Learnings from Participatory
Budgeting in Pune
Sanskriti Menon & Avinash Madhale
CEE
Centre for Environment Education
Introduction
 Meaning of participatory budgeting:
 A different way to manage public money, and to
engage people in organ...
UN-Habitat
 ‘Participatory budgeting’ and participation opportunities,
and suggests ‘Regular, organized and open
consulta...
What is it?/ Why PB?
 Deepening Democracy
 Way of engaging people effectively in decisions about Pub. Expend.
 More inf...
Where its stared and has it worked?
 The Brazilian city of Porto Alegre started the first full PB
process in 1989, for th...
Approach to Development Thinking
Structure of PMC
PMC Budget, 2006-07 to 2013-14
Financial Year
Budget in INR
million*
Capital
Expenditure*
PB Expenditure
INR million**
PB ...
Pune PB - An Overview from 2006-07 to 2012-13
Budget for
the Year
Window for
PB
suggestions*
Number of
days
suggestions
in...
PB distribution in categories/ sectors
Budget
Year
Total
INR million
% Road
%
Electrical
%
Bhavan
% Slum
improve-
ment
% W...
Number of projects suggested through PB included in annual
municipal budgets, 2007-08 t0 2013-14
500
550
600
650
700
750
8...
Utilization of funds allocated for PB
Budget for the
Year
Outlay in INR
million
Actual
expenditure INR
million
% usage of ...
PB Outlay and Expenditure
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Outlay in INR m...
How to assess PB ? Sintomer et al
 1. Discussion is about financial/budgetary processes –
PB is dealing with scarce resou...
Cont.
 Some forms of public deliberation must be
included within the framework of specific
meetings/forums; though PB del...
Framework to Assess the PB Process
Indicators related to the Nature and Scope of the Process
 Participation is about use ...
Cont
 Public deliberation is part of the process
 Public deliberations are easily accessible, fair and
facilitate public...
Quantitative Indicators
 Proportion of population in the city aware about the
process and can participate easily if they ...
Main Findings
 Lack of:
 Publicity
 information
 transparency
 Elite centered
 Participation mainly from middle & hi...
Main Findings
 Corporator’s network is important
 Those who knew corporator personally didn’t find
need to participate
...
Main Findings
 Few participants from youth
 Citizens lack understanding of the nuances of the
process
 Made demands tha...
Views of stakeholders
 Corporators:
 Sometimes apathetic or against the process
 Some tried to influence process
 Some...
Recommendations
 Innovative forms of communication and publicity
 Should be different for different sections of society
...
Recommendations
 Education
 Citizens: to know about what can be voted on in budget.
Small neighborhood committees to put...
Recommendations
 Participation
 Encourage those who participate to attend meetings
 Encourage those who participate to ...
Case studies
 Dattawadi Experience with
 Streets for People in Aundh
लोक सहभागातून रस्ते व पररसर
ववकासा साठी सहववचार सभा
SUM Net
Sustainable Urban Mobility Network
CEE
Centre for Environment ...
Way forward
 Inquiry Based Approach in 5 wards
 Challenges and the need for innovation in methods of
public engagement.
...
Institutionalizing role of Facilitator
 Local area planning seems to require a
Facilitator, but who is playing this role?...
Cont
 The CEE CEPT UNESCO Chair of Human
Habitat is one way that the two institutions
are jointly exploring this.
 Chair...
CEE PB in Pune
CEE PB in Pune
CEE PB in Pune
CEE PB in Pune
CEE PB in Pune
CEE PB in Pune
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

CEE PB in Pune

405 views

Published on

Workshop Organized by CUE, CEPT University
30th June 2014

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
405
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
12
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

CEE PB in Pune

  1. 1. Learnings from Participatory Budgeting in Pune Sanskriti Menon & Avinash Madhale CEE Centre for Environment Education
  2. 2. Introduction  Meaning of participatory budgeting:  A different way to manage public money, and to engage people in organizing Hope.  It is a democratic process in which community members directly decide how to spend part of a public budget.  It enables citizens to work with government to make the budget decisions that affect their lives.
  3. 3. UN-Habitat  ‘Participatory budgeting’ and participation opportunities, and suggests ‘Regular, organized and open consultations of citizens on city financial matters and other important issues, through such mechanisms as the participatory budget’, to operationalize transparency and accountability. (UN-Habitat 2002)
  4. 4. What is it?/ Why PB?  Deepening Democracy  Way of engaging people effectively in decisions about Pub. Expend.  More informed decisions  Learn macro and micro picture our cities  Public Education  Practice 7th Std Civics  Fairer Spending  Use municipal resource wisely through deliberation  Community Building  Create ownership, sense of belonging  Ensures transparency and accountability process Innovation
  5. 5. Where its stared and has it worked?  The Brazilian city of Porto Alegre started the first full PB process in 1989, for the municipal budget. In Porto Alegre, as many as 50,000 people have participated each year, to decide as much as 20% of the city budget.  PB has spread to over 1,500 cities in Latin America, North America, Asia, Africa, and Europe. In the US and Canada, PB has been used in Toronto, Montreal, Guelph, Chicago, New York City, and Vallejo (California).
  6. 6. Approach to Development Thinking
  7. 7. Structure of PMC
  8. 8. PMC Budget, 2006-07 to 2013-14 Financial Year Budget in INR million* Capital Expenditure* PB Expenditure INR million** PB expenditure as % of total CapEx 2005-06 1043.90 672.73 - 2006-07 1157.21 530.70 - 2007-08 1713.04 785.68 11.32 1.44 2008-09 1575.31 1321.99 20.75 1.57 2009-10 2031.64 1335.99 21.62 1.62 2010-11 2335.23 1202.24 16.55 1.38 2011-12 2776.56 1310.90 23.28 1.78 2012-13 3633.00# 1900.71# 16.67 0.88 2013-14 4167.48# 2177.84# - - # Estimated. Sources: * PMC Budget Book, 2013-14 and ** PMC Accounts Dept
  9. 9. Pune PB - An Overview from 2006-07 to 2012-13 Budget for the Year Window for PB suggestions* Number of days suggestions included suggestions for projects in slums Outlay for projects suggested through PB INR million 2007-08 17 days 575 55 17.62 2008-09 9 days 831 144 27.27 2009-10 31 days 699 105 35.00 2010-11 14 days 917 160 30.16 2011-12 22 days 927 141 34.73 2012-13 24 days 704 102 26.24 2013-14 36 days 854 120 29.52 Source: PMC Budget books, 2007-08 to 2013-14; *From CEE and Janwani; **From PMC Accounts Dept
  10. 10. PB distribution in categories/ sectors Budget Year Total INR million % Road % Electrical % Bhavan % Slum improve- ment % Water % Drainage % Foot- path 2007-08 17.62 51.27 14.15 7.33 7.41 4.82 15.02 7.05 2008-09 27.27 41.74 10.38 3.72 20.54 8.01 13.06 2.55 2009-10 35.00 44.85 10.93 7.66 12.76 7.71 16.1 - 2010-11 30.17 40.91 15.09 10.32 18.37 6.51 8.81 - 2011-12* 34.73 51.3 12.3 6.13 14.65 0.88 14.73 - 2012-13* 26.24 42.46 15.07 6.67 14.59 4.42 16.8 - 2013-14* 29.52 37.15 17.01 12.33 13.85 4.74 14.92 -
  11. 11. Number of projects suggested through PB included in annual municipal budgets, 2007-08 t0 2013-14 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Number of projects included
  12. 12. Utilization of funds allocated for PB Budget for the Year Outlay in INR million Actual expenditure INR million % usage of funds 2007-08 17.62 11.32 64% 2008-09 27.27 20.75 76% 2009-10 35 21.62 62% 2010-11 30.16 16.55 55% 2011-12 34.73 23.28 67% 2012-13 26.24 16.67 64% 2013-14 29.52 -
  13. 13. PB Outlay and Expenditure 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Outlay in INR million Actual expenditure INR million
  14. 14. How to assess PB ? Sintomer et al  1. Discussion is about financial/budgetary processes – PB is dealing with scarce resources and the participatory process is centrally based on the question of how a limited budget should be used.  2. The city level has to be involved; there is a growing number of neighbourhood funds where citizens can decide about a concrete amount of money, but without having any influence on issues that go beyond this level of a single neighbourhood.  3. It has to be a repeated process over years
  15. 15. Cont.  Some forms of public deliberation must be included within the framework of specific meetings/forums; though PB deliberation may not necessarily directly lead to decision-making.  Some accountability on the results of the process is required, such as through annual meetings or publications where organisers provide information about the realization of the proposed projects
  16. 16. Framework to Assess the PB Process Indicators related to the Nature and Scope of the Process  Participation is about use of a limited budget  It is repeated over the years  There is political acceptance about the process  The process is proactive and invites/ facilitates participation  Disadvantaged persons are able to easily participate  Adequate information is available to citizens at various stages of the PB process, such as when the process gets underway, information about the wards including maps, lists of projects already underway, and what is already being planned
  17. 17. Cont  Public deliberation is part of the process  Public deliberations are easily accessible, fair and facilitate public decision-making on the budget or at least the priorities  The results at various stages of the process are known/ transparent (what has been submitted; what’s being taken on board; reasons why suggestions are accepted or not accepted).  Projects suggested and agreed upon in public deliberations are actually included in the city’s budget
  18. 18. Quantitative Indicators  Proportion of population in the city aware about the process and can participate easily if they wish to  Numbers of people participating  Numbers of projects being submitted  Numbers of projects getting included in the budget  Proportion of the total discretionary budget (that is non- establishment related, meant for projects, capital expenditure, O and M etc) available for citizens inputs
  19. 19. Main Findings  Lack of:  Publicity  information  transparency  Elite centered  Participation mainly from middle & high income groups  online forms, newspaper advertisements reach educated classes only  Women’s participation low  Very few participants  Housewives : ‘I m not citizen my husband is’.
  20. 20. Main Findings  Corporator’s network is important  Those who knew corporator personally didn’t find need to participate  Some filled forms after consulting corporator  Lack of forum for coordination between corporators, ward officers and citizens  Adequate/ inadequate?  No base document to have overview
  21. 21. Main Findings  Few participants from youth  Citizens lack understanding of the nuances of the process  Made demands that didn’t fall within scope of budget  Follow up not satisfactory  Many citizens showed a very positive attitude towards the process and it has led to some awareness regarding government functioning
  22. 22. Views of stakeholders  Corporators:  Sometimes apathetic or against the process  Some tried to influence process  Some expressed that citizens not educated/aware enough to participate in process  Ward officers:  Busy with routine tasks, no time or interest in PB  Claimed lack of awareness about process in other cities or countries  Feel citizens not capable of participating  Citizens ??
  23. 23. Recommendations  Innovative forms of communication and publicity  Should be different for different sections of society  Use of radio, street plays, folk traditions, rallies  Billboards displayed in public areas in different languages  Media’s role important  Local women’s groups  Measures to increase women’s participation  Important due to the priorities they give for basic facilities  Reservation  Made aware of their rights
  24. 24. Recommendations  Education  Citizens: to know about what can be voted on in budget. Small neighborhood committees to put forward demands  Corporators: why the system can benefit them  Ward officers: training and relationship with finance department  Distribution of work among ward officers to facilitate process  NGOs to provide support  Monitor & ensure no political pressure
  25. 25. Recommendations  Participation  Encourage those who participate to attend meetings  Encourage those who participate to continue their participation  Follow up  Monitoring system of what has been suggested & what has been implemented  Monitoring committee with all stakeholders to provide checks  Display list of works implemented as result of PB  Institutionalization of the process so that it does not get politicized
  26. 26. Case studies  Dattawadi Experience with  Streets for People in Aundh
  27. 27. लोक सहभागातून रस्ते व पररसर ववकासा साठी सहववचार सभा SUM Net Sustainable Urban Mobility Network CEE Centre for Environment Education
  28. 28. Way forward  Inquiry Based Approach in 5 wards  Challenges and the need for innovation in methods of public engagement.  Updating Menu Card  Deepening democracy requires a lot more innovation in methods of public engagement, since the desire is to go beyond voting, into more and more complex problems with need to integrate multiple views from different scales.  Challenges include: time, equity, environment, information, differing views about the problem, power relations, conflicts etc.
  29. 29. Institutionalizing role of Facilitator  Local area planning seems to require a Facilitator, but who is playing this role?  Is it the elected rep? Is it a community social worker? A planner? An Educator?  The practice of planning with public participation is yet evolving. Practitioners are not only planners but many different types of actors. We should continue to cooperate and built a community of practice around facilitating multi- stakeholder processes.
  30. 30. Cont  The CEE CEPT UNESCO Chair of Human Habitat is one way that the two institutions are jointly exploring this.  Chair work and the tentative proposal to offer a Facilitators' program as a professional development program by CEE CEPT and ICLEI jointly in October this year.

×