The document summarizes learnings from participatory budgeting experiments in Pune, India. It discusses what participatory budgeting is, how it has been implemented in Pune from 2007-2013, key findings and recommendations. The process in Pune engaged 700-900 citizens annually who suggested 500-850 projects, with 16-35% of the capital budget allocated for participatory budgeting projects. However, the process faced issues with lack of publicity, information and transparency, as well as low participation of disadvantaged groups.

1. Learnings from Participatory
Budgeting in Pune
Sanskriti Menon & Avinash Madhale
CEE
Centre for Environment Education

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. 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. 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. 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. Approach to Development Thinking

8. Structure of PMC

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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
-

13. 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

14. 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 -

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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’.

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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 ??

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. Case studies
 Dattawadi Experience with
 Streets for People in Aundh

29. लोक सहभागातून रस्ते व पररसर
ववकासा साठी सहववचार सभा
SUM Net
Sustainable Urban Mobility Network
CEE
Centre for Environment Education

34. 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.

35. 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.

36. 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.