Facilitating multi-actor change - Capacity.org

PRACTICEUrban planning in IndiaFrom token inclusion totransformative participationAlthough labelled ‘participatory’ many urban planningprocesses in India involve only select elite groups. This articleexplains what is required to achieve genuine participationinvolving all stakeholders, including the poor and themarginalised.Kanak Tiwarikanak@pria.orgProgramme Manager at PRIA Global PartnershipKaustuv Kanti Bandyopadhyaykaustuv@pria.orgDirector of PRIA Global PartnershipIndian cities are chaos personified - vastheterogeneous conurbations whereindividuals and groups represent all shades ofeconomic, social, religious, cultural andprofessional identities. The fast pace ofurbanisation often leads to impromptu andthoughtless expansion, with littleconsideration given to basic services such aswater, sanitation and roads. Inclusive andparticipative city planning can be challengingto achieve; but it offers an ideal opportunityto implement processes that make planningresponsive to the needs of multiplestakeholders, with particular focus on poorand marginalised members of society.Embedding citizen participation in cityplanning is problematic because of the sheerscale of cities, the wide gaps in knowledgeand power between stakeholders, the lack oftechnical expertise and the prevalence ofpolitical patronage that favours elites.Traditionally, expert-driven planningprocesses have been so entrenched that therewas hardly any space for the poor andmarginalised to participate. In addition, thelack of updated data, weak local governmentsand political resistance to participatoryprocesses has widened the schism betweencitizens and city plans.Recently, the idea of participatory planninghas become rather fashionable. Projects led byboth government and private developers useterms such as ‘stakeholder consultation’ and‘people-friendly plan’ in their project briefs.But the reality of participatory planning isthat it tends to be limited to meetings with afew elite groups, where city issues arediscussed – and then the professionals takethe decisions on any future development.Sadly, such tokenism means that people’scontrol over decision making remains elusive.This will continue to be the case as long asprofessionals involved in the project receiveno training for facilitating meaningfulparticipation in highly fragmented societies,and as long as multiple stakeholders andinterest groups including women, children,youth, the elderly and other marginalisedpeople are excluded from consultations.The greatest need is to facilitate citizens’involvement in the planning of their citiesand localities, and to transform theircontribution from mere nominal orconsultative participation into instrumentaland transformative participation.The Society for Participatory Research inAsia (PRIA) is one of the very few civilsociety organisations in India that takes adifferent approach to city planning. Over thecourse of the past twelve years, we haveattempted to transform rigid planningprocesses into processes that are more peoplefriendly, flexible and inclusive. In this articlewe will share the lessons we have learned.More specifically, we will describe theexperiences we had preparing participatorycity development plans for two small townsand how we helped institutionalise socialaccountability mechanisms in five cities– four of which are state capitals.For PRIA, it is a given that urban planningis a participatory process. Staff are trained toreinforce this perspective in the way theyengage with the elected representatives. Whenpreparing the participatory developmentplans, PRIA held workshops for stakeholdersto help clarify the political and developmentalimportance of the planning process.Discussions held after the workshopsreinforced the view that the councillors andthe citizens together are the initiators andowners of the planning process.After the workshops and preliminarydiscussions, PRIA organised citywidecampaigns to ensure that as many people aspossible knew about the development plans.This was an essential step in creating anenabling environment for a multi-stakeholderprocess to succeed. It meant clarifyinginformation that was often skewed, sensitisingthe ‘upper classes’ to the negativeconsequences of perpetuating existinginequalities and giving confidence tomarginalised groups and individuals.The next stage was to jointly analyse thecurrent situation to see what changes neededto be made to achieve the desired result. Allthe stakeholders contributed to this. However,it was necessary to limit the influence of someof the professional groups such as localacademic institutions, media groups, andvarious professional and businessassociations. Such stakeholders can contributeenormously to making the planning processan open and transparent ‘public deliberation’,but they need to modify their expectations toensure that the poor and marginalised canstill lead the process, or at least participate ina meaningful way.The PRIA facilitators then collated all theinformation, presented it to the stakeholders,and asked for validation and feedback.Everyone’s comments were incorporated andthe final plan was prepared and submitted tothe municipality. From that point onwards itwas mainly up to the municipality tomaintain the momentum and commitmentsof the various stakeholders. However, giventhe current resource-starved nature of localgovernments in India, it may not be possiblefor institutions to implement the plans intheir totality.The lessons we learnedThe demand and supply side ofaccountabilityParticipation requires a two-way processbetween citizens who demand accountability,better services and a defining role in decisionmaking, and a local government thatacknowledges the equal importance of allstakeholders and responds appropriately andtransparently. Facilitators must placethemselves as an interface between the14 Capacity.org Issue 41 | December 2010