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