International Conference on

Inclusive Urban Planning

18-19 February 2013, Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi

I)

Introduction to the International Conference on Inclusive Urban

Planning.

The 2011 Census of India reports 377 million urban residents. Effectively managing this
massive urban transformation will, in fact, be critical to ensuring social and economic
stability and inclusiveness of the country. In India today, about 80 per cent of countrys urban
workers are in the informal economy; of these, about 25 per cent live in slums and around 25
per cent are poor or vulnerable (Chen, 2011); even though the urban poverty ratio has
declined over the last 30-year period. In spite of the high economic growth, the bottom half of
the urban population face acute deficiencies with regard to access to housing and basic
services.
Only 37% of the households in the bottom half of the urban population have access to all
three basic facilities water supply, sanitation and electricity; 29% of the bottom half of the
urban households do not have drainage connection and
46% are connected to open drains; and there is 28.5
million housing deficit in urban India and of this about
99 per cent deficit is among the urban poor and
EWS/LIG (Mahadevia et al, 2009). The National Family
&

Health

Survey

(NFHS)-3

(2005-06)

Survey

highlighted that nearly 100,000 babies in Indian slums

die every year before their fifth birthday, as result of the poor access to healthcare, poor
nutrition and health-seeking behaviour. These figures are measures of the exclusion of the
urban poor from equitable opportunities in housing, infrastructure, and basic services.

An important aspect that has played a key role in institutionalising these urban exclusions is
the urban planning system in India, a legacy that has been continued from the colonial period.
These planning modalities and systems practiced in India diffused through several
mechanisms especially colonialism, market expansion and intellectual exchange (UNHABITAT, 2009). Over time, these models and practices have become so institutionalised as
to be unresponsive to dynamic changes in society, economy and demography in cities. On the

other hand, employment in India has become

informal in the pursuit of flexible labour market,
which has led to increase in vulnerability. In the
absence

of

comprehensive

social

protection

measures, urban policies which should have

facilitated the process of inclusive
development in urban areas, have remained hostile to
new migrants in cities, thereby creating innumerable road blocks in getting urban citizenship
and other entitlements. These models, also have failed to accommodate the dynamic nature of
urbanization where citizens interact with cities in an atmosphere of increasing economic
growth and informality. This directly contributes to the social and spatial marginalisation and
plays a dominant role in denial of urban citizenship and other entitlements to the poor and in
particular the new migrants among them.
To ensure equitable spread of Indias economic success, urban residents need access to basic
opportunities for a decent living and livelihoods. These opportunities will derive only from
equitable allocation of urban land and basic urban infrastructure services, especially water
and sanitation, and from inclusive urban governance processes and institutions. The equitable
allocation of land and infrastructure is highly dependent on the way in which cities and town
of India are planned and the institutional arrangements and entitlements that underpin these.
The social and environmental impact of this process will depend on the particular trajectory
of urbanization that India chooses to take.

II)

Objectives of the Conference

Critical evaluation and introspection of the urban planning processes and outcomes

in India;

Cross-learning from select international experiences on the ways in which inclusion

can be incorporated into urban planning;

Exploring ways in which inclusion can be firmly placed within the context of

urban planning in India;

Attempting a conceptual governance framework to integrate inclusive urban

planning into policy and practice in India.

III)

Summary of Sessions

DAY I 18TH of January, 2013

Inaugural Session

The International Workshop on Inclusive Urban

Planning was inaugurated by Kumari Selja, Honble
Minister

for

Social

Justice

&

Empowerment,

Government of India. In her inaugural address, The

Honble Minister highlighted the social and cultural
dimensions of exclusionary outcomes of traditional
planning processes and spoke of the need to integrate
the marginalized in the spatial planning processes, giving particular emphasis to the aged and
the disabled. She spoke of mixed neighbourhoods removing architectural barriers for the
under-privileged and differently abled and creating gender sensitive urban spaces. Kumari
Selja hoped that the deliberations would come up with the solutions both at policy and
programme levels. Introducing the Conference to the
audience, Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra, Se cretary, M/o,
HUPA, highlighted the deficiencies of traditional
planning being top down and away from the poor. He
said that Master Plans have become just spatial plans
guided by architects. Instead they must be socially and
culturally inclusive. He highlighted the several game
changer initiatives & the reforms carried out by M/o HUPA such as JNNURM, Affordable
Housing for the Urban Poor, Rajiv Awas Yojana, National Urban Livelihoods Mission etc.
which aid the cities to be more responsive and cater to the needs of urban poor in particular.
Ms. Emma Spicer, Dy. Head, DFID India complimented the MoHUPA for organizing the
conference and highlighted the commitment of DFID for improving the lives of urban poor
and support to such initiatives. She thanked the dignitaries and delegates for their
participation in the conference. During his welcome speech, Mr. Brij Kumar Agarwal, Joint
Secretary. UPA, M/o HUPA welcomed the Honble Minister of Social Justice, Secretary
HUPA ,State Secretaries, International and National Experts and Donor agencies.

SESSION I

Current Urban Planning Model Is it inclusive?

This Session critically examined the current urban planning model in India, its advantages
and disadvantages and in particular, focussed on aspects of inclusion in urban planning in
India.
1. The DNA of exclusionary Planning Professor. K. T. Ravindran, Former Professor
and Head of the Department of Urban Design, School of Planning and Architecture,
New Delhi

Professor Ravindran presented the chronology of planning practices in India since

Imperial times with a special reference to the practices in Delhi

In this context, the presentation reflected on how DDA/Governments have tried to

subvert the process of decentralization through the 74th CAA.

He also pointed on the casualties of the spatial planning paradigm of architectural

icons co-existing with slums and also mentioned that the victims of the same have
been the poor, the environment and built heritage.

As a way forward, he suggested strengthening of governance through radical relook

at the town planning acts and democratization of public spaces

2. Inclusive Planning and Governance Professor Dinesh Mehta, Professor Emeritus,

Center for Environmental Planning and Technology (CEPT) University, Ahmedabad

Dr Mehtas presentation focused on how Planners are caught between power and the
people and have hence created divided cities.

He also stated that most of the planning exercises have become anti poor as they do
not feature in the planning process and the role of urban planning slowly diminished
with politicians making all the decisions.

He concluded his speech by offering a plausible solution of transiting from Exclusion

to Engagement by constant monitoring of the existing laws and regulations.

3. Participation and Inclusive Urbanization Professor Anna Rubbo, Senior Scholar,

The Earth Institute, Columbia University

Dr Rubbo spoke about her experiences of heading a global international urban studio
entitled People building better cities for creations of resilient, equitable, inclusive
and sustainable cities vide 3 cases from Bhopal.

The case studies pointed out the need for extensive participation and learning from the
local stakeholders.

She then dwelled upon how inclusive planning should have climate change as the
centerpiece as urban poor are mostly the most vulnerable during a disaster.

She concluded with some key ideas of designing a planning education programme
imbibing inclusive urbanization principles; Inspiring young professional to work for
the government and scaling up best practices in inclusive planning.

4. What makes Sustainable Transport Inclusive Professor Geetam Tiwari, Dept. of

Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi

Dr Tiwari, spoke about sustainable urban transport and the key linkages to economic
opportunities that city presents through work of the IIT over the past 14 years, that
explored the symbiotic relation between formal and informal sectors.

She emphasized that relocation necessitated by development projects has adversely

affected the urban poor and converted walking trips to motorized trips

She drove home the point that inclusion of urban poor in the city with reference to
sustainable urban transport meant focusing on facilitating infrastructure conducive for
cycling and walking.

Session-I Panel Discussion

Chair:
Mr. K. C. Sivaramakrishnan, Chairman, Center for Policy Research, New Delhi,
India
1 Dr. Bimal Patel, President, Center for Environmental Planning and Technology
(CEPT) University, Ahmedabad
2 Ms. Sheela Patel, Founding Director, Society for the Promotion of Area
Resource Centers (SPARC), Mumbai
3 Mr. Earl Kessler, Shelter and Urban Programs Expert, New Mexico
4 Mr. Peter Ellis, Lead Urban Economist, World Bank, Washington DC
Key observations of the panellists:

Not only the poor but also the middle and the high-income groups are also excluded
from the current planning paradigm.

Planning imageries, which are science fiction renditions often misguide the planning
process as they are disconnected from reality, the poor and the expanding informality.

Planning in India has not made significant progress in the past two decades and there
is a need for an urban cadre to respond to the complexities that the cities of today
present.

High density low rise structures are important and this should be used as a lever to
bring about the change in governance mechanism

The panelists also emphasized on the need for better management of finance in terms
of sound transfer mechanisms, responsive governance structures and the capacity to
undertake the transformation needed

The concluding remarks of the chair focused on the dichotomy and paradox that urban
policies of today present for instance emphasis on monetization of urban land along with
inclusion of the urban poor. He also was under the view that 74th CAA was a supply side
attempt and both government and the community have been apathetic to this process. He
concluded that as long as economic parameters are determining factors for cities we may
have slums without cities and not the other way around.

SESSION II

Inclusionary Planning Models Practiced in the World's Cities

This session looked into the urban planning practices and models practiced elsewhere in the
world and discuss in detail the process involved in plan making and the outcomes of the
process. The session provided a canvas of options from these cases that could be adopted in
Indian context.
1. Possibilities and Challenges of the Urban Reform Process in Latin America
Prof. Jeroen Klink, Professor, Federal University of ABC, Brazil

85% of Brazil is Urban and 50% of population in big cities are informal and there is a
disconnect between urbanization and the environment.

The chronology of housing policies for the urban poor through the past 5 decades
emphasized as to how Brazil has adopted inclusive planning as a model in the current
planning ethos.

The Informal city has now been recognized and molded in the national policy
frameworks

However, Brazil still has challenges in terms of speculative real estate market wherein
land is escalating three times that of incomes. Also the lack of co-ordination within
Metropolitan regions is an issue, he said.

2. A Critique of Master Planning in Africa Prof. Susan Parnell, Professor, African

Center for Cities, University of Cape Town, South Africa

Prof Susan Parnell presented the shift in planning frameworks in the current post
apartheid period and focused on the developments in the past two decades.

She highlighted the fact that the budgetary allocations from 1994-95 to 2011-12 have
increased 3 fold and also elaborated on the reforms in institutional process and the
laws and codes through the Integrated Development Plans. (IDPs)

Assuming African populace as a proxy to the urban poor she stated that the planning
process has resulted in the African people owning more houses than the whites (as a
proxy for the rich).

She closed the presentation by stating the current challenge in terms of lack of
horizontal inter linkages between structures within municipalities

3. Urban Planning and Land Management for Promoting Inclusive Cities Ms.
Giovanna Beltrao, Human Settlement and Community Development Expert, Canada
and Mr. Earl Kessler, Shelter and Urban Programs Expert, USA

Urban Planning-emphasizing on Development partnerships, Resilient Planning and

Investments, Densification, services and transport, Shelter, technology and
participation and Area Service delivery

Land Management- focusing on Land Use registration and taxation; Land

development incentives; Vacant land inventory and tenure; Integrated mixed use land
planning and Land as a financial lever

Vision of Cities- to focus on Sustainability and Resilience, Accessibility, Diversity,

Open Spaces, Compatibility, Adaptability, Density and Identity-Sense of Space

The speakers also spoke of how Transit Oriented Development models combine all
the above principles.

4. Making Cities Work: Planning and Managing Land Use Prof. David Dowall
and Mr. Peter Ellis, University of California, Berkeley and World Bank

The presentation focused on the key challenges of urbanization and how polycentric
urban structures have challenged the traditional planning approaches.

Emphasis was given on the dysfunctional land management is leading to slums

The evolved FSI mechanism being adopted in Singapore encompasses various

development parameters other than just height and how such strategic FSI planning
promotes inclusiveness.

Session II Panel Discussion

Chair:
Arun Maira, Member, Planning Commission

1. Prof. S. R. Hashim, Chair, Expert Group to Recommend Methodology for

Identification of Poverty Line in Urban Areas/ Ex-Member Planning Commission
2. Prof. Edgar F. N. Ribeiro, Chairman, Board of Governors, School of Planning and
Architecture, Bhopal
3. Mr. Aromar Revi, Director, Indian Institute for Human Settlements (IIHS),
Bangalore
4. Mr. Geoffrey Payne, Housing and Urban Development Expert, Geoffrey Payne and
Associates, UK
5. Prof. Om Prakash Mathur, Distinguished Professor of Urban Economics, National
Institute of Urban Affairs, New Delhi.
The Key Observations of the panellists

There was a need for convergence of spatial and socio economic planning; focused
attention on Urban informal sector ; promotion of non-technocratic planning and
planning to be perceived as a process of deepening of politics.

Model property rights should be multi- dimensional and provide options for freehold,
co-operative etc.

The panelists agreed that there is no one silver bullet for inclusive urban planning

In the closing remarks Mr Arun Maira, emphasized on the three pillars of inclusive
urban planning as Planning, Capacity Building and Governance.

DAY II 19TH of January, 2013

SESSION III

Institutional, Regulatory and Financing Systems for Urban Planning

This session has examined the current institutional, regulatory and legislative systems in
place for governing the urban planning process, focusing in particular the way in which
planning could be made inclusive through politically and technically feasible changes in
present governance structures.
1.

Institutional, Regulatory and Legislative Framework for Urban PlanningInternational Experience Mr. Geoffrey Payne, Housing and Urban Development
Expert, Geoffrey Payne and Associates, UK

Noted progress in India over last 40 years.

It took UK 100 years to evolve an institutional and regulatory framework, but India
has much less time.

World is changing rapidly, a crisis of capitalism.

250 million additional people required in a very short period

60% of urban population increase is internal and not due to migration

Much more positive attitude towards Indias urbanization process within India.

Cities are promoting inward investments, it is also noted that colouring mapping and
rigid master planning is not relevant anymore

How to use the investment as an added value to what State is already producing

State is morally entitled to capture the additional value for public investment

Value capture could be used by the elite for themselves, but they could also be used
for public good.

For this land value ascertainment is very important, Standard formula is difficult to
apply

On size fits all will not work and Central planning will not be possible for this.

Role of the State is to maximize value add and to create diversity in supply

Efficient allocation of resources is required like in Bolivia where 20% of Central

resources is transferred back to local governance

Barcelona, Curitiba, Tirana, Miama- have very good leadership models

City Development strategies, participatory budgeting as in Brazil. Turkey- Ankorapopulation, informal sector and state are equally benefitted. Easter EuropeMunicipality invites bids for private developers to play a role in public infrastructure.
Community action planning etc are reforms which could work

Regulatory frameworks: Markets are not self-regulatory, but smart regulation is

required. One stop shops as in Hyderabad.

In most countries it is the administrative barriers that could be more cumbersome

rather than the regulatory frameworks.

Solomon Islands, Commissioner of Lands has autonomy in land regulation, which is

historical and colonial

Sub Saharan Africa, plural legal frameworks for rural and urban. In Kenya, there are
22 acts of parliament.

Land and Property taxation are good options, taxing of urban unused vacant land

In conclusion we need to identify the interests of change agents. Change is very

difficult to achieve as Brazilian experience says. But to address the interests of
opposition is required.

2. Innovations in Financing ULBs Mr. V. P. Baligar, Chairman & Managing

Director, Housing and Urban Development Corporation, New Delhi

Indian Economy performing well and urban areas progressively contributing to GDP,
yet huge urban service deficits mark urbanization levels.

With increasing responsibility of basic urban service delivery on ULBs in India, there
is a need expand revenue options.

In India there is over dependence on Octroi and Property Tax. Lessons could be taken
from Developed countries where there are robust tax and non-tax revenue options
besides citizens user charges.

Some of the much needed and pragmatic options include facilitating capital market
entry for ULBs; market based financing by developing commercially viable urban
projects; land based income; PPPs, Pooled Financing for small ULBs etc.

3. Delivering Stakeholder Consultation and buy-in for Hong Kongs West Kowloon
Cultural District Development Dr. Jonathan Beard, Finance and Economics
Expert, ICF-GHK, Hong Kong

City of 7 million receives 45 million of tourists every year

Till now the Government was involved but now there is a need to involve the private
sector. Need to diversify tourist products. There is also a challenge of talent. The
GINI coeff is 0.53 , the city has most number of Rolls Royce, but GDP per capita is
35000 USD. Business Tycoons have a lot of interest as this one of the best free ports
with no capital gains tax. Government gets income from gambling taxes, property
taxes. All are given electricity subsidy. Water charges are very low

Public Consultations were held too late or too early in the policy cycle.

The Government and WKCDA had to take a comprehensive process of stakeholder

consultations involving the local community, local politicians, property developers,
entertainment facilitators, artists and wider population at large throughout the
conceptualization, planning and development of WKCD.

4. Institutionalizing Spaces for Negotiations for the Urban Poor: New Vocabulary
for Urban Planning? Prof. Darshini Mahadevia, Urban Policy and Housing
Expert, Center for Environmental Planning and Technology (CEPT) University,
Ahmedabad

Ward Committees are not working while there is a need to put ward level housing
plans in place.

RWAs are metaphors of middle class associations and are not grass roots
organizations anymore

PIL- Article 32 for non-implementation of registration. Olga Tellis case interpreted

this as a right to livelihood.

Ahmedabad, there was a PIL for street vendors policy

PIL Sabarmati Riverfront Dwellers Forum for grievance redressal.

Session III - Panel Discussion

Chair:
Dr. Isher Judge Ahluwalia, Chairperson, Indian Council for Research on International
Economic Relations (ICRIER)

1.

Mr. R. V. Verma, Chairman & Managing Director, NHB, New Delhi

2.

Prof. Chetan Vaidya, Director, School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi

3.

Prof. Anna Rubbo, Senior Scholar, The Earth Institute, Columbia University, USA

4.

Prof. V. Srinivas Chary, Dean of Research & Management Studies Administrative Staff
College of India, Hyderabad

Key Observations of the panellists

Chair noted that South Africa too has devolution of funds to local bodies. In India a
part of the GST is being proposed to be transferred to the local bodies. Land Pooling
in Ahmedabad, Capturing land values from Outer ring road projects are some
examples of the diversity of options in India. Use of e governance and IT has also
picked up in India.

Focus must also be given to property tax realization, with GIS enabled mapping.
Bangalore is a good example. Delhi has not made any progress in this. Willingness to
pay is there. In Amaravati, User Charges are paid and there is 24/7 water supply.
Willingness to charge is more important than willingness to pay. ULBs should also
increase efficiency to be able to pay back the debts.

Role of Housing and Housing Investments needs to be clearly understood. It is a

platform for social and financial inclusion. To target the assistance of the State and
Financial sector, needs and demands of the individual need to be understood. In the
construction and financial sector we need the right policies both through a demand
driven and affordable.

There is a need to identify and replicate innovations, and create a manual or document
to enable replication. We have 5000 planners, but we need 8-10 times this number

Idea of transferring funds to local bodies is essential. The grand ambition of RAJIV
AWAS YOJNA (RAY) is inclusive. But we need designs which are personalized and
not standardized. A manual is required and voice in local plans is required. Housing
needs to be delivered in a more diverse manner.

Inclusive Planning is technically and politically feasible. Incubating and supporting

these ideas is important. Water and Sanitation was the genesis for urban planning in
India. Water supply coverage is 90% but poor have legal barriers in getting
connections. No sewerage connectivity charges for the rich but public toilets need
user charges. 1.3 million schools, O&M charges Rs 1000 crores per annum which is
4% of Sarva siksha abhiyan. No role of local governments in inclusive planning and
sanitation delivery. The States of Andhra Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, removed entry
barrier for poor to gain individual tap connections. State gives incentive for
connectivity for the poor

Observations of Shri Ajay Maken (the Honble Minister for Housing & Poverty
Alleviation, Government of India)
Urbanisation is politically important. Out of 542 constituencies, there are 5 lakh urban voters.
Out of 167 urban parliamentary constituencies 92 are with the UPA Government. We are
habituated to not paying for services. Master Plans are often slow and time consuming. Local
Area Development Plans are more important which are responsive to the requirements of the
people. The water supply in Delhi is 242 lpcd, but 54% of this is wasted due to badly
maintained and horizontal spread. Mixed land use and higher FSI rather than horizontal
sprawl, would have saved the transmission loss issue.
Shedding some of the old thinking is required.

Session IV:

Pro poor planning for inclusive cities

This session critically examined the different plans and policies that evolved through schemes
and programmes of government in India. Its focus was on identification of gaps and

disconnects between policies, plans and urban investments, and addressed urban issues that
are unaddressed in present plans. The session also looked at the institutional challenges that
perpetuate these gaps and disconnections.

1. Inclusive Growth, Social exclusion and Poverty Prof. Kunal Sen, Professor of
Development and Economic Policy, University of Manchester, UK

Understanding of Poverty and Informality in India is seen from the consumption

lens ie the perspective of workers.

There is a need to view the phenomena from the production lens ie from the
perspective of the firms that the urban poor work in and own thereby moving
towards a better understanding of the determinants of urban poverty.

2.

Planning for Affordable Housing and Basic Services to the Urban Poor Mr. Arun
Kumar Misra, Secretary, M/o Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation

In view of the urbanization and urban poverty trends in India, yet a long way to go to
meet the shortages in housing, basic services and livelihoods.

While the number of slums is steadily decreasing, the rise in the number of urban poor
is still to be arrested.

Urban Poverty reduction Policy has evolved over the years since 1950s. Till the 74th
Constitutional Amendment, there was limited attention to urban development, minor
State and Central programs existed, demand for urban poor reforms was very low and
State responsibility was overemphasized. Since 74th CAA (1993) and JnNURM
(2005-2011), focus shifted towards perceiving cities as engines of growth and
decentralization, flagship National programs increased and investments in urban
sector increased, reforms were begun to be pushed. During 2011-12, the focus is more
directed towards socio-economic inclusion in policy and planning instruments with
National Investments geared towards this.

There is a shift from project based approach to Policy reform led whole city and all
slum approach.

Community participation in Housing (Rajiv Awas Yojna) and Livelihood

interventions (National Urban Livelihood Mission) has been given a pivotal role.

Market based support for Affordable housing and skill based enterprise development
are being geared up for scale and sustainability outreach.

Plan outlays are witnessing an upward rise. There has been an increase in 153 % in
Housing intervention and 875 % increase in Livelihoods intervention from 11th to 12th
plan.

3.

Market Based Affordable Housing Management for Indian cities Mr. Keiichi
Tamaki, Senior Urban Development Specialist, ADB Manila and Mr. Narayanan
Edadan, Municipal Finance and Urban Poverty Expert, Bangalore

Planning for inclusive urban development requires inclusive activities be explicitly

developed and reflect a citys development vision, policies, intermediate (sequential)
plans and budget.

Urban governance needs to recognize the continuity required to plan and implement
the provision of basic urban services, including public mass transit services, and
housing programs.

Various elements of integrated urban planning (in particular, infrastructure planning)

and land management (physical and institutional) should serve as the framework for
urban interventions.

Urban interventions should attend to the needs of target groups through participatory
planning processes.

An enabling environment to provide affordable housing on a large scale has not

emerged in India yet, especially in the areas of land use control and infrastructure
development financing.

To ensure affordability, the basic enabling system needs to have some support
facilities such as credit for target beneficiaries and subsidy for associated
infrastructure. An appropriate technology must be selected and adopted through
careful analysis and participatory planning processes.

More conventional policy action of mass provision of developable (serviced) land

must be put in place through large-scale (subsidized) public investments in trunk basic
urban service and public mass transit infrastructure in combination with various urban
planning/land use control measures (i.e., incentives and regulations) towards orderly
urban expansions with high-rise, high-density development in the areas around public

mass transit corridors/hubs while low-rise, high-density, which allows self-help

augmentation possibility, for the rest of the areas to be developed.

Both slum improvement and new shelter development are required in parallel if
Cities without Slums are to be accomplished. In the absence of an effective and
aggressive parallel mechanism to prevent the growth of existing slums and the
formulation of new slums, most of the curative measures (i.e., slum improvement)
would not be sustainable. The need to establish a new preventive mechanism through
the mass provision of affordable housing, including affordable rental housing, is,
therefore, obvious and should be part of the inclusive urban development strategies.

There are critical complementary roles that MoHUPA and MoUD will have to play to
promote integrated infrastructure and housing development in a sustainable manner
by setting up appropriate policies and strategic guidelines.

Although infrastructure such as power and water supply must be developed

simultaneously, development of public mass transit infrastructure usually initiates
orderly large-scale real estate development by connecting residents of the new
neighborhoods to jobs centers and urban business centers.

Development of public mass transit infrastructure must be incorporated as an

important element of comprehensive urban development initiative with land value
capture from beneficiaries along the public mass transit corridors/hubs to ensure
financially-sustainable, affordable housing development.

Ultimate property buyers need to access mortgage loans based on affordability

through such mechanisms as credit enhancement and shared credit risk.

It is important to note that none of the existing policies have provisioned financial
assistance for poor and low-income families to access rental housing. Experience
from China, Singapore and Hong Kong suggests that assistance for rental housing was
an important part of their housing policies during early phase of their housing
development.

The policy to create large stock of rental housing would necessarily warrant changes
in the existing tenancy regulations and establishment of robust private property right
protection measures in order to encourage the private sector to enter in the lowincome rental housing market in a significant manner.

Establishment of city-level housing and real estate management bureau, as those seen
in China, to facilitate property owners, and poor and low-income families to rent and

purchase houses through efficient legal and financial intermediations might be worth
considering. The Residents Housing Association proposed under the RAY programme
could be fine-tuned to achieve these objectives.

Establishment of an Affordable Housing Development Facility funded through value

capture, pooled government funds and co-financing from external financing agencies
could be a viable financing mechanism for developing infrastructure, affordable
developable (serviced) land, and affordable housing for urban poor and low-income
households in India.

4.

Lessons from Madhya Pradesh Urban Services for the Poor Dr. Richard Slater,
Team Leader, MPUSP and Principal ICF GHK, London

The MPSUP project is a partnership project between the Madhya Pradesh

Government and the Government of UK (DFID) running over a period of 6 years.

The project reiterated that inclusive planning works best at multiple levels of city
development City level for inclusive growth, Neighborhood level for basic services,
Municipal level for municipal reforms, all this complemented by effective community
structures and community involvement

Session IV Panel Discussion

Chair:
Prof. S. R. Hashim, Chair, Expert Group to Recommend Methodology for
Identification of Poverty Line in Urban Areas/ Ex-Member Planning Commission

1. Prof. Amitabh Kundu, Jawaharlal Nehru University,New Delhi

2. Prof. (Dr.) Neelima Risbud, School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi
3. Mr. Barjor Mehta, Lead Urban Specialist, World Bank, New Delhi
4. Mr. Jeroen Klink, Federal University of ABC, Brazil
5. Prof. David Hulme, Executive Director of Brooks World Poverty Institute (BWPI),
University of Manchester

Key Observations of the panellists

There is a need to integrate socio-economic planning with spatial planning for

meeting inclusion goals.

The increase in the number of industries in small and medium towns, need to be
addressed through focus on labor in these towns thereby increasing labour
productivity.

Valedictory Session

Prof. Om Prakash Mathur, Distinguished Professor of Urban Economics, National Institute of

Urban Affairs, New Delhi summed up the 2 day Conference approaches and learning. Shri.
Arun Kumar Misra, Secretary, M/o Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation made the closing
Remarks and the Delhi Declaration was read out to the audience. The Declaration having
been accepted, the Chief Guest of the occasion Shri.
Ajay Maken, Honble Union Minister for Housing and
Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India
signed the Declaration and delivered his address. The
Vote of Thanks was delivered by Shri. Susheel Kumar,
Joint Secretary (Housing), M/o Housing and Urban
Poverty Alleviation.

IV)

Outcome of the 2 day international conference on Inclusive urban

planning.

The immediate and noteworthy outcomes of the Conference include- One, The Delhi
Declaration and Two, The State of Urban Poverty Report. While the Urban Poverty Report is
under finalisation, The Delhi Declaration observed the following:
Cities in the developing countries have developed largely in an unplanned manner; in many
countries, facing urbanization pressures, cities have expanded in a scattered low-density form
beyond the administrative boundaries, often in the absence of or with disregard to the
building bye-laws; There is a substantial proportion of the urban population whose livelihood
spaces and activities, as well as spaces for living and working lies outside of the current
formal planning system; While in percentage terms, the proportion of urban poor is

decreasing, in absolute numbers the urban poor and the changing nature of urban poverty
presents a significant global policy challenge in terms of the pace, pattern, nature of
urbanization, and urban poverty including the proliferation of slums, informality and social
inequities that have accompanied urbanization; Current development regulations often
prescribe high standards and complex procedures of land and infrastructure development
which have proven inadequate to meet the needs of the urban poor, while also distorting
urban land markets resulting in increasing inequality in cities; Marketdriven responses in
respect of urban lands do not automatically self-regulate; therefore, the notion that an
increase in the demand for urban land for the poor will spur its supply, has turned out to be
flawed. Such responses, in many situations, are said to have produced uneven development
and inequalities; In spite of these challenges, the urban poor have responded by contributing
significantly to the urban economy; For sustainable urban growth, the inclusion of the poor in
the formal planning process is, therefore, non-negotiable.
The Declaration further affirmed that
Urban planning needs to respond dynamically to the changing realities of urbanization,
economic processes and demand-driven development challenges; Urban planning, and its
related processes, regulations, institutions and funding must recognize the needs of the poor
in terms of their spaces for livelihood, living and working as valid and crucial concerns of
planning; It should include women, children, the disabled, the aged and other socially
disadvantaged groups to ensure that they have equal access to opportunities, infrastructure
and services that urban areas offer; The delegates reject discrimination in urban planning,
either in form or process; Regulatory and institutional frameworks for planning require to be
reformed such that that these are able to recognize the urban poor as stakeholders and ensure
that their inclusion in the process is intrinsic to urban planning;

Mainstream and deepen

communitydriven, participatory approaches, embedded within inclusive city-wide policies

and strategies by involving communities, neighborhoods, and especially the poor in the
informal sector in the preparation and implementation of city plans; and Promotion of
responsible planning with community involvement focusing on the urban poor will also help
conserve and renew natural resources, reduce the urban carbon footprint, and preserve and
promote culture and heritage, thus creating healthier and sustainable cities.

*******************************************