• Like
  • Save

Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma

  • 1,242 views
Uploaded on

This is the thesis report of a Graduate Student of School of Planning and Architecture on Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma

This is the thesis report of a Graduate Student of School of Planning and Architecture on Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma

More in: Education , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,242
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
2

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation A Case of Delhi Submitted By ShashikantNishantSharma BP/461/2008 Department of Physical Planning School of Planning and Architecture, New DelhiNew Delhi July 2012
  • 2. CONTENTSCONTENTS ...................................................................................................................................................... iLIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................... iiiLIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................. iiiLIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .................................................................................................. ivDECLARATION .............................................................................................................................................. viCERTIFICATE ................................................................................................................................................ viiACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................................. viiiABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................................... ix ................................................................................................................................................................. xCHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 NEED FOR STUDY .......................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ........................................................................................................... 5 1.3 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................. 6 1.4 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................ 6CHAPTER 2 UNDERSTANDING PARTICIPATORY PLANNING ..................................................................... 8 2.1 CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS ...................................................................................... 8 2.2 BENEFITS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ......................................................................................... 14 2.3 PURPOSE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ......................................................................................... 18 2.4 THE NATURE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .................................................................................... 19 2.5 PRINCIPLES FOR PARTICIPATORY PLANNING .............................................................................. 20 2.6 RATIONALE FOR PARTICIPATORY PLANNING .............................................................................. 22 2.7 NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF PARTICIPATORY PLANNING ................................................................... 25 2.8 PARTICIPATORY PLANNING APPROACHES .................................................................................. 27 2.9 TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES OF PARTICIPATION ............................................................................ 28 2.10 MANDATING CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN PLAN MAKING: SIX STRATEGIC CHOICES................... 35 2.11 ADOPTED FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS ...................................................................................... 39 2.12 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................. 43CHAPTER 3 PARTICIPATORY PLANNING EXPERIENCES IN SELECTED PROGRAMMES............................ 44 3.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 44 3.2 CASE STUDY OF KERALA .............................................................................................................. 45 3.3 CASE STUDY OF NPUSV, DELHI.................................................................................................... 48 3.4 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................. 51 i
  • 3. 3.5 CASE STUDY OF BHAGIDARI IN DELHI ......................................................................................... 52 3.6 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................. 54CHAPTER 4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PLAN PREPARATION IN DELHI .................................................. 56 4.1 STATUTORY PROVISION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .................................................................. 57 4.2 NON-STATUTORY PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .................................................................................. 57 4.3 CASE STUDY: OBJECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS IN MASTER PLAN, DELHI .................................. 58 4.3.1 PROCESS OF OBJECTIONS AND SUGGESTION ..................................................................... 59 4.3.2 ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND FIGURES ...................................................................................... 60 4.3.3 LOCATIONAL ATTRIBUTES OF THE OBJECTIONS/SUGGESTIONS......................................... 64 4.3.4 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................... 66 4.4 A CASE OF OBJECTIONS/ SUGGESTIONS AND HEARING ON LANDUSE CHANGE FOR CIC .......... 68 4.4.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 68 4.4.2 ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................. 70 4.4.3 INFERENCES......................................................................................................................... 73 4.4.4 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................... 74 4.5 CASE STUDY: COMMUNITY CONSULTATION IN CDP, DELHI ....................................................... 75 4.5.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 75 4.5.2 STAKEHOLDERS IN CDP ....................................................................................................... 76 4.5.3 PRIMARY STAKEHOLDERS ................................................................................................... 78 4.5.4 SECONDARY STAKEHOLDERS .............................................................................................. 79 4.5.5 ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND FIGURES ...................................................................................... 82 4.5.6 MAJOR FINDING OF THE STUDY ON COMMUNITY CONSULTATION .................................. 84 4.5.7 INFERENCES......................................................................................................................... 85 4.6 PROVISIONS FOR PARTICIPATORY PLANNING LOCAL AREA PLAN .............................................. 86 4.6.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 86 4.6.2 STATEMENT ON LAP IN DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS .............................................................. 86 4.6.3 STAGES OF PLAN PREPARATION AND SCOPE FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ....................... 87 4.6.4 Base Maps ........................................................................................................................... 88 4.6.5 Mapping Of Secondary Data On Base Maps ....................................................................... 88 4.6.6 Draft Lap.............................................................................................................................. 88 4.6.7 Final Lap .............................................................................................................................. 89 4.7 INFERENCES................................................................................................................................. 89CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 90 5.1 INFORMATION ............................................................................................................................ 91 5.2 CONSULTATION ........................................................................................................................... 93 ii
  • 4. 5.3 RESOLUTION AND CONSENSUS BUILDING.................................................................................. 95 5.4 OUTCOMES AND INFLUENCES .................................................................................................... 96References .................................................................................................................................................. 97Annexure: .................................................................................................................................................. 103 LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1-1 A schematic diagram of the methodology is given below ........................................................... 7Figure 2-1 Six Stages for effective Participation ......................................................................................... 36Figure 2-2 Four Stepped Analysis Technique .............................................................................................. 39Figure 3-1 Composition of proposed and actual Committees .................................................................... 50Figure 4-1 Process of Objection/Suggestions in Master Plan for Delhi ...................................................... 60Figure 4-2 Participation of various groups .................................................................................................. 61Figure 4-3 Nature of Consideration ............................................................................................................ 62Figure 4-4 Spatial Nature of the Objections and Suggestions .................................................................... 62Figure 4-5 Spatial attribute of the Objections and Suggestions ................................................................. 64Figure 4-6 Landuse Plan for Zone F and the location of CIC landuse change location ............................... 70Figure 4-7 Multi Stakeholders Consultation Mechanism in CDP, Delhi ...................................................... 76Figure 4-8 Details of the Primary Stakeholders .......................................................................................... 78Figure 4-9 Participants at CDP Workshop on 7 and 8 September 2006 ..................................................... 82Figure 4-10 Presence of Participants at the CDP Workshop ...................................................................... 82Figure 4-11 File photo of workshop on CDP, Delhi ..................................................................................... 83Figure 4-12 Stages of Local Area Plan in Delhi which is being followed ..................................................... 87Figure 5-1 Dimensions of the participation in Master Plan, City Development Plan and Local Area Plan inDelhi ............................................................................................................................................................ 90 LIST OF TABLESTable 2-1 Comparative Tables for Various Techniques for Participation ................................................... 34Table 3-1 Major Findings of the various Case Studies ................................................................................ 55 iii
  • 5. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMSAMDA: Association of Municipalities and Development AuthoritiesB. Plan: Bachelor of PlanningBSUP: Basic Services for Urban PoorCAA: Constitutional Amendment ActCBO: Community Based OrganizationCIC: Chief Information CommissionCDP: City development PlanDDA: Delhi Development AuthorityFGD: Focus Group DiscussionGNCTD: Government of National Capital Territory of DelhiGOI: Government of IndiaIDSSMT: Integrated Development Scheme for Small and Medium TownsJMI: JamiaMiliaIslamiaJnNNURM: JawaharlalNehru National Urban Renewal MissionLAP: Local Area PlanMCD: Municipal Corporation of DelhiMDGs: Millennium Development GoalsMoUD: Ministry of Urban DevelopmentMPD: Master Plan of DelhiM.Plan: Master of PlanningMTA: Merchants and Traders AssociationsNCTD: National Capital Territory of DelhiNGO: Non-Government OrganisationNDMC: New Delhi Municipal CorporationNPUSV: National Policy for Urban Street VendorsPRI: Panchayati Raj InstitutionsRWAs: Residents Welfare AssociationsSPA: School of Planning and Architecture iv
  • 6. ULB: Urban Local Body like Municipality, Municipal CouncilUNCHS: United Nations Centre for Human SettlementsVCs: Vendors CommitteesZDP: Zonal Development PlanZVC: Zonal Vending Committee v
  • 7. DECLARATION This is to declare that the Thesis report titled “Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation- A Case of Delhi” has been undertaken by the author in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the degree of Bachelor of Planning. The research work undertaken is original and authentic. ShashikantNishantSharma BP/461/2008 Department of Physical Planning School of Planning and Architecture, New DelhiDate: 12 July, 2012 vi
  • 8. School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi (Deemed to be a University) CERTIFICATEThis is to certify that the Thesis titled “Participatory Planning in Practice- A Case ofDelhi” has been submitted by ShashikantNishantSharma in partial fulfillment of therequirements for the award of the degree of Bachelor of Planning.RECOMMENDED BY: ACCEPTED BY:(Research Supervisor)Dr.PoonamPrakash Dr.MayankMathurAssociate Processor and Thesis Coordinator Head of DepartmentDepartment of Physical Planning Department of Physical PlanningSchool of Planning and Architecture School of Planning and ArchitectureNew Delhi New Delhi vii
  • 9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis thesis would not have been possible without the constant interactive supportsystem forged with many people. In giving shape to the abstract ideas a form andpresenting it into writing needs a lot of interactions, deliberations and discussions withmany of the experts of the field and one who can genuinely help in streamlining theideas. I express my sincere thanks and deep gratitude to Dr.PoonamPrakash, my thesisguide andthesis coordinator and co-guide MsMonaChhabraAnand for their timely andvaluable suggestions and guidance in streamlining my thesis in right direction from theinception to the finalization.I express my sincere thanks to Dr.AshokKumar, Dr.MayankMathur(Head of Department,Physical Planning), Dr.RabidyutiBiswas and MsTaruJain for untiring efforts in givingfeedbacks and comments, criticisms and suggestions at each and every stages of thethesis which made my work and efforts worthwhile.I am thankful to the officials of Urban Development Department of the GNCTD(Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi) specially Sri P. Minj, (ProjectOfficer of BSUP, Slums Housing, DUSIB);Sh. H.K. Bharti(Deputy Director, Master PlanDivision) Delhi Development Authority;Sri Kamal (ATP) Municipal Corporation of Delhiand various consultants (Sh. SandeepTyagi, JamiaMiliaIslamia; Dr. MayankMathur,SPA; Sh. Prakash Narayan and ShSumanJha, Association of Municipalities andDevelopment Authorities) engaged in the preparation of Local Area Plans in Delhi.I express my thanks to my batch mates and family for their direct and indirect supportand cooperation at the crucial juncture of academic life. I extend my special thanks toBhavyaPasricha for helping in background study stuff,SakshiSedha for constantlyinteracting on the various aspects of the study and report during classes and ImranBashaSoudagar A.K for boosting morale.The constraint of space prohibits from mentioning the name and designations of all whohelped in one way or the other and hence they are sincerely acknowledged. (ShashikantNishantSharma) viii
  • 10. ABSTRACTParticipatory planning is very sought after concept in the domain of planning in currentpractices. Delhi is a very progressive city and the city planners and administrators arevery active in adopting and implementing current best practices across the world. Thereare many practices in Delhi which is seen as a good example of participatory planningand the concerns arises when we want to replicate in other cities and towns then itbecomes imperative to look in detail the process and their allied pros and cons so that amore effective model can be adapted and adopted for implementation. For Delhi alsowe are in the process of preparation of „Local Area Plan‟ an initiative of MunicipalCorporation of Delhi to realize the provisions of Master Plan for a planned developmenttaking into account the existing ground realities. The thesis cum research project will beof great help in looking at the shortcomings of the participatory planning process andthe recommendations can give us an opportunity to strengthen the scope andeffectiveness of public participation in planning at local level. The author thinks that hisresearch work will be of some help in devising more efficient mechanism for publicparticipation and demand responsive planning by the local body of the national capital.The need of the study has arisen due to the combined effect of various factors like lackof awareness and understanding of the concept and applicability of the participatoryplanning processes. Sometimes it is called is of ad hoc nature in the practice ofparticipation that is taking place in the current scenario where people are awakening tothe need and demand for more participatory planning approach. Case studies ofdifferent practices in Participatory Planning arena viz. decentralized planning in Kerala,National Policy for Urban Street Vendors and Bhagidari Scheme of Government of Delhihas showcased how the plan or scheme has been able to deliver or fail. Further, theauthor has developed a framework for analysis that will helps in judiciously consideringthe case of Participatory Planning in Delhi.The detailed analysis of the Participatory Planning mechanism used in the cases ofMaster Plan, City Development Plan and Local Area Plan preparation in Delhi gives thepros and cons of public participation and the loopholes in the planning processes. Here,author feels he will be in a position to understand the virtues and shortcomings of thedifferent participatory practices and how they can be beneficially adopted and adaptedfor the preparation of Local Area Plan in a more effective participatory manner.Finally, author tries to evolve a realistic and implementable framework for effectivepublic participation in Local Area Planning which is undergoing its final stages. Hisinteractions with many consultants and planners engaged in this project can also be putforward for better comprehensibility and feasibility of the framework. ix
  • 11. . . . . , ,, . x
  • 12. Dedication“This thesis is dedicated to my teachers and motivators who didn‟t accompany but their thoughts will always guide in my future endevours.” “Think Global, Plan Local, Be Rational in Outlook and Approach” xi
  • 13. xii
  • 14. CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTIONDelhi is a large city-state with area of 1483 sq km and a population of 16.7 millionwheremore than two third of its area as urban. Rest of the area is fast urbanizing.For a citylike this the planning process is challenging and magnitude of problems is enormous. Itshould be noted that Municipal Corporation of Delhi initiated projects of preparation of„Local Area Plan‟ for 36 wards through various planning consultants to address planningissues and problems on identifying the ground realities.Development in Delhi is guidedby the Master Plan 2021 and various Zonal Development Plans. The increase in urbanpopulation as a whole and increased migration to Delhi has led to a number of planningand development issues as land are a scarce resource in Delhi bounded by other stateshaving their own development controls and guidelines. In order to counter the ill-effectsof urban problem diagnosis and rational planning model, the planners and policymakers of Delhi started to engage public in various states of planning and planimplementation in various forms and degrees. The engagement of public in planninghas stated long back in 1962 when the first Master Plan for Delhi was prepared. Evenafter 50 years of planning for people the planners and policy makers thought forevolving planning with people approach in planning and this culminated in Delhi in theform of concept of Local Area Plan. In 2005, pilot project for the preparation of LocalArea Plan got initiated and got completed and the result was not satisfactory and againin 2010 pilot project for the preparation of Local Area Plan started and by 2012 it gotcompleted. It should be noted that Delhi is one of the Indian city to have a Master Planand Zonal Plans for guiding and controlling the urban growth and development. Theneed of the people and demand for the development goes hand in hand and this lead to 1
  • 15. the participation of the public in the plan making process so as to entertain theirgrievances and make them partner in the development.Public participation can be materialized only when the public is capable enough toexpress his views and empowered to participate in the working of the local governanceand this was envisaged by the policy planners long ago. In this direction, the enactmentof 73rd and 74th amendment to the Constitution is noteworthy. The amendments weremade to ensure decentralization of planning, planning at local level initiated to empowerlocal people to take action and participate in various stages of plan preparation and planimplementation. This very act led to the planning and development by local bodies bythemselves.Planning at lower level cannot be comprehensible before knowing about thedecentralization. Decentralization can be perceived as a process of devolution of power,responsibilities, functions and finances to the local bodies. The primary objective ofdecentralization programs is to improve resource allocation and service delivery bybringing decision making process closer to the citizens. Participatory planning is part ofthe decentralisation process and it aims to identify the critical problems, joint priorities,and adoption of various socio‐economic development strategies for the developmentand welfare of the community. As stated by Olthelen (1999), participatory planning isthe initial step in the definition of a common agenda for development by a localcommunity and an external entity or entities. Over the period, this initial step is expectedto evolve for the parties concerned towards a self‐sustaining development planningprocess at the local level. The great authors have presented their views on the need forgreater public participation and the nature of such participation for optimal utilization ofthe aspirations and the expertise of the local people for whom planning is being carriedon. 2
  • 16. Arnstein often quoted article “Ladders of Citizen Participation” that “the idea of citizenparticipation is like eating spinach: no one is against it as it is good for you”. Butquestion arises whether citizen participation is serving some purpose or it is just forcustom in planning exercise. There is considerable confusion about what looks like inpractice, and little consensus about what exactly citizen participation is supposed to beaccomplish (Day, 1997). Kweit and Kweit (1981) assert this confusion is mirrored in theattempts empirically evaluate citizen participation programs. Furthermore, Catanese(1984) states that the problem with the public participation is that, it is difficult to knowhow to carry it out effectively because there are no specific goals. But I will take publicparticipation in one field say Urban Planning they it might be somewhat easy to devisesome mechanism for assessing the public participation.Participatory planning involves conducting planning with the involvement of a number ofpeople. These people can be a whole range of different stakeholders, and it obviouslydepends on the nature of the thing we are trying to develop or refine, and the context asto who should be involved. The role of the consultant in this process is that of facilitatorand coach.There is a general consensus for increasing public participation in theprocess of planning and development and this has been substantiated time and againby a number of national and international policy making bodies. In this regards we cansee the provisions of the Indian Constitution and United Nations sponsored MillenniumDevelopment Goals.Citizen participation is a part of our constitutional provisions and democratic heritage.People should share in decisions affecting their destinies. People participation, involvingthe constituents in the politico-administrative and planning processes, means theirneeds and aspirations are heard and mainstreamed in the development agenda.Empowerment of citizens and their involvement in the decision-making processes, from 3
  • 17. central to local level, is regarded as vital for supporting pro-poor policies, improvedservice delivery, poverty reduction, and the attainment of the Millennium DevelopmentGoals (MDGs).The participatory role of civil society groups with government and planning agencies hasevolved over recent years. Citizens groups, Community based organizations (CBOs)and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have become active participants innational and local development planning activities and the implementation, monitoringand evaluation of policies, programs, and projects. People participation should starts atthe grassroots level and should work in harmony for fostering needs-based localplanning activities.1.1 NEED FOR STUDYThere has been increasing demand and need for greater public participation in planningprocesses as discussed in the introduction i.e., devolution of power and finance to localbodies. Delhi Development Authority Act also emphasizes the need for greater publicparticipation. The civil society is getting active and people are willing to participate in theplanning process. The problem arises when we try to implement the public participationin the planning process. The limited understanding of the scope and viability of thepublic participation in the government officials hinders the smooth execution of theparticipatory planning.The current practices of public participation seem more or less customary or ad hoc innature. Public participation seems to be done to fulfill the bare requirement of the planand it is not used and implemented in true spirit of term. There seems to be someresistance by official for sharing information and power of planning with the generalpublic. 4
  • 18. Now that planning and development is mostly done by a more democratic body like themunicipal corporation, the expectation for greater public engagement has raised. Theoutcome of democratic process at the various levels has made the general public awareof their rights and duties and they want to be a part of the development process which isevident from the greater turn out of citizen for voting and filing objections/suggestionagainst the development which they think is not conducive to them or the environment.The need of time and public must be taken into account for effective planning anddevelopment.1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDYLocal Area Plan is a project first time undertaken by a big Urban Municipal Corporationlike Delhi and its success and failure will be reflected in many ways. This will set anexample for other local bodies to initiate the local level planning. The public participationand involvement in the plan preparation becomes crucial to understand. The objectivesof the study are as follows: To understand the operationalization of Participatory planning. To assess current status of participatory planning in Delhi To identify issues related to participatory planning in context of Local Area Plan Preparation in Delhi To suggest the recommendations to enhance the effectiveness of Local AreaPlanning. 5
  • 19. 1.3 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONSThe scope would include studying the concept of participatory planning and its process.Study of the concept of participatory planning and participatory frameworks forassessing the public participation will be undertaken. Its applicability in our Local AreaPlan preparation is another thrust of the research. The general perception that publicparticipation is not up to mark, in the Local Area Plan preparation going on in Delhi, willalso be assessed. The research will finally come out with some concrete framework foreffective public participation in the planning process for LAP.This is an academic study and there is natural constraint of time and resources. Theconcepts studied are from western countries and case studies are from India thus, thereis natural variation in their applicability. The study is limited to case studies of urbanareas of Delhi. The data analyzed are mostly from secondary sources. Local Area PlanPreparation in still going on and thus limits its study in terms of outcome and influencesof participation.1.4 METHODOLOGYFor the research on the above mentioned topic, more or less the prevalent process willbe adopted. The entire study is divided into four stages. The first stage comprisesofestablishment of need of study and development of objectives. In this stage,literatureis studied to understand the concept of participatory planning- its need anditsprocesses. Some case studies are looked at for their participation process,structureresponsible for participation and factors responsible for participation. Thisliteraturereview fulfills the first objective. 6
  • 20. Second stage is an extended literature search. In this stage, various models tomeasureparticipation are looked at and a model to measure participation in the study is devisedthus fulfilling the second objective.In the third stage, a case study is chosen to apply the model devised in the earlierstage. Data from various sources and interactions with people and agencies involved inplan preparation various processes.Final stage gives recommendations for achieving effective participation in local-levelplanning based on the issues arising in the previous stage.Figure 1-1 A schematic diagram of the methodology is given belowSource: Author, 2012 7
  • 21. CHAPTER 2 UNDERSTANDING PARTICIPATORY PLANNING2.1 CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMSHere, it becomes imperative to clearly understand the different terms used to indicatesome form of participation of the public and their differences so as to use them in aproper context wherever it is used. The following paragraphs attempts to distinguishbetween commonly used terms in order to arrive at the appropriate term for the purposeof the study of participatory planning process in plan making.Public participation may be defined as "It is distribution of powers which enables thehave-not citizens presently excluded from political and economic processes to bedeliberately included in the future. It is a strategy by which the have-nots join indetermining how information is shared, goals and policies are set, tax resources areallocated, programs are operated and benefits like contracts and patronage areparceled out. In short, it means by which they can induce significant social reformswhich enables them share the benefits of the affluent society" (Arnstein, 1969). Here theauthor has stressed on the redistribution of power as participation enabling process.Now let‟s see some more definitions by some other authors and agencies."Participation is an active process by which beneficiary/ client group influence thedirection, execution of a developmental project in a view of enhancing their well-being interms of income, personal growth, self-reliance or any other value they cherish" (WorldBank, 1987). Here, participation leads to influencing the decision making process.“Empowering people to mobilize their own capacities, be social actors rather thanpassive subjects, manage the resources, make decisions and control the acts that affect 8
  • 22. their lives. It involves people directly and actively in all stages of the management anddecision-making process” (Uganda Project Team, 2007). Here, empowerment of thepublic is sought after for making public efficient in taking decision and controlling theacts that affect them more often directly.“Participation is the process through which stakeholders influence and share controlover priority setting, policy-making, resource allocations and access to public goods andservices” (World Bank, 2000). Here, participation means taking a shared responsibilityfor controlling and influencing policy making which leads to proper resource allocationand access to serves.“Participation is a voluntary act that occurs when people become conscious of the valueof participatory action and deem it desirable to become involved in the different activitiesundertaken in participatory project or initiative” (Wiesenfeld and Sanchez, 2002). Here,authors feel that participation is a voluntary action and depends on them to decide towhat extent they should participate in the development initiatives.The term community participation had been in use for a long time and this refers to alimited number of participants ensuring efficiency of participation. Here, we will explorethe views of some of the authors and World Bank on the term community participation."Community participation as the process by which individuals, families and communitiesassume responsibility for their own welfare and develop capacity to contribute to theirown and communitys development" (Oakley and Marsden, 1984). Here, differentindividuals or groups on their own resume responsibility for the development of capacityand finally contributing to the development of the community as a whole. 9
  • 23. “Community participation is a process through which community groups help advancetheir interests and the greater opportunity for it the greater the chance of makingimprovements in living condition” (Sandhu, 2005). Here, the author talks of a practicalapproach to the development initiated and advanced by the community themselves.“Community participation is a process through which stakeholder‟s influence and sharecontrol over development initiatives and the decisions and resources which affect them”(World Bank, 2000). World banks talks of the sharing of the control over thedevelopment initiatives and decision making by the way of the involvement of thestakeholders.Participatory planning has been in practice for a long time in the field of the urbanplanning. There have been a number of interpretations of the same term by differentauthors and organization/authorities involved in policy framing. Here, we will explore thedifferent connotations of the term participatory planning as professed by variousauthors."Participatory planning is a set of processes through which diverse groups and interestsengage together in reaching for a consensus on a plan and its implementation" (RTPI,2001).The Royal Town Planning Institute of London sees participatory planning a set ofprocesses for consensus building.Collaborative planning is a method designed to empower stakeholders by elevatingthem to the level of decision-makers through direct engagement and dialogue betweenstakeholders and public agencies, to solicit ideas, active involvement, and participationin the community planning process (Innes, Judith, Booher and David, 2000). Modifiedform of the participatory planning is collaborative planning and it stresses on theengagement of various stakeholders for reaching atconsensus. 10
  • 24. "Participatory planning is the initial step in the definition of a common agenda fordevelopment by a local community and an external entity or entities" (Olthelen, 1999).Inthe article on Participatory Approaches to planning for Community Forestry, authordefines participatory planning as initial steps for deciding common agenda for thedevelopment.“Participatory Planning depends not on some virtuous „good planners‟ but on struggleand hard work, insight and imagination, moral sensitivity and political perception too”(John Forester, 1999). Here, authors feel that there is something more than the thinkingof virtuous planners which leads to the practice of participatory planning.Participatory planning can be defined as joint actions of local people and professionalswith the objective of formulating development plans and selecting the best availablealternatives for their implementation of the plan for the development of the communityand society at large.Participation of the citizen is enabled by the social and political system of the countryand the local bodies which are primary players of the game of the development. In thisregards the concept of the local self-governance becomes a ray of hope.“Local self-government is essentially the empowerment of the people by giving them notonly the voice, but the power of choice as well, in order to shape the development theyfeel is appropriate to their situation. It implies maximum decentralization of powers tothe elected bodies to function as autonomous units with adequate power, authority andresources to discharge the basic responsibility of bringing about „economic developmentand social justice”(Sen Committee, 2001).In 2007, the term Local Area Plans was included in the MPD – 2021 stating it as a planfor ward/sub-zone. Zonal Plans also stated in their preamble that indication of uses 11
  • 25. other than residential and facility corridor shall be undertaken at the stage of Local AreaPlans."Local Area Planning is … for addressing the unplanned and illegal urban development… By combining neighbourhood-level data with stakeholder participation … to reformDelhi‟s entire building byelaw system including procedural, planning and buildingperformance components” (USAID, 2009).“Local area plan is by definition a plan based on the local needs and characteristics.Thus, it requires framing area specific objectives” (MCD, 2005)."Local area plan means the plan of a ward/sub-zone to be prepared by the concernedbody” (Review of Draft MPD, 2007)."Local area plan means the plan of a ward/sub-zone of existing built up areas whereredevelopment/ renewal/ rejuvenation etc. are to be done with public participation toachieve the ultimate goal of planned development at the macro level” (DDA, 2008).From the above definitions of the local area plan it becomes clear that it is a local levelplanning by local urban bodies in a participatory manner. It has always been theresponsibility of top managers who prepare project proposals and plan interventions tothe stage of implementation, without consulting those whose very lives are to beaffected by such projects. As a result, such plans are usually considereddonor/government driven and hence the intended beneficiaries do not take fullresponsibility for the process and outcome. The communities do not feel part of theprocess, which leads to limited sustainability after the expiry of such projects orinterventions. 12
  • 26. “The bottom-up planning process involves extensive opportunities for communityparticipation, surveys, focus group convened at neighbourhood level, active interest ofcity‟s youth, public hearings and public awareness campaign” (Wheler and Beatley,2004). Bottom up planning is a methodology that seeks to involve communities in theplanning process right from the inception of the project idea, risk assessment, andthrough proposal development to project implementation.Strategic planning is long termplanning. Closely related to the overall goals of the response and focusing on policypriorities. This concept of planning, given the fact that resources are scarce, requiresthat its priorities and objectives yield maximum benefit and impact.It is assumed that citizen participation is a desired and necessary part of participatoryplanning mechanism. As Spiegel (1968) noted, "Citizen Participation is the process thatcan meaningfully tie programs to people.”In time, many of the urban settlements beganto grow and expand, both numerically and economically. This made it increasinglydifficult for every citizen to actively participate in all community decisions. To fill this voidin the decision making process, people began to delegate their involvement to arepresentative, either directly or through a community group. Examples of thisdelegation were seen in the establishment of our system of selecting officials by publicelections, and the increase of volunteer associations and organizations. In spite of thefact that direct citizen participation has declined, ample opportunities for citizens to getinvolved in their communitys destiny. Let‟s understand: a) The importance of participation. b) The conditions under which citizens will participate c) The approaches to involving citizens in community improvement programs and projects. 13
  • 27. Citizen participation can be viewed from the perspective of benefits to be gained andcosts to be borne. Some of the benefits that participation can provide are as follows: a. The citizen can bring about desired change by expressing ones desire, either individually or through a community group. b. The individual learns how to make desired changes. c. The citizen learns to understand and appreciate the individual needs and interests of all community groups. d. The citizen learns how to resolve conflicting interests for the general welfare of the group. e. The individual begins to understand group dynamics as it applies to mixed groups.Additional reasons could be cited to emphasize why citizens should participate incommunity decisions. However, the case is rested with these. In summary, decisionmaking that is delegated by others will not always be in the best interest of an individualand his or her neighbors. Community betterment is a product of citizen involvement.2.2 BENEFITS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATIONThe benefits of public participation are many and it is not easy to categorise them. It isimportant to note that public participation suggests direct involvement of the public andtakes place, preferably, in an open discussion with decision makers. The author hastried to categorise some of the important benefits of public participation under variousthemes development, management, conflict resolution etc. after studying extensively.Ingeneral, a number of benefits can be listed which are given below for easyunderstandability of the pervasive impact of public participation in the plan making andplan implementation processes. According to an online source on public participation 14
  • 28. (http://www.biodiversity.ru/coastlearn/pp-eng/benefits.html), the following are the mainbenefits that public participation can help in achieving if conducted in an effectivemanner.Sustainable DevelopmentThe Aarhus Convention (under United Nations Economic Commission for Europe)grants the public rights and imposes on Parties and public authorities obligationsregarding access to information and public participation and access to justice(http://www.biodiversity.ru/coastlearn/pp-eng/boxes/sustainability.html).Sustainable development can be achieved only through the involvement of allstakeholders in an effective manner. Ultimately the users have a greater say in thedevelopment than a policy framer.Environmental ProtectionPrinciple 10 of the RIO DECLARATION recommended public participation to handleenvironmental issues:“Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens,on a relevant level. On a national level, each individual should have appropriate accessto information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, includinginformation on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and theopportunity to participate in decision making processes. States should facilitate andencourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available.Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress andremedy, should be provided” (UNESCO, 1992). 15
  • 29. Environmental issues can be addressed when valued by the public. It is important that aparty represents the interest of the environment in the public debate.Conflict ManagementAlthough conflicts cannot be avoided, they are made explicit in the public participationdebate and resolved through the process of dialogue and consultation with groups withconflicting interests.The statement of the World Bank Technical Paper 139-Environmental Assessment Sourcebook, are given below:"The purpose of taking the views of effected people into account is to improve projectviability. The Bank has found that where such views have been incorporated in thedesign, the projects are more likely to be successful. The Bank has not foundcommunity participation to be an impediment to project execution. On the contrary,projects in which effected peoples views have been excluded, suffers from morefrequent delays and poorer quality" (World Bank, 1992).Project Understanding and Reduction of Public OppositionThe better understanding of the benefits of the project can surely minimize theopposition by the local people. Very often the policy making and planning is done byexpert outside the local community which is a source of distrust and to overcome this,there is need for public consultation.“Public consultation, participation and involvement in the early stages of the project canprevent the dissemination of rumours and the rise of negative perceptions which arevery difficult to change once they take root” ((http://www.biodiversity.ru/coastlearn/pp-eng/boxes/sustainability.html). 16
  • 30. Social, Environmental and Economic BenefitsIf the public is involved in the full decision making process, their concerns may be metearly on in the planning process when changes may be easier to make, rather than latein the process when even small changes may cost both time and money. This ispossible in a participatory planning making process. Local people need to be madeaware of the economic, social and environmental benefits of the project or programme.Effective Use of the Available DataAccording to Budd (1999), public participation and consultation is an opportunity tosolicit the "hidden" knowledge of the wider community and their key concerns. This ispossible in an environment of public participation and consultation in plan makingprocess. Local people are more aware about the planning and development issues andthey might have some form of indigenous problem solving skills which can be betterharnessed in a participatory planning process.Other BenefitsEffective community consultation, early on in the project cycle, creates ownership(shared responsibility, involvement) for the project. It provides the opportunity toaccurately convey the implications of a proposal to all interested parties, thus enhancingpolitical credibility. Additionally, it is a mean to ensure full mitigation of significantimpacts, including due consideration of possible alternatives (Budd, 1999).Acceptance of the public as a valued partner in the participatory process can inspire theco-operation between citizens, their government, and industries that is crucial to thesuccess of planning. The benefits of public participation are both for short term and longterm planning and development. Skill learnt in one programme or project can be utilizedin other developmental works either initiated by the government or themselves. 17
  • 31. 2.3 PURPOSE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATIONKurian Thomas and RamkumarBendapudi in their paper on participatory planning hassummarized the purpose of participatory planning as follow:(1) Identification of the felt needs of the people(2) Bringing forth consensus(3) The empowerment of local disadvantaged groups(4) Integration of local knowledge systems into project design(5) Two‐way learning process between the project and local people(6) Political commitment and support(7) Accountability in local governancePublic participation serves various purposes in planning and coordination the combinedefforts of a number of stakeholders. It plays an important role in increasing awarenessand mutual recognition of interests of different stakeholders and reaching at consensusafter meetings and deliberations. It further helps in gathering information and enhancingknowledge base of the community and experts. It has been found that increased publicparticipation leads to improvedprovision of goods and services to the community. Itstimulates involvement in decision making and in implementation processes of variousplans and projects. It leads to enhanced acceptance of policies, plans and operationsundertaken by experts and planners. It enhances the transparency and accountability indecision making process which used to be solely in the hand of experts. Participationhelps in better identification and management of conflicts and resolution of issues andproblems in a fair and equitable manner. Increased participation of the citizens 18
  • 32. broadens the scope for consideration and verification of planning and projectdocuments thus, ensuring a social auditing of the development projects. Participation ofthe public serves a noble goal of education public about the development and makingthem capable to participate general in planning processes and further strengthening theroots of democratic values in the general public. Public participation can ensure legalprotection for the experts from the government if it violates some planning provisionsand serves the greater interest of the public. The most important purpose that theparticipation of the public serves is that it ensures greater acceptance of planningprojects and ease of their implementation.The nature and purposes of public participation cannot be wholly disregarded, however,even when thinking more about methodology and mechanics than about its politicalsignificance, because the purpose of public participation has a direct influence on itspractice (Acland, 2009).2.4 THE NATURE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATIONPublic participation has diverse nature and the diversity of its nature and interpretabilityhas made it popular for the policy planners and authors alike. Public participation is aninclusive rather than exclusive process as more and more stakeholders are involvedwhere only a few planners used to make plan for the multitude of population.Moreover, a number of studies have determined that the majority of those who chooseto attend hearings actually represent organized interests with significant economicstakes in the outcome (Fiorino, 1990). Although public participation is voluntary butoften is guided by the motives of the interest groups except where a legal requirementspecifies otherwise for the initiation of the process and to the implementation.It may be 19
  • 33. a complement to legal requirements, but cannot conflict with legal provisions in force, inparticular with ownership and user rights.As Kenney (1999:498) expresses: “While local governments and stakeholders are oftentangentially involved in these programs through mandatory public participationprocesses, many of the most salient regulatory programs channel decisions almostexclusively through federal agencies and, eventually, through federal courts where theinfluence of national interest groups is paramount.”It is fair and transparent to all participants and follows agreed basic rules applicable toall. It is based on participants acting in good faith for the betterment of the community atlarge. It does not guarantee or predetermine what the outcome will be as it involves agreat degree of consensus building and persuasion to common agenda.Afterunderstanding the nature and forms of the public participation, now let‟s look at thebasic benefits associated with public participation process and exercise.2.5 PRINCIPLES FOR PARTICIPATORY PLANNINGThe principle underlying participatory planning has been explored over time and here,we will discuss them in brief. According to the Parish/Ward Planning Manual of Ugandathe key principles that this approach to participatory bottom-up planning are based oninclude:a) Inclusion of poor people and other vulnerable groups in the planning process andpromote gender equityb) Plans need to be realistic and the planning process must be for projects which can beimplemented using available resourcesc) Planning should not be a one-off exercise, but a continuous process 20
  • 34. d) Plans should be people focused and empoweringe) Planning should start from vision and strength /opportunities not problemsf) Plans should be comprehensive covering all sectors (holistic) and integratedg) Planning should promote mutual accountability between community and publicofficersh) Plans should be flexible, simple and learning orientedi) The scheduling of planning activities at the lower local council levels should put intoconsideration the recommended timeframe of the overall planning.The key principles that this approach to participatory bottom-up planning are based oninclusion of poor people and other vulnerable groups in the planning process andpromote gender equity in sharing of the benefits of planning and development. Plansneed to be realistic for involving public and the planning process must be for projectswhich can be implemented using available resources and augmented by the localexpertise. Planning is a continuous process and thus for a fruitful result participationstarts. Participation of public will be greater if the plans are people focused andempowering in nature. Planning starts from vision and strength /opportunities of an areaand them it tries to sort out the threats and weaknesses through the use of expertiseand participation of the users. Plans that are comprehensive covering all sectors andintegrated entails more public participation as people view this as an opportunity fortheir redemption. Planning which promote mutual accountability between communityand public officers leads to increased participation of the stakeholders. Publicparticipation is feasible where plans are flexible, simple and learning oriented. Thescheduling of planning activities at the lower local levels should put into consideration 21
  • 35. the recommended timeframe of the overall master planning for the town. Afterunderstanding the principle underlying the public participation, it would be fruitful to seehow planners and policy makers have used public participation in different forms likeplanning with people approach.2.6 RATIONALE FOR PARTICIPATORY PLANNINGCitizen participation is widely viewed as a key component in the planning process, and,for the most part, planners accept the notion that participation is important to producingenduring plans. Almost, all people agree that public participation is good but to whatextent and how we can ensure that the participation taking place should be in good faithof the people and this very responsibility lies on the shoulders of a competent planner.Participation mandates created and proposed by a competent planner and policy makerdo affect local government attention to citizen involvement. Administrators needguidance for crafting citizen involvement requirements that will result in broad publicparticipation in planning. Over time, the planners also stressed the need for betterrepresentation of the interests of disadvantaged and powerless groups in governmentaldecision making. As stated by Diane Day (1997) collective decisions are more easilyaccepted by the individuals, and a sense of belonging in the community will be fostered.Burke (1968) asserts that citizen participants are sources of information and collectivewisdom, the probability of public interests being served is achieved through publicparticipation.“The act of participation is held to be a form of citizen training, in which citizens workingtogether to solve community problems not only learn how democracy works but alsolearn to value and appreciate cooperation as a problem solving methods” (Burke, 1968). 22
  • 36. “It is much easier to change the behaviour of individuals when they are members of agroup than to change any one of them separately. Secondly, individuals and groupsresist decisions which are imposed upon them. They are more likely to support adecision and, equally important, more likely to assist in carrying it out if they have had apart in discovering the need for change and if they share in decision making process”(Burke, 1968). Thus, public participation can act as a behavioral change mechanism forinclusion of public in decision making.Public participation can be an effective tool in supplementing the workforce in planmaking and plan implementation process. There are many experts in an area and theirknowledge and energy can be tapped efficiently if public involvement is carried outrationally and judiciously.Cooption as a technique in public participation will help in harnessing the existing citizengroups for sanctioning the planning goals and objectives through absorbing newelement or potential obstructions in decision making process.It can be seen that many strategy for public participation can be tried to ensure effectiveand increased participation. There might be a need for adapting the various prevalentstrategies according to the demand of the situation or the working environment.Some of the benefits of the public participation can be enumerated as follows: a. It can enhance the quality of planning by creating processes that are more democratic and equitable. The poor often have little, if any, voice in government decisions. Consultation and dialogue between local government and interest groups representing the poor can give the latter more voice and influence over decisions. 23
  • 37. b. Participatory planning encourages the poor to be more responsible for, involved in and aware of their role in local governance. It can help reduce potential conflict and build local people‟s feeling of ownership in the government‟s plan. c. Participatory planning can result in programmes that are better and more efficient. By consulting the poor and giving voice to their concerns and needs, the resulting actions are more likely to be relevant and appropriate to the conditions they face. For instance, simply consulting people about their daily schedules can help government provide services at times when people are likely to make best use of them. d. Participatory planning can increase the transparency of governmental decision making. This allows citizens to understand how and why the local government is making certain decisions. It is also a way of holding government members accountable for what they planned to do. It can improve mutual understanding and trust between the poor and local government. e. User involvement raises awareness and is particularly important to enable an “informed choice”, and for the proper operation of on-site systems, as neglecting their needs and preferences can result in the non-use of the system with users reverting to open defecation. f. Working with a participatory planning approach improves motivation, learning and self-realization, feelings of ownership and self-esteem, and the possibility that the identified problems and solutions will truly reflect the felt needs of the stakeholders.Citizens can be used as instrument for the attainment of specific end of developmentand in other we can say that public participation can be an strategy for mobilizing thegovernment in framing or sanctioning development projects. Sometimes, public 24
  • 38. participation can be used as instrument for stability, educational tool for changing andmodulating attitude, supplementing staff, cooperation for development.After having gone through the various benefits and the rationale for enhanced publicparticipation in planning process, it will be wise to study some of the negative aspects ofthe participatory planning process from the next section.2.7 NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF PARTICIPATORY PLANNINGEven those who are most sympathetic towards participatory planning have pointed outsome shortcomings of the process. High degree of citizen mobilization will heightenpolitical conflicts rather than consensus (Grant, 1994).As stated by Day (1997) there is the problem that the outcomes of participatoryprocesses will not truly reflect the aggregate of citizen preferences as few people takethe advantages of the opportunities for participation that do exist. Also Grant (1994)explains that participation is a luxury in modern societies because it requires skills,resources, money and, time that many citizen do not have. People tend to becomeinvolved in planning issues only when they perceive that the issue is in their immediateand tangible interest (Cataneseet al, 1984). Sometimes, objectives of participation arethose of experts and being possessive of their ideas often planners and policy makersare unwilling to admit nonprofessional interference in decision making.Some of theshortcomings of the participatory planning can be enlisted as follows: a. The participative approach has not been yet validated in real case studies, therefore its actual application is still unknown b. To start each of the steps, a set of technical and non-technical requirements need to be met, which in many cases might not be in the hands of the planner 25
  • 39. and the sanitation team. This situation could discourage the team, and the process could be stopped c. In order to carry out such a process, it is necessary to train the community workers in participatory techniques d. To carry out a participatory decision making process, it is necessary to continuously involve the stakeholders and organize meetings for discussion. This will need the availability of sufficient funds and time e. There is the risk of concentrating the decision making process only on those stakeholders who have a technical background (such as sanitation experts) and the authorities, leaving the end users out of the processThus, we can see that participatory process is not a fool proof mechanism for planning.It can be seen that the need of public participation arises due to two main reasons so faras I can perceive and they are either the plan/planning is inadequate to serve thepurpose of the general public or we want to share responsibility or to counter thebureaucracy and political stalemate. This also reflects that planners‟ expertise in interestarticulations fails and then the need for greater participation arises. In society, thereexist far greater differences than assumed equality of resources, access to information,capacity to articulate and present issues, capacity to organize into groups that forms theconceptual foundation upon which participatory methods and processes are built(Beatley, 1994 et al). Participation is often skewed in the interest of the influentialclasses or some powerful groups active in decision making. If few groups participatethen it is sure to get skewed plans and if many groups participate then it becomeunmanageable and sometimes it take a lot of time in arriving at consensus or commonagenda. 26
  • 40. 2.8 PARTICIPATORY PLANNING APPROACHESParticipatory planning processes can have many goals with a variety of communicationmodes, as well as the decision- making actions taken by stakeholders during such aprocess. Parties involved in a planning process have their own goals based on political,cultural and economic factors that are relevant for them. The overall challenge is todefine how to support these processes. One approach to tackle this challenge is tomake a careful definition of the needs of the intended audience. These needs can beroughly divided into three main orientations that are described below (Geertman, 1996,Wachowicz, 2002).Decision-Oriented ApproachThe central paradigm in this approach is that planning is a process of choice in asituation of uncertainty. This uncertainty is present in the knowledge of the planningenvironment. In this case, one is not sure about the physical and socio-economicstructure of the environment and its response upon the actions of actors. The goal ofplanning is mainly to inform actors about future decision- making and make futureoperational decisions interpretableAction-Oriented ApproachIn this approach, planning is defined as the result of actions between actors, which arepart of the socio-spatial system. Their actions need to be compliant to and embedded inthe society. Decisions are based upon interactions among actors. This means that thefocus of planning is not per se on a critical evaluation of the spatial organization itself,but on the analysis of the intentional actions and knowledge of the actors involved inplanning. 27
  • 41. Search-Oriented ApproachThe aim of planning as search for direction is not directly to prepare for an operationaldecision given a well-defined problem, but to reveal alternatives and new solutionsoutside the direct scope of the observed problems. It is meant for actors to learn andbecome wiser (Kleefmann, 1984).2.9 TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES OF PARTICIPATIONThe following paragraphs will discuss some of the prevalent tools and techniques usedin the participatory planning process being undertaken by various authorities across theworld. Public participation has a vast theoretical and practical tools and techniques.Let‟s look at some of the tools and techniques for public participation discussed in thedocument of (European Union Water Directors‟ Meeting, 2002).Citizens Jury/ Citizen Advisory CommitteeGroup of 12-20 randomly selected citizens, gathered in such a way as to represent amicrocosm of their community, who meet over several days to deliberate on a policyquestions. They are informed about the issue, hear evidence from witnesses and cross-examine them. They then discuss the matter amongst themselves and reach a decisionthrough consensus.Strengths of this technique are many It creates informed, active, engaged citizenry andpromotes common good as a societal objective. It promotes self-transformation anddevelopment and provides opportunities to introduce new perspectives and challengeexisting ones. It helps in consensus building and promotes communication betweengovernments and governed. It also brings legitimacy and democratic control to non-elected public bodies 28
  • 42. Weaknesses of the technique are fewer than benefits. There is no formal powers; lackof binding decision accountability to act upon decision /recommendation. It is exclusive -only a few individuals participate.Potential problems lie in initial stages of preparation(i.e., jury selection, agenda setting, witness selection) - these have to do withrepresentation (who participates?) responsiveness (what jury is asked to do); andinformation transfer (how jury is informed?)The technique can be recommended for use when sponsoring organization are clearabout what issues it wants to address, how much it can spend on process, and whetherit can follow through on the advice. It is better for focused questions about concreteissues, than on large scale issues and should be part of a wider public involvementstrategy.The development of the agenda should be overseen by an advisory boardmade up of key stakeholdersPlanning Cells/CommitteesThis technique is similar to a citizens‟ jury in form and function. It is sponsored by localor national governing authorities to help with the decision making process.Discussions/deliberation takes place in Cells of about 25 participants in size. Resultsare articulated in a report that is presented to the sponsor, the media, and any otherinterested group. Local/national sponsor has to agree to take decisions intoconsideration.This technique is good for small size of individual cells and its non-intimidating natureallows for innovative ideas and active participation. Participants represent all citizensand not special interest groups. Anyone in the population has a chance of beingselected to be a part of this process. It makes decision makers more accountablebecause they have to defend their position resulting decisions are frequently 29
  • 43. implemented.Weaknesses of the technique are that problems are defined by localauthority and only useful for problems in need of unique decisions. Decisions not alwaysfeasible and it becomes hard to keep bias out of information dissemination process.Itcan be used when other methods fail to resolve a conflict. It is best in situations thatrequire a quick response to an urgent issue where there are a number of possibledecisions that can be made.Workshops and SeminarsThe authority or the consultants invites the stakeholders. Usually 2-6 hour workshop isheld. The authority or the consultants talk about their plans and proposals and seek theopinion of the participants in writing or oral.Strengths of the technique are that it can beused effectively for communicating information about the plans and proposals. It isuseful method for obtaining informed opinions from stakeholders.Weakness of thetechnique is that it is exclusionary process as selected participants are invited for theworkshop or seminar. There is ambiguity in the process of selection of stakeholders andparticipant for the workshop. It is recommended as a tool for encouraging discussionanddeliberation, but needs to be used with much caution because of the problemsassociated with it.Deliberative PollingIt builds on the opinion poll by incorporating element of deliberation. It involves largernumbers than citizen‟s juries and may involve less time. It measures what public wouldthink if it was informed and engaged around an issue.Strength of the Technique is that itprovides insights into public opinions and how people come to decisions. It helps inseeking informed opinions, does not force people to reach consensus.Weakness of theTechnique is that it requires a lot of preparation time.Although sample size is large andrandom, ensuring representativeness is difficult. It is recommended for drawing insight 30
  • 44. into public opinion and helps useful input into public decision processes.Best suited toissues with options and about which the public is not knowledgeable.Citizens PanelsIt consists of statistically representative sample of residents in a given area. Mostcomprise several thousand citizens who represent the general population of an area.Panel views are regularly sought using a survey instrument (e.g. postal, telephonesurveys).It is anexpensive and effective way to learn about citizens‟ needs andpreferences. Panel data can be analyzed for multiple purposes and disaggregated forsub-level analysis (i.e. ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic, geographic area).Weakness ofthe Technique is that there is exclusivity of participant selection process. Consultationagenda determined by decision-making body (i.e. top down) and under-representationof hard-to-reach groups who refuse to participate.Due to the expense as well as thedesign, the panel is best suited for the development of major community wide policydocuments. Limit to new policy areas, where community opinion and policy directionhave yet to be determined and mobilization has not yet occurred.Focus GroupsIt is a onetime discussion of a particular topic. It involves 6-12 individuals selected tomeet specific criteria in order to broadly represent a particular segment of society. One-time face-to-face meeting structured to be informal to encourage open discussionamong participants.Successful focus group may lead to consensus and feelings ofenrichment among participants. It provides good venue for learning about needs of aparticular group. It remains largely informal, so participants can discuss issues inrelaxed atmosphere. It is a good way to gauge the opinions of the public.Lack of 31
  • 45. informed participants produces superficial discussion. Selection criteria can create biasin eliciting opinions. Limited number of participants limits representativeness ofopinions. There is always potential for ideas expressed to be influenced/shaped byinteraction/exchange with others.It can be a tool for encouraging discussion anddeliberation, but needs to be used with much caution because of the problemsassociated with it.SurveysThis is a process of soliciting information from a given representative sample of citizensthrough questionnaires. Same questions are asked of ever individual surveyed. Thereare a variety of survey types: postal, interviewer, telephone.It helps in solicitinginformation from representative sample of citizens. Same questions are asked of everindividual surveyed and thus results represent the ground realities. There are a varietyof survey types: postal, interviewer, telephone.The lists may not be representative orcomprehensive. Questions need to be somewhat simple and straightforward. Surveyresults are often not comparable. The effectiveness of surveys is affected by the ratesof response. Fundamental decisions have to be made before the survey begins whichlimits the scope.As it is a time consuming process, it is not a good method if quickresults are required. It can be used during the beginning phases of a study (useful indetecting issues that need to be addressed).Public HearingsIt is a form of public meeting limited in size. It tends to involve only interested citizensand usually experts.It has great potential to inform citizens and potential for improveddecision making. It helps in minimizing the conflicts.It may be dominated by specialinterest groups and feed-back obtained from this format needs to be treated carefullybecause it may not be representative of the community. It leads to exclude the 32
  • 46. inarticulate and perhaps disadvantaged groups. It is recommended when there is a pre-submission phase which allows the public time to become familiar with the issues. Thisprocess has been used more frequently as the number of the complaints are increasingday by in the public offices for various planning projects. The expert members are betterequipped to handle such hearings.Open HousesThe public is invited to drop by at any time at a set location on a set day(s) and times.They can speak with staff, view the displays set up in the room and break into smalldiscussion groups.The technique provides a relaxed atmosphere for discussion anddebate. It enables staff to tailor responses according to the needs/questions of thepublicThere is potential for lack of clarity in purpose and it is staff-resource intensiveexercise which needs trained facilitators to co-ordination the various conflicting interestgroups and helping them reach for consensus after the deliberations and discussions.Citizen Advisory CommitteeIt can be made up of a variety of different organizations (e.g. from governmental topublic). It is intended to represent the broader public.If committee is balanced,deliberations can be fruitful. Their advice should influence decision making process.Informed citizens can boost trust in institutions and reduce conflict.It may not be arepresentative group of people but comprises of the expert members of the communityand the government agencies undertaking planning process.ReferendaIt is a process wherein an issue is put to popular vote. It can be initiated bygovernmental or other organizations, or sometimes the citizenry. Results may or maynot be considered binding.It incites discussion and interest in public. It is a way to learnpublic views and way to get citizens directly involved with the legislative process. All 33
  • 47. voters have equal influence. It can potentially involve all members of a local or nationalpopulationResults may not be representative if there is low voter turnout Limited numberof times you can use it. It has potential for undue influence if one organization hasgreater resources than another when campaigning for or against a proposedreferendum.Here is the recapitulation of the important points regarding the various tools andtechniques of public participation in the table given below.Table 2-1 Comparative Tables for Various Techniques for ParticipationSource: Compiled from European Union Water Directors‟ Meeting, 2002The above table no. 2.1 gives us some details on the level of participation, their majornature and character of participation process and finally authors has suggested theiruses at various stages of public participation processes like informing, consulting andresolution of the differences i.e. consensus building. The choice of the various tools andtechniques of the public participation depends on various factors like nature of theparticipation, scale of the planning, understanding of the needs, expertise and capacityof the authority and agency undertaking such initiative, provisions of the guidelines andthe willingness of the authority to engage public in what manner. 34
  • 48. In context of urban development, we will use the tools and techniques adopted inMaster Plans and City Development Plans. This will form the basis for our study andfurther adaptation for Local Area plans. Hence, we will discuss the following tools andtechniques will be dealt in greater details in the succeeding chapter. a) Objections and Suggestions b) Stakeholders Participation c) Workshop Based MethodsIt has been a great experience exploring the various terms and definitions related topublic participation and the minor distinction among them. From the definitionsdiscussed above we have reached to a consensus that participatory planning a processof engaging various stakeholders and empowering them so as to make them an integralpart of the process of information sharing and decision making through the process ofconsensus building and other forms of consultations.While discussing the various methods of the public participation which evolved overtime and which had been popular during some period of time under the prevailing socio-economic and political conditions. For the purpose of plan preparation, we have come toconclusion that the prevalent techniques and tools that can be effective used and whichis being used in various planning exercises like open house discussion, workshops andseminars, invitation for objection and suggestion and stakeholders‟ consultation withexperts are more relevant.2.10 MANDATING CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN PLAN MAKING: SIX STRATEGIC CHOICESFor testing a hypothesis or comparing different types of qualitative data need a rationaland generally accepted frame of reference which can be deducted through the study ofvarious techniques and tools or adopting and modifying the existing one. Here, we have 35
  • 49. tried to evolve a framework for analyzing the effectiveness and extent of publicparticipation in planning process. The valuation technique can be credited to Samuel D.Brody, David R. Godschalk and Raymond J.Burby in their article Mandating CitizenParticipation in Plan Making: Six Strategic Choices published in American Journal ofPlanning Association in 2003. The framework for analysis has been further developedafter the study of different techniques and necessary adjustment was made.Figure 2-1 Six Stages for effective ParticipationSource: 11. Brody, Samuel D., Godschalk, David R. and Burby Raymond J.(2003)Let‟s discuss them in somewhat detail to get what we really indent to get and evaluate.And simultaneously make a checklist of intended objectives for various stages or stepswhich we are going to use for evaluating the effectiveness and extent of publicparticipation in planning.Program AdministrationThere should be specified level of resources committed to public participation. Theexhaustive guidelines for Citizen Participation have to be developed. There should beidentification of probable groups. Clearly defined opportunities to express their interests 36
  • 50. and trained staff members to conduct participation. There should be provision forexternal consultant to monitor participation.Program administration is a vital stage where a planner or a policy maker can intervenefor ensuring public participation. The capacity building of urban local bodies for suchparticipation exercise in needed in many small and large towns. The ineffective conductof participation exercise may be of no importance. The purpose of the participationshould be transparency and two way feedback mechanism.Communication to Target GroupsThe method of communicating to the target groups should be defined. The duration andfrequency of informing the public or participants has to be defined.Communication to the target groups become the deciding factor in public participation.Inefficient participation may lead to an unjust and biased planning giving advantage tosome and making others disadvantaged. Unbiased and transparent mechanism ofcommunication will serve the purpose. But it is the duty of planners to ensure that thosewho can give positive inputs to the plans must be there and those who can‟t vent offtheir issues and problems are given adequate opportunity to do so. Enough time shouldbe provided with adequate information so that people can know well before on whattopic or issue they have to talk.Stages of Public InvolvementAt what stages participation desirable or opted and when the first participation shouldstart has to be framed well in advance.In general, scholars believe that to ensuremeaningful stakeholder involvement, it must occur “early, often, and ongoing”(Wondolleck&Yaffee, 2000, p. 103). Early participation injects community knowledgeand expertise into the planning process when it is most needed, before policies are set 37
  • 51. in stone. Furthermore, early stakeholder involvement allows plans to reflect public viewsand preferences. Participation that begins at a later stage, although capable of elicitingclear and focused responses from participants, may come too late to make a lastingimpact on the final plan (Alterman et al., 1984). Participation that does not begin untilpublic hearings at the end of the planning process may generate an adversarial,reactionary atmosphere that reduces support for implementing the plan. Basically therewill be three stages of participation which are pre-planning, planning and post planning.How Many and which Type of GroupsThere should be identifications of groups who are affected and who can benefit theplanning process. What specific contribution a stakeholder can make can also beworked out to take maximum benefits.The skill of identification of stakeholders should be developed as in all the societiesthere might not be same type of stakeholders and sometimes the so calledrepresentative might not represent the views of all the groups under his supervision. So,it become the task of the planner to pin-point such stakeholders and their localrepresentatives. Sometimes, it becomes the job of the planner to interpret the views ofsuch people who can‟t express their views or simple dissent the meeting.Techniques for Citizens InputDifferent techniques and tools for participation should be used at different stages to takethe maximum benefits of the public participation and simultaneously facilitate it.“It isimportant to note that planners use a variety of citizen participation techniques toaccomplish any given objective. Some techniques are used more frequently toaccomplish multiple objectives, such as subcommittees or workgroups, educationalworkshops, and talks to community groups. These techniques are broader in their focus 38
  • 52. and serve a number of purposes. Some participatory techniques serve only certainobjectives, such as visioning and household surveys to learn citizen preferences. Thesetechniques are more specific in their intent and are more tailored to achieving a specificobjective”( Brody, Samuel D., Godschalk, David R. and BurbyRaymondJ.,2003). Nowlook at the nature and type of information sharing.Nature and Type of InformationThe nature and type of information to be shared should be clarified. There should bepossibility for maximum transparency and sharing of information with the users andparticipants.Information is power, and the way it is collected, stored, and disseminatedis a vital for making people aware of the ground realities and they might feel free toparticipate through different channels of communications. Information should be widelyaccessible and highly integrated into all stages of the process of developing a plan by apublic authority which gives transparency to the planning process.On the basis of the model developed by Brody, SamuelD., Godschalk, DavidR. andBurby Raymond J.(2003), author has evolved a framework for analysis purpose of thestudy undertaken to know the various facets of the participatory plan making process.2.11 ADOPTED FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSISA four stepped analysis for inquiring into the effectiveness of the existing practices ofstatutory and extra-statutory public participation techniques used in planning for cities. Itwill be discussed in a bit brief for better understanding of the underlying concepts.Figure 2-2 Four Stepped Analysis Technique 39
  • 53. Source: Author‟s PropositionInformation• Types of information to make public• Educating the public• Informing the public• Existing and proposed map; Vision document; Summaries of plan; Growthprojections; Summaries of citizen participation and; Alternative plans or proposals.Information is power, and the way it is collected, stored, and disseminated is a vital formaking people aware of the ground realities and they might feel free to participatethrough different channels of communications. Information should be widely accessibleand highly integrated into all stages of the process of developing a plan by a publicauthority which gives transparency to the planning process.There should be consciousefforts by the authority dealing with such process to educate the public so that he cangive a better input and feel that he is welcome by the agency in the planningprocess.Informing is very important as selective informing or informing in such a manner 40
  • 54. that few can access such information then it becomes less worthwhile unless there areconscious efforts for such response in sensitive matters.Consideration  Composition of the board of inquiry  Method of hearing people‟s concerns  Methods of inputs of the citizen‟s views  Ground for consideration of a particular view  Who considersConsideration of views expressed by the participants is vital in effective participatorymechanism. So far as possible there should be impartial, independent and qualifiedboard of inquiry and hearing. There should be transparency in the process so thatpeople have a greater say. If board of hearing decides to incorporate a particular criteriafor consideration and it must be communicated well in advance. Who considers theobjections and suggestions become important in assessing the impartiality andcomprehensiveness of the process? Participatory planning enables us to answerquestions like, “Who else needs to be in this discussion? How can we engage all of ourstakeholders? Who has previously been silent that needs to be heard? What are themany voices that constitute our organization or community”? Consideration is the truereflection of the participatory approach of the planning. No matter how well the public isinformed if he is not heard he will feel cheated which can be overcome by resolution.Resolution and Consensus Building Identifications of groups who are affected and who can benefit the planning process What specific contribution a stakeholder can make 41
  • 55.  Business groups; Local Elite; Local elected Representatives; Development groups; Local authorities; Neighbourhood groups along with RWAs; Media; Social and environmental groups; NGOs; Professionals and experts in the field; Disadvantaged groups Process of dissemination of information and judgment Channels of communicationThe skill of identification of stakeholders should be developed as in all the societies.There might not be same type of stakeholders and sometimes the so calledrepresentative might not represent the views of all the groups under his supervision. So,it become the task of the planner to pin-point such stakeholders and their localrepresentatives. Sometimes, it becomes the job of the planner to interpret the views ofsuch people who can‟t express their views or simple dissent the meeting.The inclusion of multiple stakeholders demands that participatory planning values andunderstands diversity; that it encourages and finds ways to create harmony amongdifferences; and that it defines success as everyone wins. Relational integritychallenges participatory planning to be sure that all voices are heard and that all peopleare „whole‟ in the process and with the results. Whenever one person or group of peopleis compromised for the benefit of another person or group, the organization orcommunity is out of integrity. Participatory planning walks the essential line of integritywhile balancing many diverse needs, akin to a juggler on a high wire.“Successfulparticipatory planning requires relational integrity. When organization or communitymembers are involved in a process they expect, and rightfully so, that their voices willbe heard, their dreams will be considered and their lives will be enriched” (Whitney,2007).Then, there comes the need for effective dissemination of information andoutcomes of the review and inquiry committees to the public and the people concerned. 42
  • 56. Influence and Impact  Influence of the participation  Changes in the plans or proposal  Awareness among public  Trial of alternate plan  Modifications in the process  Public Acceptance  Redressal of the grievances of the affected groupThe real test of public participation is the influence and impact that it makes on thetradition authoritarian planning system and planning process. The level of participationwill increase if the participation is well entertained by the planners and the policy makersfor the betterment of the society and development of civic life and environment. Thetransparency in communicating the changes and modifications will embolden public andthis will raise their level of faith in the participatory planning system and mechanism.2.12 CONCLUSIONSGoing through the four steps of analysis, we will be in a position to judge and assessthe effectiveness, intensity and extent of participation in the planning process which isvery crucial in modern democratic societies where aspirations of different groups haveto be taken into account simultaneously vis-à-vis the vision and goal of a well-balanceddevelopment of the society.There are various methods and techniques for engagingpublic in planning process. But, here we will be using and studying the statutory and no-statutory public participation prevalent in our city planning domain. Every methods andtechniques have their merits and demerits and this will surely help us in devising abetter way for public participation through the modification in the existing mechanism. 43
  • 57. CHAPTER 3 PARTICIPATORY PLANNING EXPERIENCES IN SELECTED PROGRAMMES3.1 INTRODUCTIONParticipatory Planning has been in practice for a long time in various forms in differentplanning and development programmes and projects. For the sake of bettercomprehension and understanding participatory planning in the context of India, casestudies studied have been selected keeping in view the participatory approach inprogrammes administration, planning policy, decision making and plan implementationand maintenance of public facilities and services. The selection of case studies is suchthat it will be easy to interpret the pros and cons of the engagement of the public in theprocess. This will help in further perception of the true nature of the public participation,how it is affected, how it is enabled, what makes it difficult to practice. The case studieswill highlight the informing process, objectives of the programme or participation,consultation process and selection of groups or stakeholders, process of considerationand resolution of conflicts and finally the impact and outcomes of the public participationin the policy and programme. The selected case studies are Kerala Rural Development,National Policy for Urban Street Vendors, City Development Plan in general, BhagidariScheme in Delhi and Local Agenda 21 for public participation. The cases will bediscussed in detail to find out the components of public participation like purposes ofparticipation, extent and intensity of the participation that took place or such provisionsin the policy or planning practices undertaken. Sample of program administration,planning policy, development plan and consequent implementation strategy adopted bylocal bodies will be discussed in subsequent sections. 44
  • 58. 3.2 CASE STUDY OF KERALAKerala has outperformed many states and India in ensuring social and economicdevelopment of rural areas. The 73rd Constitutional Amendment seeks to establish„institutions of local self-government‟ which can prepare and implement „plans foreconomic development and social justice‟. Kerala launched in mid-1996 a decentralizedplanning experiment to enhance participatory democracy and to improve the quality oflife of the local people. Kerala has pioneer in the field of promoting decentralizedplanning and [participatory planning approach.The strong political commitment and willingness of Left Democratic Front Governmentthat came to power in May 1996 initiated many notable initiatives and measures totransform the relations between local government and the public. The governmentinitiated People‟s Plan Campaign (PPC) for the 9th Five-Year Plan.The newgovernment took decision to devolve 35-40 percent of the State Plan funds to the localbodies as against 2.35 percent during the Eighth Plan.Local planning in Kerala involves a multi-stage process that has broadened the avenuesof people‟s participation. Obviously, the intent in creating a multi-stage process is toprovide participatory spaces for the citizens, local elected representatives and officialsto discuss the development projects. The key institutions involved in local planningbesides the local government are the gram sabhas, development seminars, and thetask forces. The process begins in the gram sabhas – specially called for the purpose –which deliberate and determine local development needs and priorities. Based on thepriorities of the gram sabhas and based on the analysis of the primary and secondarydata collected, a detailed development report is prepared for each gram Panchayat. A 45
  • 59. development seminar is organized at the Panchayat level in which experts, electedmembers, representatives of gram sabha, and wider public participate.The development seminar helps to concretize further the problems and needs of thePanchayat. On the basis of this, duly constituted Task Forces prepare projects with thehelp of experts and the bureaucracy. The local plan is prepared incorporating theseprojects. The size of the plan depends on the local resources which the local body canraise (own source revenue, beneficiary contribution, voluntary contribution etc) and theplan grants from the state and the Centre (by way of Centrally Sponsored Schemes).The plans thus formulated are consolidated with the higher-level plans (block anddistrict level) during which all projects are vetted for technical and financial viability.For purposes of implementing projects without leakages and corruption, committees ofbeneficiaries with representation for women and scheduled castes are sought to becreated. The process is important not only because of the wide opportunities providedfor people‟s participation, but also for reducing the power and domination of anentrenched bureaucracy which generally support the rent-seeking interests rather thanimproving the community‟s welfare. It may be noted that all other institutionalinnovations created such as the right to information, citizen‟s charter, transparencyguarantees, Ombudsman, Appellate Tribunal, Performance Audit and so on are alsodesigned to deepen democracy and accountability to the people. Right to information ismade a statutory right. This is a powerful step against corruption. Every Panchayat hasto draw up as per the statutes a citizen‟s charter specifying the quality of services acitizen is entitled to from the Panchayat. This is another important measure to ensuredownward accountability. The Ombudsman created to hear complaints from Panchayatand people and without whose approval no action against a Panchayat by the stategovernment is possible helps to promote local democracy. 46
  • 60. Besides strengthening the traditional audit system through Local Fund AuditDepartment, a special concurrent audit system called Performance Audit system hasbeen instituted to serve as a mid-course corrective and guiding mechanism to put thefledging systems of local governments in proper place. As part of PPC, considerableattention was given to what has come to be called social audit. Basically, social audit asit came to be experimented in Kerala refers to the evaluation of the quality, fundutilization, punctuality in observing time schedule and general performance of theproject works of local governments through beneficiary committees and further by theGram Sabha.The devolution of over one-third of state plan funds to local governments as untied grantgives them considerable autonomy. But it is subject to the condition that 40 percent ofthe Plan allocation is spent on productive sectors, 10 percent for women-relatedprojects called Women Component Plan (WCP) and that no more than 30 percent bespent on infrastructure. The emphasis on building the production base especially of theagricultural sector is particularly important, given the longstanding stagnation theagricultural sector of Kerala. The plan allocation specially earmarked for scheduledcastes and tribes [called Special Component Plan (SCP) and Tribal Sub Plan (TSP)]administered by bureaucracy are now passed on to the local self-governments andinvolve SC/ST representatives.Availability of internal resources is one of the basic conditions for successfuldecentralized governance and autonomy. Relatively speaking, Kerala has a strong ownresource base. That KeralaPanchayat on an average raise a per capita own revenue(taxes and non-tax revenue) of Rs.57 (1998-99) compared to less than one rupee inUttarPradesh (1997-98) and Rs.16 (2000-01) in Karnataka where decentralizationostensibly made headway. 47
  • 61. This shows that Kerala has considerable local choice. Given the fact that only 40percent of the tax potential of Kerala is tapped, (Oommen, 2004) there is immensescope for local choice in Kerala and expanding the plan size.The active association of local governments with Kudumbasree, the State PovertyEradication Mission, which is a poor women-oriented self-help group initiative againstpoverty has taken the antipoverty efforts from a project approach to a holistic processapproach. Apart from the women-oriented Community Based Organisations (CBOs)associated with the Kudumbasree, as part of the People‟s Plan initiative, CBOsincluding all households (poor as well as non-poor) have been started in some GPs aspart of its social mobilization and social auditing effort. They were formed in order to getinvolved in the selection of beneficiaries, cultural activities, projects like education,health, drinking water and promotion of village level unity and so on.3.3 CASE STUDY OF NPUSV, DELHICOMPOSITION OF VENDING COMMITTEEIn MCD, the zonal committee is headed by Deputy Commissioner of Zonal Office.Further, the Councilors of the entire ward in Zone and assistant Commissionerconstitute the committee. The committee has also eight members two each from tradersassociation, vendors association, RWAs, and NGOs. There are also provisions for bankand DMRC representatives. ACP represents the traffic/ local police in the committee. Inthe ward vending committee, the Area Councilor is the chairman. The administrativeofficer of the Zonal Office is the MCD representative. The committee has also eightmembers two each from traders association, vendors association, RWAs, and NGOs.The representative of the police is the sub-inspector of the area. 48
  • 62. According to the NPUSV, 2004, planners and bank representatives will also constitutethe committee. Supreme Court has directed the ULBs to appoint a sitting additionalJudge as the head of the committees. To this order, it appears that MCD proposed thatin case of dispute between allottee and MCD staff, the committee will be presided bythe Judge. The NPUSV clearly mentioned that such a committee should have 25-40%of the members as vendors‟ representative.But on ground there is gross violation ofsuch provisions and vendors feel helpless. The absence of Planner is also felt when adispute arises.Both MCD and NDMC have issued public notices in local newspaper to invite interestedgroups to apply for joining the Committee. According to CE & LD, MCD, the number ofapplicants received and the number of seats available for each post were equal. Hence,there was no need for any selection procedure to be taken up. The licensing Inspectorand Area Supervisor at MCD Zonal Office told that members of the committee wereselected through draw. This reveals that selection procedure is not transparent.Till Feb, 2009; ten to eleven meetings of the ZVC and three – four meetings of the WVChave taken place. It is note- worthy that though Councilors form an important linkbetween ZVC and WVC, only 15-17 councilors attend the meetings of ZVC. The vendorassociations‟ representatives have attended all the meetings of both the committees.The councilor does not attend the meetings of WVC. Out of the two representatives ofRWA, one has attended two meetings.In NDMC area, the picture is quite same.Extent of information regarding the functioning of the committee is also related to theparticipation. In MCD area, it was found that Councilor and representative of RWA didnot know about NPSUV, 2004 and MDP provisions for informal sector. All the RWA 49
  • 63. representatives knew that squatters have to register and spaces are to be provided. Hewas not even aware of the fact that mobile vendors also have to get registered and asper MCD Scheme, VCs in consultation with RWAs will identify hawking sites. In fact, thevendors‟ association representative knew about NPSUV in details; however, he neverpaid attention to the DMP provisions of informal sector. The NDMC area fared well inthis regard except for RWA all knew about the NPUSV and MCD Schemes.Coordination must exist between ZVCs, WVCs, MCD Zonal Officer, MCD CL & ED,traffic authority, land owing agencies, etc. However, the CL & ED told that the reason fordelay in allotting the spaces to the vendors is the non-cooperation of the land owningagencies, Councilors, Zonal Officer of MCD, and police.Figure 3-1 Composition of proposed and actual CommitteesNPUSV MCD Ward NDMC WardZVC VC Proposed VCChairman- DC Chairman- ADJ Councilor34 Councilors MLA’s representative PlannersAC Zonal Office AE Director ULB Representative2 Traders, 2 Vendors 3 Traders , 1 Vendor Traders, Vendors1 ACP, Police 1 ACP, Police Local Traffic PoliceWVC Traffic Inspector SlumChairman- Councilor Bank RepresentativeAO (AC)2 Traders, 2 Vendors2 RWAs, 2 NGOsSub-Inspector, PoliceSource: National Policy on Urban Street Vendors and Graduate Thesis (Agarwal, 2009)It can be seen that while the National Policy have proposed town level committee and award level committee, MCD has a Zonal level committee and a ward level committee.Further, NDMC has no tier of committees but a vending committee in a constituency.Hence, this hierarchy is partially consistent with National Policy.It can be observed thatthere are no planners and representatives from land owning agencies; the chairman ofthe committee has been a judge in NDMC area. In ZVC while the court has ordered the 50
  • 64. chairperson to be Judge, DC is the chairperson of committee. Since, there is no citylevel committee; absence of co-ordination can be observed between NDMC and MCD.Spatial distribution is also affected due to absence of a Planner. There is no mapshowing the vending and no vending zones or areas, irrational criteria adopted, andunplanned spaces identified. Lack of coordination could be observed across variousland owning agencies.In the registration process, the criteria and process adoptedpartial conforms to the National Policy. Exclusion of authorized vendors duringregistration and restricted registration of vendors will not be effective in resolving theissue of congestion and unplanned growth will continue.Here, we try to analyses on the basis of sequence of stages and the completion of astage before the start of next. It can be seen that after the composition of thecommittee, the applicants for registration were asked for. However, registration processis not complete. In MCD zone, vending committee has prepared a database forvendors. These forms are yet to be scrutinized. The draw for allotment has taken placewhereas vending sites have not been identified in all wards. Thus, there is lack ofcoherence.3.4 CONCLUSIONSThe interpretation of vending zones differs from ULBs to ULBs. While NDMC, identifyzones at area level transcending the landuses. And MCD identified vending zones atsite planning level and are linear in nature. The 9ft wide criteria irrespective of thelocation of site, traffic volume, site condition, use activity and nature of development willgive rise to more problems than solution. The security sensitiveness of the NDMC inallotting the site is unfair. Planners, technicians, representatives of land owningagencies have been excluded from the committee which will hamper the smooth 51
  • 65. implementation of the vending sites and their locations on various considerations.Chairperson of MDC VC is not a Judge as sought in the policy. The eligibility boundedregistration is ineffective. Unauthorized vendors are excluded from the implementationand will nullify the whole project.3.5 CASE STUDY OF BHAGIDARI IN DELHIDelhi government initiated ambitious programme of Bhagidari in year January, 2000aiming at creating citizen- government partnership or collaboration. Bhagidari literallymeans „collaborative partnership‟. The idea was inspired by the philosophies ofMahatma Gandhi and the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts. Bhagidarischemes envisage collaboration between the citizen and the administration forimproving the urban services and facilities. It utilizes the multi stakeholder viz. citizengroups, NGOs, CBOs, Govt. Agencies and various organizations dealing with suchservices.THE GOALS OF THE BHAGIDARI CONCEPTS ARE:• Better service delivery to citizens• A clean and green Delhi• A hassle free Delhi• Partnership and participation in Governance• People should treat Delhi as their own: „My Delhi, I Care‟Bhagidari is a shift from total dependence on the government officials to sharing theresponsibilities of urban governance. It is all about understanding each other‟sconstraints, appreciating the positive aspects and sorting out differences to reach 52
  • 66. consensus for development and management. The major stakeholders in thisprogramme are: RWAs, Merchants and Traders Associations, MCD, NDMC, DDA andvarious service delivery agencies.Steps involved in effective functioning of the Bhagidari Schemes are as follows:Step 1Workshops with citizen groups and their representatives to discuss and identify issuesand then the select issues are discussed with officials of various departments andagencies participating in the Bhagidari Scheme. Each workshop of two and half dayduration is held and the groups discuss and build consensus on a desired course ofaction. The roles and responsibilities of different groups are identified and committed.Step 2After the workshops, the RWAs/MTAs wise list of solutions and suggestions are sent tothe concerned departments and Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) offices. They holdregular meetings to implement and monitor solutions. The Area Officers ensure afortnightly meeting with the RWAs of their areas. The District Officers of the Publicutilities monitor and coordinate the working of these Area Officers.Step 3Monthly reviews are taken by the Heads of Departments and the DeputyCommissioners. Quarterly reviews are also taken by the Chief Secretary and theSteering Committee headed by the Chief Minister.The government gave institutional backing by creating the „Bhagidari Cell‟ in the ChiefMinister‟s office and by designing the General Administration Department as the NodalDepartment to provide financial and administrative support. To ensure spatial spread 53
  • 67. the government decentralized the programme at the Revenue District level with theDeputy Commissioner (Revenue) as the district coordinator. This process has madepossible to include more than 1100 people‟s groups and representatives in theprogramme. Bhagidari has got spread to Social Welfare Department where ShreeShakti and ShreeKosh have been launched. In Education Department, the SchoolsWelfare Committees have been formed in more than 600 schools. IndustrialAssociations have also been made Bhagidars in conducting special Bhagidariworkshops with them through Industrial Department.3.6 CONCLUSIONSThe Bhagidariprogramme is really an empowering and decentralization process initiatedby Delhi Government. It is working well in some areas while it is only for namesake inmany areas. There is lack of initiatives by the lower and middle level officials and at theend, powers rests in the hands of the government and hence only people having a goodrapport with the public officials get their works done. RWAs are not given any financialsupport except for water harvesting programme. Bhagidari failed to serve the purposefor which it was designed.After going through the various case studies of programme administration in the case ofDecentralised Planning in Kerala, maintenance and management in a participationmethod as in the case of Bhagidari Scheme in Delhi and policy formulation in the caseof Urban Policy for Street Vendors, we are in a position to assess the various instancesof success and failure of the participatory planning process. From these examples, wehave learnt that the practical application of participatory planning is different from whatwe conceive in the realm of literature on such topics. The table on the following pagewill summarise the findings of various case studies. 54
  • 68. Table 3-1 Major Findings of the various Case Studies Source: Study of Secondary data and Findings of Study 55
  • 69. CHAPTER 4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PLAN PREPARATION IN DELHIDelhi is a progressive city of India and it one of the town to have a number of planningdocuments to guide and monitor the planning and development of the town. DelhisMaster Plan came into force in 1962 for a perspective up to 1981, was then revised fora perspective up to 2001 again revised for 2021 which is supplemented by a number ofZonal Development Plans. The city has a City Development Plan prepared in 2006 toaugment the infrastructural needs of the towns. Now, in 2010, Municipal Corporation ofDelhi (MCD) initiated preparation of Local Area Plans for every wards of the municipalarea of the town starting with preparation of plans for 33 wards on the MCD on a pilotbasis.There are various provisions (discussed in subsequent case studies in detail) in variousplanning documents like Delhi Development Act, Master Plans, City Development Plan,Guidelines for Local Area Plan preparation which talks of public participation in one formor other and the author will try to explore and review the various dimensions of thepublic participation like purposes, extent and intensity of the public participation.In this chapter, the effectiveness, intensity and extent of the public participation will bereviewed and analysed for four case studies namely, objections and suggestions forMaster Plan 2021, Community Consultation of the City Development Plan, Land-UseRe-Designation for a plot in old JNU campus, VasantKunj and the provisions andpractices undergoing in Local Area Plan preparation of Delhi initiated, coordinated andmonitored by Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Starting with the distinction betweenstatutory and non-statutory public participation, cases of various public participationinstances in different plans of Delhi will be analysed in detail for assessment of thepublic participation. 56
  • 70. 4.1 STATUTORY PROVISION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATIONObjections and Suggestions in master plan is a widely used and acknowledgedtechnique of public participation. In this technique, plan is formulated by expertcommittee and the draft plan is put into public domain and objections-suggestions areinvited from the general public, various public agencies, institutions, organizations,eminent personality and government officials. A high powered committee reviews andhear the public objections and suggestions and then they give justification for change ornot and the final decision is communicated to the concerned agency and heincorporates the recommendations of the committee and the final plan is published.4.2 NON-STATUTORY PUBLIC PARTICIPATIONMethods of Stakeholders ParticipationThis widely used technique in CDPs of India is intended to obtain client feedbacks andto make development interventions more responsive to the demand. “This techniqueintends to serve clients better by making service providers aware of the clients‟priorities, preferences and feedbacks” (Nandy, 2007). It includes systematic listeningand consultation which requires lengthier, repeated and more meaningful interactionsamongst the stakeholders.Workshop Based MethodsThe aim of workshops is to create an atmosphere where stakeholders themselves cando and learn about the project and thus sustain the project. Consensus is built by atrained facilitator who has diverse knowledge and interests, through a series ofactivities. It encourages social learning by promoting shared responsibility, rules as wellas working relationships are established by stakeholders. 57
  • 71. 4.3 CASE STUDY: OBJECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS IN MASTER PLAN, DELHIObjections and suggestions is a widely used and acclaimed participatory processadopted in many democratic countries. This is a statutory process of engaging publicparticipation without costing too much of time and resources as the draft plan is alreadyprepared and any person of common intellect is in a position to give his objections andsuggestions and the public authority appoint a high powered committee to review theobjections and suggestions and judiciously give his comment after considering theviews of different people. Thus, we can say that public participation is taking place. Butthe issue arises how effective is this form of participation and do really people‟s viewsare taken into account and if views are entertained then whose views and what type ofviews are taken into account.Planning and development in National Capital Territory of Delhi is governed by thevarious provisions of the Delhi Development Act 1957 which is one of the pioneerplanning legislation enacted in India. For bringing in force the act, a planning bodynamed Delhi Development Authority came into existence with the objective to promoteand secure the development of Delhi according to plan and for that purpose theAuthority shall have the power to acquire, hold, manage and dispose of land and otherproperty, to carry out building, engineering, mining and other operations, to executeworks in connection with supply of water and electricity, disposal of sewage and otherservices and amenities and generally to do anything necessary or expedient forpurposes of such development and for purposes incidental thereto.The DDA act makes provision for ensuring participatory plan making process undersection 10 of the act which is as follows: 58
  • 72. (1) Before preparing any plan finally and submitting to Central Government forapproval, the Authority shall prepare a plan in draft and publish it by making a copythereof available for inspection and publishing a notice in such form and manner as maybe prescribed by rules made in this behalf inviting objections and suggestions from anyperson with respect to the draft plan before such date as may be specified in the notice.(2) The Authority shall also give reasonable opportunities to every local authoritywithin whose local limits any land touched by the plan is situated, to make anyrepresentation with respect to the plan.(3) After considering all objections, suggestions and representations that may havebeen received by the Authority, the Authority shall finally prepare the plan and submit itto the Central Government for its approval.Thus, it can be understood that there is ample opportunity of public participation in theplan making process under the act. It has been seen that same act can be interpreted indifferent ways and forms to fulfill various statutory objectives. Now, mid-termassessment is going on for reviewing the Master Plan 2021 of Delhi. Due toinsufficiency of data on mid-term review, it will be worthwhile to analyse the earlier dataon the objections and suggestion during the preparation of the Master Plan 2021 whichis in effect.4.3.1 PROCESS OF OBJECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONGiven below is the detailed chart of the various stages of the objections and suggestionfiled the interested people and groups and reviewed by the review committeeconstituted for the same purpose. 59
  • 73. Figure 4-1 Process of Objection/Suggestions in Master Plan for DelhiSource: Notes of Objection/Suggestion for Master Plan, 20214.3.2 ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND FIGURESProcess of objection and suggestions seems to be a great participatory process as itprovides an opportunity for the residents and various stakeholders to express theirconcerns and suggestion which is heard extensively by the officials of the local bodiesand experts but the facts and figures are astonishing. It is not a simple task but themanner in which it is done seems very simple. There was a high powered committee forreviewing the progress and there was a Board of Inquiry and Hearing which was alsohigh powered. On the one hand such a body ensures effective communication of 60
  • 74. decision and their high post and prestige minimize the chances of conflicts andcontention but on the other hand they are in a very responsible like Commissioners,Chairman etc. and busy position which minimizes the duration of time they can spare forsuch an important exercise of public participation.The quality time is not spared anddevoted for public hearing and reviews of the objections and suggestions.If one goes through the actual document of the objection and suggestion filed and thenote prepared from them for the review committees reveals that there is substantial lossof information and sometimes trivialization of the issue e.g. the issues of the streetvendors were recommended to be dealt in Local Area Plans to be prepared by localbodies. Study of the objections and suggestions filed by the residents, various experts,representatives and organizations totaling to around 7000, we found many facts whichare really astonishing. The graphs shown below will give a clear indication of the findingof the study.Figure 4-2 Participation of various groupsSource: Notes of Objection/Suggestion for Master Plan, 2021 61
  • 75. Figure 4-3 Nature of ConsiderationSource: Notes of Objection/Suggestion for Master Plan, 2021Figure 4-4 Spatial Nature of the Objections and SuggestionsSource: Notes of Objection/Suggestion for Master Plan, 2021The long duration of the consideration of the objections and suggestion were notcontributed by the time spent in interaction sessions. There were eighteen meetings ofthe Board of Inquiry and Hearing for considering the objections and the suggestionsreceived by the development authority.If we through the above figure no. 4.3, it will be clear that is low level of publicparticipation (13% objections/suggestions by general public) for whom the plan in beingprepared. It should be noted that around 7,000 objections and suggestions were 62
  • 76. received in print and through electronic media like emails. One some reasonssuggested by some officials are as follows: a. People had not clearly mentioned the issue. b. Similar or say same objections and suggestions were clubbed together.If we look at figure no. 4.4, we will find that thirteen percentage ofobjections/suggestions got views and comments by the board and another ten percentwere deemed suitable for further consideration. But, there was no clear indication onwhat basis the objections and the suggestion were gives such treatment. For examplesome objections and suggestions regarding individual plot landuse changes weresimply ignored. There could had been a help desk to give such individual why that is notfeasible keeping in view the various provisions of the Master Plan and concerneddevelopment controls.The figure no. 4.3 reveals another dimension of the objections and suggestions.Majority of the objections and suggestions (i.e., 38 and 31 percent respectively) weregiven by the government officials/representatives of various line agencies and theexperts like planners, architects, engineers etc.So, we can see that the general publicand the local representatives of the people and residents are very low.Let‟s explore thepossible reasons for the findings. It will be better to enlist them and then see theirfurther implications. a. People were not informed in a manner and techniques best suited for them. b. There were no conscious efforts by the authority to engage and educate people so that they can better participate in the process. c. General public cannot understand the technical terms and probably there was no attempt to dispel their mist of confusion by the authority. 63
  • 77. 4.3.3 LOCATIONAL ATTRIBUTES OF THE OBJECTIONS/SUGGESTIONSFigure 4-5Spatial attribute of the Objections and Suggestions 64
  • 78. Now, let‟s look at another dimension of the objections and suggestions i.e., the locationwise distribution of the objections and suggestions.Figure no. 4.6 indicates the area-wise distribution of the objections and suggestions filed by the people. The yellowishstar denotes the approximate location of the people or group of people who filed it. Wecan easily get the inferences as mentioned in the list given below. a. The area enclosed by the red polygon has high objections/suggestions. This can be partly due to its special nature of being older and congested areas of Delhi. b. The yellow polygon area also recorded high objections-suggestions and this might be contributed by the changing or demand for changing the landuse from residential to mixed use. c. The area enclosed within the blue polygon is the area dominated by the unauthorised and regualarised colonies where informal small scale manufacturing units are concentrated and they are in the low priority area of the development. d. The area highlighted by green polygon has remarkable no of objections and suggestions this can be attributed to the following i. The location of DDA objections and Suggestion at VasantKunj ii. Concerns for Central Ridge iii. Market areas of LajpatNagar iv. Continuum of urban ruralLet‟s see how such hindrances like low awareness, limited understanding of planningprovisions etc. can be tackled by the authority. Let‟s consider some suggestions andrecommendations. 65
  • 79. a. The authority could have adopted a comprehensive approach of engaging institutions like School of Planning and Architecture, AMDA, IIPA, Department of Economics(DU), Department of Humanities and Social Science(IIT), Centre for Economic Studies and Planning(JNU); NGOs like SMILE, Pahel, Action India, Agency for Community Care and Development (ACCAD), Institute of Social Studies Trust (ISST) etc. b. Publishing notices in government offices/buildings in local areas like Post Office, Hospital, Schools, colleges, metro stations, and other public places. c. RWAs and Traders Associations should be engaged to attract more people‟s participation in the process. d. Use of innovative media for publicizing and inviting objections and suggestions like radio, television, cable, workshops, seminars, essay completion on various issues under consideration. e. Help desk in planning and implanting agencies like DDA, MCD, NDMC, DJB, BSEB, DTC etc.Planners should put his ideas in simple, concise and tactful manner. Too much ofrecommendations and suggestions are not palpable by many people and agencies.4.3.4 CONCLUSIONSThere is no doubt that the provision of the Delhi Development act and the initiatives ofthe DDA have given a better look to Delhi. Delhi can also boast of being one of the firstIndian towns with a Master Plan for development. Now, keeping in views the increasedawareness and international discourses on the participatory planning, it become naturalto look forward for more participatory approach in planning. The provision of the act toinvite and consider the objections and suggestions filed by the people is a good initiative 66
  • 80. but whether it has been a success or failure is a bone of contention. But, this academicresearch has brought out some facts which may not be palatable to the authority andthe people who think that we are adopting participatory approach in planning.There are serious shortcomings in the manner and techniques of inviting andconsidering the objections and suggestions. And, this can be resolved throughdialogues and discussions with the experts and the technocrats from the planningprofession. 67
  • 81. 4.4 A CASE OF OBJECTIONS/ SUGGESTIONS AND HEARING ON LANDUSE CHANGE FORCICParticipatory plan preparation is complemented by the participatory methods of planmodification. Under the provision of the Delhi Development Act 1957, plan can bemodified by the competent authorities in accordance with the due process of theplanning as defined in the act. This case study will try to explore to what extent the landuse re-designation process is participatory in nature.4.4.1 INTRODUCTIONUnder the section 11A of Delhi Development Act, there is a provision for modificationsto plan as follow:(1) The Authority may make any modifications to the master plan or the zonaldevelopment plan as it thinks fit, being modifications which, in its opinion, do not affectimportant alterations in the character of the plan and which do not relate to the extent ofland-users or the standards of population density.(2) The Central Government may make any modifications to the master plan or thezonal development plan whether such modifications are of the nature specified in sub-section (1) or otherwise.(3) Before making any modifications to the plan, the Authority or, as the case maybe, the Central Government shall publish a notice in such form and manner as may beprescribed by rules made in this behalf inviting objections and suggestions from anyperson with respect to the proposed modifications before such date as may be specifiedin the notice and shall consider all objections and suggestions that may be received bythe Authority or the Central Government. 68
  • 82. (4) Every modification made under the provisions of this section shall be published insuch manner as the Authority or the Central Government, a~ the case may be, mayspecify and the modifications shall come into operation either on the date of thepublication or on such other date as the Authority or the Central Government may fix.(5) When the Authority makes any modifications to the plan under sub-section (1) itshall report to the Central Government the full particulars of such modifications withinthirty days of the date on which such modifications come into operation.(6) If any question arises whether the modifications proposed to be made by theAuthority are modifications which affect important alterations in the character of the planor whether they relate to the extent of land-uses or the standards of population density,it shall be referred to the Central Government whose decision thereon shall be final.(7) Any reference in any other chapter, except Chapter III, to the master plan or thezonal development plan shall be construed as reference to the master plan or the zonaldevelopment plan as modified under the provisions of this section.This is a case of landuse change and the objections and suggestions filed by the citizenand how the whole process of inviting objections and suggestion, formulation of Boardof Enquiry and Hearing, the consideration of the objections and suggestion and theissues of effective participatory mechanism. The site is located in the Zone-F of theDelhi. A map of same has been provided below. 69
  • 83. Figure 4-6Landuse Plan for Zone F and the location of CIC landuse change locationSource: Zonal Development Plan, Delhi Development Authority4.4.2 ANALYSIS a. While doing the study it was found that information related to the boundaries of the Ridge were not clear. The land use plan of MPD-2021 and ZDP-2021 of zone J shows the boundary of ridge area and we also got a separate map prepared by the DDA which shows the ridge boundary. However, there were differences in these boundaries which were not clear. For example in the ZDP boundaries of the Regional Park/Ridge, Sultangarhi Tomb is not part of it whereas in another map prepared by the DDA which was submitted in the court, part of the tomb seems to be part of the Ridge. b. In a public notice dated 29/9/10, a part of the area was changed from PSP to Ridge in Zone F near Qutub Institutional Area in F-11. In section 9.2.2 of the 70
  • 84. MPD 2021, it is admitted that there are discrepancies in the areas and boundaries of the Ridge. c. From the above, it seems that the delineation of boundaries of ridge is not yet resolved and is in the process. The Board may like to consider differing this proposal so as not to inadvertently recommend a proposal in an area which should have been part of the ridge.These were the objections and suggestions filed by students of SPA, Delhi Mr. Arpit,Gaurang, Smanla and Vrishti but the authority deemed these recommendation out ofcontext and dumped. a. From the court judgment and the consequent work of our seniors and the work in our own studio, provision of low income housing on any of the available sites in F-12 and surrounding areas should be accorded more important priority than any other use. b. Feasibility of this site is considered for in-situ rehabilitation. c. For Local Area Plan to be effective and in the absence of information of available sites in the Zonal Plan, such proposals should be part of the Local Area Plan for the area so that if required a comprehensive change of land use exercise can be carried out after the local area plan preparation.These were the suggestions provided by the student of SPA, Delhi Mr. Anurag, Imran,Rahul and Aditya and they were taken up for consideration in letters. But, noconsideration for the facts that lead to such suggestions. Now let‟s look at so of thegood objections and suggestions which I could access but their original copies are notavailable. Still we will consider as they are notable. 71
  • 85. Objections and Suggestions filed by Sri SarbajitRoy from Defence colony, Delhi weremade a note like this. a. Public notice defective in terms of section 11-A(3) of DDA act b. The said plot is not locatable on Zonal Plan/Master Plan, laduse plan or any other supporting plan c. Spot zoning/ change of landuse to be done under Local Area Plan d. The authority resolution and related correspondence not available in public. e. An alternative plot in Zone-F near Sangam Cinema has already been allotted. f. There are environmental issues in the area.In total around 25 objections and suggestion were received after the public notice dated17 January, 2011 by DDA.The meeting of the Board of Enquiry and Hearing was held on 15 June, 2011 atVikasSadan, INA, Delhi. They claim that fourteen objections/Suggestions were receivedfrom individuals which were heard by the Board in person. It can be noted that out of thefourteen individual/groups who filed objections and suggestions, only two were presentin the Board of Enquiry and Hearing. And the final recommendation of the Board is asfollows.“After detailed deliberations, recommended the proposed change of land use from the„Public and Semi-Public‟ facilities to „Govt. Office‟ for the Central InformationCommission with the condition that the layout plans to be approved conducting thetraffic studies of the area”.From the minutes of the meeting held on 16 September, 2011; it can be seen that themeeting of the Board of Inquiry and Hearing composed of LG and twelve othermembers from DDA, MCD, GNCTD, NCRPB and MoUD. Besides, there were eighteen 72
  • 86. special invitees from senior offices of GNCTD and DDA.This meeting was convened fordiscussion on the Mid-term review of the Master Plan provisions, policy on FarmHouses in Delhi and Change of Landuse of the Old JNU campus area for CIC building.Recommendations of the Board of Enquiry and Hearing“The following members of the Board, after hearing and detailed deliberations,recommended the proposed change of land use from the „Public and Semi-Public‟facilities to „Govt. Office‟ for the Central Information Commission with the condition thatthe layout plan to be approved conducting the traffic studies of the area”.List of Members of the Board of Enquiry and Hearing1. Finace Member, DDA…………………Chairman2. Engineer Member, DDA………………..Member3. CTP, TCPO………………………………Member4. Addl. Commissioner (Plng.)…………….Convener and SecretarySource: Notice of Landuse Re-desination for CIC4.4.3 INFERENCESThese can be the probable inferences from the above discussion of the whole processof the objection/suggestions and the hearing by the Board of Enquiry and their finaloutcome. a. The public notice was not released in a manner to attract more intervention of public opinions. 73
  • 87. b. The public has little time to spare for issues which affect them indirectly this is evident from the low turn-out of people out filed objections/suggestions. c. The merits of some of the objections and suggestions is beyond doubt cannot be denied. d. It is not clear why the board recommended traffic studies instead of environmental impact assessment for the development. e. Also, there were other options available for the location of CIC building as pointed out by SarbajitRoy.4.4.4 CONCLUSIONSThe whole episode of the change of land use from the „Public and Semi-Public‟ facilitiesto „Govt. Office‟ for the Central Information Commission seems the implementation ofthe order of a higher authority. The in between the proposal by MoUD and the finalrecommendation of the Board of Inquiry what goes on seems mere formalities of theDDA acts.There a need for relooking at the whole issues and the process of the hearing. We cansee that there is no independent committee or board for hearing theobjections/suggestions and it is bound to get influence it the members are those whoare prosing or executing the proposal. 74
  • 88. 4.5 CASE STUDY: COMMUNITY CONSULTATION IN CDP, DELHIThe preparation of City Development Plan (CDP) is undertaken by the urban localbodies under the scheme of Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission(JnNURM) undertaken by the Ministry of Urban Development of Government of India forthe enhancement of the basic infrastructure of the larger cities. Funding is done for theidentified projects under the scheme. For the preparation of the City Development Plancomprehensive guidelines and toolkits have been provided under the scheme. In thescheme it is sought that the CDP will be adopt a number of strategies to scale up theinfrastructural requirement of the town like plan preparation, project identification,release and leverage of funds and incorporation of private sector efficiencies.Furthermore, it seeks to ensure participation of the stakeholders in the planning anddevelopment of the cities. Keeping in view these facts and current practices in CDP, itbecomes interesting to explore the extent and efficiency of the stakeholdersparticipation in the plan preparation taking a case of CDP of Delhi. Here, in this section,stakeholders‟ consultation will be reviewed and analysed.4.5.1 INTRODUCTIONThe City Development Plan for Delhi was prepared for Client: Dept. of UrbanDevelopment, Govt. of Delhi by Consultant: IL&FS Ecosmart Limited.The participationprocess for the CDP Delhi has been conducted at two levels, distinguished by the rangeof the stakeholders involved and their level of participation. The first level of the processwas consultative in nature.The stakeholders were involved through interviews and focusgroup discussions for assessment of the situation in terms of levels of urban services,and identification of needs for infrastructure improvement etc.The second level ofconsultation was a participatory workshop with stakeholders being involved incollaborative decision making for the city. 75
  • 89. Figure 4-7 Multi Stakeholders Consultation Mechanism in CDP, DelhiSource: City Development Plan for Delhi4.5.2 STAKEHOLDERS IN CDPPRIMARY STAKEHOLDERS:The beneficiaries of a development intervention or those directly affected (positively ornegatively) by it. They include local populations (resource persons, community,students) in the project/program area, in particular, poor and marginalized groups whohave traditionally been excluded from participating in development efforts such as JJ 76
  • 90. cluster, relocation/resettlement colonies and slum dwellers, and organizations such asResidential welfare organizations, traders‟ organizations, hoteliers and otherassociations.SECONDARY STAKEHOLDERS:Those who influence a development intervention or are indirectly affected by it areconsidered as secondary stakeholders. They include the borrowing government, lineministry and project staff, implementing agencies, local governments, civil societyorganizations, representatives of business and industry, and other developmentagencies. Councilors of MCD & NDMC, development agencies such as DelhiDevelopment Authority (DDA) line departments such as DJB, PWD etc were amongstthe stakeholders consulted. Resident Welfare Associations (RWA‟s), as well as NGO‟sworking on issues at a city level, were consulted through individual interactions, as wellas during the workshops.TERTIARY STAKEHOLDERSThose who are not directly involved in the development and its impacts are said to betertiary stakeholders. Like scholars, experts and institutions specialized in such mattersas may be relevant to the topic under consideration. This section of stakeholders werenot given due consideration in the City Development Plan of Delhi.CITY STAKEHOLDERS PROFILEThe Consultation process was formulated to target stakeholders at varied levels throughprimary consultations in the NCTD area, and workshops. Details of the agenda of theworkshops, and stakeholders consulted have been given in Table below. 77
  • 91. 4.5.3 PRIMARY STAKEHOLDERSA total of sixteen primary consultations have been carried out in different areas of theNCTD. The details of the consultation sessions held in NCTD area have been given onthe next page.Figure 4-8 Details of the Primary StakeholdersType of Consultation Stakeholder Location or AreaFocus GroupDiscussion JJ Cluster inShahdara Near Jhilmil industrial(FGD) area adjacentto MCD zonal office – East DelhiFocus GroupDiscussion JJ Cluster in Near Gandhinagar on(FGD) YamunaPushta area Pushta road –East DelhiFocus GroupDiscussion JJ Cluster in Narela Near HarischandTalab(FGD) behind Govt. Girls School- West DelhiFocus GroupDiscussion Grain MandiCommittee, New Grain Market,(FGD) Narela NarelaMandi –West DelhiFocus GroupDiscussion UnauthorisedRegularised Near IGNOU, Anupam(FGD) ColonySaidulajaib Enclave Part-II,Saidulajaib – South DelhiFocus GroupDiscussion Hazard Centre-NGOGroup, Near Munirka Village,(FGD) SanjhaManch Munirka– forNCTD Area (representatives ofslums andunauthorizedcolonies)Individual Interview President, Unauthorized Industrial IndustrialWelfare Area,Mangolpuri – West Association DelhiIndividual Interview President, KarolBaghArea, KarolBagh KarolBaghTrader – North-West Delhi FederationIndividual Interview Owner, Mangla Steel& Alipur Road, Near New Sanitary House AnajMandiGate, Narela – West DelhiIndividual Interview SRUTI-Society forRural, NCTD Area Urban andTribal InitiativeSource: City Development Plan for Delhi 78
  • 92. Communities from different places of Delhi like Shahdara, NarelaMangolpuri, Tikrikalan,Savda, Ghevra, Saidula, MalviyaNagar, KarolBagh, Gazipur and Khanpur wereconsulted. Apart from these communities, NGOs and CBOs like Hazard Centers,SRUTI, Industrial Associations and institutions like SPA, Delhi and IEG, Delhi were alsoconsulted. The issues raised by them regarding the present level of service delivery,adverse impacts and suggestions were taken into account. Their views about theservices like water supply, sewerage system, storm water drainage system, solid wastemanagement and transportation were paid due considerations.Thus, from the abovediscussion we can bring out inferences as follows: a) Focus groups discussion in some selected areas only in 6 localities. b) Few NGOs and RWAs contacted. c) There is no list of ward members who were invited or attended the consultation. d) Many prominent institutions were left like ITPI, DUs social and economics dept.,Jamia University, SRDC etc. e) The workshop conducted for a limited no. of people or say officials around 40% attended the out of the total invitee of 102. f) Criteria for selection of RWAs and NGOs not clarified.4.5.4 SECONDARY STAKEHOLDERSThe secondary stakeholders included government representatives; as well as people‟srepresentatives. Secondary stakeholders have been consulted both on technical andfinancial issues; as well as their insights into development issues in the city, andpeople‟s perceptions. Secondary stakeholder consultations have been in the form ofworkshops, interviews, meetings, presentations and site visits. Table given belowmentions the secondary stakeholders consulted. 79
  • 93. List1. Details of Secondary Stakeholder Consultations in NCTD Area a) Chief Minister/Ministers b) Mayor of MCD c) WardCouncillors d) Chief Secretary e) Government Officials: Commissioner and Secretaries f) Heads and Staff of Government and Para-statal Departments g) Dean of Studies, SPA, New Delhi h) Faculty, SPA, New Delhi i) Senior Faculty, Institute of Economic Growth j) Ex-Chief, CII k) Head, ICRIER l) Senior Faculty, IMI m) Ex-Commissioner, Slums n) AGM, National Housing BoardIn addition to the above, Dept. of Urban Development, Delhi Government (as thecoordinating agency for the preparation of the CDP) called for fortnightly meetingsbetween the Ecosmart team and representatives of key agencies and departments ofthe government (MCD, DJB, NDMC, DDA, Slum & JJ, PWD, Transport, UrbanDevelopment, Planning – refer table below) in order to seek inputs and feedback on theprocess and recommendations. The CDP evolved through these interactions; and, as aresult, the participating agencies are well aware and committed to the proposals madein the document. 80
  • 94. FORTNIGHTLY REVIEW COMMITTEEA fortnightly Review Committee was composed to oversee the progress of the planpreparation which consisted of the following members.List 2. Agencies Present in Fortnightly Reviews of the CDP Designation ofStakeholder Agency represented a. Chairperson or Financial Advisor, NDMC b. Engineer in Chief, NDMC c. Additional Commissioner, Conservancy, MCD d. Additional Commissioner, Slums, MCD e. Engineer in Chief, MCD f. CEO, Delhi Cantt. Board g. CEO / Chief Engineer, DJB h. Engineer in Chief, PWD i. Commissioner planning / addl. Comm., plng., director plng., DDA j. Commissioner Transport, Dept. Of transport k. MD, Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation l. Principal or Additional Secretary, Finance, GNCTD m. Director Planning, GNCTD n. Principal, Or Additional Secretary, Urban Development, GNCTDThe Ecosmart team also met with Civil Society Organisations and NGO‟s working in thevarious areas of urban development. Several of these also participated in thestakeholder consultation workshops. The review committee composed of eminentpersons of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, Delhi DevelopmentAuthority, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, NDMC, PWD etc. which could ensureeffective monitoring of the progress of the project. 81
  • 95. 4.5.5 ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND FIGURESThe City Development Plan has given a good account of the participatory planningmechanism through conscious engagement of people for effective plan preparation. It isbeyond doubts that a lot of CDPs are being prepared in the country under the JNNURMscheme. The main driving force in the preparation of CDP is the central fund allocationfor the development. But we will limit ourselves to the analysis about the extra-statutoryparticipation mechanism of stakeholder‟s participation and the workshop fordissemination of ideas for the plan.Figure 4-9 Participants at CDP Workshop on 7 and 8 September 2006Source: Draft and Published City Development Plan of DelhiFigure 4-10Presence of Participants at the CDP WorkshopDraft and Published City Development Plan of Delhi 82
  • 96. From the above pie-charts it will become clear that the number of participant weredecreasing over two days. What can be the probable reasons? You will see that thenumber of staff from the Consultancy remained same i. e., twelve but the number ofparticipant decreased from 52 on 7th September to 42 on 8th September workshop heldin 2006. Also, there is large percentage of representatives of the government agencieswhich is 55 percent of the total participants and fifteen percent NGOs and CBOs. Thereis low percentage of experts and the RWAs in the workshop. There is also very littletime dedicated for discussion which is one hour out of the six hour workshop. You canrefer to the agenda for workshop named annexure for more details. When I talked to award councilor of Delhi who had attended the workshop expressed his feeling asfollows:“They were talking about their plans and proposal and paid very little attention toour concerns. They organized focus group discussion only in few select colonies andthey think they understood the whole scenario. I felt they were just completing theformalities by arranging the workshop”Let‟s look at the some of the illustrative images ofthe workshop organized for CDP, Delhi in 2006. They will clearly explain the wholeissues and problems.Figure 4-11 File photo of workshop on CDP, DelhiSource: City Development Plan of Delhi 83
  • 97. The seating arrangement is informal and this shows that there were small informalgroups seating together. Thus, affecting the whole ongoing discussion in the workshopbut discussing within the smaller informal groups which is visible in the picture. Thespeaker is not engaging in discussion if he speaks from a podium organized at higherlevel of ground. Around table seating arrangement would had been better for suchworkshop were the participants are high administrative positions and they are more orless equal in ranks working in different departments. In judicious seating arrangementmakes one feel comfortable and free to discuss.4.5.6 MAJOR FINDING OF THE STUDY ON COMMUNITY CONSULTATIONThe following can be the various inferences drawn from the above analysis. a. Focus groups discussion in some selected areas only. b. Few NGOs and RWAs contacted. c. There is no list of ward members who were invited or attended the consultation. d. Many prominent institutions were left like ITPI, DUs social and economics dept., Jamia University, SRDC etc. e. The workshop conducted for a limited no. of people or say officials around 40% attended the out of the total invitee of 102. f. Criteria for selection of RWAs and NGOs not clarified. g. The majority of the people invited where officials of the govt. agencies h. Very low percentage of RWAs and Experts i. If we analyze the seating arrangement, then it seems there was informal grouping among people. j. Many of the institutions were not represented who might have been a source of knowledge and experience. 84
  • 98. k. Most of the participants were from the secondary stakeholders who are ex-officio heads of Govt., ULBs, and Line Agencies l. The consultancy claims that all Ward Councilors invited but there is no record who attended among them. m. Duration for Open house discussion seems to be insufficient taking into account the no of participants. n. Schedule of the Workshop was communicated two weeks prior to the schedule. o. It was a workshop for selected officials and people with few experts outside the consultancy‟s team for CDP.4.5.7 INFERENCESThere is a separate chapter in the City Development Plan (CDP) of Delhi on CommunityConsultation. After the review of the community consultation undertaken by theconsultants for the preparation of the CDP, it has been concluded that the consultationwas not comprehensive and inclusive in nature. There is no doubt that the main thrustof the participation is the stakeholder‟s participation as is evident from the workshopsand the composition of the monitoring committee. Government official and theirrepresentatives had a greater representation rather than the representatives of thepublic. There are serious concerns for how and on what basis the various RWAs, NGOsand experts were selected. The no of focus group discussion is six which is insignificantin a city of fourteen million populations. The smaller no of the participation fromresidents groups and other civil societies can be attributed to the selective invitation forthe participation in the workshops. The duration of the workshop discussion is verysmall for discussing the milliard of problems. On the whole the whole process ofcommunity consultation was a mere mirage. 85
  • 99. 4.6 PROVISIONS FOR PARTICIPATORY PLANNING LOCAL AREA PLAN4.6.1 INTRODUCTIONMaster plan 2021 defines Local Area Plan (LAP) as a plan of a ward/sub zone to beprepared and approved by the concerned local body. Municipal Corporation of Delhi hasproposed the development of LAP for 33 wards. Every LAP will incorporate the viewsand local knowledge provided by people living in and around the area. Thus publicparticipation is an essential element of LAP.“Local area plan is by definition a plan based on the local needs and characteristics.Thus, it requires framing area specific objectives.” (Preparation of local area plans,request for proposals, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 2005)"Local area plan means the plan of a ward/sub-zone to be prepared by the concernedbody." (Master plan for delhi-2021, 2007)"Local area plan means the plan of a ward/sub-zone of existing built up areas whereredevelopment / renewal / rejuvenation etc. are to be done with public participation toachieve the ultimate goal of planned development at the macro level." (Manual forpreparation of local area plans based on mpd-2021, area planning unit, DelhiDevelopment Authority, 2008)4.6.2 STATEMENT ON LAP IN DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS“It is prepared in consultation with the local community and members of the public. Itsets out a strategy for the proper planning and sustainable development of an area. Theplan seeks to provide a framework for how a ward/local area can develop. It providessome ideas as to how this development can be achieved, what new developments are 86
  • 100. needed, where public and private resource inputs are required, and some of the rulesand regulations that will guide development in the ward” (Manual for preparation of localarea plans based on mpd-2021, area planning unit, Delhi Development Authority, 2008).“To address ground realities and formulate practically enforceable building bye-laws, itwill be necessary to focus on much smaller areas with more or less uniform characterand concerns. In other words, formulating area specific building bye-laws will requireinstitutionalizing a third level of planning in Delhi whereby detailed, area specific, threedimensional local area plans and building bye-laws are prepared.” (Preparation of localarea plans, request for proposals, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 2005)Thus, it is quite clear that Local Area Plan will be formulated to address the groundrealities in consultation with public to develop and channelize development inaccordance with the higher order plans4.6.3 STAGES OF PLAN PREPARATION AND SCOPE FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATIONHere, we will be discussing the various stages of the Local Area Plan and how publicparticipation is feasible at the various stages proposed by the planning committee forlocal area plan.Figure 4-12 Stages of Local Area Plan in Delhi which is being followed 1. BASE MAP 2. MAPPING OF DATA 3. DRAFT LAP 4. FINAL LAPSource: Term of Reference of the Local Area Plan Preparation 87
  • 101. 4.6.4 Base MapsHere consultants have to generate upto date base maps on the base of SOI data,imagery, revenue maps, approved layout plans etc. Then generate supplementary uptodate base maps of services, in terms of water, sewerage, drainage, electricity, fireetc.And then get base map approved by Monitoring Committee and WardCouncilor.4.6.5 Mapping Of Secondary Data On Base Maps• On base map, superimposition of up to date MPD/ZDP land use proposals.• Mapping of heritage buildings, sites and landscapes of national and regionalimportance to be protected and those to be conserved as per the list of INTACH and/orMCD are to be done in this stage.• Mapping of approved BPL sites earmarked for in-situ upgrading/reconstruction.• Mapping of LalDora boundaries of urbanized villages if available is to be done.• Mapping of any other approved Land Use commitments is to be incorporated.• Get base map with above commitments approved by Monitoring Committee andWardCouncilor before its publication.4.6.6 Draft Lap• Prepare draft ward level proposals (redevelopment wards, redensification wards,densification wards as the case may be) w.r.t MPD/ZDP, the 12th schedule of the CAAct92, and other primary and secondary data as necessary.• Draft plan to incorporate land use proposals, permissible uses matrix andDevelopment Control Regulations.• Weightage will be given to the consultative/ participatory process. 88
  • 102. • Draft plan will have to get passed by Monitoring Committee and WardCouncilorbefore processing under the DD Act/MCD Act for further improvement.4.6.7 Final LapAfter considering draft objections/suggestions, prepare final LAP for acceptance byMonitoring Committee for processing through DD Act57/MCD Act 57.4.7 INFERENCESLocal Area Plan has been undergoing a phase of completion and the time hasopportune to make a review of the planning practices undertaken in the name ofparticipatory planning. The success and failure of a planning exercise has a stronginfluence on the subsequent planning process. After reviewing the whole process till thedraft stage, it has been found that there is limited scope defined for participation in theplanning document and in actual practice it failed short of the expectation of the people.The process adopted for involving the public seems more like the customary objectionsand suggestions process which is undertaken for higher order plans. The engagementof the public has be very limited and it stated after the plan got prepared leaving littlescope for incorporation of the views of the public in the planning process. There waslack of efforts in informing public in an effective manner and subsequently involvingthem in plan preparation process. The interest of public is high in local area plans whichwill have direct impact on the future development and the provision of services andthus, people will be willing and participate more actively. There was provision forensuring public consultation for the stakeholder‟s participation but in very few casesthere was any form of public consultation organized. There was no any monitoringprovision by the monitoring authoring to monitor such meetings or workshops. 89
  • 103. CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSThere is no doubt that the main thrust of the participation is the stakeholder‟sparticipation as is evident from the workshops and the composition of the monitoringcommittee. Government official and their representatives had a greater representationrather than the representatives of the public. There are serious concerns for how and onwhat basis the various RWAs, NGOs and experts were selected. The no of focus groupdiscussion is six which is insignificant in a city of fourteen million populations. Thesmaller no of the participation from residents groups and other civil societies can beattributed to the selective invitation for the participation in the workshops. The durationof the workshop discussion is very small for discussing the milliard of problems.Figure 5-1Dimensions of the participation in Master Plan, City Development Plan andLocal Area Plan in DelhiSource: Findings and interpretation of the author 90
  • 104. The above fire no. 5.1 shows extents, intensity and purpose of the public participationconducted for the various plan preparation. Overall from the above analysis the leveland intensity of public participation is more in Master Plan as compared to CityDevelopment Plan and the draft Local Area Plan.Public participation connects us to the people and the area. People will be willing toparticipate in the development of their area. They can tell about the existing on groundsituations and so that the issues and problems can be taken care of. As the lower orderplan is made to serve the local people, it has to have a very deep relation with the area,so that the existing and the proposed can be interlinked in a better way with each other.This is not evident in the analysis of the current practices of the Local Area Plan andthus, it becomes more important to engage people in more effective manner so that themodifications undertaken through the Local Area Plan best serve the interest of thelocal people. The planning should be adaptive in nature and I think that the exercise ofthe preparation of Local Area Plan in Delhi has given us an opportunity for relooking atthe planning practices for serving people‟s aspiration in a better and effective manner.The author has developed three stages of the effective public participation in planmaking process which has been detailed out in the subsequent paragraphs under threeheadings viz. information, consultation and resolution.5.1 INFORMATIONPublic notices alone can‟t be an effective mechanism for attracting participant. Thereshould be local notices in the respective wards through alternative media like billboards, radio, TV etc. The relevant data like map, plan, proposals and report should bemade available at the MCD office and respective ward office for easy reference. Theremust be a help desk to educate the people who are interested to participate in the 91
  • 105. process. Informing in a comprehensive and inclusive manner is the first step to ensureeffective engagement of public in plan making process.“Changing the system of planformulation to bottom-up approach which meets local level needs…system of citizenparticipation…residents have knowledge of matters closer to them…lacks technicalskills…unable to stand against person of influence” (Yoshida, 2008). Taking inferencesfrom the author‟s view on plan formulation and taking into consideration of the existingplanning context of Delhi, the following paragraph will further illustrate the innovation inthe planning process which the author suggests for the local area plan preparation.There should be discussion on overall planning process within which the Local AreaPlan fits with all the concerned stakeholders like residents, elected representatives,concerned government official and technical persons to facilitate such processed. Therole of different stakeholders should be discussed so that their contribution can befruitfully utilized. There should be formation of a Planning Task Force of not more than 5people including the Chief Town Planner as the secretary for monitoring the overallexercise. Identification of the background information should be undertaken that needsto be collected or updated about the ward and people/groups/consultants should beassigned different tasks for collection of information for the subsequent planningmeetings. A list of service providers in the ward to be consulted should be prepared anddecided assignment should be allotted for assisting in planning process. For this type ofplanning exercise the resources needed are base map and table showing the workschedule, markers, exercise books and pens. For making this planning exercise fruitfulin real sense of term then there should be proper dissemination of information as MrGupta (2001) has rightly said “Effective procedure for inviting objections, suggestions,awareness and people‟s participation using innovative techniques like TV, radio…bymaking city forum for NGOs, RWAs, professionals”.Unless citizens are involved in the 92
  • 106. complete plan-making process, their participation will lack understanding of the scope ofissues and range of opportunities selected for emphasis in the final plan. And withoutcitizens‟ early and continuing participation, planners will lack the common knowledgeand reality checks provided by stakeholders.5.2 CONSULTATIONConsultation should be as exhaustive as possible like engaging all residents, serviceproviders, public agencies, planning and governing bodies, NGOs and CBOs.Consultation must be interactive like focus group discussion, citizen‟s advisorycommittees. Method of hearing people‟s concerns should be open house andconcerned persons should be informed at least a week prior to hearing. Methods ofinputs of the citizen‟s views should be multi-media i.e., written, audio, visual. Ground forconsideration of a view should be made clear like the issues pertaining to slum andvendors will be entertained if clamant is registered.SWOT Analysis can be undertaken for identifying strengths, weaknesses, opportunities,and threats with as much public involvement as possible. This step can build on theinformation and findings from the neighborhood inventory and ground realities mappingstage. Participants in the SWOT analysis should have the chance to review thisinformation, discuss it with others, and provide meaningful feedback. Depending on thesituation, this might be accomplished with a series of workshops where people have thechance to review information, talk together and share ideas. At this point in theprocess, all suggestions by the participants should be considered relevant. There willbe opportunities later to prioritize and focus resources.Workshop facilitation for ensuring that a well-planned workshop goes well, even if itdoes not go as planned. A facilitator is a neutral guide that helps the group stay on 93
  • 107. task, encourages participation, keeps the discussion fair and balanced, and ensuresthat all voices are heard. All workshops need some form of facilitation. A workshopmight need at least one facilitator for every 8-10 participants.There are several methods to facilitate the prioritization of issues, illicit information orgain group consensus. For example, polling retrieves anonymous and instantaneousquantitative input from a large group of people. Everyone in a workshop can be askedto respond to simple multiple-choice questions. Each question can be displayed on ascreen with a list of possible responses to facilitate simultaneous response recordingthrough electronic medium or on paper. A summary of everybody‟s response is thenimmediately available on the screen for everybody to see and further discuss.A vision can take many forms and one possibility is a vision statement, which capturesthe desires and aspirations of the community in a manner that is brief enough to beeasily communicated but rich enough to be meaningful. The larger and more complex acommunity is, the more difficult this step might be. The vision helps guide the rest ofthe process. The vision might focus the process on a particular path, or it might confirmthe need to make the process more comprehensive. This step requires a mix ofcreative input and careful writing. If possible, one workshop might be conducted tocollect ideas for a vision from a broad range of participants. Following this workshop, asmall working group might spend time crafting a vision from the ideas gathered. Asecond workshop should then take place for the public to review the vision. It might benecessary to repeat this step until a satisfactory vision is obtained.Drafting Goals and Objectives can build on a vision to create more detailed priorities fora community. Goals are typically specific and measurable achievements that if met,suggest that significant progress is being made towards the vision. Objectives are a 94
  • 108. series of smaller steps that need to be accomplished in order to meet each longer-termgoal. Goals should be developed with significant levels of public involvement, thoughthe process might also call for smaller working groups that can work over a period oftime on more details. Objectives are another more detailed level that might be bestaccomplished in a series of session with smaller working groups or dedicated staff time.In either case, when completed, the goals and objectives should be presented to thecommunity in a draft form so that feedback can be gathered and changes made.Implementation Strategies are another detailed part of the plan that should beconstructed with a combination of public input and work from a core group ofindividuals, including representatives from the community, organizational staff, andperhaps individuals from outside the community who can provide information aboutefforts and experiences elsewhere. The list of implementation strategies should befairly exhaustive so that it includes many possible means to achieve the goals.However, it should also provide focus so that the organizations and individuals takingresponsibility for implementing the plan have clear directions.5.3 RESOLUTION AND CONSENSUS BUILDINGThe identification of the groups must be defined like all the registered RWAs of theward. Process should seek to loosen restricted entry and avoid making selectionexclusionary by co-opting. Process of resolution and consensus building must beclarified like Planning Cell or Board of Enquiry. The Composition of the board of inquiryshould be independent from the people who are preparing the plan and there must bemembers who are competent in urban planning and participatory planning withmembers from the concerned agencies. Venue and timing of resolution must beconveyed at least a week prior to the meeting. Official and staff engaged in suchexercise should be sensitized. 95
  • 109. 5.4 OUTCOMES AND INFLUENCESOutcomes and influences of participation are relative in nature if the process isconducive more participation will take plan and surely there will be outcomes.Awareness among public can be the major outcome if the process is open and known topublic. Awareness among public depends on the degree of information made public.Changes in plan take place if the authority is able to compromise some developmentcontrols for sake of development.The preparation of the plan is not sufficient; anunderstanding of development issues needs to be cultivated among councillors, officialsand public.The participatory plan making processwill not happen instantly. There isneed for fine-tuning the needs for planned development and demands for rapid andresponsive development by the progressive cities like Delhi. The final outcome of aparticipatory planning process cannot be rationalized if the voices of local residents andusers are not allowed to getunheard. Overall awareness building among the generalpublic will give long lasting outcomes in a process like participatory plan making processwhich is a continuous process changing from one form to another. 96
  • 110. References Acland, Andrew Floyer (2009), Making Public Participation Work, Working Paper Series 12,Dialogue by Design Ltd, United Kingdom. Agarwal, Komal (2009), National Street Vendors policy, unpublished graduate thesis, Department of Physical Planning, School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi. Aleshire, Robert A., (1970), Planning and Citizen Participation: Costs, Benefits and Approaches, Urban Affairs Review, 5, 639. Alterman, R., Harris, D., & Hill, M. (1984),The impact of public participation on planning, Town Planning Review, 55(2), 177–196. Arnstein, Sherry R., A Ladder of Citizen Participation, JAIP, Vol. 35, No. 4, July 1969, pp. 216-224. Aubel, Judy. Participatory Program Evaluation Manual – Involving Program Stakeholders in the Evaluation Process, Catholic Relief Services, Child Survival and Technical Support Project, Second Edition, December 1999, http://www.childsurvival.com/features/bookmarks/pemanual.cfm,accessed on 2 February 2012. Bechtel, R. and Churchman A.(2002), Sustained Participation: A Community Based Approach to Addressing Environmental Problems, Handbook of Environmental Psychology, John Willey and Sons, Torento. Bhatia, Gaurav (2007), The Extent and Nature of Public Participation in Urban Development Projects in Delhi, unpublished graduate thesis, Department of Physical Planning, School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi. Blau (1986), Exchange and power in social life. New Brunswick. NJ. Branch, Melville C.,(1975) Urban Planning Theory, Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross Inc., Pennsulvania. Brody, Samuel D., Godschalk, David R. and Burby Raymond J.(2003), Mandating Citizen Participation in Plan making: Six Strategic Planning Choices, Journal of American Planning Association, 245-264. Brody, Samuel D., (2003), Measuring the Effect of Stakeholder Participation on Local Plans Based on the Principles of Collaborative Ecosystem Management, Journal of Planning Education and Research, vol. 22, 407. 97
  • 111. Budd, T. (1999),Violence at work: findings from the British Crime Survey, HomeOffice Occasional Paper. London: Home Office.Burke, Admond, 1979, A participatory Approach to Urban Planning, New York,Human Science Press.Burke, Edmond M., (1968), Citizen Participation Strategies, Journal of theAmerican Institute of Planners, September 287-294, Washington.Campbell, Heather and Marshall, Robert(2000), Public Involvement andPlanning: Looking Beyond one to the Many, International Planning Studies, Vol.5, No. 3, 321-344.Catanse, Anthony James, (1984), The Politics of Planning and Development,Berely Hills, CA, Sage.Day, Diane, (1997), Citizen Participation in Planning Process: an EssentiallyContested Concept, Journal of Planning Literature, February 1997 11: 421-434.Department for International Development, 2001: Making Government Work forPoor People; Department for International Development, London.Dwivedi, Tanya (2011), Assessment of Public Participation in Local Level PlanningCase Study: Redevelopment Of LajpatRai Market, unpublished graduate thesis,Department of Physical Planning, School of Planning and Architecture, NewDelhi.Etzioni-Halevy, Eva, 1983, Bureaucracy and Democracy: A political Dilemma,London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.European Union Water Directors’ Meeting (2002), Public ParticipationTechniques, Guidance on Public Participation in Relation to the WaterFramework Directive, EU Member States, NorwayFiorino, Daniel J. 1990. "Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Surveyof Institutional Mechanisms," Science, Technology and Human Values, vol. 15,no. 2, pp. 226-243.Geertman, S. C. M. (1996),Ruimtelijke planning en geografischeinformatie :zoektochtnaareen Geo-IT methodologie,Assen, Van Gorcum. (in Dutch).Government of India (1957), Delhi Development Act, New Delhi.Government of India (2001), Report of the Task Force on Decentralisation ofPowers and functions upon Panchayati Raj Institutions, KrishiBhavan, New Delhi.Government of India (1999), Delhi Master Plan, Perspective 2001, GOI, NewDelhi. 98
  • 112. Government of India (2007), Delhi Master Plan, Perspective 2021, GOI, NewDelhi.Government of India (2004), National Policy on Street Vendors, Ministry ofHousing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, New Delhi.Government of Kerala (1996), Committee on Decentralisation of Powers, SenCommittee (Preliminary) Report, Kerala.Godschalk, D. R., Parham, D. W., Porter, D. R., Potapchuck, W. R., &Schukraft, S.W. (1994),Pulling together: A planning and development consensus-buildingmanual,Urban Land Institute, Washington DC.Gupta, M.K (2001), Impact of 74th Constitutional Amendment Act 1992 on UrbanPlanning and Development, unpublished post graduate thesis, Department ofUrban Planning, School of Planning and Architecture New Delhi.Grant, Gill, 1994, The Drama of Democracy: Contention and dispute inCommunity Planning, Toronto, University of Toronto Press.Homans (1958), Social Behavior as Exchange." American Journal of Sociology.Innes, Judith; Booher, David (2000). "Public Participation in Planning: NewStrategies for the 21st Century". Working Paper 2000-2007 (University ofCalifornia, Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional Development).Isaac, Thomas, T M, with Richard Franke(2000),Local Democracy andDevelopment: People’s Campaign for Decentralised Planning in Kerala,Leftword,New Delhi.John Forester, 1999, The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging ParticipatoryPlanning Processes, MIT Press, Cambridge.Kenney, D. S. 1999. Historical and sociopolitical context of the westernwatersheds movement, Journal of the American Water Resources Association35(3):493-503, USA.Kleefmann, F. (1984). Planning alszoekinstrument ‘s Gravenhage, VUGA,Neatherlands.Kweit, Mary Grisez& Robert W. Kweit, 1990, People and Politics in UrbanAmerica, Belmont, CA, Wordsworth.Lata, Poonam (2002), Role of Community Participation in Urban Basic Servicesfor Poor, unpublished graduate thesis, Department of Physical Planning, Schoolof Planning and Architecture, New Delhi. 99
  • 113. L. A. Coser and B. Rosenberg (eds.), Sociological Theory(5th ed) New York:Macmillan, 1982. (Originally published 1953 in Sociology and Philosophy).Lowry, K., Adler, P., & Milner, N. (1997), Participating the public: Group process,politics, and planning, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 16(3), 177–187.M.A. Oommen,( December 2004), Deepening Decentralised Governance in RuralIndia: Lessons from the People’s Plan Initiative of Kerala, Centre for Socio-economic & Environmental Studies.Nandi, Rupa (2007), Community Participation in Planning, unpublished postgraduate Thesis, Department of Urban Planning, School of Planning andArchitecture, New Delhi.New Tools for Design and Decision Making: An Overview,http://www.smartcommunities.ncat.org/toolkit/TCDDM/Crit1.htm March,2012).Oakley P and Marsden D J ( 1984) Approaches to Participation in RuralDevelopment, ILO, Geneva.Oltheten. Theo M.P. (1999),Participatory Approaches to planning forCommunity Forestry, A synthesis report, Forests, Trees and People Programme,Forestry Department Working Paper No. 2.Participatory Approaches to planning for Community Forestry,http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/x2103e/X2103E04.htm , accessed on 29January 2012.Public Participation,http://www.biodiversity.ru/coastlearn/pp-eng/benefits.html, accessed on 20 January, 2012.RTPI (2001), Participatory Planning, http://www.rtpi.org.uk/download/1542/Participatory-Planning, accessed on 30 January, 2012.Project Team,(2007), The conservation of aquatic and terrestrial biodiversityaround Lake Victoria, Sango-bay region- Rakai district, Uganda.Republic of Uganda (2003),Harmonized Participatory Planning Guide ForParishes/Wards, Ministry of Local Government.Republic of Uganda (2003),Community Participation and Mobilization,Participant’s Handbook for Higher Local Governments, Ministry of LocalGovernment. 100
  • 114. Richardson, Ann. (1983), Participation, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Sandhu, Kiran (2005), Participation: Exploring Conjectural Perspectives, Spatio-Economic Development Records, Vol. 12 & 13, pp. 29-34.Sharma, S.N. (2012), Myths and Facts of Local Area Plan, Annual NOSPLANMagazine, Delhi,13-14.Spiegel, Hans B.C. (1968), Citizen Participation in Urban Development, N&LInstitute for Applied Behavioral Science, Washington, D.C.Tas, Murat; Tas, Nilufer and Canntmur, Azzu (2009), A Participatory GovernanceModel for Sustainable Development of Cumlikizik- A Heritahe Site in Turkey, CityGovernance and Cotizen Action, Environment and Urbanisation, Vol. 21(1),International Institute for Environment and Development.Thomas, Kurian (2003) “Kerala” in Inter‐State Study on Rural Decentralisation,Project Report, VinodVyasulu and team, Centre for Good GovernanceHyderabad: 70‐87.Thomas, Kurian and Bendapudi, Ramkumar (2003), Participatory planning,Knowledge Managers, Centre for Good Governance, Hyderabadhttp://www.sasanet.org/Tools.do acceessed on 23 January 2012.Tim Hadingham (2003), Decentralisation and Development Planning: SomePractical Considerations, Development Planner, Scott Wilson.UNECE (1998), Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation inDecision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, usually knownas the Aarhus Convention, Aarhus, Denmark.UNESCO (1992), The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Rio,Brazil.UNDP (1997), “Who are the Question-makers – A Participatory EvaluationHandbook”, OESP. Accessed on 31 January 2012 fromhttp://www.undp.org/eo/documents/who.htmUSAID (2009), Project Notes on Delhi Local Area Plans, note no. 41, FinancialInstitutions Reform and Expansion Programme- Debt Market Component.Vidyarthee, Kaushal Kishore (2006), A Framework for Effective Partnership inInfrastructure Development Projects, unpublished graduate thesis, Departmentof Physical Planning, School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi. 101
  • 115. Wachowicz, M, Vullings, L.A.E., van den Broek, M. and A. Ligtenberg(2002),Games for interactive spatial planning, Alterra report 667.Whitney, Dr. Diana, Appreciative Leadership and Participatory Planning,Published in Participatory Quarterly, December, The Journal of the InternationalAssociation of Participatory Planning, 2007.Wiesenfeld, E. and E. Sanchez (2002), "Sustained participation: a community-based approach to addressing environmental problems", in R Bechtel and AChurchman (editors), Handbook of Environmental Psychology, John Wiley &Sons, Toronto, Canada, pages 629-643.Wondolleck, J., &Yaffee, S. (2000),Making collaboration work: Lessons frominnovation in natural resource management, Washington, DC: Island Press.Wheeler, S. & T Beatley, 2004, Urban Sustainability at City and Regional Scale,The Sustainability Urban Reader, Routledge, UK, pp. 450-451.World Bank (1989), Sub-Saharan Africa: From Crisis to Sustainable Development(Washington, DC: World Bank).World Bank (1992), Environmental Assessment Sourcebook (World BankTechnical Paper, No. 139-140, 154) (3 Volumes), Washington, DC.World Bank (2000), Participation Sourcebook, Washigton, DC.Yoshida, Masao (2008), Decentralised Service Delivery in Tanzania, RegionalDevelopment Dialogue, Vol. 29 No. 2, United Nations Centre For RegionalDevelopment, Japan. 102
  • 116. Annexure:AnnexureNo. 1 Questionnaires for Monitoring Committee of LocalArea PlanQuestions on Program Administration1. Is there any framework for public participation developed for the project? How?2. Is any staff or consultant appointed to conduct participation?3. If yes, has he been given training in public participation?Questions on Communication to Target Groups1. What are the methods suggested or devised for communicating to the targetgroups?2. Is there any guideline about how much time earlier the stakeholders are to beinformed? How?Questions on Objectives to Guide Public Involvement1. Is there any provision/compulsion for consultants to communicate the objectivesof participation beforehand?Questions on Stages of Public Involvement1. At what stages public participation is sought in the project?2. When the first participation was started?3. Which of the following stages thought or is appropriate for participation? 103
  • 117. a) Plan conception b) Objective and scopec) Surveys and Data Collection d) Analysis Resulte) Proposal f) Implementationa) Review h) MonitoringQuestions on How Many and which Type of Groups1. Is there any identification of groups who are affected and who can benefit theplanning process?Questions on Techniques for Citizens Input1. Is there any provision for recording and effectively taking participants viewsduring such participatory processes like meeting, workshops etc? How?2. Is there any minutes of the meetings/workshops/discussion? Documents in hardor soft copy.Questions on Nature and Type of Information1. Is there any provision like what type of information and data can be shared withpublic during such meeting or consultation? Please mention what type of data.2. Is there any provision for scrutinizing the public consultation done by theconsultants? Please mention how.3. Which of the following documents are to be made available to the stakeholders?a) Existing and proposed map b) Vision documentc) Summaries of plan d) Growth projections 104
  • 118. e) Summary of citizen participation f) Alternative plans or proposalsQuestions on Influence and Impacta) Any mechanism developed to cross check the effectiveness of publicparticipation done by the consultants? How?AnnexureNo. 2 Questionnaire for Consultants for LAPQuestions on Program Administration1. Is there any framework for public participation developed for the project?2. Is there any staff or consultant appointed to conduct participation?3. If yes, has he been given training in public participation?Questions on Communication to Target Groups1. What are/ should be the methods of communicating to the target groups?2. Should all the groups communicated through same channel of communication?How?3. Should there be any General Public notices or special invitation?4. How much time before the actual meeting, the stakeholders should be informed?Questions on Objectives to Guide Public Involvement1. Should the objectives of participation be communicated beforehand?2. Should the participants be given brief of the issue or topic for participation?Questions on Stages of Public Involvement 105
  • 119. 1. At what stages participation desirable?2. When the first participation should be started?3. Which of the following stages thought or is appropriate for participation?a) Plan conception b) Objective and scopec) Surveys and Data Collection d) Analysis Resultf) Proposal f) Implementationg) Review h) MonitoringQuestions on How Many and which Type of Groups1. Should there be any identification of groups who are affected and who canbenefit the planning process?2. What specific contribution a stakeholder can make? Should this be considered?3. Can you list some groups in case of your plan/ process?Questions on Techniques for Citizens Input1. What techniques and methods should be adopted to take citizens views?2. How should they be recorded?3. Can there be any basis for considering the views of a particular group?Questions on Nature and Type of Information1. What types of information should be shared with the public?2. How such information can be disseminated? 106
  • 120. 3. Should there be any effort to educate and inform about the issue underconsideration?4. Which of the following documents should be made available to the stakeholders?a) Existing and proposed map b) Vision documentc) Summaries of plan d) Growth projections e) Summary of citizen participation f) Alternative plans or proposalsQuestions on Influence and Impact1. What can be the influences of the participation?2. Which of following can be probable impact? Any additional.a) Awareness among public b) Trial of alternate plan c) Modifications in the process d) Public Acceptance e) Redressal of the grievances of the affected groupAnnexureNo.3 Questionnaire for Consultants for CDPQuestions on Program Administration1. Was any framework for public participation developed for the project?2. Was any staff or consultant appointed to conduct participation?3. If yes, was he given training in public participation?Questions on Communication to Target Groups1. What were the methods of communicating to the target groups? 107
  • 121. 2. Were all the groups communicated through same channel of communication? How?3. Was there any General Public notices or special invitation?4. How much time before the actual meeting, the stakeholders were informed?Questions on Objectives to Guide Public Involvement1. Were the objectives of participation communicated beforehand?2. Were the participants given brief of the issue or topic for participation?Questions on Stages of Public Involvement1. At what stages public participation sought in the project?2. When the first participation was started?3. Which of the following stages thought or is appropriate for participation?b) Plan conception b) Objective and scoped) Surveys and Data Collection d) Analysis Resulth) Proposal f) Implementationi) Review h) MonitoringQuestions on How Many and which Type of Groups1. Was there any identification of groups who are affected and who can benefit the planning process?2. What specific contribution a stakeholder can make? Was this considered? 108
  • 122. 3. Can you list some groups in case of your plan/ process?Questions on Techniques for Citizens Input1. What techniques and methods were adopted to take citizens views?2. How were they recorded?3. Any basis for considering the views of a particular group?4. Can you provide me the minutes of the meetings/workshops/focus group discussion? Documents in hard or soft copyQuestions on Nature and Type of Information1. What types of information were shared with the public?2. How was such information disseminated?3. Was there any effort to educate and inform about the issue under consideration?4. Is there any summary of citizen participation?5. Which of the following documents were made available to the stakeholders?b) Existing and proposed map b) Vision documentc) Summaries of plan d) Growth projectionse) Summary of citizen participation f) Alternative plans or proposalsQuestions on Influence and Impact1. What was/were influences of the participation?2. What changes in the plans or proposal were made after the participation? 109
  • 123. 3. Which of following were/are probable impact? Any additional.a) awareness among public d) Trial of alternate planc) Modifications in the process e) Public Acceptanced) Redressal of the grievances of the affected groupAnnexureNo. 4 Schedule of the Workshops for CDPAgenda for Workshop Date : 07.09.20061.45 PM to 2.00 PM Registration2.00 PM to 2.05 PM Welcome address By Mr. Mahesh Babu, CEO, IL&FSEcosmart2.05 PM to 2.15 PM Opening Remarks By Chairperson, Mr.S.Reghunathan, FormerChief Secretary, Govt. of Delhi2.15 PM to 3.00 PM State of City Presentation By SuneethaKacker, IL&FSEcosmart3.00 PM to 4.00 PM Open House Discussions Chairperson, Mr. S. Reghunathan4.00 PM to 4.15 PM Tea Break4.15 PM to 5.15 PM Discussion by Sectoral subgroups Sectoral Coordinators:Urban Slum & Poor SuneethaKacker Urban Services Rahul Singh/Dr.P.KJainCity Environment & Heritage HarleenKaur/Anuradha /Dr.N.B.MajumdarUrban Transport SandeepKaushik5.15 PM to 6.00 PM Sectoral Strategy Presentation (10 minutes for each sector)By Sector Leaders/Coordinators 110
  • 124. 6.00 PM to 6.15 PM Strategy for the City By Chairperson, Mr.S.Reghunathan6.15 PM to 6.20 PM Conclusion By Dr.S.Mukherjee, IL&FSEcosmartAnnexureNo.5Agenda for Workshop Date: 08.09.071.45 PM to 2.00 PM Registration2.00 PM to 2.05 PM Welcome address By Mr. Mahesh Babu, CEO, IL&FSEcosmart2.05 PM to 2.15 PM Opening Remarks By Chairperson, Mr.S.Reghunathan, FormerChief Secretary, Govt. of Delhi2.15 PM to 3.00 PM State of City Presentation By SuneethaKacker, IL&FSEcosmart3.00 PM to 4.00 PM Open House Discussions Chairperson, Mr. S. Reghunathan4.00 PM to 4.15 PM Tea Break4.15 PM to 5.45 PM Discussion by Sectoral sub-groups Sectoral Coordinators:Urban Slum & Poor SuneethaKackerUrban Services Rahul Singh/Dr.P.KJainCity Environment & Heritage HarleenKaur/Anuradha /Dr.N.B.MajumdarUrban Transport SandeepKaushik5.45 PM to 6.00 PM Strategy for the City By Chairperson, Mr.S.Reghunathan6.00 PM to 6.10 PM Conclusion By Dr.S.Mukherjee, IL&FSEcosmart 111
  • 125. AnnexureNo.6. List of the Invitees and Participant in the Workshop for CDP,Delhi on 7 & 8 Sep, 2006List of the Invitees and Participant in the Workshop for CDP, Delhi on 7 & 8 Sep, 2006Sr. Sr Sr. Sr.N Name of Govt. Agency and .N No No Name ofo Organisations o Name of RWA, CBOs and Associations . Name of NGO . Institutions Residential Welfare Society, CPCB SRUTI SPA, Delhi 1 1 Nizamuddin 1 1 Residential Welfare Society, Centre for Council Of 2 CGWB 2 Defence Colony 2 Civil Society 2 Architecture Residential Welfare Society, Kalpavriksha I.I.T, Delhi 3 PWD 3 Tuglakabad 3 (NGO) 3 Residential Welfare Society, Old Development TVB School of MCD 4 4 RajendraNagar 4 Alternative 4 Habitat Studies 5 Delhi Tourism and 5 Narela Industrial Complex Welfare 5 SRISHTI 5 JNU, Centre for Transporation Development Association Study of Corporation (DTTDC) Regional Development ACCORD CRRI TERRI 6 6 President, RWA, Kaushambi 6 (NGO) 6 Centre for DMRC Industrial Welfare Society Water Aid Science and 7 7 7 7 Environment Hazard‟s President, URJA, (Association of DDA Center INTACH RWA‟s) 8 8 8 (NGO), 8 SanjhaManch Federation of NarainaViharRWA NIUA 9 CPWD 9 9 (NGO) 9 Federation of I.P Ext Housing TAPAS DSIDC World Bank10 10 Societies 10 (NGO) 10 Chintan UD, GNCTD G C L Cooperative Housing WWF11 11 11 (NGO) 11 National Institute for NCRPB Federation of RWA of VasantKunj Network for Economic12 12 12 India Trust 12 Growth Institute of DJB Delhis RWA Joint Front MansaJankalya Roads & Traffic13 13 13 nManch 13 Education Ministry of Environment & RWA New RaginderNagar14 Forests 14 Irrigation & Flood Control VasantViharRWA15 Department 15 Confederation of Indian KarolBagh Traders Association16 Industry (CII) 1617 Department of Forest18 Ministry of Urban Development Note: Green coloured text Central Water Commission denotes those who attended19 the workshop Secretary, Environment,20 GNCTD21 Archeological Survey of India Medical Officer of22 Health,NDMC Ministry of Environment &23 Forests24 Panchayat, GNCTD25 Dy. C. G. M. Traffic, Secretary-cum-Commissioner26 (Transport) 112
  • 126. 27 NDMC28 DPCC29 Transport, GNCTD30 FICCI31 DIMTS32 CEO,IL&FS 113
  • 127. Annexure No.7 Sheets of the Studio Presentation 114
  • 128. 115
  • 129. Email: SNSharma.SPA@gmail.comWeb: www.sureshotpost.comAll Rights Reserved © ShashikantNishant Sharma 116