‘my city’ project - cuts cart
TRANSCRIPT
‘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