|
Till
1991, Maharashtra was the most urbanised state in India
among the 16 largest states in India with a population
of 78 million. In 2001, with regard to the urban population,
Maharashtra ranked second with a share of 42.4% urban
population next to Tamilnadu with a share of 43.9% of
urban population. In absolute numbers, according to
the 2001 census, 10.5 million was urban population out
of a total population of 97 million.
Focus
on Urban Infrastructure
The
governments in Maharashtra welcomed urbanisation as
a progressive and desirable development, only if it
took place in a well-planned manner. The urban development
policy in Maharashtra was based on the objectives of
economic growth with equity across regions, districts
and even cities and for the poor within each city.
Paralelly
the GoM has been increasing the plan expenditure and
non plan expenditure for provision of urban infrastructure.
The state government made an allocation of Rs. 4791
crores for water supply, sanitation and other urban
services in its budget for 2007-08. This allocation
represented an increase of 108% over the budgetary allocation
of Rs. 2301.54 crores in the budget for 2006-07. Similarly
in the Roads Ports Airports Railways Power Urban Infrastructure
Tenth Five Year Plan for Maharashtra (2002-06), the
plan allocation to water supply, sanitation, urban development
and urban transport was Rs. 14628 Crores. This amount
represented an increase of almost 180% from the corresponding
allocations of Rs. 5216 Crores in the Ninth Five Year
Plan for the state.
But
Investments have not kept pace with requirements
The
urban infrastructure existing in the cities is inadequate
to cater to existing and the incremental population
in the cities. For instance, only about 12-13 class
I cities (classified according to the 1991 census) managed
to supply water as per the norm of 150 lpcd (litre per
capita per day). Similarily according to the 2001 census
around 42% of the urban households in Maharashtra did
not have proper latrines.
The
infrastructure gap is present throughout the urban settlements
in the state. A preliminary analysis of the data presented
in the City Development Plans of Greater Mumbai, Pune
and Nasik evidences the infrastructure gap which is
present.
|
City
|
Gap
in Water Supply Capacity
|
Coverage
of Sewage Collection
|
Coverage
of Solid Waste Management Collection
|
Per
Capita Road Length (againts an ideal average of
1.5)
|
|
Nashik
|
16
|
70%
|
47%
|
1.88
|
|
Pune
|
97
|
80%
|
76%
|
0.71
|
|
Mumbai
|
935
|
90%
|
96%
|
0.16
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Requirement
is more than investment committed
The
investments for creating and augmenting urban infrastructure
comes from various sources - GoI, GoM, Financial Institutions,
External Development agencies, internal accruals of
Urban Local Bodies and private entities. GoI accounts
for nearly 50% of the investments flowing into the sector,
while the state governments account for nearly 30% investments
in the sector constituting the major part of the committed
investment.
The investment
by GoI is routed through JNNURM, but even in that programme,
the funds fall short of the investment requirements
submitted by the mission cities in their CDPs. A preliminary
analysis of the projects submitted to the Ministry of
Urban Development for approval under JNNURM shows the
following pattern:
The
important message that the above pattern gives is that
JNNURM is not going to fund the total investment requirements
in urban infrastructure identified by the mission cities
in Maharashtra. A similar pattern can be expected in
case of cities and towns not covered under JNNURM but
are included under UIDSSMT. This makes it imperative
for the urban local bodies to look towards other sources.
State government as a source of investment had committed
Rs. 5629 Crores in its annual budget for 2008-09, which
includes its contribution to the JNNURM funds to ULBs.
Therefore
for investment requirements other than the projects
submitted for approval under JNNURM the funds will be
limited. In such a situation it becomes imperative for
the ULBs to look for alternate sources of investment
like financial institutions, external assistance and
PPPs. This has become the basis for growing interest
of PPP among all levels of administration.
Efficiency:
another imperative for PPP
Funds
constraint is one of the drivers pushing Maharashtra's
ULBs towards PPP arrangements for provision of urban
infrastructure. The other, equally important imperative
for PPP is that the need for improving the efficiencies
in service delivery and the quality of the service output
has been recognised by both ULBs as well as the citizens.
PPPs, internationally have been used as much for improving
the efficiency and quality of service delivery as they
are used to reduce capital investment required from
the government and local administration.
Apart
from enabling private investment flows, PPPs also deliver
efficiency gains and enhanced impact of the investments.
The efficient use of resources, availability of modern
technology, better project design and implementation,
and improved operations combine to deliver efficiency
and effectiveness gains which are not readily produced
in a public sector project. PPP projects also lead to
faster implementation, reduced lifecycle costs, and
optimal risk allocation. Private management also increases
accountability and incentivizes performance and maintenance
of required service standards. Finally, PPPs result
in improved delivery of public services and promote
public sector reforms.
In ULBs
across the state, as well as the country poor efficiency
and quality of service delivery has come into focus,
mainly due to the increasing need for complete cost
recovery of municipal services. To ensure complete cost
recovery, the ULBs would have to plug the leakages in
their supply system, control their costs and deploy
latest technologies and processes to improve service
quality.
|
PFF
Schemes & Loan Application