India, Maharashtra, vijay kumbhar, News, Governance, RTI, Transparency, Civic Issues, Real Estate: October 2022

Thursday, October 13, 2022

Smart Cities: Politics of implementation

The politics of implementation that characterizes the smart city are laid bare when the Mission is seen in the wider context of urban development in India. For example, if the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) for the modernization of cities was already there, then why the idea of the smart city was coined? What is the difference between modern and smart cities? This act is symptomatic of wider, underlying politics that not only influenced the initiation of the smart city mission (SCM) but influence its implementation until today.

 

Be it nationwide or citywide, politics in the implementation of smart cities can be divided into two parts: pre and post-approval of smart cities. As far as Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) is concerned, all the political parties and administration also played a key role in supporting or opposing the implementation of the smart city project. However, it was not for the benefit of the city at all, other political goals and motivations were the main drivers of these political games.

 

On the 5th of June 2015, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the Smart City Mission. As per the Central Government's instructions, the State Government of Maharashtra selected ten Municipal Corporations to be part of the Smart City Mission. The State Government considered Pune and Pimpri-Chinchwad together for the smart city. However, both Municipal Corporations (their elected representatives) initially opposed the idea. Now, there are multiple reasons why they were initially opposed to the Mission but why they opposed the idea of considering both cities together is an open secret. You can call it the politics of development. Such development, they think, can attract vote banks as well as increase the bank balance.

 

After four rounds of competitions, the Central Government selected 98 cities for the Smart City Mission. Pune was included and came second in the nationwide competition. However, there was no answer as to why Pimpri Chinchwad was excluded.

 

Pune city was earlier included in the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), a large-scale city modernization scheme launched in 2005. This was then succeeded by AMRUT (Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation) scheme, which aimed to provide basic services (e.g., water supply, sewerage, urban transport) to households and build public amenities in cities, designed to improve the quality of life for all. It's surprising that in ten short years Pune was urbanized under JNNURM, it was able to provide all basic services through AMRUT and now, it was ready to be smart.

 

Though there was publicly announced and promoted competition for the selection of cities under the Smart Cities Mission, evidence suggests that the cities selected under the Mission were predominantly pre-decided, as well as many decisions regarding the implementation of the Mission in each city. As far as Pune is concerned, a lack of transparency and confidentiality, one-sided agreements, conflict of interests, and the lack of democracy during the implementation, has arguably adversely affected Pune's future as a Smart City.

 

Local Political Games

 

With a BJP-led government coming into power in the State and Centre in 2014, and an NCP-Indian Congress-led alliance in power in Pune, the PMC was initially in the dark about the SCM and its implementation. Due to political rivalry, the support of the ruling elected representative in the implementation of Smart City PMC was doubtful, and as the number of seats of the Bharatiya Janata Party in PMC was limited, they put pressure on PMC from State or Central Government. The role of Congress-Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) was opportunistic and Shivsena representatives were mere spectators at it.

 

Earlier, Congress, NCP, and MNS had decided to adjourn the General Body meeting and postpone the approval of the Pune Smart City Proposal. However, with BJP in power at the State level, PMC representatives were pressured to approve the proposal for submission under the SCM competition. Under section 450(A) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, the State Government has powers to issue general instructions to the Municipal Corporation, as matters of policy to be followed by the Corporation in respect of its duties and functions, and in particular, it may issue directions in the larger public interest or for implementation of the policies of the Central Government or the State Government and the National or the State level programs, projects, and schemes. Upon the issue of such instructions or directions, it shall be the duty of the Corporation to give effect to such instructions or directions. It was through issuing this notice that the State Government was able to ensure that the PMC complied with and approved the Smart City proposal in the General Body meeting.

 

This was nothing but a political game. It is extremely rare for the State Government to intervene in city politics in this way, especially for urban development programs. By doing so the State government was suggesting that elected representatives of PMC were not serious about the development of the city, in contrast to the BJP who wanted to bring development for all.

 

Amendments in contradiction

 

After receiving this notice, the smart city proposal was approved in a thirteen-hour-long General Body meeting. Despite the apparent unanimous approval of the proposal, the General Body failed to finalize the accountability structures of the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) - a particular point of contestation among the political representatives.

 

Nevertheless, the proposal was finally agreed upon after giving five amendments to the original proposal. These amendments were designed to curb the rights of the SPV and its CEOs, so as to maintain democratic structures and decision-making in relation to the Smart City Mission. Firstly, they recommended that the mayor of the city should become the CEO of SPV, to improve accountability. Secondly, if in the following two years the SPV fails in its role as implementing body, it would be suspended and the work would continue under the PMC. Finally, it was decided that the CEO would not be given the right to pledge any property of the Municipal Corporation.

 

The most surprising part of this meeting was that the then Municipal Commissioner was convincing PMC representatives to approve the proposal as if it was his personal agenda. Later on, it was revealed that the processes and proceedings adopted in the race to emerge winners in the competitive federalism agenda paid scant regard to any rules and regulations or democratic practices.

 

For example, initially, the PMC commissioner had refused to put the Smart City proposal in the public domain or show it to elected representatives, apparently afraid ULB copy the proposal. This a strange excuse in light of some of the core tenants of the Mission being inclusivity and transparency.

 

To demonstrate that PMC's smart city proposal was contradictory in nature, one or two examples are sufficient. In the proposal, the PMC states, 'Capitalizing on Pune's water abundance, one of the strategic goals will be to ensure at least 150 lpcd of water to 100% of citizens on a 24x7 basis. However, the equitable distribution of this abundance is still a matter of question. What is the guarantee that this abundance will lead to equitable distribution for all sections of society and covers all geographic areas? Furthermore, where is that abundant water? For many years now, Pune is facing water shortages for almost six months a year. Furthermore, the smart city proposal says it would raise Rs. 1000 crores from selling 10 acres of land in the ABB area (i.e., it would fetch 100 crores per acre.) This remains a distant dream and PSCDCL has not taken the initiative forward. [ready reckoner reference details to be cited to prove the point]

 

Furthermore, despite the contentious approval process, in the end, none of the amendments were implemented. For example, despite the apparent failure of SPV to implement the Mission in a timely, effective and transparent way, it has not been suspended. The rights of the CEO or SPV were not curbed as suggested. And most revealing of all, instead of selecting the Mayor as CEO to maintain a democratic representation of the city citizens, a bureaucrat remains in the powerful position.

 

Corporate influence and democratic processes

 

The General Body also failed to enact proper control over the involvement of companies or organizations in the SCM. Therefore, companies that had been involved in the preparation of the proposal remained legible for participating in tendering for projects in the smart city. That is against tender process guidelines at the national and international levels.

 

Doubts were also raised on PMC's decision to select Aundh, Baner, Balewadi (ABB) for Area Based Development (ABD) initiatives. This area was already considerably developed under JNNURM and for the Common Wealth Youth Games (CWYG). It is therefore arguable that the ABB was selected to achieve maximum visual or aesthetic impact in five years, to perform an image and feeling of success.

 

When it came to the appointment of the project consultant, the process lacked transparency. After only four days of presentations and consideration, the Standing Committee of Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) passed a proposal to appoint McKinsey and Company as a consultant to prepare the draft smart city plan (SCP). Interestingly, almost all the cities under SCM have not spent more than 40 lac rupees on a consultant. However, PMC spent more than 2.40 crore rupees.

 

It was not the case that McKinsey and Co's work has always been reliable or successful. This was the company that had advised the world-famous telephone company, AT&T, that mobile phones have a future. This was the company whose former director Rajat Gupta was sentenced two years jail term for insider trading by U.S. District Judge in New York.

 

Whilst Standing Committee said that it was necessary to call tenders from the list finalized by the government, this was in fact case. The Ministry of Urban Development technically qualified panel consulting firms and States/UTs were at liberty to draw this However, the States had also the option of appointing a consulting firm outside following transparency and procedures. These firms to a selected selection (LCS) basis. In this case, the proposal among those passed the minimum technical score. And here lies the trick. The scoring numbers are PMC officials and of McKinsey got the proposal Committee doesn't speak to any LCS

 

Inclusivity, transparency, and Secrecy

 

Initially, making governance citizen-friendly was one of the key objectives of smart cities, and participation was said to be the core tool to achieve However implementation, instead transparency, 'secrecy' became the buzzword for Smart Cities Mission. And Pune is arguably at forefront of this mission. From the beginning, the SCM defied the principles of the amendment to the constitution of India that was brought to strengthen Local Bodies. 'Secrecy clause' in Smart City Mission has taken the soul out of Right Information Act

 

To maintain secrecy around the activities of smart city projects, they introduced 'code conduct' directors and management personnel of the company Pune Smart Development Corporation Limited (PSCDCL) the company formed the Special Purpose (SPV) implementation of smart city projects in Pune. This code of conduct prevented directors’ senior management personnel PSCDCL from disclosing anything with any member of the press media matters connected with the company business unless specifically permitted Board Directors of the company or the Chairman/Managing Director of the company

 

Article association (AoA) PSCDCL requires every Director, Manager, Secretary, Auditor, Trustee, member committee, officer, servant, agent, accountant any other person employed business of the company to sign a declaration pledging to observe strict secrecy respecting transactions and affairs of the Company with customers and the state the accounts individuals and matters relating thereto, and by such declaration pledge not reveal any matters which may come knowledge the discharge his duties except when required so Directors or by law or by the person to whom such matters relate and except so far as necessary in order comply with any provisions in these presents

 

Further as per AoA, the member is entitled to visit or inspect any works of the company without the permission of the directors to require the discovery of any information respecting any details company's trading, or any matter which is maybe the nature of trade secret, mystery secret process or any other matter which may relate the conduct the business the and which in the opinion of the directors, it would inexpedient the interest the company discloses.

 

In short, the Smart City Mission gave the rights to collect taxes, use charges, sell, lease properties, take loans, and earn profit for shareholders, the company formed confiscated all the rights conferred upon common citizens Constitution of India.

 

The then would be Chief Executive Officer of the SPV and then Municipal Commissioner of PMC had already encroached upon the General Body's and Standing Committee's rights. Though he had not revealed any of PMC's correspondence with whom it has signed the so-called non-financial, non-binding Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), he has gone further to assure reimbursement of the amount to an institute without knowledge of a General Body and Standing Committee. It seems that he had assured reimbursement as CEO of the proposed SPV.

 

In a letter to the Principal Director of Symbiosis, the then Municipal Commissioner writes,

 

"I welcome our collaboration wherein MBA-IM students from SCMHRD, Symbiosis would work with us as interns for Smart Cities Mission. This is a path-breaking partnership that brings together academia with the Government in mission mode to find solutions for real-life issues faced by the city.

 

Further, with reference to your email regarding the budget proposal based on 60 days of engagement, we convey our agreement with the same. We would, however like you to undertake the expenditure upfront and thereafter let us reimburse the amount to you.

 

We believe this engagement will go a long way in enabling the transformation of Pune city under the Smart City Mission."

 

Interestingly, SCMHRD's name doesn't appear in the list of PMC's so-called nonbinding, nonfinancial MoUs it has signed. No one knows how many such agreements he has signed on behalf of PMC. However, as far as nonbinding nonfinancial MoUs that PMC has signed are concerned, the Commissioner has categorically said that they will be allowed to participate in the tendering process of SPV, and therein lies the threat of manipulating the proposed transparent tendering process.

 

As described in the letter above, SCMHRD conducted a public participation initiative required under the Smart City Mission in collaboration with the SPV and other external partners. The Standing Committee of PMC then reimbursed the amount without asking any questions on the legality of awarding that work to SCMHRD.

 

Keeping pace in a smart city

 

The pace of project implementation in Pune is slow due to difficulties with funding allocation and a lack of efficient communication and decision-making in implementation. Pan city projects like Smart Street Lighting, E-Buses, Adaptive Traffic Control Systems, Bus System ITMS, Total Smart Parking Intelligent Road Management as well as area-based projects like 100 Electric buses, junction and road redesign for fourteen junctions, non-motorized transport (NMT) and street development, BRT, e-rickshaws, wastewater recycling, storm-water management, adequate water supply, rainwater harvesting, smart water metering, river water cleaning, etc. either haven't started yet or are only partially complete.

 

When the Pune Municipal Corporation submitted the proposal for the Smart City Mission, it had given a detailed plan for the implementation of projects under the smart city. However, the situation after four years is not only disappointing but raises serious doubts about the future completion of projects.

 

A total of forty-one projects were proposed in the Pune smart city proposal document. Among them will be the all-around development of river banks in the ABD, LED street lights, rainwater harvesting, classical disposal of wastes, 100 e-buses, etc. Thirty out of these forty-one projects should have been completed or begun by December 2018 and the remaining eleven projects were expected to be completed in 2019 and 2020. The work has also been hampered as the PSCDCL is yet to receive a total of over Rs. 400 crores from the State and Central governments pertaining to the dues of the last two consecutive years. Due to this delay, various projects such as the smart grid project, the riverfront development program of the river Ramnadi in Baner, and the placemaking project, are facing delays.

 

'Pune Smart City' - who for and who decides?

 

Despite these problems in implementation, Pune has been awarded several awards by several national agencies. For example, Business World Digital India Summit & Awards 2018, the Smart SPV 2018 award, the SKOCH Order-of-Merit Award for Smart Cities, four National Smart City Awards by the Union Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs, and the Best Smart City India Award

 

Even as the government and its agencies proceed with inefficient and problematic implementation of smart cities the stakeholders lie. citizens, civilian planners, architects, and social workers. academics, people's representatives) are asking the question of what the smart city exactly means. There is no specific definition of a 'smart city' and cities have to self-define their understanding of 'smartness'. Information and communication technologies (ICTS) play a prominent role in the development of smart cities. Technology is increasingly being used to avail basic facilities like transport, water supply, etc. However, before applying ICT, basic infrastructure should be in place.

 

If the cities have to self-define their understanding of 'smartness' then it is actually the citizens who have to define it - they should have a say in what smartness in their city means to them. However, when politicians in collusion with the administration and corporate entities make a mockery of public participation then how can citizens define or decide what they want? And most importantly, do have they any liberty to decide what they want?

 

In Pune, more than 40% of people live in slums. The situation may not be much different in any other city in India. What would their idea of a smart city be? Has anybody asked them? Forget about the smart city, has anybody ever asked them what their basic expectations and needs are? Mere conferring awards for public participation and implementation of the smart city on urban local Bodies will not help provide for the needs of people, nor will it lead to the development of a fantasy smart city.

 

To provide even the basic services like water, sanitation, healthcare, education, and healthcare, etc. for a growing Indian population, which is expected to be around 170+ crore by 2050, the government and its agencies need a better understanding and planning of the current infrastructure and services. Paying lip service to public participation will not help understand citizens' problems and will therefore not lead to inclusive, sustainable development. Without careful, just, and inclusive citizen engagement, missions like JNNURM, AMRUT, or the SCM will not help any city become smart and it will forever remain a political game.


Related Stories

Smart Cities to be secret cities, beginning of the end of the transparency era