Introduction to urban poverty in India

Poverty in India has been the focus of many debates and policies for decades. Most of this focus has been on rural poverty issues, but urban poverty being as prevalent as it is today, seeks equal attention.

Contrary to popular concepts of a predominantly rural India, an increasingly larger percentage of Indian population lives in the Urban areas. Today, India's urban population is second largest in the world after China, and is higher than the total urban population of all countries put together barring China, USA and Russia. Over the last fifty years, while the country’s population has grown by 2.5 times, in the urban areas it has grown by five times. In 1901, only 25 million people constituting 10.8 per cent of population lived in urban areas in India. In the 100 years since then, the urban population has grown 12 times and it is now around 285 million people constituting 28 per cent of the total population.

The provision of infrastructural facilities required to support such large concentration of population is lagging far behind the pace of urbanisation. As a consequence, the urban environment, particularly in large cities, is deteriorating very rapidly. All cities have severe shortage of water supply, sewerage, developed land, housing, transportation and other facilities. These deficiencies which are particularly severe for the urban poor have serious health impacts for them. Lack of political and administrative will, compounded by weak municipal institutions and poor delivery systems have constrained the administration’s ability to improve the living conditions, generate employment, incomes and services for the urban poor.

According to the Census 2001, out of total population of 1028.6 millions in India about 286 millions live in urban areas accounting for 28% of total population.  The people living in urban areas in the country increased from 11% in 1901 to 28% in 2001 (Table 1)

Table - 1: Urbanization & Decadal Growth

Year	Total population (in crores)	No. of Towns and UAs	Urban Population (in crores)	Share of Urban Population To Total Population (%)	Decadal Growth of Urban Population (%)	Index of Urban Population (Base 1951 = 100)
1951	36.11	2843	6.24	17.3	41.4	100
1961	43.92	2365	7.89	18.0	26.4	126
1971	54.81	2590	10.91	19.9	38.2	175
1981	68.33	3378	15.95	23.3	46.1	256
1991	84.63	3768	21.76	25.7	36.4	349
2001	102.86	5161	28.61	27.8	31.3	458

Source:Census of India.

The proportion of population in metropolitan cities, which was 19% in 1951, increased to 37% in 2001(Table-II). 

Table-2: Past trend of growth of metro cities in India

		YEAR	YEAR	YEAR
		1981	1991	2001
1.	Number of metro cities (population-1 million +)	12	23	35
2.	Population (million)	42	70	108
3.	Percentage of total urban population	26	32	37.8

The rate of urban growth in the country is very high as compared to highly industrialized countries, and the large cities are becoming larger mostly due to continuous migration of population to these cities.  Based on the population forecast made by Registrar General, Census Operations, Government of India, the urban population is expected to reach 433 million by 2021, while the total population may reach 1340 million.  Thus, the level of urbanization in the country in the year 2021 is expected to be about 32%. 

Urban poverty, even though more starkly visible to the makers of policy, has engaged governments in India far less than rural poverty, both in terms of the range of interventions and the scale of financial outlays.  It remains, for the most part, an area of significant and persistent neglect in public policy, despite evidence of burgeoning urban populations with stubbornly high levels of both absolute and relative poverty.

Indian planners have measured absolute poverty mainly in terms of economic deprivation, or lack of access to the resources that would be required to achieve a minimum calorie intake.  According to this measure, urban poverty declined from 41.2 per cent in 1972-1973 to 20.1 per cent in 1987-1988.  However, the officially constituted Lakdawala Committee on poverty recommended an upward revision of the estimates of urban poverty nationally to 40 per cent of the total urban population.  The report estimated that in 1991, out of a total urban population of 217 million, 86 million or 39.83 per cent survived below the poverty line. 

It is likely that even this is an underestimate, because measures of urban poverty often exclude some of the poorest settlements, of squatters, street and pavement dwellers who are without an ‘address’ (and being destitute, unemployed or casual daily workers, are among the poorest). Also excluded in many cases are settlements of housing workers in the construction industry (the largest single employer, with perhaps the highest number of deprived poor families).  Based on the Lakdawala estimates, whereas ‘the percentage of people in poverty declined significantly from 56.4 per cent in 1973-1974 to 39.3 per cent in 1987-1988 in rural areas; the figure for urban areas declined to a lesser extent from 49.2 per cent to 40.1 per cent.  In 1987-1988, for the first time the percentage of urban poor (40.1 per cent) surpassed that of the rural poor (39.3 per cent) in the country’ (Venkateswarulu 1999).

In India, urban poverty is defined in terms of minimum calorie intake, at 2100 calories per capita per day. This is a convenient measure for identifying urban poor for the purpose of implementing Urban Poverty Alleviation Initiatives (UPAIs). The Planning Commission’s revised methodology of 1997 results in an average poverty line for India of Rs. 353 per capita per month for 1996-97. This equals approximately Rs. 21,180 per household per annum. On this basis, Planning Commission data indicates that the urban poor were estimated to be 7.5 crores, comprising 38% of the total urban population in 1988. This number rose to 7.63 crores in 1993-94, i.e. 32% of the total urban population.

Only part of the annual exponential growth rate of the urban population in India (3.8 per cent in 1971-1981 and 3.1 per cent in 1981-1991) can be explained by natural rate of increase by population.  The latter remained relatively stable during this period (1.93 per cent for 1971-1980 and 1.96 per cent for 1981-1989).  Therefore, a major part of urban growth is the result of rural-urban migration. Majumdar, points out that 79 per cent of rural migrants in Delhi live in squatter settlements (Majumdar, 1983: 24).

The Report of the National Commission on Urbanization (NCU) (1988), while accepting that rural and urban poverty are inextricably inter-linked, also takes the view that this does not mean that urban poverty is merely a spill-over of rural poverty. According to the Commission, it is an autonomous, independent phenomenon. No matter what employment programmes are started in rural areas, they cannot meet the demand for tens of millions of new jobs required for people who will continue to migrate to urban areas over the next decades, which will have its impact on both urban employment and poverty. Therefore, according to the NCU (1988), rural poverty and urban poverty must be seen and addressed simultaneously as two aspects of a single problem and at the same time as autonomous problems that need to be addressed in distinct ways.

It is interesting that in the global participatory research effort in 23 countries entitled Consultations With the Poor, designed to inform the World Development Report 2000-1, poor people distinguished clearly between the nature of rural and urban poverty.  Whereas respondents in rural areas placed strong emphasis on food security in their definitions of poverty, along with lack of employment and assets, in cities, on the other hand, the major theme of poor respondents themselves was on the immediate environment. They spoke of crowded and unsanitary housing, lack of access to water and violence within and outside the household (Brock 1999).

As the population in urban areas rose faster than its infrastructure facilities, attempts were made to stall the migrant population in rural areas through the launch of many rural poverty alleviation programmes. Another approach to curb rural-urban migration was to create suitable conditions for the migrant population to settle in small and medium towns by developing infrastructure amenities in these areas. The main approach was to create employment opportunities for the educated unemployed in towns with less than 5 lakh population, that have the potential of being regional growth centers, through programmes like the Integrated Development of Small and Medium Towns (IDSMT).

The number of Government sponsored Urban Poverty Alleviation Initiatives (UPAIs) being introduced year after year has increased, indicating that urban poverty has seen a gradual rise in importance for the policy-maker. The Centre’s UPAIs can be categorized into three waves: Housing, Welfare and Credit & Employment.

Housing was the first wave; it started in the 1950s and still continues to be a priority. Welfare programmes constitute the second wave that started with the Urban Community Development Programme in 1958 and grew in the 1960s and 1970s. Credit and Employment programmes started in 1977 with the extension of the Differential Rate of Interest scheme to the urban poor and became increasingly popular in the 1990s. An important feature of these waves is their simultaneous existence. The first wave did not stop before the second began, and all 3 waves continue today. Starting with the 20-Point Programme in 1986, new schemes became holistic and often contained components from all three waves.

The interest in addressing urban poverty peaked when the Planning Commission allocated a separate section to urban poverty in the 9th Five-Year Plan (1997-2002), putting unprecedented focus on urban development and urban poverty alleviation. Urban poverty was until then considered an extension of rural poverty or part of general urban development issues. In fact Central government UPAIs first addressed urban poverty as a result of unchecked rural poverty.

India needs to develop a deeper understanding of urban poverty. Even today, popular opinion wrongly believes that urban poverty is caused solely by migrants from rural areas, who come to cities and cannot find work as easily as they had imagined. It is not surprising that since demographic and income data are incomplete, social data is even more scarce. This may cause policy makers to treat urban poverty as a single problem, either the result of rural-urban migration or as solely an economic problem. The urban poor should not be treated as a homogeneous group. The urban poor could be classified into destitute households (living below the poverty line and requiring social security schemes) and families with marginal incomes and minimal skills (capable of ensuring self-employment with support from the government). Classification borne out of a deeper understanding of the context of urban poverty will result in programmes that are tailored to the specific needs of each group.

Multi-dimensional nature of urban poverty

A distinctive feature of urban poverty is that the intensity of urban deprivation is captured not by the monthly expenditure of the poor or their consumption, but by the lack of basic amenities, such as deplorable shelter conditions, constant battle with the police and municipal authorities who treat them as ruffians and criminals, the lack of sanitation and health services, and denial of basic services because their very existence in the city is considered illegitimate.

In most urban areas, poor people are forced to live in cramped, overcrowded and unsanitary conditions, and are highly dependent on public bodies to provide goods and services (water, health care, regulation of job contracts etc). This is not out of choice, but because they have much less control over their immediate environment than in rural areas. Options for support from family and community based networks and safety net systems (developed over generations in rural villages) are limited. They live among strangers, who they do not necessarily trust, and rely on short-term transactions, which can be completed immediately, more than enduring relations moulded and nurtured by tradition in the countryside. However, to complete the picture, it must be acknowledged that with all their loneliness and stresses, cities also provide the only escape from oppressive feudal and patriarchal structures, untouchability and hopeless grinding poverty, to many who are trapped in these in rural India.

The present methodology for determining the number of urban poor based on consumption expenditure is flawed, and leads to under-reporting of the actual number facing acute deprivations. For instance, in Mumbai and Delhi the number of poor (as per the existing definition) is only 4 and 8 percent of the total city population respectively, whereas the slum population alone is 30 and 53 per cent respectively. Therefore the estimates for the number of urban poor should be re-worked by taking into account their living conditions and deprivations. Both consumption expenditure and access to civic services could be given equal weight in determining the number of urban poor. Interventions should also transcend income generation activities and include broader concerns on quality of life and social security.

Between 2008-09, NSSO, India conducted a survey on the condition of urban slums. This was the 65^th round, the previous survey having been conducted in 2002. The recent survey estimated the number of slums to be 49,000 slums with a near 50:50 split between notified and non notified slums. The condition of basic services in the slums is shown in the Table below..

Table 3: Percent of Rural, Urban Households and Slums Having Access to Infrastructure

	Notified Slums	Non-Notified Slums
Water Source
Tap	79	78
Tube well	17	17
Well	1	2
Others	3	3
No Electricity	1	7
No Toilet with septic tank	32	53
No Drainage	10	23

The Ninth Plan Mid Term Appraisal (MTA) by the Planning commission sums up their misfortune as: ‘Whereas the rural poor suffer from lack of disposal incomes, the urban poor in addition are characterised by extremely poor living conditions – in slums, on public lands, or often on the road itself. They are generally first or second generation migrants with no security of jobs or housing, and are subject to police and municipal brutalities. They are in occupations where health and safety provisions either do not exist or are widely flouted, such as hawking or rickshaw pulling (or under contractors who are violating labour and factory laws), and therefore become dehumanised and criminalised by the very processes of survival.’

Considering the above, the following aspects will be taken into account while discussing provisions required for the urban poor in the context of infrastructure requirements.

• Housing requirements for the urban poor including the homeless
• Access to basic facilities like sanitation, clean drinking water, electricity etc.

Housing for the urban poor

The housing sector needs to be viewed within the perspective of the emerging macroeconomic policies. In the political rhetoric, housing is regarded as one of the basic needs. Despite this recognition, in terms of public policies and investments, housing for the urban poor has generally received a very low priority. The benefits of public housing programmes have accrued disproportionately to the better-off sections of society. The housing crisis manifests itself in many ways: growth of slums and haphazard development, overcrowding and deficient services, increasing homelessness, speculation and profiteering in land and houses. It is clear that markets have not eliminated and cannot be expected to eliminate homelessness. Hence ‘informalization’ continues apace and tenurial illegality is more the norm than the exception.

One NGO working in the NCR region of Delhi studied the Madipur resettlement colony. This was established in the 1960s for 21,400 people, but now 72,760 people are living there, the existing population density is 1000 people per acre, as against the norm of 300 per acre. There is no tenurial record, most construction is illegal, and recently a four storey building collapsed, although only one storey is permitted. No record is kept by the Municipality of who is in occupation, and under what rights. There is a fair amount of encroachment on public lands. On the whole, another story of sheer neglect by the authorities.

Majority of slums are deficient in terms of basic facilities. In Ahmedabad, only 3.5 percent of the slum households have private water connections. There are 254 households per public stand post and 506 households per public toilet. One-fifth of the slum population have private toilets. Only 61 per cent of the households have electricity connection.

In Delhi slums, only 45 percent of the children attend schools, only 13 percent households in the settled colony of Bawana have sanitary toilets, and none of the six areas recently studied by UNDP in Delhi had solid waste collection service. Many families have no access to piped drinking water, because the municipal water supply system does not reach there, or the families cannot afford private connections.

There is a need to increase the supply of affordable housing to the economically weaker sections and the low income category through a proper programme of allocation of land, extension of funding assistance and provision of support services. The 10^th Plan MTA warned that with the anticipated entry of FDI into the real estate sector, care has to be taken that the needs of the urban poor and marginal sections are not ignored. The Plan agreed that a major objective of the Slum Policy must be ‘to arrive at a policy of affirming the legal and tenurial rights of the slum dwellers’. The cause of the ‘illegal’ occupation of public lands is, then, directly attributable to the non-performance of state agencies.

Low cost housing

Inhuman living conditions in urban settlements in fast growing cities, evictions of occupants and demolitions of their homes resulting in untold miseries to them, and proliferation of shanty dwellings in such cities, need a more pragmatic and humane approach on the part of government. Policy-makers have to realise the fact that given the rapidly growing population of the urban poor, conventional planning in favour of the privileged sections of city population has to change. There must be recognition that slum population are bonafide citizens like any other sections of the city population, and their needs need priority.

The alternative is low cost housing. There should be careful earmarking of sites for urban poor migrants close to potential work-sites, and land allotted to homeless migrants by a process free from bureaucratic tangles. Equally, sites for temporary lease for petty commercial activities should also be developed at all potential and existing commercial centres, and these should be available to the urban poor on realistic terms.

An important issue requiring attention in the context of proliferation of slums would be to consider the feasibility of making the contractors responsible for providing affordable shelter and basic amenities to the workers engaged by them. A comprehensive policy shift for promoting and sustaining economic opportunities in smaller and intermediate towns and restrict the areas of economic opportunities in larger cities may also be looked into. It has been observed that often relocation of slum programme failed because the beneficiaries resorted to disposal of the assets for their own benefits. To avoid this practice, the ownership of the properties should not be vested with the individuals, and instead slum dwellers may be helped in forming cooperative societies.

The limited administrative capability at the city level would be better utilised if urban contractors are asked to observe laws relating to migrant labour and provide for temporary sheds under law for the labour they hire, and such conditionality are properly enforced.

Each ULB should, on a priority basis, identify the land available. Pavement dwellers who constitute an appreciable proportion in some cities should be brought within the ambit of the policy with due consideration to the job location crucial to their survival.

The new Slum Policy would succeed only when appropriate lessons are drawn from the past failures. One needs to document the role of locally based politicians, slum lords and even the mafia who have stakes in the slum activity. Specific role needs to be assigned for public sector financial institutions, particularly commercial banks.

The 11th five year plan and the National Urban Housing/Habitat Policy 2007 had set-up a national goal for ‘affordable housing for all’. At the end of 10^th Five Year Plan the housing shortage was estimated to be 24.7 million for 67.4 million households, 99% of them being from EWS/LIG sectors. This was projected to grow at the rate of 20 lakh units every year, thus presenting a huge challenge in front of our policy planners.

Requirements for creating low cost housing stock

In order to calculate the implications for low cost housing, the following figures have been taken into consideration:

• The housing shortage at the end of the 11^th plan is nearly 26.53 million units up from 24.71 million units at the end of the 10^th plan (source: Report of 11^th 5 year plan working group on urban housing with a focus on slums)
• 90% of the housing shortage is in the EWS\LIG category (source: Report of 11^th 5 year plan working group on urban housing with a focus on slums)
• It is estimated that there will be a demand of 20 lakh additional units every year
• The investment cost of the government (minus down payment by owners and payments in instalments) for every unit of EWS housing was 1,25,000 and 2,00,000 for LIG in 2007 (source : Paper by planning commission on housing requirements in 11^th plan)
• The average unit cost of EWS\LIG houses per unit is 1,56,900 (source: Design of basic services for the urban poor by MHUPA and Centre for good governance)
• Adjusting for inflation @ 9%, this cost would be nearly 2,00,000 per unit, by beginning of 12^th plan period i.e. 2012
• The recommended ownership : subsidy ratio could be 20:80 with the ownership component being funded by low interest schemes like ISHUP
• Out of the projected need for additional housing, 25% needs to be reserved for rental housing as per RAY guidelines
• Remaining 75% needs to be constructed for low cost housing scheme

Table 4: Financial implications of housing for all households except homeless

<> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </>

No. of units (in crores)	90% EWS housing (in crores)	Cost per housing unit (in lakhs)	Recommended Ownership subsidy ratio = 20:80	Cumulative cost of providing low cost housing @ 75% of units
3.65	3.29	2	1.63	4.01 lakh crores

Promote rental

At today’s prices, even a modest tenement of 300 square feet would cost close to five lakh rupees, well beyond the reach of poor residents. These are then allocated to ineligible households, or worse they stand vacant, and gradually fall into disuse, as monuments of official waste, because in the classic mode of bureaucratic failures, those for whom they are intended cannot afford them, and those who can afford them, do not want them.

An equitable urban land policy would assist the poor in their access to land for shelter. In practice, land use has largely been regulated by markets or public authorities. Both mostly exclude the poor, who caught between two stools, are condemned to the unauthorised, illegal sector of the market. The response of government by regularising their occupation is delayed, and never planned, pro-active and anticipatory. But there has still been no spurt in the construction of low-income housing for rental. Builders and developers construct houses in response to a vigorous market demand. But the demand they satisfy is essentially at the upper end of the scale, and their projects often take the form of high quality residential enclaves with built-in amenities, mostly for ownership and self-occupation.

Public rental was the social solution to housing during inter-war and post-war periods in Europe and elsewhere, and very large housing estates were built in several countries. It is now increasingly targeted towards low-income earners and those with social problems. Large estates have, therefore, become major zones of exclusion, and the low incomes of the residents have damaged their financial viability so that increasing levels of subsidy has been required to meet basic costs such as maintenance. Many countries, such as the UK, have made discounted sales to existing tenants. Others have transferred them outright and still others, such as the Netherlands, have semi-privatized them into housing associations. Informal renting can take many forms, from occupying backyard shacks in pubic housing in South Africa, to subtenants in squatter housing in the favelas of Brazil, to pavement dwellers in India who make regular payments to someone in authority in order to keep their position. This group, along with new squatters, has the most fragile housing situation, short of having no shelter. They are able to live where they do until someone moves them along.

In order to address the same, it is recommended to develop a stock of rental housing to the tune of 25% of all units developed under urban housing schemes to be set aside for rental housing schemes. This is also in accordance with RAY guidelines. Given below are the financial implications for this scheme:

Requirement estimates for constructing rental housing stock

• 25% of housing stock being developed in any city has been considered for low cost rental
• In case of rental stock, the entire cost of the units will have to be borne by the government which will amount to Rs. 2,00,000 as cost to the government

Table 5: Financial implications of creating rental housing stock

No. of units (in crores)	90% EWS housing (in crores)	Cost per housing unit (in lakhs)	Cumulative cost of providing rentals @ 25% of units
3.65	3.29	2	1.67 Lakh Crores

Homeless Shelters

Opening of shelters in various locations of the city could be one effective ways of addressing the problem of homelessness. The crux of most of the problems that homeless people face when they live on streets lies in people’s perception towards them. Starting shelters presents an opportunity to the general public to interact with the homeless in designated spaces and help change pre-conceived notions about them.

The general perception about homeless stems primarily from their instable living patterns and appearance. Living on street, forced to move from one place to other, they have little or no access to bathing, washing and toilet facilities. Without bath and unwashed for days on end produces a repulsive image about them. By opening of more shelters, this situation could be improved. If they begin to appear clean and look ‘regular’, hostility towards them will reduce. It will also enhance the interaction between the two groups, thus reducing the biases against each other.

When on street, they have no means to save their money. It either gets stolen or forcefully taken away. But in the shelter, they will have the option of saving some money with the management and even get help in opening bank accounts. Over a period of time, this saved money could help them in moving out of the situation of homelessness. While staying together, groups of people may come together and rent out a room. Also, during their stay in the shelter, they could be made responsible for day-to-day management of the shelter

In case of illness, they have people to look after. This prevents minor ailments from getting worse, as normally happens with the people on streets and prevent them from getting exploited by the local moneylenders. The group can develop a system where the needs of sick person are taken care of by the entire group. This would not be burden on any one person and at the same time, prevent the person himself from going for work in that condition of illness.

Not everyone on the street is an addict or a beggar. But public perception tends towards such biases. The reason for such misconceptions is that the visibility of such persons on the streets is high. Others, who form the majority, work and as such we do not take notice of them. The painter, who is called for white washing work, might be a homeless. The rickshaw puller that everyone sees might be homeless. Many fruits and vegetable sellers are also homeless. Opening of shelters will help remove such biases. People will get to see the larger population of homeless people that work hard like any other responsible person.

Staying in the shelter, as identified, has controlled and minimized the extent of problems, which in turn, has given them opportunities to explore more options. Shelters provide a platform for interactions between the homeless and the police. Stable and fixed accommodation also means less suspicion. Further, people staying in the shelter could be issued Identity Cards. This will enable them to get those jobs, which they do not get due to their homeless status.

Shelters can be instrumental in providing them a platform to change society’s perception about them. Shelters have not only reduced the problems that these people face when they are on streets, it has also given them an opportunity to get together and move out of the street life.

Shelters, certainly, are much more than places for night time sleeping. Therefore, serious efforts are required to design and develop these shelters in a manner that they not only fulfill the most basic requirements of an individual but also serve as the ground from where person could begin to plan his life beyond the hostile and unfriendly streets.

National Agenda of Governance (NAG) has identified ‘Housing for All’, both in urban and rural sectors, as a priority area with particular emphasis on the needs of the vulnerable groups. Although, shelters or housing for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWSs), Low Income Groups (LIGs), slum dwellers and homeless may be a common concern in the rural as well as urban sectors alike, the problems of the homeless are more acutely pronounced in the urban sector, particularly in the wake of large scale migration and the phenomenon of rural urban transition. The Housing and Habitat Policy 1998 was drafted to address the issues relating to sustainable development, infrastructure and strong public private partnership for shelters, in pursuance of the said NAG. It was proposed to facilitate construction of 20 lakh additional units every year, with emphasis on EWSs and LIGs of the population, as also to cater to the needs of SC/ST and other vulnerable groups. Working Group on Housing has clearly mentioned that over 90% of housing shortage is for EWS and LIG, HUDCO’s 55% of the allocation being for these segments. For unexplained reasons, however, the shelter needs of the most vulnerable and deprived among them, the homeless becoming destitute, haven’t been assigned the priority it deserves in the national policies and programs.

Apart from above-mentioned provisions of the NAG and the Habitat Policy 1998, there are several much talked-about pro-poor policies and programs. They include, National Slum Development Program, Rajiv Awas Yojana, JNNURM, Interest Subsidy Scheme for Housing the Urban Poor (ISHUP), 12^th Plan Approach for urban poor and marginalized, Indira Awas Yojana, SJSRY, VAMBAY & Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan and HUDCO’s ‘Scheme of Shelter and Sanitation of Footpath Dwellers’. It may be seen that except for the Scheme for the Shelter and Sanitation for Footpath Dwellers, having very limited coverage, there is hardly anything for the homeless under the government’s program for these poorest among the poor.

The 11th five year plan and the National Urban Housing/Habitat Policy 2007 had set-up a national goal for ‘affordable housing for all’. At the end of 10^th Five Year Plan the housing shortage was estimated to be 24.7 million for 67.4 million households, 99% of them being from EWS/LIG sectors. Strictly speaking, they do not refer to the homeless population as such, but the ‘houseless households’ obliquity refers to the same. Among the poor and the weaker sections, the urban homeless deserve to be given special attention, which is not happening.

In this regard a new National Urban Housing and Habitat policy 2007 by Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India was formulated to carefully analyze ways and means of providing the ‘Affordable Housing to All’. Moreover, the core focus of the new policy lays emphasis on vulnerable sections of society, such as, Schedule Castes/Schedule Tribes, Backward Classes, Minorities and the Urban Poor. However, it does not talk about the homeless poor, in particular. Although, the Homeless groups overlap with the Urban Poor but still this section of our society requires special attention, which is sadly missing. While we discuss the housing problems of the EWS/LIG and the urban poor residing in the slums, who were estimated to be 61.82 million in Censes 2001, we tend to over- look the homeless population in the cities. Somehow, this most deprived segment of population was not considered for focused discussion in the successive national housing/habitat policies, 1994 to 2007. They were not to be covered under Two Million Housing Programme (TMHP), nor under Balmiki Ambedkar Awas Yojana (VAMBAY) or even under the newly formulated “Rajiv Awas Yojana”. The 2007 National Urban & Habitat policy, at best, discusses the ‘urban poor’ in the special action plan for them which also refer to National Shelter Fund for EWS/LIG housing, but the homeless are not covered. Most unfortunately, the most deprived among them – the women, children, elders and disabled, do not find any coverage. In fact, with the discontinuation of the neglected and often unused scheme for the urban homeless, since 1st April 2005 there is nothing left to fall back upon.

At the national level, the above-mentioned solitary ‘Night Shelter Scheme for Footpath Dwellers’ as a centrally sponsored scheme in the metropolitan and other major urban centers was being implemented through HUDCO, was extended to cover all urban areas, wherever the problem of footpath dwellers exists. This scheme sought to provide night shelter facility to footpath dwellers at a per capita cost of Rs. 20,000/- with 50% subsidy from the central government and 50% as contribution from implementing agencies or through HUDCO loan. The revised scheme ‘Shelter and Sanitation of Urban Homeless’, proposed some pro-active features including- increased subsidy upto 80%, provision of land/ infrastructure by Urban Local Bodies (ULBs), NGOs/ CBOs to implement the scheme and mange the shelters with social services like health, education and protection of neglected children while providing the minimum standards for users space and facilities. Although the Scheme of Night Shelter for Urban Homeless was in operation since 1988-89, it was modified in August 1992 to cover all urban Centers having concentration of footpath dwellers/homeless and was renamed as Scheme for Shelter and Sanitation facilities for Footpath Dwellers. A component for Pay & Use toilet was added to the earlier scheme. Only existing scheme in India operated through the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, GOI, Scheme for shelter and sanitation for footpath dwellers, had so far undertaken only 114 projects throughout the country with coverage of nearly 17000 beds for the homeless, on an expenditure of Rs. 8.6 crores. The Govt. of Delhi chose not to avail this scheme for itself, and generally remained limited to its local funds to construct and run the Raen Baseras. This scheme, in any case, was deficient in many ways and not inclusive of the NGOs participation. In October 2002, the scheme was renamed as Night shelter for Urban Shelter less and the component of Pay & Use toilet had been withdrawn. The Scheme being demand driven scheme and progress of the Scheme depended upon the proposals mooted by the State. Cumulatively, as on 13th October 2004, HUDCO had sanctioned 99 night Shelters/Pay and Use Toilets Schemes. On completion, these projects would provide 17,599 beds, 17,165 WC’s, 2,637 baths and 2,372 Urinals. A subsidy of Rs. 1580.21 lakh had been released by HUDCO for these schemes apart from loan releases of Rs. 1159.05 lakh. The scheme has been discontinued since 1st April 2005.Hence to sum up there is not even a single scheme currently focusing on the most deprived sections of our society i.e. the homeless.

In view of the above, there needs to be focused allocations aimed at building homeless shelters across the country to house the urban homeless.

Requirement estimation for homeless shelters

The Supreme Court of India, in the writ petition 196/2001, has directed all state governments and union territories to establish permanent homeless shelters in the ratio of at least one per one lakh urban population in each city.

The Supreme Court in its Order dated 20 January 2010 issued the following directions to Government of Delhi, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the New Delhi Municipal Corporation and Cantonment Board: a) To set up at least 100 temporary shelters for people living in streets within one week; b)  To build at least 140 permanent shelters for people living in the streets by December 2010;  c) To set up at least 500 community kitchens across the city and provide nutritious and cheap cooked food; d) To issue AAY ration cards to all homeless people in Delhi with a validity of at least two years and renewable if they remain homeless in the city by March 31, 2010 and; e) To  file an affidavit to the Supreme Court on steps undertaken to protect the food and shelter rights of homeless people in the City by 15^th February 2010.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court in its order dated 05 May 2010 transmits responses of states to the petition of the OSCC dated 25 January 2010 demanding that the same directions (issued on 20 January 2010 to the Delhi Government Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the New Delhi Municipal Corporation and the Cantonment Board) should be issued to all states and state’s agencies working for the homeless.  States’ and Union Territories’ affidavits and   responses are positive and some important actions they would undertaking are: a) take a detailed survey on the homeless and respond to their entitlements accordingly; b) build a shelter for a lakh population in all urban centers and provide basic facilities and amenities such as clean drinking water, light, toilet and provisions for their security and; c) formulate comprehensive policies protecting the rights of the homeless.

This definition was further refined based on the different categories of the homeless and their differing needs. As per a study conducted by the Supreme Court commissioner’s office in May-June 2011, there were 7 broad categories into which the homeless could be divided and needed to be provisioned for. The categories were:

1. Single Men
2. Single Women
3. Independent Children
4. Families
5. Old age
6. Drug Addicts
7. Disabled and special needs

It was realized that in different cities while the composition of the homeless could differ, the broad categories largely remained the same and needed to be provisioned for.

The study recommended setting up of 478 shelters in Delhi alone to cater to the needs of the various categories of the homeless as without doing so there will always be a set of homeless which will be left out on the streets. Considering Delhi’s population of 1.67 crores as per 2011 census, this works out to nearly 3 shelters per lakh of population in order to effectively cater to the different sub-groups contained within the homeless.

Considering the above, the number of shelters required during the 12^th Plan period is calculated below.

Table 6 – Shelter requirement by end of 12^th plan period i.e. 2017

Shelter Estimates
India's Current Population (in Lakhs)	12100
Projected population @ 2017 (in Lakhs)	13153
Projected urban population by 2017 assuming 30% urbanization	3946
Shelter requirement @ 3/lakh of population	11837

*Each of these shelters would have a capacity of 300-400 guests to cater to the requirement of 1.21 crores of homeless population

In terms of the funding required for building the 11,837 shelters as calculated above, this paper relies on the actual costs incurred by DUSIB (Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board) in constructing, provisioning and operating shelters in Delhi. The board has estimated a sum of nearly 80 lakhs for the construction per shelter and nearly 60 lakhs per shelter for ongoing maintenance. To these costs an initial provisioning costs need to factored in for providing various facilities like Blankets, Durries, Jute Mats, Color T.V., Newspapers, Drinking Water supply, first aid box and Jan Suvidha facility in all the Shelters.  For a capacity of 300-400 guests, these costs may be as high as 25 lakhs per shelter (http://delhishelter.nic.in/Status_Report_on_Shelters.htm) The entire cost break-up of the shelter requirement is provided in Table 5 below.

Table 7: Funds required for the shelter requirement in the 12^th Five Year Plan

Cost Heads	In crores
One Time Costs
Construction of Permanent shelters @ 4 sleeping halls, common rooms, toilets, kitchen etc. @ 10,000 sq ft of floor area and 800 sq/ft of construction cost	0.8
Cost of temporary shelters i.e. Porta cabins\refurbishing	0.15
Cost of provisions per shelter	0.25
Ongoing maintenance and running costs per annum	0.55
Total fixed costs @ 5919 permanent shelters and 5919 refurbished buildings or temporary shelters Assuming only 50% of shelters have to be built anew and rest could be refurbished or be temporary structures like Porta Cabins	8582.1
Cumulative operating costs over 5 years @ 11837 shelters	32552.8
TOTAL COSTS for Homeless shelters	41135

Hence the total plan allocation proposed over the entire plan period i.e. 2012-2017 is 41,135 crores to provide shelters to more than 1.21 crores citizens of India.

Other basic amenities: Water, Sanitation, Health, Livelihoods

The fact is that no plan for improving the city can be successful without the participation of the urban poor. They need to be integrated into the planning process and in campaigns for a better environment. The experience of another marginalised section of the urban workforce, namely, rag pickers, has shown this. Rag pickers have been regarded as a nuisance and they are blamed for spreading garbage. They are harassed by civic authorities and by middle class residents associations. In fact these people, who form the poorest section of the urban population, are engaged in activities that are very positive for the environment as they collect recyclable materials from the city’s garbage. Instead of victimising them for their activities, the civic authorities could instead incorporate them in keeping the city clean. In fact there are instances where this has happened and results have been positive. In Ahmedabad, the Self-Employed Women’s Association (SEWA), a trade union of women in the informal sector, has been able to include ragpickers in the ‘clean city’ campaign. In Mumbai, the Stree Mukti Sangathana too, has involved ragpickers in beautification campaigns in some parts of the suburbs. Such moves are not only beneficial for the urban environment, they also try to restore citizenship to the marginalised.

Livelihoods

The Swarna Jayanti Shahari Rozgar Yojana (SJSRY) was launched in December 1997 subsuming the earlier urban poverty alleviation programmes The wage employment component of SJSRY has generally been used by the city governments for general municipal works, and thus has created no additionality of employment. In any case unskilled wage employment seems to be less of a problem for the urban poor than the terms at which it is provided by the contractors. Creating more unskilled employment without any improvement in living conditions may further aggravate the inhuman conditions in which the urban poor live. Hence the unskilled wage component in SJSRY meant for unskilled work should be dropped in the XII Plan.

As regards the self-employment component, it should be recognised that many small entrepreneurs in the country are facing genuine problems – poor quality infrastructure; inadequate access to institutional credit; delayed payments by large industries; procedural delays in getting government clearances; harassment by inspecting officers; rigid labour laws, technological obsolescence; non-availability of skilled manpower; lack of marketing facilities and difficulty in competing with well-established foreign and national brand names. These would require not only policy changes but an efficient and responsive administration. Though supply side intervention in the form of rural electrification, roads, credit and communication systems is vital for the growth of the non-farm sector, institutional framework within which government support is delivered – plethora of official organisations and agencies, many charged with overlapping functions, with poor coordination between themselves – needs to be set right too.

Unfortunately none of these issues are being addressed by SJSRY. It is based on the simplistic assumption that subsidised credit will help in creating new entrepreneurship and augmenting incomes. However the high cost of appraising, monitoring and enforcing small loan agreements deters the banks from extending credit, and therefore the overall coverage of the scheme is still limited.

SJSRY should focus more on skill upgradation, and then wage employment as skilled workers, than on self employment. Skill development has to be correlated to the demands of the industry and service sector in and around the city.

Health

Inequities in public expenditure on health are staggering. According to a World Bank study the poorest 20 percent of the population captured only about 10 percent of the total net public subsidy from publicly provided clinical services. The richest quintile received more than three times the subsidy received by the poorest quintile, indicating that publicly financed curative care services are ‘unambiguously pro-rich’.

There is a need to increase the urban infrastructure for health at all levels including big cities and small towns to cope with the growing urban population. Posts need to be created at various levels in slum areas within the health department to ensure adequate delivery and provision of outreach services. Special provisions should be made for providing health services to pavement dwellers and temporary settlements. All health posts should provide outreach services to slum and slum-like areas through the ANM and MPW. The recommendation of the Krishnan committee for a community health worker for population of 2,000 should be put into place.

Number of ICDS centres should be increased in slum and poor areas. Of the total number of ICDS centres, hardly 10 percent operate in the urban centres.

Water & sanitation

In many cities, water availability ranges from 3-8 hours per day. This must be increased, especially for the poor and slum dwellers. Due to shortage of space, community toilets should be promoted, though these require mobilizing communities and building their social capital. The city profiles being prepared by GOI should prepare city-wise repeated studies on the availability of water and sanitation to the poorest areas so that one knows what exactly has been the performance of the city governments in fulfilling their promises made in the DPRs for which they would receive grants under JNNURM.

Local bodies have traditionally seen the toilet blocks as their property and no effort has been made to involve communities even in maintenance. Moreover, the quality of construction is frequently poor, the availability of water is limited, sometimes there is no access to drainage and most often, there is no garbage dumping area. The toilet areas become the dumps and all these problems add to the early deterioration of the few working toilets in the city. The consequences of this way of doing things are there for all to see: in most of our cities, there are few operational toilet blocks and people perforce have to squat and defecate in the open. The sight of bare behinds along railway tracks and other public spaces is a common experience in the city. Women often have to wait till it is dark to perform these natural functions to protect their modesty. As a result, gastric disorders are widespread amongst them. Children squat anywhere and everywhere and human excreta are spread all over the place. These insanitary conditions and environmental hazards take their toll upon the health of the poor. The links between public sanitation and public health are well established.

Requirement estimation of basic services for the urban poor

On the aspects of other basic services, this paper relies on the NSSO sample survey conducted between July 2008 to June 2009 on characteristics of urban slums. Some key findings are given below for reference:

• Urban India was estimated to have 49,000 slums. Slum being defined as a collection of at least 20 poorly built households
• 79% notified slums and 78% non notified slums have access to tap water through government
• 1% notified and 7% non notified slums did not have electricity
• Any type of latrine facility was not available in 10% notified and 20% non notified slums
• 10% notified and 23% non notified slums did not have drainage facilities
• 46% of notified slums and 58% of non notified slums do not have government hospitals within 1 km vicinity

The charts and tables below have been provided from NSSO 2008-09 to help us calculate the outlay required to provide the above mentioned services to the urban poor.

Chart 1: Distribution of slums by drinking water source

Chart 2: Status of electricity connections in slums across India

Table 8: Sanitary facilities available in urban slums : NSSO 2008-09

Chart 3: Type of drainage in slums: All India

Table 9: Percentage of slums in different States by distance from nearest Government hospital

In order to calculate the quantum of allocation in the 12^th plan, we will use the figures from NSSO report on urban slums (65^th round) and apply the figures on the calculation of a joint study by MHUPA and Center for good governance on providing basic services to the urban poor.

Protected Drinking Water Supply for the Urban Poor

As per the 65th round of National Sample Survey, about 79% urban households have access to tap water. However, the majority of the remaining 21% could be from the urban poor. Assuming the urban poor do not have access to safe drinking water/ piped water supply within their premises, and based on the estimates of urban poor by UNDP report 2009 which states 81 million urban poor,if we assume a household size of 6 per household and accounting for population growth @ 1.41%, we arrive at an urban poor household figure of 14 million urban poor households which will require new connection/ access to safe drinking water. If the unit cost of providing access to water supply is assumed at Rs 20,000 per household (which is a subsidized rate for BPL families), the estimated amount of finances for water supply service to urban poor works out to Rs 28,000 Crores.

 Also, the 11th five year plan estimated Rs 53,666 Crores required for providing access to safe drinking water supply to 100% urban population. Though the urban poor population is 25 percent of the total urban population, majority of the above requirement is by the urban poor. Assuring 60% of the estimate is for the water supply in urban areas and further assuming 90 percent of it is for the urban poor, Rs 28,980 Crores may be the funds required for water supply to urban poor. As an average of the two estimates, about Rs 28, 490 Crores is required for providing water supply to urban poor.

Sanitation/ Toilet Facilities for the Urban Poor

It is estimated that about 42.5 percent of the urban poor (average of notified and non notified slum figures) do not have access to toilet/ sanitation, as defined by a latrine with septic tank, often resort to open defecation resulting in unhygienic and unsanitary conditions. Accordingly, about 6 million households of urban poor need sanitation facilities. Assuming an average unit cost of Rs 7,000 per household for construction of toilet facility(as per ILCS guidelines) , an estimate of Rs 4,187 Crores of funds are required for attaining zero open defecation of urban poor in India.

Urban Sewerage and Sewerage Treatment

As per the estimates of 11th five year plan, about Rs 53,168 Crores is required to achieve 100% underground sewerage system in urban India. As more than 90% of the population in cities/ towns do not have sewerage system coverage in India, the whole amount is required for reaching target. The proportionate share of the urban poor (at 25% as per BPL survey of 2004-05) works out to Rs 13,292 Crores, which is the broad fund requirement for bringing the urban poor under sewerage system coverage.

Skill Development for Livelihood Improvement

About 27 percent of the India population falls in the age group of 25-44, the potential age seeking livelihoods and improvements. Accordingly, out of the estimated urban poor population of 89.45 million by 2011, about 24.15 million urban poor would fall within the age group of 25 – 44 (27% of urban poor). On an average, about half of this population would require skill development i.e. about 12 million. Assuming fifteen days of skill development programme, on an average, for each individual at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per person, a corpus of Rs 6,000 Crores is required.

Capacity Building for Poverty Reduction

There are about 5000 ULBs in India. Out of these, 63 are JNNURM mission cities, 380 are class I towns, 496 are class II towns and the remaining 4000 plus are Class III and below towns. Assuming ten persons per ULB (that includes municipal administrative and political functionaries and civil societies), a total of 50,000 personnel would participate in the capacity building programme for poverty reduction. A two day programme/ workshop per person would require a corpus of about Rs 25 Crores. Apart from the above, a two day national level workshop on poverty reduction for civil servants representing states (2 officials for each state representing 29 states) would require a corpus of about Rs 15 lakhs.

Table 10: Resource requirement for providing basic services to the urban poor

<> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </>

Basic Services cost head	Requirement (in crores)
Protected Drinking Water Supply for the Urban Poor	28,490
Sanitation/ Toilet Facilities for the Urban Poor	4,187
Urban Sewerage and Sewerage Treatment	13,292
Skill Development for Livelihood Improvement	6,000
Capacity Building for Poverty Reduction	25
Total requirement for basic services for the urban poor	51,994

Total 12^th Plan Outlay

The total proposed plan outlay for providing housing and basic services to the urban poor is as below:

Table 12: Total resource requirements for providing for the urban poor in the 12tth plan period

<> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </>

12th Plan Outlay	Outlay in crores
Outlay for low cost housing	400743
Outlay for rental stock	166976
Outlay for homeless shelters	41135
Outlay for basic services	51994
Total Outlay	6,60,848

Government Schemes for the urban poor

Rajiv Awas Yojana: The current outlay for RAY is in the range of 8,000 crores for 2 years. While this outlay itself is only a handful considering the extent of the problem the scheme envisages tackling. The outlay for the scheme must be enhanced and a minimum 20% of the scheme allocations must be reserved for building shelters and rental spaces for the homeless in a city.

The 8,000 crores under RAY forms only 1.21% of the allocation required to meet the requirements of the urban poor in India.

Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission: sub-mission on basic services to the urban poor (BSUP)

The JNNURM scheme was launched to improve urban infrastructure and provide urban services for the poor. An in order to effectively provide the same the mission also envisaged urban governance reform. The Mission was structured with a clear focus on these two important components – urban infrastructure and basic services to the urban poor, with governance reform as an overarching third component.

Integrated development of slums forms one of the core focus areas of JNNURM, it with an outlay of 50,000 crores, the mission is the single largest central government initiative in the urban sector.

The ever increasing number of slum dwellers causes tremendous pressure on urban basic services and infrastructure. In order to cope with massive problems that have emerged as a result of rapid urban growth, it has become imperative to draw up a coherent urbanization policy/strategy to implement projects in select cities on mission mode.

Admissible components:-

i. Integrated development of slums, i.e., housing and development of infrastructure projects in the slums in the identified cities.

ii. Projects involving development/improvement/maintenance of basic services to the urban poor.

iii. Slum improvement and rehabilitation projects.

iv. Projects on water supply/sewerage/drainage, community toilets/baths, etc.

v. Houses at affordable costs for slum dwellers/ urban poor/EWS/LIG categories.

vi. Construction and improvements of drains/storm water drains.

vii. Environmental improvement of slums and solid waste management.

viii. Street lighting.

ix. Civic amenities, like community halls, child care centers, etc.

x. Operation and maintenance of assets created under this component.

xi. Convergence of health, education and social security schemes for the urban poor

The BSUP component under JNNURM had a budgetary allocation of 2524.65 crores which was later reduced to 1344.36 crores due to under utilization of funds. The paper recommends that we should not only restore the allocated funds but also enhance the allocation under the 12^th plan. This amounts to 0.38% of the fund requirements

Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission: Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme

Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme (IHSDP) aims at combining the existing schemes of VAMBAY and NSDP under the new IHSDP scheme for having an integrated approach in ameliorating the conditions of urban slum dwellers who do not possess adequate shelter and reside dilaplated conditions.

The scheme is valid for all cities\towns covered under JNNURM

The scheme seeks to enhance public and private investments in housing and infrastructural development in urban areas

The objective of the scheme is to strive for holistic slum development with a healthy and enabling urban environment by providing adequate shelter and basic infrastructural facilities to the slum dwellers of the identified urban areas.

Admissible components

ii)       Provision of shelter including upgrading and constructing new houses

iii)     Provision of community toilets

iv)     Provision of basic amenities like water supply, storm water drains, community bath, widening and paving of lanes, sewers, community latrines, street lights etc.

v)      Community infrastructure like community centers

vi)     Community primary health centers

vii)   Social amenities like pre-school education, non – formal education, adult education, maternity etc.

viii)  EWS and LIG housing

ix)     Slum improvement and rehabilitation projects

An amount of Rs. 1117.58 crores is available under IHSDP which amount close to 0.17% of the total requirements in the 12^th plan period.

The Swarna Jayanti Shahari Rozgar Yojana (SJSRY) was launched on 01.12.1997 after subsuming the earlier three schemes for urban poverty alleviation, namely Nehru Rozgar Yojana (NRY), Urban Basic Services for the Poor (UBSP), and Prime Minister’s Integrated Urban Poverty
Eradication Programme (PMIUPEP). The key objective of the Scheme was to provide gainful employment to the urban unemployed or underemployed through the setting up of self-employment ventures or provision of wage employment.

The scheme had a budgeted allocation of 515 crores in 2009-10 which could be used for developing livelihood options for the urban poor. This amounts to 0.08% of the plan requirements.

The Interest Subsidy Scheme for Housing the Urban Poor (ISHUP) scheme was approved by the CCEA on 26.12.2008. The guidelines of the scheme were firmed up in February, 2009, and were effectively put in place in 2009-10. Anticipating from the initial and encouraging response to the scheme, an allocation of Rs. 180.59 crore was made during 2009-10. ISHUP is a demand driven loan based scheme aimed at facilitating institutional loans to EWS & LIG beneficiaries and is essentially linked to ability of States in creation of additional housing stock by the States. FY 2009-10 being effectively the first year of scheme, the response from States has been slow and only Andhra Pradesh has been able to take advantage of scheme and dove-tail it with a state scheme i.e. INDIRAMA. As a result the Ministry was constrained to surrender funds to the tune of Rs 175.59 crore at RE stage.

An amount of 181 crores can be availed for interest subsidy under this scheme which amounts to 0.03% of the requirements.

Integrated Low Cost Sanitation Scheme” (ILCS)

The practice of carrying night-soil on the heads from dry latrines by scavengers has been in existence for centuries in India. It was felt that the abolition of manual scavenging was essential to restore human dignity among the scavengers. The Central Government, therefore, adopted a three-pronged strategy to address the issue:-

· Legislative back up to prohibit construction of dry latrines and employment of manual scavengers in the form of 'The Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993;

· Introduction of Centrally Sponsored Integrated low Cost Sanitation Scheme (ILCS) which envisages conversion of dry latrines into water seal twin-pit sanitary latrines.

· Centrally Sponsored Self-Employment Scheme for Rehabilitation of Manual Scavenger (SRMS) being implemented by M/o Social Justice & Empowerment to rehabilitate the liberated Manual scavengers.

Integrated Low Cost Sanitation Scheme (ILCS)

• From 1980-81:- Initially started through the Ministry of Home Affairs  & later through Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment. From1989-90:- Transferred to Ministry of Urban Development & Poverty Alleviation

• From 2003-04:- Transferred to Ministry of Urban Employment & Poverty  Alleviation / Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty  Alleviation

The ILCS Scheme was implemented till December 2007 under the earlier guidelines with the following components:

Components of the integrated Low Cost Sanitation Scheme (ILCS)

• The scheme was being operated through the Housing and Urban Development Corporation (HUDCO) by providing a mix of subsidy from the Central Government and loan from the HUDCO.

• The scheme was taken up on a `whole town basis’ meaning thereby all sections of population of the town (HIG, MIG, LIG & EWS) are presently covered by the ILCS guidelines.

Pattern of Assistance:

The HUDCO was providing loan and a mix of subsidy from the Central Government in a synchronised manner as per the following financing pattern.

Category              Subsidy                                Loan                    Beneficiary Contribution

EWS                       45%                      50%                        5%

LIG                         25%                        60%                        15%

MIG/HIG             Nil                          75%                       25%

The unit cost for different categories of sanitary latrines was as follows:-

5 user unit Rs.4000.00

10 user unit Rs.6000.00

15 user unit Rs.7000.00

In 2009 -10, the central subsidy under this scheme was 211 crores. This scheme can used to finance the requirement for sanitation for the urban poor. The amount of 211 crores would amount to 0.03% of the required funds.

Requirement and available resource summary

The requirements and resource availability under existing schemes is listed below. The deficit has also been calculated taking into account the available resources and the current resources available.

Table 12: Requirement and available resource summary

<> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </> <> </>

12th Plan Outlay	Requirement in crores
Outlay for low cost housing	400743
Outlay for rental stock	166976
Outlay for homeless shelters	41135
Outlay for basic services	51994
Total required Outlay (A)	660848
Schemes	Allocations under scheme	Percentage of plan requirements for urban poor
RAY	8000	1.21%
JNNURM: BSUP	2524.65	0.38%
JNNURM: IHSDP	1117.58	0.17%
ISHUP	181	0.03%
SJSRY	515	0.08%
ILCS	211	0.03%
Total available resources (B)	12549.23	1.90%
Total resource deficit (A-B)	648299	98.10%

The deficit has to be financed through funding agencies like HUDCO, LIC, NHB will have to enhance their funding of housing co-operatives, low cost urban housing projects etc. PPP may also be a source of deficit funding.
Governmental interventions in the past: Pitfalls to guard against

There have been many centrally sponsored schemes in the urban sector in the past also with significant outlays but the mid-term appraisal of the IX,X and XI Plans show that they hardly made any impact. If we are to make any of the above recommendations successful, the GOI has to evaluate past schemes such as NSDP, Vambay, etc and assess why they failed to provide sustained benefits to the urban poor.

We quote below from the MTA of the IX and X Plans to understand why the impact remained marginal.

According to the MTA IX Plan, the implementation of the scheme of Integrated Development of Small and Medium Towns (IDSMT) has not been satisfactory and the areas of concern include timely completion of projects, augmentation of resources by ULBs for continued investment, creation/ consolidation of Revolving Fund, utilization of available funds, tie up of institutional finance, viability of the implementing agencies, convergence of stakeholders etc.

The National Institute of Urban Affairs, vide its evaluation study in a sample of 22 towns observed that the impediments in implementation broadly are non-availability of land, absence of technical/feasibility studies, lack of inter-agency coordination, and poor monitoring. Similarly, the Centre for Symbiosis of Technology, Environment and Management through its impact evaluation of IDSMT scheme in Uttar Pradesh and Karnataka concluded that land acquisition and lack of technical staff in the local bodies delayed the implementation of projects.

The Megacity scheme was launched by the Govt. of India in 1993-94, in order to upgrade the infrastructural facilities in the mega cities which comprise about 17 percent of the urban population. The scheme was applicable in the five cities of Mumbai, Calcutta, Chennai, Hyderabad and Bangalore. Upto 1999-2000, 375 projects^[1] involving Rs. 3090 crores were sanctioned. Though various projects are being taken up under the scheme, many of the problems in the implementation are observed to be common to that of IDSMT. In addition, the identified areas requiring attention include, high rates of interests charged by the Financial Institutions, the desirability of retaining 75 percent of the Central and State share in the Revolving Fund and the manner of its utilization.

Government of Karnataka carried out an evaluation of the works executed in the selected slums in the state in 2000, and found that the condition of 49 out of 61 works was poor. 62.5 percent of street lighting, 67 percent of drinking water works and 78 percent of roads, drains, community toilets and bathroom were in poor condition. Repairs were not done and damaged parts were not repaired. Toilets and baths were not regularly cleaned and water was not available there. Garbage disposal and maintenance, although provided in EIUS, was never done.

Night Shelter For Urban Shelterless - Night Shelter as a Scheme was introduced in 1988-89 to improve/provide shelter to the shelterless in the metropolitan cities. This was revised in 1992 to include other urban areas. However, lack of administrative will to make suitable land available has stood in the progress. Even meagre allocation of Rs 50 crores during the X Plan could not be utilised. The Ministry complained of not receiving adequate number of proposals from the states, and wound up the scheme by transferring it to the states. As this is the only option for the poorest, such as pavement dwellers and beggars, GOI should examine in detail why this scheme could not make any headway.

Several hypotheses can be suggested here for the failure of the past schemes to make a significant dent on the problems of the urban poor:

• The total central outlay was insufficient, its release was adhoc, not very well publicized, and there was ineffective monitoring by the central government to ensure its proper utilisation.
• As ACA funds cannot be directly made available to the Municipalities, it is likely that there has been inordinate delay in release of these funds, both from the central Finance Ministry and the state governments, and making them available to the Municipalities.
• The resources raised by the municipal authorities constitute barely 0.6 percent of the national GDP and, therefore, still remain peripheral to their overall budgets. Revenues from non-tax sources have been lagging behind, dependence of municipal authorities on external sources has been increasing coupled with corresponding decline in the internal revenue from own sources. This reduces the sense of ownership, and increases irresponsible behaviour. In the absence of external supervision wastage of funds remains unchecked.
• State governments and Municipalities divert funds for the poor to other schemes. This is not detected in time, because the central government’s monitoring capability was weak in the past.
• There is no follow up of expenditures incurred in previous years, and insufficient funds are provided for operation and maintenance.

In light of the above the following recommendations are made for your consideration

Strengthen monitoring systems

It is well established that the States and the Municipalities capacity for discharging the poverty alleviation functions is low and so far hardly any priority was assigned to the tasks of slum upgradation, housing and poverty alleviation. The Ministry has rightly decided to address this issue at the municipal level through (a) earmarked budget for the poor through the concept of P-Budget, which would be in proportion to the urban poor to the total population in a given municipality, (b) development of appropriate institutional framework in the form of State/City UPA Cells and (c) a national programme on capacity building for poverty alleviation covering both institutional and human resource capacity. However, there has to be third-party periodical assessment of the implementation of these intentions at the Municipality level, otherwise in the absence of adequate oversight it is feared that the noble objectives might remain only on paper.

For instance, one should find out of the new houses that have come up in the last five years, how many are for the weaker sections and for the BPL category. Despite the fact that 90 percent of housing shortages are for this class of people, it is likely that very few houses have been constructed for them in many cities. Documenting the failures of the state governments is the best way to goad them into action.

Capacity building and sensitization

Even if the manpower is provided at various levels for implementation of the poverty alleviation programmes, it will be of little use if they do not have the capability, capacity and sensitivity to effectively implement social sector programmes. Therefore, there is a need to build the capacity of the project functionaries at various levels in the State and Central governments, - as also of other stakeholders including representatives of NGOs, FIs, Banking institutions, Training Institutes etc.

Urban self-governments have remained starved of funds and technical skills, and suffer from poor management. Widespread corruption and non-accountability of employees and public representatives – municipal councillors has further compounded the problem. Though adopting populist measures to attract vote banks, basic services and infrastructure has remained poor in most urban settlements, with the exception of a few cities which were either state capitals or economic growth centres.

It must be admitted that there exists a nexus between the elected representatives, contractors and the lower ranks of the Corporation’s bureaucracy. There is in most local bodies, unfortunately, a long and dishonourable tradition of different groups like contractors, engineers, and Councillors getting a ‘cut’ from projects in their areas. Often, estimates of works are inflated and the excess shared at the expense of the public.

In larger cities, people seem to be losing faith in the effectiveness of Ward committees in addressing their grievances. Failure of Ward committees has led to emergence of civil society organisations, RWAs, corporates, etc. One should study this shift by evaluating the ward systems and the parallel bodies.

However, the political constraint is not insurmountable. The experience of credible NGOs (SPARC in Mumbai and Pune) shows that if the work brings satisfaction amongst slum dwellers, the very Councillors who might have opposed giving the project to the NGOs become staunch defenders of it. The experience of SPARC in constructing toilets in Pune showed that even if some Councillors lost opportunities to make money, they became ardent supporters of the programme when their constituents demanded that toilet blocks be built in their areas and as the recognition grew about the positive impact the programme would have on electoral futures.

 References

• Living Rough: Surviving city streets by Harsh Mander
• Poverty lines and lives of Poor – IIED working paper by Meera Bapat
• Thirteenth report  standing committee on urban development (2010-2011)
• Housing for the Urban Poor: A case for the homeless in Delhi by Amod K Kanth
• Supreme Court commissioners study on homeless in Delhi: May-June 2011
• Programmes for the urban poor: N.C.Saxena
• Urban Poverty Review paper – NAC working group on urban poverty
• Wikipedia
• Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation
• Census department of India
• Planning commission of India
• Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB)
• Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited
• National Strategy document for the urban poor
• National Sample Survey Organization report no. 534 on Characteristics of Urban Slums
• TISS : Khushi report on homeless in Delhi

---

[1] Sanctioning a large number of projects means that the limited staff of GOI would have no time left for monitoring the physical progress of outcomes.