Development that is mindful: Challenges in Indian cities

“Bangalore is not going to be liveable in the next five years. Just like Delhi isn’t now. Which city are we planning to go to and make unliveable next?”. This recent tweet by an IIT Madras alumni has sparked online discussion about the liveability of cities in India. According to Global Liveability Index, five Indian cities including Mumbai, Delhi and Bagalore, rank between 140 and 150 among 172 cities including Kyiv and Karachi. This means the average quality of life in cities like Bangalore, Delhi, Mumbai,etc, despite seeing huge economic growth, is not much higher than war torn and underdeveloped cities. These Indian cities are experiencing fundamental problems like lack of resources (water, housing, electricity), inflation, increased air pollution and income disparity. It almost seems like these cities are not able to manage such rapid growth.

The cost of mindless growth

Growing cities have some obvious benefits like easier mobility of resources, more jobs and diversified sectors. Migration and the interchange of resources like capital, raw material,etc, has become an inevitable and defining character of the modern world. India has seen an urbanization rate of almost 4% over the past decade. Growth is linked to a higher standard of living. This should make it desirable. However, such growth always comes at a cost. We can look at some of the fastest growing Indian cities like Delhi, Pune, Mumbai, which  have become overburdened and congested. For example Mumbai, known to be home to the largest number of billionaires in the world, (after New York),  faces huge amounts of problems like income inequality, flooding,etc. Urbanization can be directly linked to 38% of warming in Indian cities. Social problems like violence and polarization have been found to be prevalent in such cities. Inflation, reduced savings and other economic problems have also followed India’s growing  urban population, which was at  almost  377.1 million as per 2011 Census. This population is “top heavy”- it is concentrated in a disproportionately few number of cities. Urban population is 35% of the total population which contributes to 70-75% of the GDP. This disparity has only increased over the past decade. The lopsided nature of population distribution and economic activities leads to the kind of problems that these urban centers face.

The issues discussed in the preceding paragraph raise several questions for governance. Is this kind of growth manageable for governing bodies? It also raises the question of maintenance. Are systems equipped to maintain the additional infrastructure? The evidence paints a negative picture. Let us consider the case of Bangalore,  a  few decades ago it was a quieter and  more peaceful city. In the past two decades, the population in Bangalore has almost tripled. Many sectors in Bangalore have been adversely affected. Insufficient public transport and expensive housing have created great difficulties for the residents. For example, the city has a water supply shortfall of 650 million liters a day and people spend hours in traffic. According to a report, an average Bangalore commuter spends 257 hours on the road out of which 132 could be attributed to road congestion. Previously known for its pleasant weather, the climate in the city has become erratic. Bangalore recorded a temperature that crossed 40 celsius this summer. This is a consequence of heat trapped by increased emissions from economic activities. A possible cause of all of these above problems might be that governance and systems are not able to manage the scale of the growth. The citizens are paying the cost.

Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) as a prospective remedy

As the name suggests, EIA is a tool to predict the impact that a project could have on the socio-economic and environmental conditions of the place.It is a scientific, multistage process that analyzes the potential impact on the society, economy and environment. Generally this process includes steps like screening, scoping, analysis, mitigation and decision making. [1] [2] It is a practice that has been prescribed by international organizations like the United Nations. India, under the Environmental (Protection) Act 1986, made Environmental Clearance (EC) mandatory for certain expansion activities. EIA takes into account all the stakeholders in a project and analyzes its impact on the environment of the place. Getting an idea of how the project will impact the economy of the place, how it will affect pollution or whether the people will accept or resist it helps build a more informed decision making process.

However, this EIA system has many limitations. For example, it defines categories of projects that require Environmental Clearance but the project that might fall out of these categories may burden the ecosystem in that region. Additionally, the system lacks an effective process of public consultations. They typically occur at a later stage in the study, ultimately  hampering any meaningful contribution in the process. EIA also remains just a notification under the Environmental Protection Law, undermining the enforceability. Aside from this, the biggest indicator of the failure of EIA is how badly Indian cities are doing in terms of socio-economic and environmental problems.           

Regardless of the specifics, the concept of EIA is extremely important. It is a decision making tool. It is meant to ensure that the decision made is optimal and favorable for the maximum number of people. Most countries like Sweden and Germany have notable EIA frameworks that are applied to infrastructure projects. Similarly, a big part of Wuhan city planning in China used this framework effectively.

Striking a balance

Big decisions have big consequences. These consequences need to be scientifically assessed. EIA is a prospective way to procedurally evaluate them. However, EIA systems in India are currently ineffective. Restructuring these systems to include more stakeholder consultation and recommendations by experts could help urban planners approach city planning strategically.Advocating to purposely slow down or stop growth would be unreasonable. As we have already discussed, urban growth is both beneficial and desirable. But with fundamental problems in the way, are urban citizens really able to reap the benefits? Urban growth that is unchecked can prove to be dangerous. Anyone would agree that buying something without looking at the price is a bad idea. It is essential to assess the full costs of something before proceeding with it. It is unwise to keep building infrastructure and expanding already saturated cities without thinking about the effect it will have on the socio-economic and environmental elements of that place.

It is good to have everything one might need. But considering where we are in terms of the global environment, it is important to weigh the costs against the benefits. It is not necessary for development and the environment to be pitted against each other. Tools like EIA will help us strike a favorable balance.