City Development Plan - Thiruvananthapuram (Appraisal Report
City Development Plan - Thiruvananthapuram (Appraisal Report
City Development Plan - Thiruvananthapuram (Appraisal Report
3. The CDP represents significant efforts of TMC in the collection and analysis of
data and presents the existing situation on various dimensions infrastructure, governance,
etc., identifies the key issues and challenges, articulates the vision, goals and strategies
and action plan, provides cost estimates for various proposals incorporated in the CDP.
Broadly, the CDP complies with the JnNURM Guidelines. It is cohesive and integrated
and provides a systematic analysis of issues, priorities and proposed projects. There are,
however, a few areas, which need strengthening, to make the CDP robust. There are also
a few data gaps in some sectors, which need to be filled. Certain aspects like governance
and vision were discussed at different places, which need to be integrated. Thus the
suggestions offered in this Appraisal Report are aimed at improving the CDP structure
and presentation for a better understanding.
in Tables 3.3 & 3.4 and details of Thiruvananthapuram Urban Agglomeration area, which
forms the CDP area, are presented in Table 3.5 as per Census 2001. It is necessary to
give population details for the urban agglomeration, area covered by the CDP, over a
period of three decades along with annual growth rates as per Table 1 of Took Kit. The
components of population growth including natural increase and migration should also be
presented as per Table 2 of the Tool Kit.
6. Literacy rates were given for the TMC area only and not for the other constituents
of CDP area. This needs to be added. A comparative analysis of literacy levels between
males and females and also between state, district and city levels would provide a better
and comprehensive understanding. The slum population of TMC is given as 11,667 (p.
41) accounting for only 1.57% of city’s population. This is at variance of the poverty
figures given in chapter 14. The figures at page 41 were taken from the Census 2001.
Does the Government agree with these figures? Does it indicate a large number of urban
poor live outside the slums? These need to be clarified.
10. Different aspects of gender and role of women in governance, economy, and
poverty were discussed as part of Chapter 3 on Demography, Economy and Landuse.
The discussion (pp. 51–54) is more general and do not go well with the rest of the
discussion in the Chapter. It is desirable that gender related aspects are discussed in
different chapters like governance and poverty, while retaining aspects relating to
informal sector, social aspects, etc., in this chapter.
Consultative Process
11. The CDP was prepared under the leadership of a Core Committee led by the
Mayor of TMC. The Committee was ably supported by a Rapid Action Group consisting
of officials and senior sector specialists. The Group met on a daily basis, which is
indicative of its seriousness. The CDP is the result of extensive consultations with a large
number of stakeholders from the city and the adjoining panchayats, which are part of
Thiruvananthapuram Urban Agglomeration. The stakeholders consulted include chamber
of commerce, architects and planners, engineers and builders, residents associations,
NGOs, CBOs, women’s organisations, political functionaries including MPs and MLAs,
media, representatives of vulnerable groups, officials at state, district and local levels,
presidents of gram panchayats, etc. The outcomes of the consultations including
priorities identified by different stakeholder groups were discussed and deliberated at
length by the Rapid Action Group and the Core Committee.
12. The role of Ward Committees and Ward Sabhas and Gram Sabhas, which are,
decentralized institutions of governance, is not very clear in the consultative process as
part of CDP preparation. In CDP, it was mentioned that ‘the process of formulation
proposals were crossed checked with aspirations of the Ward Sabhas and Ward
Committees held during late 2005 and the beginning of 2006’(p.6). From this it appears
that the priorities articulated through different stakeholder consultations are only
crosschecked with the priorities identified earlier by these bodies and they are not part of
consultative process for formulating the CDP. Similarly, while the Presidents of
Panchayats were consulted, it is not very clear that the process of consultations were
taken by these Presidents to the panchayats to represent the collective wisdom of the
community of stakeholders. Another important question that arises is whether the draft
CDP prepared along with Vision and priorities was presented to the stakeholders to get
their feedback before finalization. While these processes may have happened, the same is
not reflected in the CDP. These need to be included.
Vision
14. The city’s Vision is presented in Chapter 1 (pp. 12-15) and Chapter IV (pp.56–
62). It is desirable to integrated the Vision and present it at one place either as part of
Chapter 3 or as a separate chapter. The Vision reads, ‘The traditional dignified capital
city of Thiruvananthapuram aspires to become a national city with its strength as a center
of advanced studies, as the hub of modern technology based industries and as a national
harbor city, offering high quality of environment for living, working and visiting’
{(p.56). Seven components of the Vision were discussed separately, each dealing with
specific aspect like knowledge hub, destination of industries, gateway for national and
international tourism, health, poverty, etc. It appears that the Vision can be revisited and
simplified bringing all the seven components into the comprehensive Vision framework.
It is also not clear whether the Vision is result of stakeholder consultations, whether the
stakeholders from different constituents of CDP area – Corporation, Panchayats and
outgrowths, approved it. This needs to be clarified. The sectoral Visions/Goals are
presented in different chapters. It is desirable to discuss the Vision for the city and the
sectoral Visions at one place as suggested as part of Chapter 3 or a separate chapter. The
Vision should also be given in a tabular form as per Table 20 of the Tool Kit.
Governance
16. It is hearting to note that the third State Finance Commission submitted its report
and most of its recommendations were accepted. It would add value if a table consisting
of number of recommendations suggested, accepted, rejected, and those pending or still
under consideration of the Government is presented in a tabular form for all three SFCs.
Similarly, it is necessary to discuss the role of private sector in the provision and
operation and maintenance of infrastructure like water, roads and drains, solid waste
management, etc. Data should be presented as per Tables 18 & 19 of the Tool Kit. An
analysis of the impact of some of the governance reforms like Audit Commission,
Decentralization Tribunals, etc., may also be included as they are significant reform
initiatives and that will add value to the discussion.
Infrastructure
17. Urban infrastructure development aspects are discussed in nine different chapters,
each covering a specific aspect like water supply, sewerage, solid waste management, etc.
Water Supply
18. Sources of water supply, treatment and distribution, losses, tariff structure, etc.,
are discussed and key challenges identified in Chapter 5. The challenges include
rehabilitation of distribution lines, which are very old, expansion of distribution network
to the newly annexed panchayats, and reduction of physical losses, which are estimated at
35.5%. Several projects are proposed at a cost of Rs.1042 crores to achieve the goal of
‘continuous and safe water supply in equitable and sustainable manner’. There is need to
cover the following aspects in this chapter:
Sewerage
19. The existing sewerage system is very old and covers only 30% of the TMC area.
Key issues identified include rehabilitation of sewerage network, sewerage overflow into
water bodies causing water pollution, etc. The sector Vision aims at providing a well
planned eco-friendly and high quality sewerage facility to all. Several projects have been
proposed to improve the sewerage system at a cost of Rs.1021 crores. Following aspects,
however, need to be incorporated.
• Number of sewerage connections in the city and the reasons for low access;
• Costs of accessing sewerage connection by households and sewerage tariff;
20. City’s drainage network consisting of rivers, canals and their feeders and lakes
were discussed and challenges identified. They include reduced carrying capacity of
drains/canals due to silting, discharge of solid wastes into drains, overflowing culverts,
lack of coordination in the management of drains, problems relating to the conservation
of 212 tanks, etc. The drainage network covers about 60% of the TMC area. Many
projects costing about Rs.175 crores were proposed. At Table 7.5 on costing it was
mentioned Rs. in lakhs instead of crores this may be rectified.
21. Details of solid waste management including sources, practices, coverage, etc.,
were discussed in Chapter 9. Door to door collection of solid wastes covers only 25 of
the 81 wards in the TMC area under ‘Capital City Clean City Project’. Beneficiaries
contribute cost of operations. The TMC proposes to cover 100% of the area with door to
door collection over a period of 6 years. In the budget door to door collection was shown
only in 3 years ending with 4th year. Does it indicate that 100% door-to-door collection
would be achieved in four years? This needs to be clarified.
Environment
22. Air, water, noise, industrial pollution and disaster management aspects were
discussed in Chapter 8 on Environment. The concentration and increase of pollution
were attributed to the development activities and increasing automobile population.
Quality of environmental services needs to be presented as per Table 14 of the Tool Kit.
Institutional arrangements for pollution control, the relations between PCB and
Corporation, and Panchayats, issues of coordination and convergence and mechanisms to
overcome these challenges need to be analyzed. Untreated sewerage from the treatment
plant finds it way to ‘Parvathy Canal’ (p.101). Similarly, untreated domestic and
industrial wastes, discharge of coolant waters, harbor dredging, dumping of ship wastes;
spilling of cargo chemicals, etc., cause coastal pollution (p.102). But existing
mechanisms and plans for controlling such pollution have not been indicated. These
details need to be incorporated. Similarly, cutting off drainage connections to water
bodies and networking of household septic tanks were suggested to control pollution. But
the projects proposed do not include these suggestions. This needs to be examined. There
is also need to highlight the health impacts of pollution and mechanisms to address them.
articulate a broader Vision at one place. One of the issues identified to promote heritage
structures is the absence of a regulatory mechanism. But proposals to establish such an
institutional mechanism have not been given. This needs to be addressed.
25. Traffic and transportation sector is analyzed and presented in Chapter 10. The
analysis is detailed and comprehensive. The current situation, key issues and challenges,
strategies and action plans are well documented. However, the following aspects need to
be addressed to improve the quality and content.
• The vision for transportation is very general and needs to be more focused. It
should specifically articulate what it aims to achieve in the next 15 to 20 years in
terms of parameters such as travel time reduction, increase in share of public
transport, safety, etc.;
• Provision of transport to the poor;
• The list of projects is quite large and appears to be a wish list. The discussion
appears to be consultant and report driven. The projects should be strategic and
should be prioritized. It is not clear what are the expectations of common citizens
with regard to this sector; and
• One major omission is with regard to the institutional issues particularly in terms
of multiplicity, overlapping responsibilities and coordination and need for new
institutional mechanisms or arrangements.
The above issues should be examined and incorporated into the CDP.
Social Infrastructure
26. Several projects were proposed under social infrastructure to develop markets
(Rs. 123.8 crores), service abattoirs (Rs.9 crores), cremation ground (Rs.8.5 crores) and
sports (Rs.15 crores) and infrastructural aspects of health and education were cursorily
touched. Social infrastructure development can be considered as an area for private sector
participation and partnership. Strategies to mobilize resources through partnership should
be articulated.
27. Chapters 14 and 15 deal with various aspects of poverty situation and slums in
TMC. Aspects of access to services, programs and interventions, community structures,
planning process, gender related issues, etc., are discussed and challenges identified and
Vision articulated in chapter 14. Proposals for poverty alleviation have been presented in
Chapter 15.
28. The data on poverty only relates to the Thiruvananthapuram city and it is
necessary to give details of all the constituents of the urban agglomeration including
panchayats and outgrowths. In Table 14.1 average household income was given as Rs.
10,155. It is not clear whether it is monthly income or annual income and this needs to
be clarified. It is also important to discuss household incomes and poverty situation in
the context of poverty line as suggested by the Planning Commission, Government of
India. In addition the following aspects need to be discussed:
• Proposal for housing indicate that only 6,600 dwelling units to be constructed out
of 27,000 households. This constitutes less that 25% over a period of 7 years. The
CDP should indicate what alternative plans the city has to provide housing to all
over a time frame involving private sector, NGOs, etc.
• In table 15.4 (Page 212) identification of destitute families and participatory need
assessment were shown as an activities at a cost of Rs.15 lakhs and Rs.10 lakhs
respectively. Were they not identified under Kudumbasree earlier through
participatory methods? Is it not a continuous process? These need to be clarified.
• In table 15.6 (Page 215) total disabled population in urban areas were shown as
28,778 where as in write-up that follows it is given as 20,837. This is a
discrepancy and need to be corrected.
• Lack of authentic data was identified as a key issue to plan and implement urban
poverty programmes. To develop database several surveys and studies were
proposed like identification of street vendors (Rs. 15 lakhs, p. 211), identification
of destitutes (Rs.15 lakhs, p. 212), identification of children at risk (Rs. 5 lakhs,
p.214), identification of extent of disability (Rs. 2 lakhs, p. 215), identification of
old age people (Rs. 10 lakhs, p. 216), identification of women in distress (Rs. 10
Lakhs, Page 217) etc. Can these surveys be integrated as a comprehensive survey
to save time and resources. Similarly, can communication strategy be integrated?
Similarly can there be a comprehensive plan to establish centers under different
activities? These need to be examined and incorporated.
• The chapters 14 & 15 may be clubbed into one chapter.
29. The discussion on finances and investment plan, presented in Chapter 17, is the
weakest area in the entire CDP and needs to be strengthened significantly. The
presentation is not at organized and coherent. The following need to be addressed:
• The tables on City Investment Plan and Financing Sources does not have unit
values and are confusing and hence difficult to interpret and analyze. The tables
should be clearly presented and corresponding explanations should be provided.
• The shares of GOI, GOK and TMC are not clear since unit values are not
presented and also because grand totals are not given. The overall requirements
appear to be very large and this will have serious implications for sustainability
particularly for operation and maintenance. The projections of TMC finances are
also on higher side and not clear.
• This chapter needs to be paid serious attention and should be significantly
improved.
30. There are a few typographical errors and statistical inconsistencies. Some have
already been referred earlier in the Report. A few others are mentioned here to facilitate a
careful editing of the CDP to make it robust. At page 1 it was mentioned that
Thiruvananthapuram became the capital of Travancore in 1750. But at page 149 it was
mentioned as 1800AD. The objectives of Vision of Tourism was repeated both at pages
20 and 21. Table 3.3 was typed as 2.3 (p.39), Table numbers 12.1 to 12.5 were typed as
11.1 to 11.5 at page 159, the area of Sreekaryam, part of Thiruvananthapuram UA was
mentioned as 23.73 sq.km in Table 3.4 and the same was mentioned as 5.03 in page 3.5
(pp.39-40), Sreekaryam was spelled as Sreekariyam in Table 3.6, etc. Though they are
not substantive, these need to be carefully edited and rectified to provide a better reading
of the CDP.