Author: cprindia

PART 4 OF A SERIES ON ‘COASTAL REGULATION’ BY THE CPR-NAMATI ENVIRONMENT JUSTICE PROGRAM
COASTAL GOVERNANCE RIGHTS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) conducts a ‘stakeholder meeting’ on 20 March 2017, to discuss the ‘Marine Coastal Regulatory Zone (MCRZ) Notification.

Spate of changes to CRZ Notification, 2011

The CRZ Notification regulates activities in the sea up to 12 nautical miles and on 500 metres of land (from the High Tide Line – HTL) adjoining the sea. It also governs development on the area between the 500 metre line and the hazard line (hazard line demarcates areas that are vulnerable to sea level rise and other climate change impacts). It does so by dividing these zones into ecologically sensitive areas (CRZ I), urban areas (CRZ II), rural areas (CRZ III) and water areas (CRZ IV). The first 200 metres of CRZ III is demarcated as ‘No Development Zone’ (NDZ) to reduce the negative impacts of development on fragile ecosystems such as sand dunes, corals, mangroves, etc.

Since early 2014, the MoEFCC has taken a number of steps to review, discuss and revise the CRZ Notification, 2011. The CPR-Namati Environment Justice Program has prepared a chronology of the MoEFCC’s activities below.

Month

Action

June 2014

MoEFCC constitutes CRZ Review (Shailesh Nayak) Committee

Nov 2014

The CRZ review Committee presents its findings

Nov 2014- April 2016

MoEFCC issues eight amendments to and two clarifications regarding the CRZ Notification, 2011

Jan 2015

The CRZ review committee submits its report

Dec 2016

On 7 and 8 Dec, MoEFCC organises a meeting with MPs and decides that CRZ Notification, 2011 would be revised

March 2017

-On 4 March, in an internal meeting, the MoEFCC decides the steps to notify the MCRZ Notification

-On 9 March, the MoEFCC announces a separate web portal for CRZ clearance

-On 20 March, MoEFCC organizes a meeting with ‘stakeholder ministries’ and presents the proposed MCRZ Notification and asks the ministries to submit their comments in the next 15 days

In earlier pieces, we have discussed the review process, the amendments that the CRZ Notification has been subjected to, and the impact of the changes proposed to the Notification. This piece relates to information received through the Right to Information application seeking details on the process of drafting a new Marine and Coastal Regulation Zone Notification to replace the current Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 2011.

Discussions on MCRZ Notification in lieu of CRZ Notification, 2011

The MoEFCC organised an inter-ministerial meeting on 20 March 2017. As per the minutes provided by the Ministry (available here), the Secretary, Environment, Forests and Climate Change chaired the meeting. It was shared in the meeting that the MoEFCC has decided to revise the CRZ Notification 2011 based on the views of:

The governments of all coastal states and union territories through the CRZ review (our piece gives details of the state governments’ suggestions to the CRZ review committee).
The Members of Parliament as shared in a meeting held on 7 and 8 December 2016 (Details of the meeting are not provided).
Changes proposed in the MCRZ

Below is a list of key changes the MCRZ proposes in different zones of the CRZ. Also provided are the corresponding provisions of the current CRZ Notification, 2011, and recommendations of the Shailesh Nayak Committee.

Proposed MCRZ Notification

Current CRZ Notification, 2011

Shailesh Nayak Committee Report

HTL Demarcation

Authorises National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management (NCSCM) to carry out tidal demarcation for the Indian coastline

Authorises seven agencies to carry out tidal demarcation

Recognises NCSCM’s role in carrying out tidal demarcation

CRZ Limits

Limits CRZ to first 500 metres of land from HTL and not till the hazard line (in case the hazard line falls beyond the 500 metre line)

Notifies area between 500 metre line and hazard line on the landward side of the HTL as CRZ

Terms the area between 500 metre line and hazard line as Hazard Management Zone. The Zone is to have hazard management measures, which would be drafted by the respective state governments.

CRZ I

Permits ‘essential amenities’ such as sewage treatment plants, link roads and coastal roads and ecotourism projects in CRZ I

Prohibits construction of sewage treatment plants, coastal roads, link roads and tourism projects in CRZ I (recent amendments allowed sewage treatment plants in CRZ I areas of Mumbai)

Permits construction of sewage and effluent treatment plants and temporary tourism structures in CRZ I

CRZ II

Applies the prevailing town and country planning norms for construction of buildings in CRZ II areas

Freezes town and country planning norms for construction of buildings in CRZ II areas to 1991 level, when the CRZ Notification was first issued.

Applies the prevailing town and country planning norms for construction of buildings in CRZ II areas

CRZ III (including NDZ)

Provides an NDZ of 50 metres from the HTL in CRZ III areas

Provides an NDZ of 200 metres from the HTL in CRZ III areas

Provides an NDZ of 50 metres for ‘densely populated’ CRZ III areas and an NDZ of 200 metres in other ‘rural areas’ of CRZ III

Allows construction of houses for local communities in CRZ III areas beyond the NDZ (50 metres from HTL)

Allows construction of dwelling units for coastal communities after first 100 metres from HTL in CRZ III

Allows construction of houses for local communities in CRZ III areas beyond the NDZ (50 or 200 metres from HTL)

Allows construction of temporary tourism facilities in NDZ

Prohibits construction of temporary tourism facilities in NDZ

Allows construction of temporary tourism facilities in NDZ (limits them to 33% of total area in NDZ)

CRZ IV

Limits CRZ for offshore islands to 20 metres from the HTL on the landward side of the sea

Demarcates 500 metres (50 metres, for islands in backwaters of Kerala) from the HTL on offshore islands on landward side of sea as CRZ

Not mentioned

In this meeting, the Ministry shared that it held an internal discussion on 4 March 2017 with all the environment secretaries and environment directors and decided that the Ministry would present the proposed MCRZ notification before the ‘stakeholder ministries’ and take their views on it (Copy of the proposed MCRZ Notification is not provided).

Views of the ‘Stakeholder’ Ministries

The MoEFCC invited the Ministry of Tourism, Ministry of Shipping, Ministry of Urban Development, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, NITI Ayog, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ welfare, Ministry of Rural Development, and Ministry of Earth Sciences for an inter-ministerial consultative meeting on 20 March, 2017. Comments of the representatives of these Ministries as shared in the meeting minutes are provided below.

Ministry of Tourism

-Revised notification should open up main islands for their tourism potential.

-NDZ should be reduced further from 50 metres.

-Development of inland islands should be made possible.

Ministry of Shipping

-NDZ should be reduced further from 50 metres.

-For development of ports in Andaman and Nicobar (A&N) islands, special provisions should be made

-More delegation from State Coastal Zone Management Authorities (SCZMAs) to state governments for clearance/approval should be allowed.

Ministry of Urban Development

-Effluent and Sewage Treatment Plants should be permitted in CRZ I areas

-The deadline of 2 years for setting up of treatment plants in all coastal states should be changed to 3 years.

-NDZ should be reduced further from 50 metres.

Observations

Beginning from the CRZ review by Shailesh Nayak Committee to the proposed MCRZ Notification, each review/revision process has only diluted the coastal regulation. The MoEFCC opened the CRZ Notification to review but with a narrow scope – it limited the Terms of Reference of the Shailesh Nayak Committee only to address state governments’ grievances. Other stakeholders were kept out and the review thus conducted was obscure and skewed without an objective, inclusive and participatory assessment of the CRZ Notification. The inter-ministerial meeting does not fare any better.

It seems the MoEFCC is seeking legitimacy for the changes to the CRZ Notification using the report of the Shailesh Nayak Committee, which itself is a result of a one-sided process. However, the changes that the MoEFCC is trying to slip through will make the original Notification even weaker than what the committee suggested. For instance, the Shailesh Nayak committee suggested a differential NDZ width of 50 meters and 200 metres based on the population density of coastal areas but the draft MCRZ Notification proposes an NDZ of 50 metres in all CRZ III areas regardless of the population density.

All three ministries that commented on the MCRZ demanded further reduction in the NDZ and more infrastructure on the coast (either for tourism, sewage and effluent treatment or ports). This hardly comes across as a surprise as the mandate of these ministries has always been in conflict with the objectives of coastal conservation and livelihood protection.

The other pieces in this series can be accessed below:

Coastal commons for private tourism and entertainment?
Is it the end of participatory coastal planning?
States ask Review Committee to loosen up the Coastal Regulation
Crucial aspects of proposed Marine Coastal Regulatory Zone Notification revealed
In conversation with Dr Shailesh Nayak – the man who led the review of coastal regulation
The proposed Marine Coastal Regulation Zone (MCRZ) Notification
A tale of two reviews: How two governments amended a coastal land use law
The Supreme Court’s guiding principles for coastal regulation
Coastal Regulation Zone Disputes before the National Green Tribunal
CRZ drives a wedge between communities in Mumbai

PART 10 OF A SERIES ON ‘COASTAL REGULATION’ BY DR CHITRA VENKATARAMANI FOR THE CPR-NAMATI ENVIRONMENT JUSTICE PROGRAM
COASTAL GOVERNANCE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE RIGHTS

Asymmetric rights to the coast fosters identity politics and housing insecurity.

One of the central tensions in the Coastal Regulatory Zone (CRZ) Notification as it plays out in relation to the complex land politics of Mumbai, is the question of development in fishing villages and slums. This essay highlights the new tensions and boundaries created between urban communities by the notification as it confers different rights to slum dwellers and fishers.

At the heart of the problem, is not only the government’s inability to embrace complexity in its mapping and planning process for the coast, but also its avoidance of an important problem Mumbai faces – that of well-designed, sustainable, and accessible low-income housing.

Untenable categories

The 2011 CRZ categorises ‘Koliwadas’ (fishing villages) as CRZ III where as ‘slums’ are categorized under CRZ II – each category leads to different developmental potentials. Under the differing guidelines for these categories, those recognised as slum-dwellers have access to housing under the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA). However, those who claim their residential areas as ‘Koliwadas’ have the opportunity, albeit vaguely worded, to self-develop: to improve the conditions of their residential areas in line with the city’s development regulations. While on paper, such a plan might seem workable, it is hard to draw boundaries and clearly define areas as Koliwadas or slums on ground.

Fishing communities in Mumbai are often located within larger, hybrid, informal settlements, making it hard – if not impossible – to draw such strict boundaries around them based on identity. Since the CRZ places the burden of proof on the fishing communities and because of a lack of documents and surveys that clearly identify the location and extent of the Koliwadas in the city, the city’s fishers face the very concrete threat of displacement into SRA schemes. That is, unless they are clearly able to claim the identity of “traditional fishers,” they stand to not just lose the opportunity to develop their residential areas, but could also end up getting displaced as a result of a combination of factors that include developmental pressure, lack of infrastructure, and the unsustainability of fishing as a livelihood in the city.

At the heart of the problem is the form and process of the SRA, which has been severely criticised by many urban planners and advocates. For example, Rahul Srivastava and Matias Echanove write that not only does the SRA offer poor living conditions, it also cuts off avenues for informal economies to thrive and destroys complex living-working spatial relationships.

Creating tensions

In evoking the SRA as a solution for housing in urban coastal areas, the CRZ opened the doors for identity politics and this created new tensions between communities living side-by-side. While this pushes us to ask broader questions regarding the lack of low-income housing in the city, better policies and provisions for those who live in informal settlements (their identities and community affiliations notwithstanding), it is also important to trace how this different distribution of rights came to be, and what CRZ surveys and plans have to do with it.

In December 2004, when the Swaminathan Committee was still in the process of reviewing the 1991 CRZ, the Indian Ocean tsunami struck, leaving a trail of devastation along the country’s coast. This event had a significant impact on the committee and this is evident in the opening paragraphs of the report it eventually released a month after the tsunami. Indeed, the committee writes of the catastrophe caused by this event as one of the foundational reasons for having a robust policy that would safeguard the coast, its ecology, and coastal residents. Cognizant of the deep impact of natural disasters on low-income coastal communities, the CRZ was to provide the means for better housing and livelihood for this vulnerable population, while safeguarding the coast against exploitation through sustainable development.

The committee recommended that the previous restriction on constructing SRA schemes on coastal land be lifted for two main reasons: firstly, to provide some measure of protection for slum residents given their precarious living conditions, and secondly, because it identified slums as harmful and polluting to coastal and urban environments. It is important to note that the idea of the slum as ‘polluting’ is deeply problematic especially since a large part of Mumbai’s waste is released untreated into coastal waters. By contrast, the fisher communities were to be given land rights and housing provisions as a result of their dependency on the coast. Thus, the notion of vulnerability resulted in two radically different solutions in the CRZ notification, the SRA for slum dwellers and coastal land-rights for fishers. These steps obscured the interconnections between these communities and also shaped the subsequent political rhetoric of rights claiming after the 2011 notification was released.

Threat to Mumbai’s Koliwadas

The 2014 Shailesh Nayak committee solidifies the threat of displacement of fisher communities as it proposes to categorise all of the city’s Koliwadas under category II, opening up these areas for redevelopment under the SRA. It also reinforces and deepens the boundaries between those who live in the different informal settlements along the coast. The committee circumvents a central question: can we think of equitable, sustainable, pro-poor, pro-fisher housing and development models?

In order to answer this question, the CRZ Notification – particularly its maps and plans, which determine how the law will unfold across the urban terrain and in people’s lives – has to engage with the complex conditions and relations on the ground. Instead of shying away from complexity, the CRZ plans have to acknowledge and work with the interconnectedness of communities and the intricate relations between people, landscapes and the environment.

Chitra Venkatramani is an anthropologist at the National University of Singapore and is currently working on a book on cartography and the politics of the CRZ in Mumbai.

The previous pieces in this series can be accessed below:

Coastal commons for private tourism and entertainment?
Is it the end of participatory coastal planning?
States ask Review Committee to loosen up the Coastal Regulation
Crucial aspects of proposed Marine Coastal Regulatory Zone Notification revealed
In conversation with Dr Shailesh Nayak – the man who led the review of coastal regulation
The proposed Marine Coastal Regulation Zone (MCRZ) Notification
A tale of two reviews: How two governments amended a coastal land use law
The Supreme Court’s guiding principles for coastal regulation
Coastal Regulation Zone Disputes before the National Green Tribunal

 

A STUDY
COASTAL GOVERNANCE

The Centre for Policy Research – Namati Environmental Justice Program has recently completed a three-year-long study, the first of its kind, titled CZMAs and Coastal Environments: Two Decades of Regulating Land Use Change on India’s Coastline, analysing the functioning of Coastal Zone Management Authorities (CZMA).

Coastal Zone Management Authorities (CZMAs) were first constituted to regulate coastal land use and environments following an order of the Supreme Court (WP 664/1993) to implement the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification. While the CRZ Notification has gone through detailed reviews by eight committees and over 25 amendments, there has been no comprehensive review of the functioning of the CZMAs.

This study addresses a critical gap. Read the full report, the executive summary, and the CRZ report cards here.

CPR FACULTY REACT TO TREE FELLING IN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
AIR POLLUTION ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CPR VIEWS

BUREAUCRACY
The Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs recently faced the ire of citizens for its decision to cut down at least 14,000 trees for the redevelopment of seven government colonies in the National Capital Region (NCR). While orders from the National Green Tribunal, and subsequently the Delhi High Court put off the felling indefinitely, these did not apply to all areas. Given the high degree of pollution the residents of Delhi grapple with, few agreed with the Centre’s plan to plant a larger number of saplings, citing that they cannot replace full-grown trees. The move raised several environmental concerns and sparked public debate and protest.

In this second edition of ‘CPR Views’, CPR faculty and experts share their comments on this key development.

Manju Menon,
Senior Fellow, CPR Kanchi Kohli,
Researcher, CPR
‘For the last three weeks, Delhi’s citizens have been debating tree felling, compensatory plantations, public participation and urban design in venues like public parks, footpaths, newspapers and television studios. While the trigger was the felling of over 14,000 trees for the ‘redevelopment’ of seven government housing areas in the heart of the capital, the #DelhiTreesSOS and #MyRightToBreathe campaigns have pushed the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) to relook into the project’s design. For now the courts have restrained the felling of trees.

One question that has eluded the discussion so far is whether the construction activity that will be spread over Netaji Nagar, Sarojini Nagar, Nauroji Nagar, Kasturba nagar, Thyagraj Nagar, Sriniwaspuri and Mohammadpur, are part of one, two or seven projects (explained below)? These colonies comprise a contiguous area of 571 acres of government housing north and south of the Ring Road near the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).

In July 2016, the union cabinet approved the development of seven colonies together, giving the sense that this is one large redevelopment plan. The urban development ministry then signed one Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the NBCC (National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd.) for ‘the project’, clubbing three housing colonies Sarojini, Netaji and Nauroji into one, so that the fully commercial World Trade Centre at Nauroji and large commercial hub at Sarojini could finance government housing and offices. The other four were contracted to the Central Public Works Department (CPWD).

However environment clearances under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006 have been pursued for the seven separately. Depending on their size, they have or are in the process of taking an approval from the central environment ministry or the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). This leads to two questions – should the seven be treated as one real estate project? Secondly, if they are separate projects, should they have also been put through a cumulative impact assessment for all the integrated components?

On 24th December 2010, the environment ministry issued an office memorandum (No. J-11013/41/2006-IA.II (I)) for ‘consideration of integrated and inter related projects for grant of environmental clearance.’ If this were to be applied to ‘the project’ in question, then each of these redevelopment projects would need to carry out both individual EIA as well ‘prepare a common EIA report.’ This would allow the expert committees appraising these projects to examine ‘the overall impact of the project as a whole.’

In the present case this has not happened. It is important for the environment ministry to urgently respond to this as citizens have raised fears of increased air pollution, water stress, traffic and loss of green spaces due to these projects. It is still possible for government departments to invoke the precautionary principle and to deliberate on these issues in a transparent manner. This will allow for better and inclusive decisions to be taken.’

Longer articles by Manju Menon and Kanchi Kohli can be accessed in The Hindu’, ‘Scroll’. The Wire carried four articles: ‘Under Garb of Govt Housing, Delhi Redevelopment Project Legalises Grabbing Public Property’, ‘Compensatory Afforestation Is Not the Ultimate Solution to Delhi’s Tree Fellings’, ‘The Circular Timeline of Environmental Approvals for Delhi’s Redevelopment’ and ‘In the Shadow of Delhi’s Redevelopment’. ‘ThePrint’ and ‘The Hindu’ carried their opinions, and Kohli’s comments can be found in articles in ‘Firstpost’, ‘Outlook’ and the ‘Times of India’.

Manju Menon and Kanchi Kohli also wrote a letter to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, highlighting the violations and lacunae in the Ministry’s grant of the environmental clearances for the redevelopment of four GPRA (General Pool Residential Accommodation) colonies.

Manju Menon and Kanchi Kohli also wrote a letter to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal urging him to revive Delhi Tree Authority (DTA) and not selectively implement Delhi Tree Preservation Act, 1994.

Manju Menon and Kanchi Kohli’s comments on Delhi Government’s Draft Tree Transplantation Policy, 2019 can be read here.

Mukta Naik,
Senior Researcher, CPR
‘Development vs. environment will always be a topic of debate, and given the lived experience of Delhi and its problems with air quality, there is no doubt that we must re-think development projects to minimise environmental damage.

However, the decision to cut over 17,000 mature trees in Delhi is symptomatic of a larger malaise that afflicts the urban development paradigm in India today. This malaise has to do with minimum transparency and lack of public consultation on one hand, and on the other, a dangerous crafting of erroneous design in the language of popular global urban development models like the compact city, transit-oriented development and land value capture to make them palatable.

In the case of the redevelopment projects in question in Delhi, propounding the merits of increased density in the city core and the resulting carbon savings to ‘sell’ them is simply wrong. The reality is that these new developments are car-centric in design, else they would have not been gated communities for government babus but integrated with the city fabric. A compact city model would have included affordable housing, walking and cycling infrastructure and public spaces that are accessible to all. Delhi’s violent past of evicting slum-dwellers from the core and resettling them at the periphery, is proof that the city planners do not have the compact city in mind at all. Designing around trees is essential, but not adequate. The Ministry of Urban Affairs must go back to the drawing board and redesign these projects such that they kickstart a changed urban narrative towards improved liveability.’

Mukta Naik participated in a television debate on ‘NDTV’, which can be accessed here.

Arkaja Singh,
Fellow, CPR
‘It is ironic – in context of all the recent discussion about the land redevelopment projects in Sarojini Nagar, Nauroji Nagar and Netaji Nagar, and before that in East Kidwai Nagar – that the Guidelines for the Smart Cities Mission of the national government name East Kidwai Nagar as one of two examples (the other is the Bhendi Bazar redevelopment project in Mumbai) of what a land redevelopment project supported by the Mission could look like.

The East Kidwai Nagar, Sarojini Nagar, Netaji Nagar and Nauroji Nagar projects follow a particular model, in which government-owned land occupied for housing for government employees is given over for redevelopment, to be converted into new government housing (replacement of existing stock and creating new stock) and commercial real estate – which is to be sold to recover the overall cost of the project. Considering all the questions that have been raised about the projects recently, we wonder why it is touted as a ‘model’ project for Smart Cities all over the country?

With respect to a model redevelopment project, government projects are in any case something of a cop-out to all the complexities of land ownership, and of convincing multiple users and owners of the value of the project. In these projects, the government owns all the land, and it is also the custodian of the city master plan and is responsible for giving all the planning permissions and environmental clearances involved. The contract for project development was awarded to a government agency, without any form of public competition, and on conditions that are described on the contract document in the broadest possible terms. And even then, is it worthwhile to redevelop several hundred acres of prime urban land (and that too with a rich green cover of old trees that will be lost) with the sole purpose of creating some 7,000 additional units of housing for government employees?

In strictly legal terms, the government is free to do this, without even a public consultation, if it could comply with its own environmental and planning conditions (which we now know have been blatantly flouted). But is this a legitimate way to dispose off public resources? What would be the appropriate norms for establishing public purpose, transparency, accountability and best value for the dealing of government land? The government’s power to deal with land in high-handed ways has been called into question by protest movements time and again – but all too often these are battles of rural and poor people, far removed from city imaginations. The emergence of a distinctly urban dimension to similar questions underscores the need for much greater public engagement with the government’s handling of its power in relation to land.’

A longer article co-authored by Mukta Naik and Arkaja Singh in ‘ThePrint’ can be accessed here.

The first edition of CPR Views can be accessed here.

FULL VIDEO OF SESSION AS PART OF CPR DIALOGUES
CPR

Watch the full video of the session on ‘CPR Youth Awards: A Youth-Driven Agenda for Change’, organised as part of CPR Dialogues, featuring Eric Gonsalves, Pradeep Nair, Mukta Naik and Swati Janu.

Over half of India’s population is below the age of 25. Their perceptions and ideas – not just their labour – will shape the country’s future. Today, ahead of the 2019 polls, youth employment and political participation are receiving unprecedented attention. Identifying the youth as a key demographic for policy interventions, CPR researchers have been studying formal and everyday politics among young people as well as their labour market opportunities and migration pathways, especially as rural youth move increasingly ‘off the farm’. Could the curiosity and talent of these aspirational, informed and passionate young people we met in our field sites be harnessed towards improved research hypotheses as well as innovative solutions to their everyday problems?

It is in this context that CPR is delighted to announce start of the CPR Youth Awards, a program designed to interact, collaborate and mentor young men and women across the country to understand what their concerns, their perceptions of the environment and society, and to help them take steps towards addressing problems they are motivated to solve. Tapping into CPR’s own network of NGO partners, we have worked with youth groups aged 18-25 in three locations: Mangolpuri, a resettlement colony in north-west Delhi; Keonjhar, a tribal region in Odisha; and in peri-urban Jaipur. Over the last two months, facilitators from partner NGOs have worked with an experienced mentor to design and execute programs in these three locations involving intensive workshops to help youth groups articulate problem statements and impart to them design-thinking, research and presentation skills.

At this time, these groups are using smartphones to create short videos documenting their projects. For example, in Keonjhar, young men and women are petitioning Block Development Offices to help implement their ideas on improving agricultural productivity. In Mangolpuri, one group is forming support groups online for girls facing sexual violence while in Jaipur, teams are exploring pathways to more effective local governance in areas like waste management. Showcasing the best projects at the CPR Dialogues, our real takeaway has been the importance of placing young people at the centre of conversations, innovations and interventions.

Eric Gonsalves is Chairperson, Governing Board at CPR.

Pradeep Nair is Regional Director at Ford Foundation.

Mukta Naik is a Fellow at CPR.

Swati Janu is the Awards Mentor.

Watch all videos as part of the CPR Youth Awards 2018 here.

Watch all other sessions of the Dialogues below:

The International Climate Change Regime: Looking Back to Look Forward
Research for Policy Action on Air Pollution, in collaboration with CECFEE
India’s Technology Transition: The Present and the Possible
The Emerging World Order and India’s Role
India’s 21st Century Transitions
Understanding India’s Energy Transition in Global Context
Is the Urban Future Metropolitan? Big Cities in Urban Systems
Geopolitics and Geo-Economics in a Changing South Asia

FULL VIDEO OF THE WORKSHOP
URBAN ECONOMY URBAN SERVICES

Watch the full video (above) of the CPR- Centre de Sciences Humaines (CSH) Workshop on ‘Delhi without Borders: Contradictions and Conflicts of a Delirious City Region’ featuring Nitin Bathla.

The 1962 masterplan of Delhi introduced a critical intertwining between Delhi and its region. Not only did this initiate the restructuration of Delhi’s metropolitan processes into a continually expanding territory, but more importantly it forged a land-based economic relationship between the city and its region. Thus, concomitant to the radical transformations in Delhi, profound acts of ecological dispossession, enclosure, and infrastructure violence have also been taking shape in its region.

The delirious city-region today represents a tapestry of stark disparities; of sparsely occupied luxury condominiums popping up next to dense settlements housing masses of labour migrants, of industrial-logistic spaces set amidst remnants of agro-pastoral landscapes, of operational landscapes set within sacred ecologies, and of ever new infrastructure networks set in bypass to the perpetually incomplete existing ones. This churning of territory for urban production is revealing a palimpsest of subaltern and planetary dynamics, sedentary and nomadic practices, and urban and agrarian societies, thus revealing unique socio-spatial conflicts and political compromises.

This presentation brought together observations, conclusions, and findings from over two years of ethnographic inquiry by the speaker in an attempt to unpack contradictions and conflicts in the urbanisation of a Delhi without borders.

Nitin Bathla is an urban researcher, artist, and educator based at ETH Zurich where he is currently pursuing his doctoral studies on a Swiss Excellence Fellowship.

The question and answer session that followed can be accessed here. Find all the available videos of previous workshops, here.

FULL VIDEO OF THE WORKSHOP
POLITICS URBAN GOVERNANCE

Watch the full video (above) of the CPR- Centre for Science and Humanities (CSH) Workshop on ‘How Women Mobilise Women into Politics: Theory and Natural Experimental Evidence from Urban India’, featuring Tanushree Goyal.

How does women’s political entry affect citizen’s political involvement? Building on qualitative interviews and extending elite mobilisation theories to account for who conducts grass-roots mobilisation, Goyal argued that female politicians increase women’s numbers in party activist roles, and prospects of cheaply mobilising women provide a strategic incentive to do so. As a result, more women receive mobilising effort, such as door-to-door party contact, where women contest. Women’s entry in activist roles has downstream effects on the quality of mobilisation. When women enter into activist roles, where they were previously absent, they induce competition for these roles and in doing so raise the quality of activist pool. This affects the political involvement, that is, political knowledge and participation, of all citizens. Goyal provided evidence for this argument using original survey data from a natural experiment in Delhi’s Municipal Council, where randomly chosen electoral seats are reserved for women. By outlining how representation affects the calculus of mobilisation, this paper connects the literature on women’s political entry with mobilisation and political involvement.

This paper is part of an ongoing dissertation book project, provisionally titled, ‘The politics of representation: How female politicians make politics inclusive in India’, that examines the consequences of women’s entry through quotas in Delhi’s civic body. Drawing on a natural experiment, extensive fieldwork, interviews, and original survey, combined with insights from a new electoral polling-station level panel dataset, this book proposes to offer new theoretical insights and an empirical account of women’s agency in shaping urban politics and governance in India.

Tanushree Goyal is a third year PhD candidate at Nuffield College, University of Oxford, UK. She specialises in the political economy of development and comparative politics with a geographic focus on South Asia.

The presentation made by the speaker at the workshop can be accessed here. Find all the available videos of previous workshops, here.

FULL VIDEO OF THE WORKSHOP
POLITICS URBAN GOVERNANCE

Watch the full video (above) of the CPR- Centre for Science and Humanities (CSH) Workshop on ‘How Women Mobilise Women into Politics: Theory and Natural Experimental Evidence from Urban India’, featuring Tanushree Goyal.

How does women’s political entry affect citizen’s political involvement? Building on qualitative interviews and extending elite mobilisation theories to account for who conducts grass-roots mobilisation, Goyal argued that female politicians increase women’s numbers in party activist roles, and prospects of cheaply mobilising women provide a strategic incentive to do so. As a result, more women receive mobilising effort, such as door-to-door party contact, where women contest. Women’s entry in activist roles has downstream effects on the quality of mobilisation. When women enter into activist roles, where they were previously absent, they induce competition for these roles and in doing so raise the quality of activist pool. This affects the political involvement, that is, political knowledge and participation, of all citizens. Goyal provided evidence for this argument using original survey data from a natural experiment in Delhi’s Municipal Council, where randomly chosen electoral seats are reserved for women. By outlining how representation affects the calculus of mobilisation, this paper connects the literature on women’s political entry with mobilisation and political involvement.

This paper is part of an ongoing dissertation book project, provisionally titled, ‘The politics of representation: How female politicians make politics inclusive in India’, that examines the consequences of women’s entry through quotas in Delhi’s civic body. Drawing on a natural experiment, extensive fieldwork, interviews, and original survey, combined with insights from a new electoral polling-station level panel dataset, this book proposes to offer new theoretical insights and an empirical account of women’s agency in shaping urban politics and governance in India.

Tanushree Goyal is a third year PhD candidate at Nuffield College, University of Oxford, UK. She specialises in the political economy of development and comparative politics with a geographic focus on South Asia.

The presentation made by the speaker at the workshop can be accessed here. Find all the available videos of previous workshops, here.

FULL VIDEO OF PANEL DISCUSSION
URBAN ECONOMY

Watch the full video of the CPR – CSH (Centre de Sciences Humaines) panel discussion (above), featuring Amita Bhide, Kaveri Gill, Pankaj Kapoor, Anne Odic, Sanjeev Sanyal and Asim Waqif, which seeks to understand and explore the implications for the urban research agenda.

Even as India urbanises, there is relatively limited discussion on what this future urban will be. Will we follow well-trodden paths or will our dispersed settlement pattern, the advent of Industry 4.0 and new tools of governance lead us to a different destination? A panel of thought leaders from industry, civil society, academia and government brought their distinctive perspectives to answer such questions.

Amita Bhide is the Dean of the School of Habitat Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai.

Kaveri Gill is Associate Professor, Department of International Relations and Governance Studies, Shiv Nadar University.

Pankaj Kapoor is founder and Managing Director of Liases Foras.

Anne Odic is the head of Local government and urban development division of the French Development Agency.

Sanjeev Sanyal is the Principal Economic Advisor, Ministry of Finance, Government of India.

Asim Waqif is an artist.

The question and answer session that followed can be accessed here. Find all available videos of previous workshops here.

FULL VIDEO OF WORKSHOP BY ANIRUDH KRISHNA
URBAN ECONOMY

Watch the full video of the CPR – CSH (Centre de Sciences Humaines) workshop (above), which seeks to investigate the condition of slums in the cities of Bengaluru, Jaipur and Patna.

Projections suggest that most of the global growth in population in the next few decades will be in urban centres in Asia and Africa. Most of these additional urban residents will be concentrated in slums. However, government documentation of slums is incomplete and unreliable. Slums and slum dwellers are systematically under-counted in India. It is necessary to employ creative methods to locate and sample these understudied populations. By using satellite image analysis and fieldwork to build a sample of 279 diverse slums in the 3 cities, and neighborhood surveys as well as individual interviews with 8,257 households, the presentation shows that living conditions vary along a wide-ranging continuum of wellbeing. Most variation in conditions is due to differences across rather than within slum neighborhoods.

Anirudh Krishna is the Edgar T Thompson Professor of Public Policy and Political Science at Duke University. His research investigates how poor communities and individuals in developing countries cope with the structural and personal constraints that result in poverty and powerlessness.

The question and answer session that followed can be accessed here. Find all available videos of previous workshops here.