Release of Survey Results 3:00 to 4:00 PM IST, 28th February 2017 Press Club of India, Delhi

India’s Cities are in bad shape Floods in Chennai Landfill fire in Mumbai Air pollution and traffic in Delhi Polluted and burning lakes in Bengaluru

CITY - SYSTEMS QUALITY OF LIFE CITY-SYSTEMS ARE LAWS, POLICIES AND POOR QUALITY OF LIFE MAY BE EXPERIENCED IN THE FORM OF: WATER SCARCITY POWER CUTS SAFETY AIR POLLUTION QUALITY OF LIFE CITY-SYSTEMS ARE LAWS, POLICIES AND PROCESSES IN RESPECT OF : SPATIAL PLANNING AND DESIGN STANDARDS FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SKILLS AND CAPABILITIES OF STAFF TECHNOLOGY AND PROCESSES QUALITY AND POWERS OF POLITICAL LEADERS TRANSPARENCY ACCOUNTABILITY FOR PERFORMANCE AND SERVICE LEVELS CITIZEN PARTICIPATION CITY - SYSTEMS

The City-Systems framework The City-Systems framework is a new way of thinking about lingering challenges that plague our cities in three specific ways. 1 Focuses on root causes rather than symptoms 2 Recognizes the need for a systems approach 3 Facilitates periodic measurement of progress

The Annual Survey of India’s City-Systems (ASICS) Evaluates 21 cities in 18 States across India objectively to assess their ability to provide citizens a high quality of life – a health diagnostic of our cities Looks at over 80 parameters spanning the four City-System components Laws, policies and rules Government reports Budget documents Govt. websites Designed to help city leaders identify systemic issues in urban governance and chart a reforms roadmap that fits their city Puts City-Systems data at the heart of reforms

ASICS 2016 City ASICS Score Rank Rank 2015 Thiruvananthapuram 4.4 1 Pune 4.2 2 4 Kolkata 4.1 3 Mumbai Hyderabad 3.9 5 6 Bhopal 3.7 Kanpur 3.6 7 9 Chennai 8 Delhi Bhubaneswar 3.5 10 18 Patna 3.4 11 Lucknow 12 Ranchi 3.3 13 14 Ahmedabad 16 Raipur 15 Bengaluru Surat 3.2 17 Dehradun 3.1 Ludhiana 19 Jaipur 2.7 20 Chandigarh 2.1 21 London 9.3   New York 9.8 Overall Scores India’s cities scored between 2.1 and 4.4 out of a total of 10. Contrast this with London and New York, scoring 9.4 and 9.9 respectively, and it becomes clear that our cities need to strengthen their foundations – quality of our laws, policies and institutions significantly to deliver a high quality of life to all citizens. Over the last four years and editions of ASICS, our cities have continued to score low indicating that progress, on fixing City-Systems, has been slow.

ASICS 2016 Highlights Thiruvananthapuram city retained its number one position in 2016 Pune came in at second, up two ranks over 2015 and Kolkata, third, same as 2015 The biggest gainer – Bhubaneswar, 10th rank (+8 ranks over 2015) This was on the back of a slew of reforms such as instituting Municipal cadres, tiered spatial planning even at the ward level and a single window clearance process for development projects in conformity with plans The biggest loser – Bengaluru, 16th rank (-4 compared to 2015) Score remained the same but increases in scores for other cities pushed it lower Other notable mentions – Jaipur benefited from Rajasthan passing the Rajasthan Urban Land (Certification of Titles) Bill that enabled better urban land utilisation while Chennai lost points as it turned back to the system of having indirect Mayoral elections

INSIGHT 1: Urban Planning & Design is the weakest of the 4 City-Systems in India’s cities Poor urban planning can cost a country 3% of its GDP. No Indian city looks prepared to implement Spatial Development Plans successfully or deter plan violations (except for Delhi, no city is required by law to have ward level plans)

INSIGHT 2: Our cities face a severe ‘systems’ problem INSIGHT 2: Our cities face a severe ‘systems’ problem. None fare well across all ’City-Systems’ components London UPD – 9.6 UCR – 9.7 TAP – 8.2 ELPR – 10.0 New York UPD – 9.9 UCR – 9.8 TAP – 9.6 ELPR – 10.0

INSIGHT 3: Larger cities with stronger and sustainable finances have relatively weak city leadership (Mayors) and levels of devolution. It is the opposite in smaller cities.

INSIGHT 4: Our cities are not financially self-sustainable - Many cities do not even generate enough own revenue to cover staff salaries In 11 out of the 21 ASICS cities, salary as a proportion of own revenues has increased from 108% in 2013 to 129% in 2015. Cities need to generate far higher levels of own revenues to meet their growing needs. ALL 108% 101% 129%

INSIGHT 5: Weak finances, less investments for the future - Smaller cities, which will be at the forefront of future urbanisation, invest significantly less

Urban Planning & Design Poor urban planning can cost a country 3% of its GDP. No Indian city looks prepared to implement Spatial Development Plans successfully or deter plan violations – scores on these aspects range from 0 to 1.8 compared with 9.1 to 10 for London & New York Tiered and participatory spatial planning is virtually absent Only one city, Delhi has ward level plans Institutional capacity, for effective implementation and evaluation of plans, is lacking

Urban Planning & Design Most of our planning laws are outdated Except for 3 cities, all laws are from the pre liberalisation era, a time since when urban India has grown several times in size

Urban Capacities & Resources Weak Finances - ASICS cities generate just 37% of the money that they spend leaving them heavily dependent on States and stifling their capacity to invest adequately in infrastructure and services Only 9 cities - Ahmedabad, Bengaluru, Bhubaneswar, Delhi, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Mumbai and Pune generate more than 33% (own revenue) of the amount they spend.

Empowered & Legitimate Political Representation Of the 80 million residents in the ASICS cities, 46 million are governed by an indirectly elected Mayor with a tenure of 2.5 years or fewer, an aspect that significantly weakens city leadership

Empowered & Legitimate Political Representation Lower citizen interest in City elections Municipal election turnouts, when compared with state elections, are lower by 9% on average and up to 26% lower (Ranchi). This figure, when compared to Parliamentary elections is 11% and at the bottom, is lower by 30% in Surat 46% of Council seats in the ASICS cities are held by women. In cities with 33% reservation for women in the Municipal Council, the average proportion of female Councillors is 39%. Bhubaneswar, Thiruvananthapuram and Mumbai stand out among cities with 50% reservation for women.

Empowered & Legitimate Political Representation Gender representation in city leadership – In cities with 33% reservation for women in the Municipal Council, the average proportion of female Councillors is 39%. Bhubaneswar, Thiruvananthapuram and Mumbai stand out among cities with 50% reservation for women. 46% of Council seats in the ASICS cities are held by women. In cities with 33% reservation for women in the Municipal Council, the average proportion of female Councillors is 39%. Bhubaneswar, Thiruvananthapuram and Mumbai stand out among cities with 50% reservation for women.

Transparency, Accountability & Participation Open Government Enactment of Public Disclosure Law and Community Participation Law, mandated under JNNURM to promote transparency and accountability, is still an unfinished reform agenda. Nine cities haven’t notified either of the laws till date. No city has made available their internal audit report Grievance Redress Thiruvananthapuram is the only city that has an Ombudsman for complaints regarding service delivery Only Hyderabad and Pune conduct citizen satisfaction surveys Participation Indian cities have hardly utilised the spirit of volunteering among its citizens. However, things are starting to look better - while only six cities crowdsourced goodwill in 2015, in the last one year, four more cities - Bhubaneswar, Chennai, Hyderabad and Ludhiana joined the e ort. This could, possibly, be driven by initiatives such as Swachhata, Smart Cities Mission and AMRUT. True to the spirit of deepening urban governance as envisaged in the 74th CAA, Hyderabad is the only city that has constituted Area Sabhas in all wards. To an extent, so has Pune, being the only city that allows its people a say in city projects through participatory budgeting.

ASICS 2016 – UPD SCORES

ASICS 2016 – UCR SCORES

ASICS 2016 – ELPR SCORES

ASICS 2016 – TAP SCORES

Reforms Roadmap - UPD

Reforms Roadmap - UCR

Reforms Roadmap - ELPR

Reforms Roadmap - TAP

Thank You For more information, contact:   Anil Nair| anil.nair@janaagraha.org | 09871916608   Vivek Anandan Nair| vivek.nair@janaagraha.org | 09740469944