‘my city’ project - cuts cart

‘An endeavor to improve the quality of Service delivery

under JMC through enhanced civic engagement in urban

local government’

‘My City’ Project

Dissemination cum Advocacy Meeting

July 19, 2013, Jaipur

Om Prakash Arya &

Amar Deep Singh

CUTS

1

About urban population (Census 2011)

(In Crores)

2001 2011 Difference

India 102.9 121.0 18.1

Rural 74.3 83.3 9.0

Urban 28.6 37.7 9.1

India Growing Urban

• India witnessed more growth in urban population than in

rural for the first time

• Level of urbanization has increased from 27.81% in

census 2001 to 31.16% in census 2011

• The proportion of rural population has declined from

72.19% to 68.84%

• At present 63% of urban population in State is living in 30

towns of population above 1 lakh

2

Urban population explosion by 2030

• GDP of India will be multiplied by 5 times

• 590 million people will live in cities (=twice of US

population today

• 70 % of net new employment will be generated in cities

• 68 cities will have population of 1 million plus, up from 42

today. Whole Europe has 35 today

• Cities will account for nearly 70 percent of India’s GDP

by 2030

• $ 1.2 trillion capital investment is necessary to meet

projected demand in India’s cities

• A new Chicago (700-900 mn. Sq. meter) needs to be build

every year

• 2.5 bn. square meters of road will have to be paved

3

• According to a report, published by the UN-HABITAT, on

the "State of The World's Cities 2012-13" - Jaipur will be

the 10th most populated Indian city by 2025

• Jaipur’s annual average growth rate is 5.3%, which is twice

of the national rate of urban growth

• Within 10 years of time span, the JMC has witnessed

growth of population from 2.3 to 3.1 million (2001-2011)

• Jaipur will have to act fast to deal with the pressure of

rapid growth

• Jaipur stands 230th in the Union ministry's ranking of 423

Class-I cities vis-a-vis sanitation conditions

‘My City’ Jaipur

4

In partnership with

5

• Engaging citizens CSOs and other relevant stakeholders in urban governance

• Gathering feedback of citizens on services and amenities

• Creating a Public Services Index (PSI) through physical verification of amenities

• Gathering information from service providers on the status of service delivery

• Advocating at various levels to improve quality of services

• Making Jaipur city convenient 6

CUTS

Corporators Nagrik Vikas

Samitis

Citizens

Action

Group

Local

CBOs

TAF Line Dept.

Media

JMC

officials

Citizens

LSG

representative

s

Citizens

Engagement

Model

Dept. of Urban Devt.

JMC

7

• 3 scoping meetings before project formulation

• Secondary research

• Project formulation and launch meeting

• Selection of wards

• Partnership with the CSOs

• Formation of Citizen Action Groups

• Citizens Report Card (CRC) to collect citizens

• Meeting with corporators, JMC officials etc.

• Physical Verification of the amenities present in the ward and scoring

based on their status (PSI)

• Community Meetings in each ward

• Data analysis and conducting interface meetings in wards

• Dissemination and advocacy meeting

8

Sr. Ward No. & Zone MyCity Partner Organisation

1 Ward No. 64,

Hawamahal (West) Zone

Maulik Foundation Society,

Chandpol Bazar, Jaipur

2 Ward No. 75,

Amer Zone

Sahara Siksha Samiti,

Amer Road, Jaipur

3 Ward No. 68,

Vidhaydhar Nagar Zone

Labour Education & Development Society

Shastri Nagar, Jaipur

4 Ward No. 50,

Moti Dungri Zone

Prem Mandir Sansthan

Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur

5 Ward No. 11,

Civil Lines Zone

Hardev Sikshan Evam Jan Kalyan Sansthan,

Meenawala, Jaipur

6 Ward No. 36,

Sanganer Zone

Vision Youth Action Society

Sanganer

7 Ward No. 56,

Hawamahal (East) Zone)

Akhil Rajasthan Jati-Janjati Prachar-Prasar Sansthan

(ARJPS), Agra Road, Jaipur

8 Ward No. 23,

Mansrovar Zone

Social Development Human Rights Society, Gurjar Ki Thadi 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

• Selection of surveyors from each ward

• Development of questionnaires

• Field testing of the questionnaires

• Orientation of surveyors along with the project

partners

• A total sample of 600 citizens (75 from each ward)

• Data consolidated, analysed and interpreted

• Ward level specific findings were shared during

interface meetings

• Feedback from relevant stakeholders incorporated

• Final findings drawn

• Period of CRC ( January-February 2013)

16

• 45 % of respondents say that there is either bad roads

or no roads in their street 17

• 36% of respondents say that they walk in dark streets 18

• 34% of respondents say that they don’t get enough

water for their use

• 14% of respondents have complain of supply of bad

water quality

19

• 52% of respondents in the city dump their garbage in

an open space 20

21

S.

No.

Questions for Feedback Yes (%)

No (%)

1. Is there any park near by your residence? 21 78

2. Does your colony have any playground for

children?

8 89

3 Is there any community hall in your vicinity? 12 82

4 Does your colony have problem related to stray

animals

74 24

5 Do you face any problem related to parking? 50 47

6 Do you have any resident welfare society or

welfare committee in the locality?

30 59

• 80 % of respondents who are part of any welfare society feel

benefitted 22

23

Comparison of wards

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

Services Indicators Benchmark

Water Coverage 100 %

Availability of water 1 hour a day

Quality of water No problem in colour, texture,

smell etc.

Timeliness of Supply Daily at a fix time

Sewerage Coverage of sewerage facility 100 %

Functioning of sewerage

network

No Problem through out the year

Solid Waste

Collection

Depot level coverage 100 %

Frequency of solid waste

collection

Once in a day

Cleanliness of roads No litter, cow dung, water

logging, open hole etc.

Methodology

31

Services Indicators Benchmark

Street roads Coverage of street roads 100 %

Frequency of maintenance Once in a year

Quality of road surface Without any pits, trenches on road,

plane surface, no encroachment

Street lights Coverage of street lights 100 %

Functioning of street lights No Problem through out the year

Adequacy of street lights At every 100 meters distance

Parks Adequacy of the parks One per colony

Park with features Boundary, gate, railing, walkway,

children equipment, lawn, trees

Cleanliness of parks No litter, garbage, restricted entry of

stray animals, clean sidewalk etc.

Methodology

32

Services Indicators Benchmark

Community Hall Adequacy of Community Hall 100 %

Condition of Community Hall Once in a year

Easily available for all if vacant,

first come first serve basis

Without any pits, trenches on

road, plane surface, no

encroachment

Cleanliness of community hall Clean toilets, lawn, hall-

paintings, No seepage

33

34

35

4.3

6.3

7.7 7.5

8.8 7.7

8.9

1.1 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Ward 11 Ward 23 Ward 36 Ward 50 Ward 56 Ward 64 Ward 68 Ward 75

Sewerage Facility (Ward wise score)

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

Services Overall Score

Water Supply

7.95

Sewerage

6.53

Solid Waste

Collection

4.61

Street roads

5.67

Street lights

7.87

Parks

1.66

Community Hall

0.4 43

Services Indicator Benchmark Actual

Water Coverage 100 % 68

Per Capita Supply 135 lpcd* 114

Sewerage Coverage of toilets 100 % 68

Coverage of sewerage network 100 % 114

Collection efficiency 100% 70

Adequacy of Sewage treatment 100 % 32

Solid Waste

management

Household level coverage 100 % 7

Efficiency of collection 100 % 83

Extent of Segregation 100% 0

Storm water

drainage

Coverage 100 % 60

Incident of Water logging Zero 10

*lpcd – liters per capita per day

**http://www.asci.org.in/13thfc-urban/SLtarget.html

44

• Despite employing 8,000 people and spending Rupees 19

crores per month on sanitation (TOI, August 27, 2012)

• The JMC employs 5,617 regular employees

• Another 2,500 workers are employed through contractors on

daily wages. In addition to all, the collection of bio-medical

waste has been privatised.

45

• Devolution of power to ULBs is blocked (12th schedule of 74th

amendment to the constitution emphasizes on strengthening

municipalities)

• ULBs are poorly engaged in urban planning, land use

regulations, building volumes and economic and social

development

• No office/ support staff for execution of activities with ULBs

• Resource crunch on part of ULBs (Distribution of resources is

based on power of ULBs)

• Limited number of JMC staffs and technology to cater to

increasing population

• Low awareness among people about the functioning of JMC/

LSGs and mechanism of service delivery

• Ward committees are not formulated

• Strong union of sanitation workers

46

Low use of services

Low Tax collections

Low level of services

Low Revenue

Levels

Financial

Trap

Of ULBs

47

• Accountability framework of urban local bodies and other

civic agencies requires strengthening

• Actions should be taken to bring ULBs out from financial

trap

• Citizens have the potential to exercise a direct influence on

quality-of-life factors. The mechanism to engage citizens

should be strengthened

• City budgets should be open and transparent so that

citizens and CSOs can judge their value for money

• Making the city inclusive

48

• Enhanced engagement and awareness among citizens

• Interface meetings were able to sort out the grievances and

build relationship among service providers and recipients

• Increased civic sense among citizens

• Community meetings provided platforms to share and resolve

various issues

• A cadre of people built to work on issues related to poor service

delivery through CAG members

• JMC has issued several orders to resolve several problems in

service delivery

• Improved quality of services by JMC

49

Thank You !

50