foreign" and thereby disregard them and go ahead to either design their own plans or

begin to demarcate lands anyhow.

Others who even decide to use the planning schemes designed by the town and country

planning to allocate plots to developers, often do not understand the interpretations in the plans

and the reasons why certain areas should not be allocated.

Thus, the current planning approach has alienated the very people, who owned the land

and, therefore, denied them the proper management and control of the land, resulting in the

confused state cities and towns find themselves.

The Department has started engaging in discussions with relevant bodies to change

some of its laws and regulations to enable it to involve all stakeholders in land to participate in

planning schemes in all communities in the country.

Under the new system, chiefs, landowners, developers, identifiable groups and all other

opinion leaders would be engaged in all town planning processes and a committee comprising



4 | P a g e

the stakeholders and other technical experts constituted to ensure the implementation of

approved schemes.

This will enable the people to own the schemes and protect them in order to prevent

others from encroaching on unauthorized areas. Although the idea had eluded the town and

city planners for quite some time, it is considered as a welcoming change.

1.1 Major Considerations

Specific planning approaches designed to balance the trade-off between technical

demands and public involvement can only be developed on a case-by-case basis. There are two

broad corners, however, which arise from previous experience and which address this basic

trade-off, which must be considered in the attempt to form any general approach to

participatory planning.

First, public participation should not be viewed as an adjunct to planning, but rather as an

inherent and continuous element of the planning process.

Second, to assure that public input will have an impact upon decision-making, it must produce

results in a form that can be utilized by planners as an integral part of ongoing data analysis.

Taken together, the two major considerations concern in eliciting effective public

participation; that is, to identify appropriate mechanisms of participation, and to effectively

link these mechanisms to the planning process.



5 | P a g e

2. Point Of Entry For Public Input

2.1 The Planning Process: Idealized Concept

Figure shows the regional economic development planning process as an idealized

concept. It is considered as idealized because the steps in the process are represented in a

strictly sequential order.

Figure 1 Steps in Planning Process Cycle

The model shown contains eight specific steps within the planning process cycle. A

review of these steps will reveal a basic sequential logic to the process. Models based upon the

same essential logic but containing a greater or lesser number of specific steps might be equally

valid, as might be variations on the names of each of the steps. Critical to a rational planning

process, however, is the basic pattern of a continuous iterative framework. The planning cycle

shown is two to three years in duration; the process is continuous, so that as one cycle reaches

its end, the succeeding cycle has been initiated.

2.2 Points of Entry for Initial Participation

The selection of points of entry is guided by the rational, iterative nature of the

planning process. The adjustment and refinement that takes place among the steps diminishes

the importance of the sequential nature of the process. This suggests that public input can be



6 | P a g e

effective and useful even if not a direct component of the decision-making associated with each

step.

The nature of the first step away from conventional, centralized planning and the lack

of necessity for public involvement at every planning ster suggest that there two points

appropriate for the initial entry of public participation in the regional planning process:

formulation of goals (step one) and comparative assessment of options (step five).

In the initial stages of goal formulation, when the planner collects data to enhance his

perception of the regions development problems and to conceptualize potential solutions,

public input can provide valuable information not included in the physical and economic data

normally utilized by the planner. At this stage, the planner should have a definite understanding

of the general concerns of the public so that the formulation of goals, and each subsequent step,

benefits from valid interpretation of the regions development needs. It is important that data

from participatory efforts be collected early enough in the planning cycle to provide planners

with an accurate orientation to the regions needs which can be utilized in setting appropriate

directions for planning activities.

The second appropriate point to introduce public participation is strep five, the

comparative assessment of project options. By this stage, enough of the basic technical

planning work has been performed by the staff of the planning authority for specific project

options to be submitted to the public. The range of choices presented for public response in any

community or within any sector will be relatively narrow and well-defined. Clearly defined

choices are essential to obtaining useful direct public input, especially in the initial phases of

popular participation in the planning process. Since the nature of the public input will be

focused upon specific project options, it can be easily integrated into the planning process by

a planning staff lacking extensive experience with public participation.



7 | P a g e

3. Importance of public participation

Public participation in making decisions is vital. It brings benefits in making an

individual decision and also for democracy more generally. It uses the knowledge, skills and

enthusiasm of the public to help make the decision and recognizes that the public have a

significant role to play.

It is also a moral duty. Public authorities work for the public. To do so in a way that the

public want and to ensure that they know what the public needs, they must involve the public

when they make decisions. Each person has a stake in protecting and enhancing the

environment and citizens know the needs of their communities through work, play and travel.

That is why public involvement is a central part of sustainable development policies. Solutions

to achieve economic, social and environmental improvements at the same time will only be

found if everyone is involved and if the discussion is open so that new ideas and approaches

can be considered.

4.1 A Better Decision

Public participation can lead to better decisions. That is, decisions that better meet the

needs of more people, decisions that last longer and decisions that have more validity. Better

decisions will lead to improvements in everyones quality of life. By considering the issue as

widely as possible, improvements in social conditions, the economy and the environment can

occur at the same time.

There is no secret to this. Involving more people in the process uses a wider range of

experiences. It brings in more points of view and uses knowledge about local conditions that

might not be widely known. If the decision takes account of this wider range of experience and

views, it is more likely to be right since more issues have been considered and more risks

evaluated.

Public participation does not guarantee that everyone will be happy with a decision

since different groups of people will have different priorities and concerns. But involving the

public at an early stage in the decision-making process, and finding ways for their views to be

heard and taken into account, helps to build consensus. It means that concerns can often be met

early in a planning process, when changes may be easier to make, rather than late in the process

when even small changes may cost both time and money.

In addition, by being involved in the process, the public is exposed to the whole range

of factors which may influence a decision. Even if people do not agree with the final decision,

they are more likely to understand why it was made.



8 | P a g e

4.2 Stronger Democracy

In the longer term, public participation can improve democracy. Again, this is no secret.

Regular public participation shows people that they are valued and that their views are

important. These exercises build trust and confidence in the authority undertaking the exercise

and demonstrate to the public that change is possible. Individuals and community groups can

become more active and more responsible for their environment and quality of life. People can

feel more part of a community and authorities can make better relationships with these

communities which continue after the decision has been taken. Participation exercises can build

confidence to undertake other initiatives, help give the public the skills to do so and generate

enough enthusiasm to complete the initiative.



9 | P a g e

4. Preparing for public participation

In general, public participation should be undertaken when people are affected by the

decision. They should be involved even when it is uncertain what they will say or when they

may oppose the proposal.

4.1 Creating a participation strategy

The most obvious starting point for preparing a strategy for a participation exercise are

the existing legal requirements. In many countries, the law sets a framework for public

participation exercises. Good practice goes beyond these minimum requirements and even

where there is no legal framework in place, it is still possible to organise effective public

participation exercises. The participation exercise must be open and honest to encourage trust

and show that the decision is fair. Giving the impression that the decision has already been

made is very damaging to the process. The public will not participate if they think that the

decision has already been made.

It can be difficult to build sufficient trust for the public to want to participate, especially

in places where public participation is relatively new. The strategy might need to include a trust

building phase with the public, NGOs and businesses or be part of a longer strategy for building

a relationship between the authority and the public.

The strategy must be honest about the level of public participation. An exercise which

promises action on decisions that cannot be changed will undermine the publics trust. They

are much less likely to participate in future exercises if this happens. In making the strategy,

recognize that local circumstances can be different. A plan which worked well for one area

might not work well somewhere else. If in doubt, find out what is required for the area

concerned.

Although making a strategy is vital, it should not be followed at all costs. Review

progress against the plan regularly and consider whether changes need to be made to achieve

the objective.To provide a clear focus for the process, someone should be appointed to act as

the manager with overall responsibility. His or her role will be to make sure that:

the process is properly prepared;

the process is reviewed regularly to monitor progress;

Preparing for public participation

the process follows the timetable;

the results are achieved; and

Feedback is given so that lessons can be learnt.

10 | P a g e

5. Recommendations

The Government should include the following considerations in designing their efforts:

Purposes for involving the public;

Assurances that they are getting the publics perspective rather than only that of a small number

of highly vocal special interest groups;

Approaches to eliciting public participation and the points in the planning-budgeting-performance

management cycle those approaches are likely to be most effective;

Information that the process will be incorporated into decision making;

Communication to the public regarding how the information collected will be and was used; and

Buy-in from top government officials.

5.1 Establishing Purposes for Public Participation Efforts

Articulating the purpose for conducting a public participation process is critical because

the purpose becomes the foundation for deciding who to involve, how to select them, what

activities they will be involved in, what information will be collected, and how the government

will use the information. Consequently, determining the purpose should be the first step in

designing a participation effort. Governments should not initiate public participation processes

without establishing a tangible purpose or objectives, nor is it sufficient to create a public

participation process simply because it is a best practice or because other governments have done

so.

Purposes may include one or more of the following, and, in addition, individual

governments may identify other purposes for involving the public:

To improve performance by better understanding what the public wants and expects from its

government;

To adjust services and service levels more closely to citizens preferences;

To establish performance measures that incorporate the publics perspective;

To differentiate among the expectations of a jurisdictions various demographic groups in policy

and service design;

To understand public priorities in planning, budgeting, and managing services. (Public priorities

are particularly important in making budget decisions when revenues are not sufficient to continue

to provide all services at their current levels);



11 | P a g e

To establish long term strategies to provide for a fiscally sustainable future for the jurisdiction;

To ensure that capital investment decisions, such as the location of infrastructure elements, are

informed by public input;

To provide information to the public about a governments services and results.

5.2 Identifying the Publics Perspective

Citizens are diverse. Not only do citizen viewpoints differ from those of government insiders, but

from citizen to citizen. No single citizen or group of citizens is able to represent the views of all

citizens. The best way to assure a broad perspective is to collect information in a variety of ways and

from a variety of sources.

5.3 Timing and Approaches to Public Participation

Timing and approaches are related because approaches that work in one phase of planning, budgeting,

and performance management may not be effective in other phases. For example, a community goal

setting session would be very appropriate in assisting a government to establish priorities in

developing a strategic plan or in the early stages of the budget process.

General approaches and timing are listed below:

5.4 Identifying citizen preferences and satisfaction levels.

Such efforts should occur before a decision has been made, or to test various ideas and approaches.

Governments may solicit information for general purposes, such as strategic planning, or may solicit

targeted information as input for specific projects, plans, or initiatives. Unless there is a compelling

reason to target only certain segments, public involvement approaches should encourage all citizens

to participate. In addition, governments should make involvement opportunities accessible to all

citizens and hold meetings at various times to provide maximum participation. Local governments

have used numerous mechanisms for eliciting public input. Common methods for soliciting

information include the following:

o Surveys, either in person or via mail, phone, or Internet.

o Focus groups

o Interviews

o Comment (or point of service) cards

o Public meetings, such as public hearings, Town Hall meetings, and community vision sessions



12 | P a g e

5.5 Deciding how to incorporate information into decision-making

Information derived from public involvement processes provides a critical perspective for making

decisions in planning, budgeting, and management. However, such information should be

considered along with expert knowledge and judgment (such as the engineering expertise

necessary to build a bridge) and objective data (such as economic and demographic information,

both of which are also critical to good decision making).

5.6 Providing feedback to the public on how their input has been used

Governments should systematically collect, maintain, monitor, and analyze information gained

from public involvement activities, maintain contact information on individuals and groups that

wish to be kept informed, and use multiple communication mechanisms to ensure that those

involved or interested in the process are notified of opportunities for additional feedback and of

decisions made based on the public involvement process. Most importantly, governments should

explain how public involvement has made a difference in plans, budgets, and performance, and

gather public feedback on how successful the process has been through the publics eyes.



13 | P a g e

6. Case Study: Surat City Solid Waste Collection System

6.1 Objectives for an innovative & modern Solid Waste Management:

To devise a system of storage of waste and segregation of recyclable waste at source. To improve system of primary collection of waste. To devise more efficient system of day to day cleaning, conventionally and mechanically. To devise system to eliminate practices of throwing garbage on the road causing nuisance

& health threat.

To modernize the system of community waste storage & synchronize the system of primary collection as well as transportation of waste.

To eliminate manual handling of waste and open transportation vehicles. To improve the system of transportation of waste by ensuring "handling waste only once". To construct four more semi close body transfer station to strengthen the existing primary

collection-transportation and secondary transportation system.

To reduce quantity of waste going to landfill site by adopting suitable technology. Land to be acquired for other landfill disposal site. To derive income from the processing of waste. To ensure safe disposal of waste including bio-medical wastes. To do institutional strengthening. To have public participation.

6.2 The new and modern approach to the Solid Waste Management

Integration of SWM with other activities viz. sewerage, water supply, health care,

engineering departments, etc.

Emphasis was laid on Complaint redressed system, Grievance redressed system, Litter

prevention system,

Slum Up gradation & Rehabilitation, Field work, Daily meeting in this regard, etc.

Financial commitment: Equipment, Vehicles, communication.

Involving citizens: Positive involvement, penalizing truants, creating public awareness.



14 | P a g e

6.3 Present Status:

Quantity of M.S.W. generation: 1575.000 M.T. (350 gpcd)

Collection and transportation: 1499.440 M.T. per day (Average of 01/04/13 to 31/03/14)

System of collection and transportation:

a) Primary collection & its transportation:-

- Sweeping during day time.

- Container lifting.

- Door to Door collection system.

- Night scraping & brushing activity.

- Hotel-Kitchen waste management

- Society ANUDAN

b) Secondary transportation:-

Municipal Solid Waste collected through primary collection system reaches to the

Semi closed body transfer station of the respective zone from where it is being sent to the

Khajod Disposal transported through close body container in a mechanically compacted

way.

Name of Transfer station Zone

Bhatar South west

Katargam North & Central (Part)

Varachha East

Anjana South-East

Pal West

Bhestan South



15 | P a g e

c) Disposal of M.S.W.:-

M.S.W. transported from the transfer stations reaches to the final disposal site at

Khajod whereat M.S.W. is dumped and levelled by the heavy machineries. Daily cover of

soil is also laid on the levelled M.S.W. Out of total collection of garbage average 400 TPD

garbage is sent to processing plant which is established on BOOT basis contract through

PPP mode. This plant is in operation from September 2008. At present the plant is not in

operation due to snapshot of financial condition of the PPP agency.

Table 1Present status of Surat SWM system source : SMC website(2015)

6.4 Primary Collection through Door-to-Door Garbage Collection

The door-to-door garbage collection was planned for the timely removal of waste at the

source. Door-to-door collection of waste was introduced in four out of the seven zones of SMC

with the help of private sector participation, however owing to the excellent performance of the

private agencies; it was introduced in all the 7 zones of SMC. The practice of night scrapping and

brushing of roads was done by SMC staff. Listed are the main features of the door-to-door services

in SMC:

Adopted PPP model - Service Contract the entire system of door-to-door garbage collection has been leveraged through 7 different private agencies.

Period of concession/engagement 7 years based on the useful life of vehicle. Private Parties: There are seven different private agencies involved in door-to-

door collection.

Arrangement between parties in the PPP arrangement: The agencies are paid

Tipping fee against door-to-door collection services. The private operator is

responsible for the capital as well as the entire O&M expenses for the system during

the concession period. Vehicles employed for garbage collection are monitored

through Time-Place Movement Chart, under which vehicles have to move in

accordance with the time schedule, area of coverage, and number of units allotted

to each vehicle. Vehicles under door-to-door collection system are also monitored

by the Vehicle Tracking System. Complaints of non-coverage of wards/spots are

monitored at the ward level.

Responsibility of the Private Agencies/Operators: The agencies employ and

maintain their own garbage collection vehicles as per the requirement laid down by

SMC. Garbage collected is unloaded at one of the six TS located within the

Municipal area of SMC. The private operator bears the entire O&M cost of primary

collection and collects almost 700 TPD of mixed waste from door-to-door

collection from the different wards of Surat.

Responsibility of the Municipal Body: The municipal body facilitated the private

agencies with transfer stations for easy tipping of garbage. This has helped improve

the trip time of the collection vehicles.

Funds Infused by Private Party: The private agency brought in closed body vehicles for door-to-door garbage collection. Around Rs. 15 Cr. was spent by the agency for the purchase of 300 of closed type vehicles to carry out collection

activity.



16 | P a g e

Project Progress: Door-to-door collection of waste for all the zones was awarded

to 7 agencies based on competitive bidding. The bidding process was done through

eprocurement system where the agencies were selected based on their financial

quotes. Agencies who quoted least were selected and entrusted the work.

Tipping Fee: The agencies are paid tipping fee at a rate ranging between Rs. 570

per metric ton to Rs. 1188 per metric ton of waste collected. The rates will be

escalated after every 1 year during the procurement period.

6.5 Benefits from the Project

The coverage of SWM services increased to 97% in Surat, while door-to-door collection

services increased to 92%. The practice of waste segregation has also been introduced with

almost 17% of MSW generated being segregated presently. Waste segregation was not

practiced before the implementation of the project,

Overall improvement in the environment, as waste is now collected from the door step

avoiding waste to be dispersed in the open. People have developed the habit of storing

waste in domestic bins;

Timely collection of waste from every house/shop on a daily basis;

Reduction in the number of stray animals around containers spots;

Reduction of odor and waste spillage nuisance as it is collected in closed containers/pickup

vans involving less handling;

Reduction in number of containers and container spots have resulted in curtailment of cost

which were otherwise required for lifting of the containers;

Cost curtailment on repairing and maintenance of containers and hydraulic dumper placers

by SMC;

Spare sweepers/workers are now engaged in carrying out sanitation work of new

developing areas in the most effective manner;

The old collection system of waste through open tractors has been curtailed;

Due to the IEC activities being undertaken, it has helped in improving awareness amongst

citizens. This has also helped in improving the cleanliness around the community

containers;

Revenue generation from collection of user-charge. SMC has been able to achieve 88%

efficiency in the collection of user-charges from its citizens.



17 | P a g e

7. Conclusion

Potential Benefits of Public Partnerships:

Exploring PPs as a way of introducing private sector technology and innovation in

providing better public services through improved operational efficiency

incentivizing the private sector to deliver projects on time and within budget

Imposing budgetary certainty by setting present and the future costs of infrastructure

projects over time

Utilizing PPs as a way of developing local private sector capabilities through joint ventures

with large international firms, as well as sub-contracting opportunities for local firms in

areas such as civil works, electrical works, facilities management, security services,

cleaning services, maintenance services

Using PPs as a way of gradually exposing state owned enterprises and government to

increasing levels of private sector participation (especially foreign) and structuring PPPs

in a way so as to ensure transfer of skills leading to national champions that can run their

own operations professionally and eventually export their competencies by bidding for

projects/ joint ventures

Creating diversification in the economy by making the country more competitive in terms

of its facilitating infrastructure base as well as giving a boost to its business and industry

associated with infrastructure development (such as construction, equipment, support

services)

supplementing limited public sector capacities to meet the growing demand for

infrastructure development

Extracting long-term value-for-money through appropriate risk transfer to the private

sector over the life of the project from design/ construction to operations/ maintenance.



18 | P a g e

Potential Risks of Public Private Partnerships:

Development, bidding and ongoing costs in PPP projects are likely to be greater than for traditional government procurement processes - the government should therefore determine

whether the greater costs involved are justified. A number of the PPP and implementation units

around the world have developed methods for analysing these costs and looking at Value for

Money.

There is a cost attached to debt While private sector can make it easier to get finance, finance will only be available where the operating cash flows of the project company are expected

to provide a return on investment (i.e., the cost has to be borne either by the customers or the

government through subsidies, etc.)

Some projects may be easier to finance than others (if there is proven technology involved and/ or the extent of the private sectors obligations and liability is clearly identifiable), some

projects will generate revenue in local currency only (eg water projects) while others (eg ports and

airports) will provide currency in dollar or other international currency and so constraints of local

finance markets may have less impact.

Some projects may be more politically or socially challenging to introduce and implement than others - particularly if there is an existing public sector workforce that fears being transferred

to the private sector, if significant tariff increases are required to make the project viable, if there

are significant land or resettlement issues, etc.

There is no unlimited risk bearing private firms (and their lenders) will be cautious about accepting major risks beyond their control, such as exchange rate risks/risk of existing assets.

If they bear these risks then their price for the service will reflect this. Private firms will also want

to know that the rules of the game are to be respected by government as regards undertakings to

increase tariffs/fair regulation, etc. Private sector will also expect a significant level of control over

operations if it is to accept significant risks

Private sector will do what it is paid to do and no more than that therefore incentives and performance requirements need to be clearly set out in the contract. Focus should be on

performance requirements that are out-put based and relatively easy to monitor

Government responsibility continues citizens will continue to hold government accountable for quality of utility services. Government will also need to retain sufficient expertise,

whether the implementing agency and/ or via a regulatory body, to be able to understand the PPP

arrangements, to carry out its own obligations under the PPP agreement and to monitor

performance of the private sector and enforce its obligations



19 | P a g e

References

www.suratmunicipal.gov.in : SMC website

Surat Solid Waste Management Project under JNNURM: City Report -Ministry of Urban Development

Government of India

www.worldbank.org/pppirc : public-private partnerships (PPPs) in infrastructure

Public Participation in Town Development

Documents

Transcript of Public Participation in Town Development