Print
XClose
Press Information Bureau
Government of India
Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation
27-March-2012 16:21 IST
Achievements under BSUP

 

The Minister for Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation Kumari Selja has said that State-wise details of dwelling units sanctioned and completed alongwith basic infrastructural facilities under the Basic Services to the Urban Poor (BSUP) are at Annexure-I.

 

In a written reply in the Lok Sabha today she said, Planning Commission in its Mid-Term Appraisal of 11th Plan and the Ministry of Urban Development have appraised the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) including the Sub-Mission on Basic Services to the Urban Poor (BSUP)-component of JNNURM. The details of findings of the appraisal are at Annexure-II.

Annexure-I

 

STATE-WISE DWELLING UNITS SANCTIONED AND COMPLETED UNDER BSUP

Sr No

Name of The State

Dwelling Units Sanctioned

Dwelling Units Completed

1

A&N Island

0

0

2

Andhra Pradesh

138054

92945

3

Arunachal Pradesh

996

92

4

Assam

2260

352

5

Bihar

22372

352

6

Chandigarh (UT)

25728

12736

7

Chhattisgarh

30000

0

8

D&N Haveli

0

0

9

Daman & Diu

0

0

10

Delhi

74312

13820

11

Goa

155

0

12

Gujarat

108944

78818

13

Haryana

3248

2844

14

Himachal Pradesh

636

0

15

Jammu & Kashmir

6677

344

16

Jharkhand

16724

0

17

Karnataka

28288

16872

18

Kerala

23577

11830

19

Lakshdweep

0

0

20

Madhya Pradesh

41446

8732

21

Maharashtra

152247

52494

22

Manipur

1250

0

23

Meghalaya

768

160

24

Mizoram

1096

135

25

Nagaland

3504

1270

26

Orissa

2508

907

27

Puducherry

2964

358

28

Punjab

5152

1000

29

Rajasthan

11151

765

30

Sikkim

254

52

31

TamilNadu

91418

31575

32

Tripura

256

256

33

Uttar Pradesh

68217

28601

34

Uttrakhand

1799

54

35

West Bengal

160662

61086

Grand Total

1026663

418450

 

 

Annexure-II

 

(I)      Major findings by Planning Commission –The Mid-Term Appraisal of 11th Plan Document of the Planning Commission has revealed the following points on JNNURM:

A) JNNURM has been effective in renewing focus on the urban sector across the country; however the need to raise capacity and investment resources is still substantial. It has been successful in catalysing significant investments into the physical infrastructure of cities. Much of this investment has been directed towards the provision of critical basic services that are essential to inclusiveness. The programme has created renewed focus on cities and allowed states and ULBs to raise their aspirations.

B) JNNRUM has helped to initiate a comprehensive process of urban reforms within States and ULBs. However, the pace and depth of reforms needs to pick up.

C) Capacity building funds can be used more effectively. JNNURM earmarked 5 per cent of the programme funds for capacity building. Assessment and discussions with the states point to opportunities for better use of these funds to support capacity initiatives in the states.

D) Emphasis has to shift even more from ‘projects’ to holistic urban renewal and an integrated view of a city’s development. While cities did submit CDPs as part of their project proposals, the emphasis on urban renewal and long term planning of cities is lagging.

 

(II)    M/s Grant Thornton, engaged by the Ministry of Urban Development for conducting Appraisal of JNNURM, has revealed the following major findings in its report:

§  JNNURM has been instrumental in rejuvenating the urban space in the country.  Post-independence, JnNURM has been the country’s first National flagship programme of this nature and size for the urban sector.

§  Even though JNNURM give the option of providing the Central Assistance as a soft loan to the Urban Local Body (ULB), the discretion to exercise that option had been left to the State Government.

§  It is for the first time that the Central Government is providing assistance of this kind for what is classified as a State subject as per the Constitution.  This Programme is bringing about a change, not just in the urban governance set up and the mind-set of the states and ULBs but has also created an awareness, raised expectation among the people for a better quality of life.

§  Out of the 65 Mission Cities, category A (Mega cities/Urban Agglomerations) and B (Million plus cities/Urban Agglomerations) may not require the extent of funding under the umbrella of JNNURM as in the present scheme and funding may be scaled down for them to increase the funding for smaller towns.

§  Funding of the Mission Cities was decided on the basis of population based on 2001 census; based on the said criteria, the smaller states with smaller towns had some disadvantage over the large cities.

§  The State Level Nodal Agency (SLNA) is headed either by the Secretary of Urban Development or Municipal Administration/Local Self Government without any dedicated staff as the staff already have additional workload.

§  23 reforms to be implemented within a span of five to seven years seem to be a tall order for the States/ULBs.

A bottom up approach should be followed and the States should be asked to furnish the reforms within the acceptable timeframe.

§  Capacity building, perhaps the single most important activity required in the today’s urban sector scenario should be considered to be monitored by an agency similar to appraising and monitoring agencies for reforms and project.

****

AD/DB