Slum & Urban Infrastructure
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Slum & Urban Infrastructure

on

  • 1,586 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,586
Views on SlideShare
1,586
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
86
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Slum & Urban Infrastructure Slum & Urban Infrastructure Presentation Transcript

  • Slum & Urban Infrastructure  
  • Definition of a Slum A Slum, for the purpose of Census, has been defined as residential areas where dwellings are unfit for human habitation by reasons of dilapidation, overcrowding, faulty arrangements and design of such buildings, narrowness or faulty arrangement of street, lack of ventilation, light, or sanitation facilities or any combination of these factors which are detrimental to the safety and health.
  • Identification of Slums in Census • For the purpose of Census, slums have been categorized and defined as of the following three types: • Notified Slums • Recognized Slums • Identified Slums
  • Identification of Slums • Notified Slums • Recognized Slums • Identified Slums All notified areas in a town or city notified as ‘Slum’ by State, UT Administration or Local Government under any Act including a ‘Slum Act’
  • Identification of Slums • Notified Slums • Recognized Slums • Identified Slums All areas recognised as ‘Slum’ by State, UT Administration or Local Government, Housing and Slum Boards, which may have not been formally notified as slum under any act
  • Identification of Slums • Notified Slums • Recognized Slums • Identified Slums A compact area of at least 300 population or about 60-70 households of poorly built congested tenements, in unhygienic environment usually with inadequate infrastructure and lacking in proper sanitary and drinking water facilities (Identified).
  • Data on Slum from Census • It is for the first time in Census that datasets on Housing stock, Amenities and Assets based on the Houselisting and Housing Census are being released • In Census 2001, information on Slums were released only on demographic characteristics based on the Population Enumeration. For this purpose, Slum Blocks were identified in Statutory Towns having a population of 20,000 by the local authorities at the time of Population Enumeration phase • In Census 2011, Slum Blocks have been delineated in all statutory towns irrespective of population size.
  • Census 2011 Results
  • Towns Reporting Slums India : Census 2011 • Out of 4,041 Statutory Towns in Census 2011 Slums reported from 2,543 Towns (63%) • Total Slum Enumeration Blocks (SEBs) in Census 2011 is about 1.08 lakh in the country • Largest number of Slum EBs reported from Maharashtra (21,359)
  • Number of Slum Blocks by Type of Slums – India : Census 2011 • Notified Slums 37,072 • Recognised Slums 30,846 • Identified Slums 40,309 Total: 1,08,227 Blocks
  • Households by Type of Slums – India : Census 2011 • Notified Slums 49.65 lakh HHs • Recognised Slums 37.96 lakh HHs • Identified Slums 49.88 lakh HHs Total: 137.49 lakh HHs
  • Slum & Non-Slum Households – India 2011 Indicator Number of households (in lakh) Total (Urban) 789 Slum 137 Non-Slum 652 Number of households (in %) Slum 17.4 Non-Slum 82.6
  • Number of Slum Households in Million Plus Cities Indicator Number Number of Slum Households (in lakh) Total (Slum) 137 Slum in Million Plus Cities 52 Slum in other Cities 85 Number of Slum Households (in %) Slum in Million Plus Cities 38.1 Slum in other Cities 61.9 38 % of the slum households are in 46 Million Plus Cities
  • Top/Bottom 5 States Reporting Slum Households Top 5 States State Proportion of Slum HHs to Urban HHs (%) Bottom 5 States Andhra Pradesh 35.7 Chhattisgarh 31.9 Madhya Pradesh 28.3 Chandigarh# 9.7 Odisha 23.1 Gujarat 6.7 West Bengal 21.9 Jharkhand 5.3 Assam 4.8 Kerala 1.5 State Proportion of Slum HHs to Urban HHs (%)
  • Percentage of Slum HHs to Total Urban HHs
  • Proportion of Slum Households in Metros - 2011 Million Plus Cities Proportion of Slum HHs to Total Urban HHs (%) Greater Mumbai (M Corp.) 41.3 Kolkata (M Corp.) 29.6 Chennai (M Corp.) 28.5 Delhi Municipal Corp (U) 14.6 BBMP (M Corp.) 8.5
  • Million Plus Cities with High Proportion of Slum HHs (Top 10 only) - 2011 Million Plus Cities Proportion of Slum HHs to Total Urban HHs (%) 1. Greater Visakhapatnam M Corp. 44.1 2. Jabalpur Cantt (CB) 43.3 3. Greater Mumbai (M Corp.) 41.3 4. Vijayawada (M Corp.) 40.6 5. Meerut (M Corp.) 40.0 6. Raipur (M Corp.) 39.0 7. Nagpur (M Corp.) 34.3 8. Greater Hyderabad M Corp. (GHMC) 31.9 9. Kota (M Corp.) 31.8 10. Agra (M Corp.) 29.8
  • Use of Occupied Census Houses India : 2011 INDIA (Absolute numbers in lakh) Use of Census House Urban Slum Total Occupies Census Houses 990 160 Residence 761 133 24 3.9 107 10.8 School/College, etc 4 0.5 Hotel/Lodge/Guest House 4 0.4 Hospital/ Dispensary, etc 3 0.3 15 2 6 0.9 59 8 7 1 Residence-cum-other use Shop/Office Factory/ Workshop, etc Place of worship Other non-residential use Locked Census Houses
  • Use of Occupied Census Houses India : 2011 INDIA (in %) Use of Census House Urban Slum 100.0 100.0 76.9 82.5 2.4 2.4 10.8 6.7 School/College, etc 0.4 0.3 Hotel/Lodge/Guest House 0.4 0.2 Hospital/ Dispensary, etc 0.3 0.2 Factory/ Workshop, etc 1.5 1.2 Place of worship 0.6 0.6 Other non-residential use 6.0 5.1 Locked Census House 0.7 0.6 Total Occupies Census Houses Residence Residence-cum-other use Shop/Office
  • Households by Type of Census Houses – India HHs (in %) Type Urban Slum Permanent 84.3 77.7 Semi-permanent 11.6 16.0 Temporary 3.2 5.3 Any other 0.9 1.0
  • Slum Households by Structure of Census Houses (Permanent)
  • Households by Number of Room – India HHs (in %) Number of Room Urban Slum No exclusive room 3.1 4.4 One room 32.1 44.8 Two room 30.6 29.5 Three room 18.4 12.3 Four room 9.3 5.4 Five rooms and above 6.5 3.5
  • Households by Household Size– India HHs (in %) Household Size Urban Slum 1 member 3.6 3.7 2 members 9.5 9.5 3 members 15.9 14.9 4 members 26.4 25.1 5 members 18.5 19.4 6 to 8 members 20.6 22.2 5.4 5.2 9 and above members
  • Households by Number of Married Couples – India HHs (in %) Number of married couples Urban Slum None 12.7 13.6 1 71.1 72.1 2 12.6 11.3 3 2.8 2.4 4 0.6 0.5 5 and above 0.2 0.1
  • Households by Ownership Status – India HHs (in %) Ownership Status of Census House Urban Slum Owned 69.2 70.2 Rented 27.5 26.3 Others 3.3 3.5
  • Source of Drinking Water – India HHs (in %) Source of drinking water 1. Tap Urban Slum 70.6 74.0 62.0 65.3 8.6 8.7 6.2 3.0 11.9 12.7 4. Tube well / Borehole 8.9 7.6 5. Other sources 2.5 2.8 From treated source From untreated source 2. Well 3. Hand pump
  • Location of Drinking Water Source– India HHs (in %) Location Urban Slum 1. Within premises 71.2 56.7 2. Outside premises 28.8 43.3
  • Slum HHs by Location Drinking Water Source (Within premises)
  • Source of Lighting– India HHs (in %) Source of lighting Urban Slum 1. Electricity 92.7 90.5 2. Kerosene 6.5 8.2 3. Solar 0.2 0.3 4. Other oil 0.1 0.2 5. Any other 0.2 0.2 6. No lighting 0.3 0.5
  • Slum HHs by Fuel Used for Cooking (LPG/PNG)
  • Availability of Bathing Facility within Premises - India HHs (in %) Bathing Facility 1. Have facility (a) Bathroom (b) Enclosure without roof 2. Does not have facility Urban Slum 87.0 81.0 77.5 66.6 9.5 14.5 13.0 19.0
  • Drainage Connectivity for Waste Water Outlet– India HHs (in %) Drainage connectivity Urban Slum 1. Closed drainage 44.5 36.9 2. Open drainage 37.3 44.3 3. No drainage 18.2 18.8
  • Type of Latrine Facility– India HHs (in %) Type of latrine 1. Latrine within the premises Urban Slum 81.4 66.0 72.6 57.7 (b) Pit latrine 7.1 6.2 © Other latrine 1.7 2.2 18.6 34.0 6.0 15.1 12.6 18.9 (a) Water closet 2. No latrine within premises (a) Public latrine (b) Open
  • Availability of Kitchen– India HHs (in %) Availability of kitchen Total 1. Cooking inside house: Urban Slum 100.0 100.0 95.8 94.1 (a) Has kitchen 77.8 65.3 (b) Does not have kitchen 18.0 28.8 3.7 5.4 (a) Has kitchen 1.6 2.0 (b) Does not have kitchen 2.0 3.4 0.5 0.5 2. Cooking outside house 3. No cooking
  • Fuel used for Cooking– India HHs (in %) Fuel used for cooking 1. Fire-wood Urban Slum 20.1 25.8 2. Crop residue 1.4 1.6 3. Cow dung cake 1.7 2.1 4. Coal, Lignite, Charcoal 2.9 3.9 5. Kerosene 7.5 14.0 6. LPG/ PNG 65.0 51.3 7. Electricity 0.1 0.1 8. Biogas 0.4 0.5 9. Any other 0.2 0.3 10. No cooking 0.5 0.5
  • Households Availing Banking Services– India HHs (in %) Availing Banking Services Urban Slum 1. Availing 67.8 53.2 2. Not availing 32.2 46.8
  • Household Possessing Various Assets – India HHs (in %) Asset Urban Slum 1. Radio/Transistor 25.3 18.7 2. Television 76.7 69.6 3. Computer 18.7 10.4 8.3 3.3 10.4 7.1 With Internet Without Internet
  • Household Possessing Various Assets– India HHs (in %) Asset Urban Slum 82.0 72.7 Landline only 5.9 4.4 Mobile only 64.3 63.5 Both 11.7 4.8 6. Bicycle 41.9 40.2 7. Scooter/Motor Cycle/Moped 35.2 22.0 8. Car/Jeep/Van 9.7 3.6 9. None of the specified assets 7.0 10.7 5. Telephone
  • 63.5% HHs in Slums in India has Mobile
  • Slum HHs Having None of the Specified Assets
  • Life in a Slum
  • Infrastructure: The Crucial Growth Factor Indian economy is on the path to strong recovery It is expected that during 2011-12, India would revert back to 9% GDP growth Fast economic growth and growing population have led to huge demand-supply infrastructure deficit Lack of adequate and quality infrastructure is proving to be binding constraint in sustaining, deepening and expanding India’s economic growth and global competitiveness Infrastructure deficit estimated to cost 1 to 2% growth in GDP every year.
  • Infrastructure Deficit  Roads & Highways- National highway network is 66,590 Kms which constitutes only 2% of total road network but carries about 40% of total traffic.  Power generation capacity- During the 11th Plan period, against revised target of 62,000MW capacity, capacity of 32,507 MW (52%) has been added. Peak power deficit range around 12-13%.  Ports- India has 12 major ports and 200 non-major ports which handle 95% of India’s trade in terms of volume and 70% in terms of value. However, the average turnaround time in India’s port was 4.54 days in 2009 compared to 10 hours in Hong kong.  Civil aviation- Only two airports viz., Delhi and Mumbai account for 43% of passenger traffic and 55% of cargo traffic in the country.  Urban Infrastructure- India has the second largest urban system in the world and 285 million people or 29% of the population live in urban areas. This is expected to reach 40% by 2021.  Telecom - In the area of telecom, India has done well. Teledensity (telephones per 100 persons) has grown from 1.9% in 1998 to 60% in August 2010.
  • Infrastructure Investment Requirements  In the 11th Plan period (2007-12), total infrastructure investment requirement has been estimated at USD 514 billion.  As per the Mid term appraisal of the 11th Plan, during the first 3 years of the plan period  Of the projected investment of USD 245 billion, the actual investment was USD 266 billion.  This has been mainly due to over achievement in sectors like telecom, electricity and airports.  However, sectors like roads, ports and railways have shown underachievement.  During the 12th five year plan (2012-17), the total investment requirements in infrastructure sector would be USD 1 trillion.  The large investment requirements cannot be met entirely by the public sector.  The role of PPP in the coming years will therefore gain more importance  It is expected that at least 50% of the investment would have to come from the private sector and by 2015-16, share of private investment will surpass public investment
  • Infrastructure Financing  Currently, over 80% of infrastructure projects in the country are financed by public sector banks. Bank’s lending to the infrastructure sector has grown significantly over the years recording a compound annual growth rate of 49% during the last 10 years.
  • Issues in Infra Financing Bank lending going forward is likely to be constrained: 1.RBI Prudential Exposure Norms • As per RBI prescribed prudential norms, in case of infrastructure projects, banks can take exposure up to • For single party- 20% of their capital funds + 5% after approval of their Board • For group 50% of their capital funds + 5% after approval of their Board 1. Most of the banks are operating at ceiling levels having little headroom to lend further 2. The low resource base will not allow smaller banks to take large exposures as required in the case of infrastructure projects. Asset-Liability Mismatch • 79% of the bank deposits have tenure of less than 3 years, while in the case of infrastructure projects, the loans are generally for 10-15 years. 1.Thus, to mobilize the required resources, especially by way of private investment, it is imperative that we find alternative mechanisms for financing.
  • Financing by IIFCL India Infrastructure Finance Co Ltd (IIFCL) established in January 2006, became operational in April 2006 to provide long term financial assistance to commercially viable infrastructure projects with overriding priority to PPP projects. IIFCL provides  Long term debt by way of direct financing  20% of the project cost is financed  Loans to have average maturity of more than 10 years  Subordinate debt finance  Refinance to banks and other eligible institutions for their loans to infrastructure projects in roads, ports, competitively bid power and railway projects UK subsidiary provides foreign currency loans to Indian infrastructure projects.
  • IIFCL’s Portfolio SECTOR (As on 31st October 2010) CUMULATIVE GROSS SANCTIONS Rs crore CUMULATIVE DISBURSEMENTS No. of Projects Amt Sanctioned No. of Projects Amt Disbursed Road 92 12662 63 4014 Power 26 11951 23 4691 Airport 2 2150 2 706 Port 7 860 5 293 Urban Infra 3 704 1 11 PMDO 30 113 19 43 Refinance - - - 1500 TOTAL 160 28440 113 11258 •Projects sanctioned by IIFCL are spread over in 24 states of the country. • Of the 160 proposals sanctioned, 137 (88%) cases have achieved financial closure which indicates that participation of IIFCL has helped in speeding up financial closure. 49 •Commercial Operation Date (CoD) has been achieved in 18 road projects and 2 port projects.
  • Need for alternative financing options TAKEOUT FINANCING IIFCL, a policy-based institution can partly address the constraints faced by banks Takeout finance can free up capital for banks and facilitate incremental lending to infrastructure Takeout financing is a viable option before banks to address asset liability mismatch issue and group exposure constraint Takeout financing scheme introduced by IIFCL in April 2010 First set of takeout finance deals signed recently More proposals in the pipeline
  • Need for alternative financing options  NEED TO DEVELOP CORPORATE BOND MARKET  The corporate debt market is at a nascent stage and is predominated by government securities.  Reasons for slow development of the bond market high compliance costs limited appetite for corporate bonds preference for bank loans compared to bonds high stamp duty.  Bond markets need to be well developed to encourage greater participation by insurance and pension funds, and thereby reduce dependence on banks
  • Need for Long term Investors • Insurance companies and pension funds are potentially a high source of long-term debt. • Internationally, insurance companies invest on an average 25% of their funds in less than AA rated paper. • However, in case of India, participation of insurance companies in infrastructure has been limited due to regulatory requirements. • Insurance companies are currently allowed to invest in debt securities rated AA and above.
  • Need for Credit Enhancement • Demand for debt instruments in India is largely limited only to highest safety papers (AAA and AA rated papers) • Around 72% of infrastructure SPVs in India are rated in the BBB and A categories, while an estimated 18% - 20% of infrastructure SPVs are rated in the sub – investment grade. • A credit enhancement instrument that leads to an improvement in ratings of infrastructure SPV bonds raised by developers (SPV) would lead to major players with long term funds like insurance and PF getting enthused to subscribe to such bonds. •IIFCL has taken up the task of evolving a credit enhancement product
  • Private Equity investments • Domestic resources may not be sufficient to bridge the investment gap, thus, there is need to attract foreign capital. • PE investors have shown keen interest in India’s infra sector: As per available data, during 2009-10, total PE investments in power sector alone was USD 820 million in 14 deals • Recently, a PE deal for about Rs 400 cr was done in Road sector • In 2010, till June, deal sizes in the range of USD 100-400 million have been done in infrastructure. • The flow of PE investments in infrastructure sector should be increased through enabling policy environment.
  • Need for infrastructure equity funds • Indian developers do not have enough long term equity resources • Dedicated infrastructure funds provide long term high risk equity capital • The longer term horizon of such funds help supplement strategic long term foreign capital • Early stage incubation of infrastructure assets by infrastructure funds can, after they attain maturity, become suitable for annuity seekers like pension funds and insurance companies
  • Conclusion  India continues to remain infra-deficit economy which is acting as a binding constraint on achieving higher economic growth.  Development of corporate bond market, introduction of innovations like credit enhancement, securitisation etc is important  Long term investors like pension funds and insurance companies should be encouraged to invest in infrastructure sector through appropriate changes in policy and regulatory requirements.  Attracting foreign investments through PE investments and launching of dedicated infrastructure funds need to be taken up.