HOT TOPICS
SPOTLIGHT AGENCIES
JnNURM - boon or curse?
Written By murali772 - 13 January, 2010
Bangalore governance urban development Reforms Analysis Others Everything else
The Union urban development ministry has pulled up the state government for failing to implement reforms it had agreed to bring in while receiving funds under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) for various developmental project in Bengaluru and Mysore. According to sources in the ministry, the state had agreed to either bring in a new law or amend its existing provisions to ensure community participation in developmental activities and administration of urban local bodies (ULBs). It had also reportedly agreed to introduce a Property Title Certification System, and revise building bylaws when signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Union government for funds under JNNURM. The Union urban development ministry has painted a dismissal picture of the state’s performance on all these fronts in its report submitted to the Delivery Monitoring Unit (DMU) of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). It said the state had sought an extension of the deadline to set up Metropolitan Planning Committees (MPC) and was silent on other issues such as bringing in the Community Participation Act (CPA) and e-governance initiatives. A senior officer of the ministry told this newspaper (Deccan Chronicle) that the state had promised to implement all the reforms by the end of 2008-09. But except for some projects taken up by BMTC, all other government agencies had failed to do their bit. “The MoU clearly speaks of public awareness and involvement in the implementation of all the projects under JNNURM. But the state government has simply ignored this,” he said. Civic activists are also unhappy with the way the city is being developed without taking the views of the public into account.
Malleswaram residents welfare association member Manjunath Bhat complains that projects are carried out according to the whims and fancies of officials. “The new TTMCs are the best example of JNNURM money being wasted,” he said.
For the full report that appeared in the Deccan Chronicle, click here
While, that's what the central UD ministry appears to be saying, here's what I picked up from the minutes of some of the Technical Advisory Group (TAG - headed by Mr Ramesh Ramanathan) meetings:
"The Centre introduced the JnNURM, a mission jointly funded by the Centre and the States to give governance and infrastructure development a renewed thrust. Under this program, the release of funds had been made contingent on devolution of development planning and governance, as well as reforms in urban management. While this has raised the resources available for revitalising urban areas, it appears the Ministry regards the reforms agenda as secondary and the principal purpose
is to somehow push the money into the hands of the cities. While funds for the city are highly desirable, since many have not seen this extent of funds for a long time, it is the reforms agenda which makes NURM different from other centrally sponsored schemes.
The Ministry appears to think that the Terms of Reference for the TAG is limited only to items like community participation, helping to create voluntary technical corps, enlist involvement of citizens at grass root levels etc. But, as a member has pointed out, mobilising support of civil society and elected representatives for reforms in urban governance was also an important item in the TOR. However, the Ministry appeared disinclined to TAG’s initiatives or involvement in the reforms agenda. TAG’s composition fortuitously includes people with grass roots experience. But in general TAG members are not urban designers and their membership in the group is by virtue of their organisational experience at different levels. Their true value would really come out in interactions with city managements and elected representatives as well as state officials and political leadership. Given the disinclination of the Ministry in this regard, there is an urgent need to revisit TAG’s ToR and ask the pertinent question of what it is actually supposed to do."
When I posed the question to a former member of the BATF, this is what he had to say "In this space you have unintended consequences. Reform and money was to go hand in hand. But i will still take the sub optimal outcomes. For eg. The low floor buses are welcome. Storm water drains, solid waste management are happening. Better than that money going down some other sarkari project."
I am not sure. Do we just stand-by and watch the major chunk of the Rs 50,000 cr just going down the drain?
Muralidhar Rao
COMMENTS
murali772 - 23 March, 2012 - 05:33
If the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) has its way, citizens will have to walk down the road in the walled city. - - - The civic body may prohibit entry of three and four-wheelers, including cars, to solve problems related to traffic and parking in walled city areas. The suggestion is part of the proposed parking policy submitted to Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JnNURM) recently by AMC. In addition, AMC has proposed to make public transport effective in the traffic-congested areas.
For the full report in the DNA, click here.
Finally, one city appears to be putting the JNNURM funds to the right kind of uses, as compared to what the mafia chieftains here are upto in Namma Bengaluru.
JNRUM Report dated 08.08,2014 for Karnataka
Sanjeev - 6 October, 2015 - 11:19
A. Sr No -17 : Upgradation side walks andasphalting work of roads surrounding M.G. Road area Cost Rs 43.61 Crore approved in Jan'2007 Central Govt Share is 15.26 Crore
Total amount utilized Rs 45.60 Crore
B. Sr No -18 Upgradation side walks andasphalting work of roads surrounding Koramangala area, Cost Rs 50.44 Crore total sepnt 42.16 Crore
http://jnnurm.nic.in/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Karnataka.pdf
Now we know how much work has been done in these area.
Now we have new tenders for these places under umbrella of TENDER SURE so that more business is generated.
It is a question of incentives
sanjayv - 13 January, 2010 - 13:02
It has been fairly obvious that the state has been treating the JNNURM funds as a place to dip into to do "development" projects willy-nilly. Many of the JNNURM projects have been implemented, to the best of my knowledge, with almost zero input from the stake holder public. Almost none of the administrative reform have been carried out.
The intent of the center was to use these funds as an incentive to get states to implement reforms. However, Karnataka is still getting copious funds despite not meeting the requirements. I would expect the center to hold a very firm line on the requirements. If a state does not do its bit, take the money allocated and give it to those states who do a good job (in excess of the allotment, and waive the state contribution requirements for such states). I am not sure if the policy was properly formulated to incentivize this properly.
IMHO-> the center deserves a large portion of the blame for not toeing a firm line, poor design of the policy. A poorly governed state should feel the hurt and a well governed state should feel the reward.
I found this article as very inspiring as I have just begun to work on JNNURM's incomplete projects. I am a journalist working in Bangalore and I am doing a story on JNNURM projects under BBMP. I would like to talk to you more on this.
If you don't mind, can i have your telephone number so that I can call you and talk about the same?
Thanks
Sandeep
sandeep@iijnm.org
09620795461
PRAJA.IN COMMENT GUIDELINES
Posting Guidelines apply for comments as well. No foul language, hate mongering or personal attacks. If criticizing third person or an authority, you must be fact based, as constructive as possible, and use gentle words. Avoid going off-topic no matter how nice your comment is. Moderators reserve the right to either edit or simply delete comments that don't meet these guidelines. If you are nice enough to realize you violated the guidelines, please save Moderators some time by editing and fixing yourself. Thanks!