Housing for all 2022: Progress and performance

Of late India is experiencing significant transitions in its key socioeconomic and demographic indicators. Manifestation of messy and hidden urbanization (Ellis & Roberts, 2016) in India poses a serious challenge to the government particularly in the context of realizing the potential of its cities for prosperity and livability. Consequently, it fails to adequately address congestion constraints stemming from the strain that colossal urbanization put on existing land, housing, physical infrastructures, civic amenities and services including the environment. As per governments’ estimate, as many as 18.78 million families were in acute housing deficit and high level of shelter deprivation across urban India (MoHUPA, 2012). In June 2015 the incumbent union government launched its comprehensive mission oriented and ambitious flagship national housing programme called ‘Pradhan Mantri Aawas Yojana (Urban) – Housing for All (HFA)’ to cater to the escalating unmet ownership housing needs of the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and the Low Income Groups (LIG), including the Middle Income Group (MIG) living in urban areas. Under the stewardship of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA), this giant housing scheme is expected to build 12 million new houses across all states/UTs by March 31, 2022 in a phased manner. It has four verticals namely in-situ slum redevelopment using land as a resource, credit linked interest subsidy (CLSS), affordable housing in partnership (AHP) and beneficiary-led individual house construction or enhancement (BLC).

Physical and Financial Progress of PMAY (U)

Total number of estimated urban housing shortage during 2001 and 2007 has been around 10.57 million and 24.71 million respectively (Bhan, et al., 2017). These numbers glaringly portray the face of ‘housing poverty’ in urban India. Though the implementation of Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY) – a flagship housing scheme under JnNURM (Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission) programme had been partially successful in the last decade, the total housing shortage to be addressed in PMAY (U) programme is still huge (18.78 million).

Almost five years after the government launched the PMAY (U) programme, just one third of the houses (31%) have been completed under the programme against the sanctioned number of houses, while another 59% houses are grounded for construction. Out of ₹1.63-lakh crore Central assistance sanctioned for the programme, the government has released only ₹64,000 crore till February 10, 2020. This implies a rather slow pace of implementation and the physical and financial progress of this housing scheme has not being very impressive (Table 1 & 2). Nonetheless, more disaggregated data on the financial and physical progress of the scheme for each of the vertical components including other details, like economic categories, is not available in the public domain for in-depth analysis. This is indeed a serious lacuna in making an effective assessment of the performance of the programme. 

The government plans to construct 1.63 lakh crore houses under this very mission. As per recent statistics released by the MoHUA on February 2020, as many as 21566 projects have been sanctioned for construction of 10,308,595 houses under this programme, of which 6,155,024 houses are grounded for construction and 3,215,666 houses are completed.

Spatial Variations in the Progress of PMAY (U) Implementation 

A further look at its geographic variation reveals an interesting picture. For instance, more than 60% of the total approved houses are situated in the large states of – Andhra Pradesh (20.07 lakh), Uttar Pradesh (15.74 lakh), Maharashtra (11.77 lakh), Madhya Pradesh (7.84 lakh) and Tamil Nadu (7.68 lakh).

            More than 80% of the total approved houses in Arunachal Pradesh, Gujarat and Telengana have been grounded for construction followed by West Bengal, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Himachal Pradesh and Chhattisgarh where construction of 75% approved houses is underway (Figure 1).  


Figure 1: Approved houses grounded for construction
Figure 2: Houses completed

When it comes to completion of approved housing construction, just two states namely Gujarat (58.21%) and Kerala (55.45%) achieve the 50% mark among bigger states. House completion rate is hovering around 40-45% in West Bengal, Telengana, Odisha and Madhya Pradesh and no other bigger state have achieved the 50% mark yet (Figure 2). By and large, progress of such a celebrated housing programme across states seems to be disappointing. Nonetheless, it is crucial to remember how India’s affordable housing puzzle challenges the scheme’s ability to achieve the target by 2022.

Challenges for the Effective Implementation of PMAY (U)

Without a doubt PMAY (U) is a mass housing programme involving colossal budgetary commitments and other efforts and as of now the number of houses approved under this flagship scheme has been phenomenal, and seemingly it can achieve the anticipated 2022 goal. However, there are certain constraints impeding PMAY (U) from achieving its full potential. First, the quantum of new houses to be built to mitigate the existing housing shortage is massive. Given the current success rate of PMAY (U) implementation, with 32.16 lakh houses built so far, it will take a lot of time to address the housing deficit. Second, shortage of urban land for new housing construction is the biggest issue in speedy implementation of the programme. Though, land issue can be averted partially through in-situ slum redevelopment with the partnership of private developers using land titles, it remains ineffectual in many small cities where land prices are low and private players are reluctant to invest due to high risk of cost recovery. Third, absence of appropriate documents is another challenge for effective implementation of PMAY (U). Central assistance under BLC needs the beneficiary to have reliable and clear land titles and documentation which is rarely available to slum dwellers (Bhan, 2017). Dismal state of land and property records among urban poor creates frequent and widespread issue of unclear land titles, thereby hindering effective implementation of the scheme. However, some bigger states like Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Telengana, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, among others where updation of land records have been successful, PMAY (U) also made commendable performance.  Fourth, chronic economic poverty. Due to lack of adequate regular income support and intangible collaterals, many housing poor families are unable to get loans and therefore remain deprived in terms of accessing the concession for housing construction under CLSS component of PMAY (U). Scope for monetary assistance enlisted in PMAY (U) is thus largely unreached. Fifth, neglected rental market. There are 10 million houses that have remained unoccupied as per the census of 2011 estimation across urban India, which accounts for roughly half of the total urban housing deficit. Due to distorted rental market in India and stringent rent control act, homeowners often prefer to leave their dwelling lying empty, rather than letting it out on rent, leading to underutilization of valuable resources.

Way forward

Housing is a state subject, therefore, efficient and effective implementation of PMAY (U) and its expected level of performance is largely contingent on the very nature of state-centre political relationship. Nonetheless, in order to mitigate the policy bottlenecks that PMAY (U) faces now, following measures can be useful.

a. In order to adequately harness the scope of monetary assistance enlisted under the BLC and CLSS verticals of PMAY (U), states, in coordination with the union government, need to adopt an easy and hassle free process of property document updation and develop a system of clear land titles so that the poor people can get appropriate documents to their land and property.

b. Urban poor lacking legal land title for in-situ upgrading of dwelling should be given greater tenure security through effective policy measure that would encourage them to invest more in housing construction and enhancement.

c. Finally, there is a desperate need for a balanced approach to housing issues by strongly considering rental housing development, coupled with fair policies backed by the robust demand for affordable rental housing in urban India, using relevant levers to spur rental housing. Sustainable social rental housing in partnership with private and foreign players and the strong engagement of state and local governments might be the way forward. These are essential for not only catering to the colossal housing demand but also to ensure equitable housing outcomes in terms of quantity, usage, quality and affordability among diverse city residents. There is also an emerging need for vacant housing surveys, as is being carried out in developed nations, to gain a more nuanced understanding for the sustainable use of existing resources.

References

Bhan, G., Deb, A., and Harish, S. (2017). Understanding inadequacy: The view from urban India. Available at: http://iihs.co.in/knowledge-gateway/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Understanding-Inadequacy.pdf (accessed on: 20/04/2019).

Bhan, G. (2017). From the basti to the ‘house’: Socio-spatial readings of housing policy in India, Current sociology, 65(4): 587–602.

Ellis, P., and Roberts, M. (2016). Leveraging Urbanization in South Asia: Managing Spatial Transformation for Prosperity and Livability. South Asia Development Matters. Washington, DC: World Bank. doi: 10.1596/978-1-4648-0662-9.

MoHUPA (Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation). (2012). “Report of the Technical Group on Urban Housing Shortage,” (TG-12) (2012–17), Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, National Buildings Organization, Government of India, New Delhi.

Burning Ecosystem: Is India prepared enough?

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

We started the New Year with news of uncontrolled bushfires from all across Australia. According to a report by WRI burning of millions of acres of forest created perilous levels of air pollution, displaced a total of 90,000 people and killed around a billion animals. This makes people wonder whether Indian forests are equally vulnerable to such incidents. If yes, are we prepared enough?

According to IUCN, with only 2.4% of the earth’s land area, India accounts for 7-8% of the earth’s biodiversity. Forest ecosystem is one of the chief biodiversity reservoirs. India is home to a wide variety of forests spanning across a range of climatic zones. Indian forests are not only important from an ecological viewpoint but also from a socio-economic perspective. Over the years, unrelenting demands of fuel wood, fodder, timber, diversion of forest lands to agricultural and pastoral lands has put the forest resources under great pressure. Adding to these pressures Indian forests are also vulnerable to various natural and anthropogenic stressors like disease outbreak, landslides, forest fires etc.

In India fires are a major cause of forest degradation and have a wide range of adverse socio-economic and ecological impacts. UN-SPIDER defines forest/bush/vegetation fire as any uncontrolled and non prescribed combustion or burning of plants in a natural setting such as forest, grassland, brush land or tundra, which consumes the natural fuels and spreads based on environmental conditions.

Forest fire can be a result of natural or anthropogenic reason. According to FSI technical report of 2019 95% of the forest fires in India are incidences of anthropogenic activities. Most of these activities include clearing areas for shifting agriculture, clearing forest ground for Non Timber Forest Product (NTFP) collection, hunting/poaching activities while natural fires are caused because of lightning, rolling stones, friction of bamboos and stem of trees, etc.

Forest fire is generally classified into 3 types:

  • Crown fire: Crown fire advances from trees to trees without any close impact and are the most destructive form of forest fire.
  • Surface fire: Surface fire is a fast propagating fire which consumes the small vegetation, surface debris and litter.
  • Ground fire: Ground fires are the most difficult to detect. Ground fire consumes the organic matter present on the forest floor beneath the surface litter. The flames are not visible with little or no smoke making them more difficult to detect.

However all forest fires is not bad. Fire is an important forest management tool which is necessary for the proper functioning of forest ecosystem. Controlled burning has been used as an important forest management tool however currently the changing climate has constrained the natural ecosystem and controlled burning must be done with extreme caution to avoid spreading of fire.

There is an alarming increase in the incidents of forest fires from 6762 in a year to 39145 in a year between the years 2002 to 2017 in India. According to the real time forest alert system of Forest Survey of India, a total of 188464 forest fire point shot up between January 2019 to June 2019. Between November 1, 2019 to January 28, 2020, 3048 out of 5130 fires were reported in the states of Maharashtra, Karnataka, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh   that is 59.4% of the total forest fires reported. The increase in the frequency of forest fires in India can be attributed primarily to man-made interventions. For example, in the state of Maharashtra most of the cases of forest fire are a result of increased tussle between state forest department and tendu leaf contractors while the north eastern states are vulnerable because of their traditional slash and burn farming techniques. The current Forest Fire Alert System 3.0 uses near real time SNPP-VIIRS data. Periodic alerts are issued and further distributed via mobile SMS and emails.

Forest Fire Frequency Map3.png
Picture 1: Fire points between November 1, 2019 to January 28, 2020

Are the current forest policies effective enough to control forest fires? The Indian forest act of 1927 criminalises the act of carrying or burning fire in protected areas and reserve forests under section 26 & 33. Further section 30 of the Wildlife protection act 1972 prohibits setting fire to a sanctuary. These laws strictly prohibit fire in or around forest except for those set by forest department for controlled burning.

Prevention and management of forest fires have two major aspects i.e. policy and financing. The diversity in the Indian forest types makes it extremely difficult to prescribe a coherent policy which can be useful for every forest. The national forest policy recognises the extent of loss caused by forest fires and further stresses on the need for improved and modern management practices to deal with forest fires. As a follow up draft the National Forest Policy of 2018 identifies forest fire as a major threat to forests and further proposes mapping of vulnerable areas and strengthening of early warning systems along with awareness generation. Recognising the issue NGT directed MoEFCC to formulate a National Forest Fire Action Plan in the consultation with state governments for an effective management of forest fire.

Several states have recognised the importance of fire management tools and mentioned it in their forest policies. The states of Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Telangana have incorporated aspects of forest fire management and prevention in their policies though a majority of the states are still in the process of forming a forest fire prevention or management plan.

The Comptroller and Auditor general (CAG) Report of the year 2017 stated that the forest department lacked sufficient funds to fight or take preventive measures to be taken against the forest fire. Shortfalls in resources were documented by several states and were one of the chief reasons for their failures in effectively tackling in forest fire. The report Status of Forest in India of 2019 by the parliamentary standing committee on science and technology, environment and forests criticised state forest department and centre for their inefficiency in prevention and management of incidents of forest fire across the country. The same report further mentions despite the constraint on funds there have been instances when the states failed to utilise the funds that were available to them. Though there has been an increase in the instance of forest fires in India the funds released have further decreased from 44.3 crore in 2016-17 to 34.5 crore in 2017-18.

The only centrally funded scheme assisting states to fight forest fire is the Forest fire Prevention and Management scheme (FPM). The scheme follows a centre-state cost sharing with a ratio of 90:10 in the north eastern and other Himalayan states of India, while a 60:40 ratio is adopted for the rest of the states. FPM scheme is the only dedicated scheme responsible for the prevention and management of forest fires in the states. It can further divert the funds under the National Afforestation Programme and Mission for Green India per the guidance of NITI Aayog applied under the Flexi-Funds (25% of the entire fund) and can be further used to meet the local needs and requirements. Additional funds required can be further made available through Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA).Agreeing to the fact of constraint funds, why aren’t available funds being used efficiently & effectively for the purpose of tackling forest fire?

Despite having numerous policies which focus on forest fire be its prevention or prohibition. The states failed miserably in preventing an avoidable disaster. In the year 2019 a massive fire swept through Bandipur Tiger reserve gutting around 3000-5000 hectares of forest area in the park. This is a serious concern that despite taking all the measures, why is there a systematic failure of efforts in tackling forest fires effectively in India? Action based policies in India fail in terms of their implementation due to lack of an effective background study. This warrants the need for availability of relevant historical information. Following the collection of fire data, management of the database is very crucial for formulating an effective policy.

There must be some degree of consistent delivery at sub-national levels to community level for the policies which are formulated at centre. The MoEFCC must adopt bottom-up implementation of policies when policy impacts are localised in nature. Simply lifting modules of policies of other countries and attempting to implement them in the Indian context would not work given the diverse climatic conditions and vegetation patterns. The changing climate has decreased the resilience of the natural ecosystem and further slowed down the recovery of these systems. Thus ignorance of forest fire issues is really not advisable.

A firm policy and effective financing tool will assure minimal loss and maximum benefits from forest fire, helping India progress towards a bright sustainable future with healthy forests.