Section 13A of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act is amended as CHAPTER-IIIA on Area Sabhas and Ward Committees to facilitate people’s participation at grassroots level. This Act was passed in the Assembly on 13th January 2011 and got the assent of the Governor.
The essence of the Community Participation Law is to institutionalise citizen participation in urban governance, to provide a formal platform for the citizens to participate, plan, prioritise and decide for themselves on what they need from the urban local body, which operates on their money – in other words, to decide how their money should be spent by their local government, keep a watch on the development works and prevent corruption. In the ‘area’ or the ward or the city, people shall have their say in the planning directly.
The intended law has noble intentions. But the law in its current form is woefully short on all of them.
Currently the law applies only to Corporations, depriving people of other 224 towns and cities of Karnataka their right to participate in governance of their cities/towns.
In its present form it is fraught with undemocratic and people-unfriendly provisions.
In the entire Act the word ‘community participation’ appears only twice, in the introduction and in the customary definition. That’s it. Then the ‘community participation’ is forgotten throughout, conveniently, though the entire Act is meant to institutionalise the same. The definition is totally inadequate.
In the Act, an ‘Area’ comprises the area of a few contiguous polling booths. The Area Sabha Representative (ASR) is to be ‘nominated’ by the Corporation on the recommendation of the Councillor, instead of being elected by the Area Sabha (the body of electors of the polling booth areas), as suggested by the Model Nagararaj Bill circulated by the Union Ministry of Urban Development. Any nomination process is undemocratic. It will only reproduce the voice of the existing political forces and not let the different voices of civil society be heard. Being nominated, the ASR will not be accountable to the people of the area but only to his political bosses.
The Area Sabha has been given the functions of merely ‘suggesting' plans and remedies for deficiencies in a few basic services, such as water supply, sanitation and street lighting, and ‘assist the activities' of public health centres ‘promote' harmony, ‘cooperate' with the ward committee, etc.
There is no link between the Area Sabha, the ASR and the ward committee. The ward committee members are again nominated, independent of the Area Sabha Representatives. The model Community Participation Bill circulated by the Union Ministry of Urban Development says that the ASR should be a member of the ward committee and represent his area. As per this Act, the Area Sabha and the ASR will merely be decorative and powerless and have no role in the ward committee which is the main decision-making body.
More than anything else, the Councillor is to be given veto powers over any decision taken by the ward committee making the concept of people’s participation meaningless. This strengthens and perpetuates the prevalent wrong perception that elected representatives are our ‘rulers’ and not ‘representatives’.
The functions assigned to the Area Sabhas and the Ward Sabhas are minimal and they are not in consonance with the true spirit of the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act (Nagarapalika Act).
The powers given to the members of the Area Sabha, who are the true sovereigns, are minimal and they have only been given powers to ‘suggest’, ‘recommend’ and ‘assist’ and have no independent decision-making powers for their areas. These powers are less than those given to Grama Sabhas in rural areas.
Area Sabhas are not given powers to get all information pertaining to their areas, take decisions regarding the use of the ward’s properties and resources, plan, prioritise and budget for their wards, hold officials accountable, monitor all works, get their grievances redressed at area level and conduct social audits of works. Without these powers, the concept of citizen participation will be meaningless.
We made necessary suggestions to the Act through wide consultations to correct all the above deficiencies and presented these to the government. But, these positive changes are opposed on the ground that ours is a ‘representative' and not a ‘participatory' or ‘direct' democracy. Then the question arises – why this Act at all?
Therefore how do we, the people/citizens’ groups, get together and take concrete steps to press for desired changes in the Act at this juncture.
To answer this question, we have planned a series of consultations across the State with all stakeholders, beginning with a brainstorming session in Begaluru to chart out our next steps collectively.
We look forward to your participation and contribution in this direction.
Date: 26th April 2011
Time: 10 AM-12 PM
Venue: Ashirwad, St. Mark’s Road, Bangalore
CIVIC Bangalore Urban Research Centre
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Monday, March 28, 2011
The new Municipal Solid Waste Management tender of BBMP: Does it have the solution for Bengaluru’s garbage challenge?
A public consultation on the draft tender of BBMP on Municipal Solid Waste Management was organised on 16th March 2011 where
- Sri. Manjunatha Reddy, Chairman, BBMP Standing Committee – Health was the Chief Guest.
- Mrs. Almitra Patel, Member, Supreme Court Committee for Solid Waste Management, presided.
- Mr. Gangadhar Swamy, Executive Engineer (SWM), BBMP and Mr. Venkatesh Shekhar, Environmental officer (MSWM), KSPCB, were the Guests of Honour.
- 82 citizen representing 35 organizations including Resident Welfare Organisations, NGOs, CBOs, took part (List of Participants enclosed).
- Presentations by BBMP on the draft tender and by civil society on the garbage tender’s relevance vis-a-vis central and state policies/guidelines was followed by discussions.
The key recommendations that emerged during the consultation are as follows:
At the contractual level:
Ø One contractor to have not more than one package or contract – to increase competition and performance amongst the contractors.
Ø As each package includes 3-4 wards, ward-wise sub-contract or sub-plan to be clearly defined in the package so that reviews/monitoring at the ward level are facilitated.
Ø BBMP should evolve a monthly performance review system through an institutionalised committee consisting of elected representative, officials, RWAs, NGOs and suchi mitras and incorporate this into the contract. Monthly payments should be allowed only after the review.
Ø The contractual period should be subject to revision every year based on review of the performance at each year-end. If the review reveals that the contractor has not performed up to the mark, he could be black-listed forever.
Ø The package and plan for the ward drawn by the BBMP as per the street/area/ward-level statistics should be non-negotiable. No scope should be provided to the contractor to come out with his own work-plan with justification for modification.
Ø Clear cut roles and responsibilities should be spelt out with respect to the generators, RWAs/NGOs/CBOs, councilor, contractor and the BBMP/officials in the tender. BBMP should be responsible for ensuring compliance of provisions by both the generator and the contractor.
In the implementation plan:
Collection of garbage:
Ø Separate schedules for collecting wet and dry waste should be planned. Wet waste should be collected on a daily basis while dry waste should be collected on weekly or bi-weekly basis. Current plan to have vehicle with a partition for collecting dry and wet waste simultaneously should be given up.
Ø Separate vehicles with unique colour code should be dedicated to collect dry and wet waste separately.
Ø All wastes given to auto-tippers and push-carts to be bagged and tied in bio-degradable bags to avoid exposure to environment and manual handling. Only wastes from bins being transferred mechanically to compactors need not be bagged.
Ø Bulk generators, large residential establishments, apartments built after 2006 should make their own arrangements for wet waste composting/bio-methanation and dry waste re-cycling as per KSCPB order. Campuses, educational institutions and government institutions should also make their own arrangements. This should be a non-negotiable. Only rejects to be collected once a week from these bulk generators. Those not complying to be penalized.
Ø Hazardous waste such as batteries or tube lights should be collected separately on monthly basis from households. They should not reach the landfills.
Ø A separate trip should be made for collecting construction debris. It should be used for constructing roads in the new BBMP area. The license to construct buildings should be given on the condition that construction wastes shall be carried to the designated point.
Ø Separate weekly trip should be made for collecting household garden waste. All leaves should be bagged in bio-degradable bags.
Ø A separate trip should be made to collect bulky wastes, such as broken furniture, torn mattresses, etc., once in three months.
Ø The destination of each kind of waste should be mentioned in the tender.
Ø There should be a clear plan for secondary segregation of dry waste to pick up the materials for recycling.
Ø Space at transfer station needs to be cemented to form a platform so that it can be cleaned easily
Ø The contractor who burns leaves, plastics or wastes in the area must be penalized.
BBMP’s obligations under garbage tender
BBMP should ensure that:
Ø All individual shops and residences have two closed bins for storing wet and dry garbage separately within their own premises. Free distribution of two bins with lids, biodegradable bags or bio-bins to individual households/slum dwellers to be considered
Ø All apartment complexes and commercial complexes install two common bins for ‘wet’ and ‘dry’ garbage in basement / ground floor for easy access by waste-collecting staff. Bins to be compatible for direct mechanical loading into compactor
Ø On failure of apartment complexes or commercial units to install bins within given deadline BBMP to compulsorily provide bins and charge them for it.
Ø All garbage being given to auto-tippers and push-carts is ‘bagged’ in bio-degradable bags and tied and not given loose. This to prevent exposure of garbage to environment and manual handling and in the interest of hygiene and aesthetics
Ø Responsibility of segregating waste lies with the generator and not on the contractor. (List of the households not segregating waste should be prepared by the contractor and given to BBMP for action. Penalties should be levied on them by BBMP)
Cleaning of public spaces
Ø Bidder should be made to devise a system of overseeing that no one litters by appointing staff who stand at collection points or black spots and monitor that no one litters. Names of those littering to be provided by contractor to BBMP for penalization.
Ø Cleaning of public toilets, community toilets, toilets of schools, government offices, anganwadis, etc. should be assigned to the contactor of that particular area.
Ø Commercial areas and market places should be cleaned at specific times such that it doesn’t affect the functioning of the area.
Norms of service delivery
Ø Norms for the deployment of street sweepers for certain lengths of roads, the norms for the number of closed tipper Lorries and compactors for certain number of households /units should be clearly mentioned in the tender.
Ø Norms should be specified in the tender for the quantum and frequency of supply of equipment, tools and cleaning materials, etc.
Ø Along with 1/7th additional staff at least 20% stand-by staff should be recruited for those taking leave/absent. Provision for stand-by vehicles when the regular vehicle is under repair should be made.
Other conditionalities
Ø Space for parking push-carts, auto-tippers, compactors, and other such vehicles should be provided by BBMP.
Ø Equipment, tools and vehicles should be cleaned on daily basis to maintain hygiene.
Ø Vehicles and equipment should be cleaned by bio-sanitizers and not phenyl to avoid killing bacteria which help in composting.
Ø GPS should be installed in all vehicles to monitor their movements constantly. This should be accessible to the public on the web.
Workers’ issues
Ø Manual handling of waste shall be prohibited as per MoEF Rules.
Ø Workers adhering to health and safety rules and use of protective gear should be made mandatory.
Ø Uniforms given to the workers should have ward number, id number and the contract number and name of the worker on them.
Ø Bidder should submit details of list of workers and their attendance with his monthly bill.
Ø As principal employer, BBMP should be responsible for any disputes between workers and contractor. BBMP should ensure that bidder adheres to labour Acts and rules. Penalties should be laid on bidder for violation of labour laws, non-payment of ESI, PF, etc. Also, officials failing to check malpractices of the contractors should be penalized.
Ø Applicable law does not mention the Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act 1986 or the Inter-State Migrant Workmen’s Act which has strict provisions regarding the employment of migrants from other States.
Support to self-initiatives and informal sector activities
Ø In slums, the community can be given the responsibility to collect the waste from the area and give to the contractors at entrance point of the slum. Incentives should be given to the slum community itself for doing this.
Ø BBMP should ensure that garbage contractors cooperate and integrate voluntary efforts of NGOs/SHGs/RWAs to collect garbage door-to-door, recycle and compost it, into their own work-plans and not disrupt or kill these efforts.
Ø Such self-initiatives should be exempted from this tender and from cess. Incentives should be provided to them to encourage such initiatives.
Ø The tender should not make provision only to big contractors. Opportunities should be provided for SHGs working in an area to earn their livelihood.
At the community level:
Ø Transparency should be ensured by publicizing complete contract details in every ward and means of receiving complaints from citizens on sign-boards at each package area.
Ø Involvement of NGOs and RWAs should be institutionalized through a committee with specifications on frequency of its meetings, duties and functions. The bidder should be made accountable to the committee. Fixing these meetings should be the responsibility of BBMP official.
Ø Performance of the contractor should be evaluated by this committee at ward level and a report on the quality of service provided by the contractor should be produced by this committee.
Zero Waste City Plan
As the present tender does not the address waste management in its totality, BBMP should put together a zero waste city plan. The outlines of the draft plan were already shared by the BBMP. A plan document should be put out by April 2011 by BBMP-SWM wing. The plan should consider the following points:
Ø Generating revenue from waste instead of levying tax on the public to remove waste. Assuming generation of approx. one kg of waste from each unit and estimating generation of revenue of Re.1 from each kg of waste generated, BBMP should earn Rs 182 crore per year.
Ø BBMP should operate on the principle that: no wet waste or dry waste should leave the ward/city; only 10% compacted rejects should leave the city to the landfill.
Ø Composting/bio-methanation sites: Adequate space needs to be earmarked in each ward and market area for local composting/bio-methanation / vermicomposting / generation of electricity from wet waste. Facility for using the bio-gas for street lighting or community kitchens needs to be created.
Ø Drop-off centres: Space needs to be provided in all 198 wards for drop-off centres for dry waste (and also for collecting hazardous wastes) of different types.
Ø Sorting stations: Space needs to be ear-marked at/near the drop-off centre for sorting dry waste, even that collected by dry waste collectors. Space for storage of sorted waste and to act as transfer station for inert waste is required.
Ø Composting garden waste and leaf litter: Residents should be encouraged to compost horticulture waste at site itself. All garden waste and leaves from street-sweeping to be composted through pit method at BBMP parks or other appointed place.
Ø Cow-sheds to aid in composting: Establish cow-sheds as per norms and provide them wet waste / link them to bulk generators of wet waste
Ø Hawking zones: Space needs to be set apart for creating hawking zones with food courts, one per health ward, on vacant land or a road with wide footpath, so that proper collection and storage facilities for vendors’ wastes can be provided.
Ø Linkage should be established with informal sector dry-waste collectors like rag-pickers and kabaddiwallas in each area for collection and disposal of dry waste.
Ø It should be considered whether garbage contractor should be asked to collect only wet waste and informal sector organised and enabled to collect all dry waste.
Ø Backward and forward linkages for trade wastes and dry recyclables with recycling industries should be created.
Ø Debris, garden waste, drain silt, bulky waste (broken furniture, mats, rugs, mattresses, etc.) hazardous waste such as batteries, sharps, medical waste, trade waste such as leather trimmings, tailor’s waste, etc., should not be mixed with wet and dry waste. These should be collected and processed separately.
Information, Education & Communication Campaign
Ø MoU should be signed with NGOs for providing training and awareness on segregation of wastes, composting, and other such SWM activities with the NGOs.
Ø Output of waste should be reduced by promoting installation of composting bins/infrastructure by every house-hold/apartment complex/bulk generator.
Miscellaneous provisions
Ø A bylaw should be passed prohibiting feeding of ownerless stray dogs to eradicate rabies and the stray dog menace.
Hoping these recommendations will be accepted and included in the latest garbage tender and long-term plans of BBMP to make Bangalore a model city.
- Sri. Manjunatha Reddy, Chairman, BBMP Standing Committee – Health was the Chief Guest.
- Mrs. Almitra Patel, Member, Supreme Court Committee for Solid Waste Management, presided.
- Mr. Gangadhar Swamy, Executive Engineer (SWM), BBMP and Mr. Venkatesh Shekhar, Environmental officer (MSWM), KSPCB, were the Guests of Honour.
- 82 citizen representing 35 organizations including Resident Welfare Organisations, NGOs, CBOs, took part (List of Participants enclosed).
- Presentations by BBMP on the draft tender and by civil society on the garbage tender’s relevance vis-a-vis central and state policies/guidelines was followed by discussions.
The key recommendations that emerged during the consultation are as follows:
At the contractual level:
Ø One contractor to have not more than one package or contract – to increase competition and performance amongst the contractors.
Ø As each package includes 3-4 wards, ward-wise sub-contract or sub-plan to be clearly defined in the package so that reviews/monitoring at the ward level are facilitated.
Ø BBMP should evolve a monthly performance review system through an institutionalised committee consisting of elected representative, officials, RWAs, NGOs and suchi mitras and incorporate this into the contract. Monthly payments should be allowed only after the review.
Ø The contractual period should be subject to revision every year based on review of the performance at each year-end. If the review reveals that the contractor has not performed up to the mark, he could be black-listed forever.
Ø The package and plan for the ward drawn by the BBMP as per the street/area/ward-level statistics should be non-negotiable. No scope should be provided to the contractor to come out with his own work-plan with justification for modification.
Ø Clear cut roles and responsibilities should be spelt out with respect to the generators, RWAs/NGOs/CBOs, councilor, contractor and the BBMP/officials in the tender. BBMP should be responsible for ensuring compliance of provisions by both the generator and the contractor.
In the implementation plan:
Collection of garbage:
Ø Separate schedules for collecting wet and dry waste should be planned. Wet waste should be collected on a daily basis while dry waste should be collected on weekly or bi-weekly basis. Current plan to have vehicle with a partition for collecting dry and wet waste simultaneously should be given up.
Ø Separate vehicles with unique colour code should be dedicated to collect dry and wet waste separately.
Ø All wastes given to auto-tippers and push-carts to be bagged and tied in bio-degradable bags to avoid exposure to environment and manual handling. Only wastes from bins being transferred mechanically to compactors need not be bagged.
Ø Bulk generators, large residential establishments, apartments built after 2006 should make their own arrangements for wet waste composting/bio-methanation and dry waste re-cycling as per KSCPB order. Campuses, educational institutions and government institutions should also make their own arrangements. This should be a non-negotiable. Only rejects to be collected once a week from these bulk generators. Those not complying to be penalized.
Ø Hazardous waste such as batteries or tube lights should be collected separately on monthly basis from households. They should not reach the landfills.
Ø A separate trip should be made for collecting construction debris. It should be used for constructing roads in the new BBMP area. The license to construct buildings should be given on the condition that construction wastes shall be carried to the designated point.
Ø Separate weekly trip should be made for collecting household garden waste. All leaves should be bagged in bio-degradable bags.
Ø A separate trip should be made to collect bulky wastes, such as broken furniture, torn mattresses, etc., once in three months.
Ø The destination of each kind of waste should be mentioned in the tender.
Ø There should be a clear plan for secondary segregation of dry waste to pick up the materials for recycling.
Ø Space at transfer station needs to be cemented to form a platform so that it can be cleaned easily
Ø The contractor who burns leaves, plastics or wastes in the area must be penalized.
BBMP’s obligations under garbage tender
BBMP should ensure that:
Ø All individual shops and residences have two closed bins for storing wet and dry garbage separately within their own premises. Free distribution of two bins with lids, biodegradable bags or bio-bins to individual households/slum dwellers to be considered
Ø All apartment complexes and commercial complexes install two common bins for ‘wet’ and ‘dry’ garbage in basement / ground floor for easy access by waste-collecting staff. Bins to be compatible for direct mechanical loading into compactor
Ø On failure of apartment complexes or commercial units to install bins within given deadline BBMP to compulsorily provide bins and charge them for it.
Ø All garbage being given to auto-tippers and push-carts is ‘bagged’ in bio-degradable bags and tied and not given loose. This to prevent exposure of garbage to environment and manual handling and in the interest of hygiene and aesthetics
Ø Responsibility of segregating waste lies with the generator and not on the contractor. (List of the households not segregating waste should be prepared by the contractor and given to BBMP for action. Penalties should be levied on them by BBMP)
Cleaning of public spaces
Ø Bidder should be made to devise a system of overseeing that no one litters by appointing staff who stand at collection points or black spots and monitor that no one litters. Names of those littering to be provided by contractor to BBMP for penalization.
Ø Cleaning of public toilets, community toilets, toilets of schools, government offices, anganwadis, etc. should be assigned to the contactor of that particular area.
Ø Commercial areas and market places should be cleaned at specific times such that it doesn’t affect the functioning of the area.
Norms of service delivery
Ø Norms for the deployment of street sweepers for certain lengths of roads, the norms for the number of closed tipper Lorries and compactors for certain number of households /units should be clearly mentioned in the tender.
Ø Norms should be specified in the tender for the quantum and frequency of supply of equipment, tools and cleaning materials, etc.
Ø Along with 1/7th additional staff at least 20% stand-by staff should be recruited for those taking leave/absent. Provision for stand-by vehicles when the regular vehicle is under repair should be made.
Other conditionalities
Ø Space for parking push-carts, auto-tippers, compactors, and other such vehicles should be provided by BBMP.
Ø Equipment, tools and vehicles should be cleaned on daily basis to maintain hygiene.
Ø Vehicles and equipment should be cleaned by bio-sanitizers and not phenyl to avoid killing bacteria which help in composting.
Ø GPS should be installed in all vehicles to monitor their movements constantly. This should be accessible to the public on the web.
Workers’ issues
Ø Manual handling of waste shall be prohibited as per MoEF Rules.
Ø Workers adhering to health and safety rules and use of protective gear should be made mandatory.
Ø Uniforms given to the workers should have ward number, id number and the contract number and name of the worker on them.
Ø Bidder should submit details of list of workers and their attendance with his monthly bill.
Ø As principal employer, BBMP should be responsible for any disputes between workers and contractor. BBMP should ensure that bidder adheres to labour Acts and rules. Penalties should be laid on bidder for violation of labour laws, non-payment of ESI, PF, etc. Also, officials failing to check malpractices of the contractors should be penalized.
Ø Applicable law does not mention the Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act 1986 or the Inter-State Migrant Workmen’s Act which has strict provisions regarding the employment of migrants from other States.
Support to self-initiatives and informal sector activities
Ø In slums, the community can be given the responsibility to collect the waste from the area and give to the contractors at entrance point of the slum. Incentives should be given to the slum community itself for doing this.
Ø BBMP should ensure that garbage contractors cooperate and integrate voluntary efforts of NGOs/SHGs/RWAs to collect garbage door-to-door, recycle and compost it, into their own work-plans and not disrupt or kill these efforts.
Ø Such self-initiatives should be exempted from this tender and from cess. Incentives should be provided to them to encourage such initiatives.
Ø The tender should not make provision only to big contractors. Opportunities should be provided for SHGs working in an area to earn their livelihood.
At the community level:
Ø Transparency should be ensured by publicizing complete contract details in every ward and means of receiving complaints from citizens on sign-boards at each package area.
Ø Involvement of NGOs and RWAs should be institutionalized through a committee with specifications on frequency of its meetings, duties and functions. The bidder should be made accountable to the committee. Fixing these meetings should be the responsibility of BBMP official.
Ø Performance of the contractor should be evaluated by this committee at ward level and a report on the quality of service provided by the contractor should be produced by this committee.
Zero Waste City Plan
As the present tender does not the address waste management in its totality, BBMP should put together a zero waste city plan. The outlines of the draft plan were already shared by the BBMP. A plan document should be put out by April 2011 by BBMP-SWM wing. The plan should consider the following points:
Ø Generating revenue from waste instead of levying tax on the public to remove waste. Assuming generation of approx. one kg of waste from each unit and estimating generation of revenue of Re.1 from each kg of waste generated, BBMP should earn Rs 182 crore per year.
Ø BBMP should operate on the principle that: no wet waste or dry waste should leave the ward/city; only 10% compacted rejects should leave the city to the landfill.
Ø Composting/bio-methanation sites: Adequate space needs to be earmarked in each ward and market area for local composting/bio-methanation / vermicomposting / generation of electricity from wet waste. Facility for using the bio-gas for street lighting or community kitchens needs to be created.
Ø Drop-off centres: Space needs to be provided in all 198 wards for drop-off centres for dry waste (and also for collecting hazardous wastes) of different types.
Ø Sorting stations: Space needs to be ear-marked at/near the drop-off centre for sorting dry waste, even that collected by dry waste collectors. Space for storage of sorted waste and to act as transfer station for inert waste is required.
Ø Composting garden waste and leaf litter: Residents should be encouraged to compost horticulture waste at site itself. All garden waste and leaves from street-sweeping to be composted through pit method at BBMP parks or other appointed place.
Ø Cow-sheds to aid in composting: Establish cow-sheds as per norms and provide them wet waste / link them to bulk generators of wet waste
Ø Hawking zones: Space needs to be set apart for creating hawking zones with food courts, one per health ward, on vacant land or a road with wide footpath, so that proper collection and storage facilities for vendors’ wastes can be provided.
Ø Linkage should be established with informal sector dry-waste collectors like rag-pickers and kabaddiwallas in each area for collection and disposal of dry waste.
Ø It should be considered whether garbage contractor should be asked to collect only wet waste and informal sector organised and enabled to collect all dry waste.
Ø Backward and forward linkages for trade wastes and dry recyclables with recycling industries should be created.
Ø Debris, garden waste, drain silt, bulky waste (broken furniture, mats, rugs, mattresses, etc.) hazardous waste such as batteries, sharps, medical waste, trade waste such as leather trimmings, tailor’s waste, etc., should not be mixed with wet and dry waste. These should be collected and processed separately.
Information, Education & Communication Campaign
Ø MoU should be signed with NGOs for providing training and awareness on segregation of wastes, composting, and other such SWM activities with the NGOs.
Ø Output of waste should be reduced by promoting installation of composting bins/infrastructure by every house-hold/apartment complex/bulk generator.
Miscellaneous provisions
Ø A bylaw should be passed prohibiting feeding of ownerless stray dogs to eradicate rabies and the stray dog menace.
Hoping these recommendations will be accepted and included in the latest garbage tender and long-term plans of BBMP to make Bangalore a model city.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Objections to BESCOM’s proposed tariff hike of Rs.0.75 per unit
Dear Madam/Sir
We request you to use the below content to file your/organisation objections.
.............................................................................
29th October 2010
The Receiving Officer
KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
6th & 7th Floor, Mahalaxmi Chambers, # 9/2, M.G.Road, Bangalore 560 001
Objections to BESCOM’s proposed tariff hike of Rs.0.75 per unit
Reference: BESCOM’s application to KERC dated 13/8/2010
Reasons for objections
1.KERC regulations not adhered to:
a.Late filing and no reasons given: After Tariff order 2009 was issued on 25/11/09 the present filing should have been filed by BESCOM in Dec 2009, but was filed in mid August 2010. No reason is provided. As a measure of penalty for late filing it would be appropriate that the new tariff if at all, is made applicable only for the remainder period of FY 11 and that no regulatory asset is created for the period 1/4/10 to the date of issue of the Tariff order 2010.
b.No Annual Review of performance for FY10: As per clause 2.8 of 2006 Regulation, BESCOM should have filed an application for annual performance review for FY 10 by 30/11/2009. They did not file even along with the present filing. Therefore Interest & finance charges approved for FY 10 now needs to be deleted from FY 11 expenditure. Without the annual review any deficit or surplus of FY 10 cannot be taken forward to the second control period.
c.Non-submission of data for conducting prudence checks on completed capita works in FY 10: Was neither submitted by 31/3/2010 nor along with the present filing.
2.Balance Sheet (form A-2 at page 164 of ERC filing) without explanation:
a.Increase in fixed assets in FY 10 is not proportional to availability of funds. As against the availability of loan funds of Rs. 976.18 cr, the gross block is estimated to go up only by Rs. 376.82 cr. No explanation for such low asset creation when higher levels of funds are deployed.
b.Capital works in progress: During FY 10, capital works in progress was only 187.91 cr against availability of loan funds of Rs. 976.18 cr. No explanation.
c.Assets not in use: Conveniently shown entry in this column as zero for all the years FY 9 to FY 13. Not furnished figures with appropriate explanations.
d.Receivables against sale of power: Entry against this column is consistently very high in the range of 1700 cr for all the years FY 10 to FY 13. No explanation for keeping such heavy amounts pending realization. No explanation on action to be taken to bring down the figures drastically.
e.Other current liabilities: FY 09 figures are 572.25 cr. In FY10 the figure has jumped steeply to 1232.49 cr. No explanation for such a steep increase in other current liabilities.
3.Faulty forecast:
a.There is a consistent negative growth w.r.t the forecast:
i.2006 forecast of 20343 MUs for FY 10; ended up in 17222 MUs actuals in FY 10 .
ii.Whopping minus 18%. No explanation.
b.Not buying additional power when shortage is anticipated. This resulted in extensive load shedding and “choking” of consumers
c.Has referred to the KERC Load Forecasting regulations of 2009, implying that they have followed these regulations. But it is clear that they have not done so. The regulations calls for periodic forecasts and are supposed to contain both peak load (MW) and energy (MUs) in these forecasts. There is no evidence that this has been done at all.
4.Substandard quality of Service:
a.Basically no definition for ‘quality’
b.Frequent load shedding – with out justifiable reasons
c.Absence of load shedding schedule
d.Continued restricted power supply to certain categories of customers (6 hour, 8 hour, 20 hour and 22 hour supply)
e.Failure to forecast near correctly.
f.Distribution system failure – loss of 16%
5.Incorrect cost projection based on incorrect facts/figures/reasoning – Savings that can be effected
a.Assumption of availability of hydel power 20% less than normal presuming bad monsoon while all the reservoirs except Supa are near full with copious rain continuing even now.. Taking only 10 % less, availability of hydel power, saving will be 125 crores.
b.There is mismatch between the input cost increase which is around 13% and the proposed rate increase of 25%, hence we object to the increase proposed.
c.Unacceptable down sizing of power supply from KPCL Thermal: From 7836.79 MU in FY 08 to 7071 MU in FY 10. Now to 6583 MU in FY . If 7071 MU is supplied , savings will be Rs 26 crores
d.Short term purchases of 3265 MU (794 MU @ Rs. 5.60 per unit and 2471 MU @ Rs. 3.50) which works out to 17% of total proposed purchases of 23,039MU.
i.At normal times 17% is a very high figure for short-term purchases.
ii.Why purchase at Rs. 5.60 while available at Rs. 3.50 per unit.
iii.Purchasing all short term purchase at Rs. 3.50 / unit saves Rs. 167 crores.
6.Formula not stuck to while working O&M:
a.In Tariff order 2009 dt 25/11/2009 on the revised ERC and Retail Supply Tariff for FY 10, KERC had worked out the O&M Expenses for FY 10 by applying the formula @ 509.73 crores. This will be the basis for working out the O&M expenses for the control period FY 11 to FY 13 and not the so-called actual figures. The calculations shown are not correct.
b.Employee’s revision of pay scales from 1/4/10 (FY11) (additional expenditure of 89.48 cr)when the pay revision commission/committee is yet to be constituted can be postponed by FY12 with this, (O&M) expenses in FY 11 works out to only 581.86 cr & not Rs. 723.77cr proposed by BESCOM. Savings in (O & M ) cost will be Rs 142 crores
7.After deducting Rs. 593.61 cr as Govt subsidy, the net gap projected by BESCOM FY 11 as Rs. 1074 cr can be brought down to Rs. 396 cr by the savings in expenses. This may only need a small percentage increase if at all, to bridge the gap
8.Unscientific and discriminatory proposal to impose uniform increase in per unit charges across all categories of consumers (viz 0.75 p/unit or any increase determined by KERC) to meet the Gap:
a.Weaker sections of society who consume in the 2 slabs of 0 to 30 units and 31 to 100 units per month are forced with 33% increase in tariff while the middle and upper class who would consume above 100 units will pay about 22% more.
b.By adopting increase in the same percentage basis for all categories and sub categories analomies such as in (a) above will be minimised .
Prayer:
Keeping all the above factors in view we pray:
-There be no hike OR if at all - in the range of Rs. 0.20 to Rs. 0.25 per unit
-To increase to safeguard the interests of the weaker section of the society there be no increase in the lowest 2 slabs (up to 100 Units).
For/On behalf of
- Sd -
We request you to use the below content to file your/organisation objections.
.............................................................................
29th October 2010
The Receiving Officer
KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
6th & 7th Floor, Mahalaxmi Chambers, # 9/2, M.G.Road, Bangalore 560 001
Objections to BESCOM’s proposed tariff hike of Rs.0.75 per unit
Reference: BESCOM’s application to KERC dated 13/8/2010
Reasons for objections
1.KERC regulations not adhered to:
a.Late filing and no reasons given: After Tariff order 2009 was issued on 25/11/09 the present filing should have been filed by BESCOM in Dec 2009, but was filed in mid August 2010. No reason is provided. As a measure of penalty for late filing it would be appropriate that the new tariff if at all, is made applicable only for the remainder period of FY 11 and that no regulatory asset is created for the period 1/4/10 to the date of issue of the Tariff order 2010.
b.No Annual Review of performance for FY10: As per clause 2.8 of 2006 Regulation, BESCOM should have filed an application for annual performance review for FY 10 by 30/11/2009. They did not file even along with the present filing. Therefore Interest & finance charges approved for FY 10 now needs to be deleted from FY 11 expenditure. Without the annual review any deficit or surplus of FY 10 cannot be taken forward to the second control period.
c.Non-submission of data for conducting prudence checks on completed capita works in FY 10: Was neither submitted by 31/3/2010 nor along with the present filing.
2.Balance Sheet (form A-2 at page 164 of ERC filing) without explanation:
a.Increase in fixed assets in FY 10 is not proportional to availability of funds. As against the availability of loan funds of Rs. 976.18 cr, the gross block is estimated to go up only by Rs. 376.82 cr. No explanation for such low asset creation when higher levels of funds are deployed.
b.Capital works in progress: During FY 10, capital works in progress was only 187.91 cr against availability of loan funds of Rs. 976.18 cr. No explanation.
c.Assets not in use: Conveniently shown entry in this column as zero for all the years FY 9 to FY 13. Not furnished figures with appropriate explanations.
d.Receivables against sale of power: Entry against this column is consistently very high in the range of 1700 cr for all the years FY 10 to FY 13. No explanation for keeping such heavy amounts pending realization. No explanation on action to be taken to bring down the figures drastically.
e.Other current liabilities: FY 09 figures are 572.25 cr. In FY10 the figure has jumped steeply to 1232.49 cr. No explanation for such a steep increase in other current liabilities.
3.Faulty forecast:
a.There is a consistent negative growth w.r.t the forecast:
i.2006 forecast of 20343 MUs for FY 10; ended up in 17222 MUs actuals in FY 10 .
ii.Whopping minus 18%. No explanation.
b.Not buying additional power when shortage is anticipated. This resulted in extensive load shedding and “choking” of consumers
c.Has referred to the KERC Load Forecasting regulations of 2009, implying that they have followed these regulations. But it is clear that they have not done so. The regulations calls for periodic forecasts and are supposed to contain both peak load (MW) and energy (MUs) in these forecasts. There is no evidence that this has been done at all.
4.Substandard quality of Service:
a.Basically no definition for ‘quality’
b.Frequent load shedding – with out justifiable reasons
c.Absence of load shedding schedule
d.Continued restricted power supply to certain categories of customers (6 hour, 8 hour, 20 hour and 22 hour supply)
e.Failure to forecast near correctly.
f.Distribution system failure – loss of 16%
5.Incorrect cost projection based on incorrect facts/figures/reasoning – Savings that can be effected
a.Assumption of availability of hydel power 20% less than normal presuming bad monsoon while all the reservoirs except Supa are near full with copious rain continuing even now.. Taking only 10 % less, availability of hydel power, saving will be 125 crores.
b.There is mismatch between the input cost increase which is around 13% and the proposed rate increase of 25%, hence we object to the increase proposed.
c.Unacceptable down sizing of power supply from KPCL Thermal: From 7836.79 MU in FY 08 to 7071 MU in FY 10. Now to 6583 MU in FY . If 7071 MU is supplied , savings will be Rs 26 crores
d.Short term purchases of 3265 MU (794 MU @ Rs. 5.60 per unit and 2471 MU @ Rs. 3.50) which works out to 17% of total proposed purchases of 23,039MU.
i.At normal times 17% is a very high figure for short-term purchases.
ii.Why purchase at Rs. 5.60 while available at Rs. 3.50 per unit.
iii.Purchasing all short term purchase at Rs. 3.50 / unit saves Rs. 167 crores.
6.Formula not stuck to while working O&M:
a.In Tariff order 2009 dt 25/11/2009 on the revised ERC and Retail Supply Tariff for FY 10, KERC had worked out the O&M Expenses for FY 10 by applying the formula @ 509.73 crores. This will be the basis for working out the O&M expenses for the control period FY 11 to FY 13 and not the so-called actual figures. The calculations shown are not correct.
b.Employee’s revision of pay scales from 1/4/10 (FY11) (additional expenditure of 89.48 cr)when the pay revision commission/committee is yet to be constituted can be postponed by FY12 with this, (O&M) expenses in FY 11 works out to only 581.86 cr & not Rs. 723.77cr proposed by BESCOM. Savings in (O & M ) cost will be Rs 142 crores
7.After deducting Rs. 593.61 cr as Govt subsidy, the net gap projected by BESCOM FY 11 as Rs. 1074 cr can be brought down to Rs. 396 cr by the savings in expenses. This may only need a small percentage increase if at all, to bridge the gap
8.Unscientific and discriminatory proposal to impose uniform increase in per unit charges across all categories of consumers (viz 0.75 p/unit or any increase determined by KERC) to meet the Gap:
a.Weaker sections of society who consume in the 2 slabs of 0 to 30 units and 31 to 100 units per month are forced with 33% increase in tariff while the middle and upper class who would consume above 100 units will pay about 22% more.
b.By adopting increase in the same percentage basis for all categories and sub categories analomies such as in (a) above will be minimised .
Prayer:
Keeping all the above factors in view we pray:
-There be no hike OR if at all - in the range of Rs. 0.20 to Rs. 0.25 per unit
-To increase to safeguard the interests of the weaker section of the society there be no increase in the lowest 2 slabs (up to 100 Units).
For/On behalf of
- Sd -
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
INVITATION
INVITATION
To a Roundtable Discussion on
BESCOM’s proposal to increase consumer tariff by 75 paise per unit for the financial year 2011- 2012 under Multi year tariff scheme and asking stakeholders to file objections by 4th November 2010
We cordially invite you to this discussion and with your feedback and suggestions, wish to finalise comments & objections on BESCOM’s proposal.
Date: Monday 25th October 2010
Venue: Shikshakara Sadana, Mysore Bank Circle, Bengaluru 1
Programme schedule:
3PM: Welcome and objectives
3.10PM to 3.45PM: Presentation of the proposal
3.45 to 4.45PM: Open discussion
4.45PM to 4.50PM: Summery and next steps
4.45PM to 5PM: Vote of thanks
Presenters of the Proposal
Sri. A Raja Rao
Former Executive Director, BHEL
Sri. Y V Aswathanarayana
Former Advisor - Works, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways
To a Roundtable Discussion on
BESCOM’s proposal to increase consumer tariff by 75 paise per unit for the financial year 2011- 2012 under Multi year tariff scheme and asking stakeholders to file objections by 4th November 2010
We cordially invite you to this discussion and with your feedback and suggestions, wish to finalise comments & objections on BESCOM’s proposal.
Date: Monday 25th October 2010
Venue: Shikshakara Sadana, Mysore Bank Circle, Bengaluru 1
Programme schedule:
3PM: Welcome and objectives
3.10PM to 3.45PM: Presentation of the proposal
3.45 to 4.45PM: Open discussion
4.45PM to 4.50PM: Summery and next steps
4.45PM to 5PM: Vote of thanks
Presenters of the Proposal
Sri. A Raja Rao
Former Executive Director, BHEL
Sri. Y V Aswathanarayana
Former Advisor - Works, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways
Saturday, May 29, 2010
CIVICs work on ‘Participatory Planning and Budgeting in a Ward’
There are number of stakeholders in a ‘Participatory Planning’ at the ward level - people/communities, organized groups, elected representatives, ward officials, etc., It is important that all are involved in the process for its success and continuity. It is a challenge. We have started with one ward – Sagayapuram (Ward 60) in Bengaluru/Bangalore .
We started with the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) officers – the zonal commissioner, chief engineer and others. The idea was shared and we were encouraged by the positive response. Then we identified active RWAs in the ward and arranged for an interactive session with RWAs and BBMP officials on 16th January 2010. The concept was shared and all accepted that a ward plan has to be developed involving people from each and every area in the ward. This was the beginning of the next challenge – bridging the social divide in the ward.Social composition of Ward 60 is complex matrix. Southern part is well developed and inhabited by middle/upper class families while the northern part is underdeveloped and inundated with little dwellings – as can be seen from the ward map. The biggest challenge was in bringing different sections of society on a single platform to collectively plan for the ward.
While the RWAs are active in southern part, it took a while to convince them that a plan for the ward can’t be a plan drawn only by them but people and communities from different areas need to be involved. They appreciated this point and agreed to work with northern sections. The first hurdle was crossed.
The second step was to identify individuals/groups in the northern part that are simply oblivious to the idea of ‘participation’ and then bring them around to sit with organized RWAs. We succeeded after numerous forays into the northern area, known for notorious activities. The concept was shared with individuals and organizations of the northern section. Collectively they now have formed a Federation of Civil Societies of Sagayapuram – Ward 60 (FCSS-Ward 60). The RWAs from the south agreed that from the budget meant for the ward, the already developed portion, where they are from, needs only maintenance work while the bulk of it has to go to the poorer portion, the northern portin, for development works.
This was followed with area-wise meetings with people, identification and assessment of requirements, especially in the under-developed areas – Sagaypuram layout, Bagalur layout, Gidappa block, Pillanna garden layout, MS slum area - with active participation of RWAs. A cumulative list of required works was prepared for each area. The list was prioritized for each area in couple of ensuing meetings. And finally first, second and third priority list of works for the areas were finalized in the meeting. Later the requirements were put into drawings and were budgeted.
Thus a ‘Programme of Works (PoW) for the year 2010-2011 for Ward 60’ was evolved by the people/organizations. The PoW was presented to the newly elected councilor Ms. Palaniyammal V, who inturn handed it over to the urban local body, the BBMP, represented by its Executive Engineer in an open meeting with people of the ward on 7th May 2010. Both the Councillor and the Executive Engineer have assured to adopt this PoW for the coming year. The PoWs were officially submitted to the BBMP with formal letters – records of which would facilitate further follow up – if necessary through RTI. This is only the beginning! We hope to build on this model and perfect it to suit various situations in different wards and push it through the council as a model process in other wards of Bengaluru. And in the mean time we hope an enabling piece of legislation in the form of Bengaluru Regional Governance Bill will be put in place to back this up. It is also noteworthy that the local government, state government and the central government have signed a tripartite MoA under JNNURM that a ‘public participation law’ will be enacted – a mandatory reform, which is due. We hope this process would help to realise the participation of people in governance as envisaged under the Nagarapalika Act (74th Constitutional Amendment Act).
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
CIVIC Bangalore has great pleasure in inviting you to the release of and consultation on a study report on ‘Implementation of BSUP-JNNURM projects in Bengaluru’ and the release of ‘A Compendium of Government Schemes for the Urban Poor’
CIVIC Bangalore
has great pleasure in inviting you
to the release of and consultation on a study report on
‘Implementation of BSUP-JNNURM projects in Bengaluru’
and the release of
‘A Compendium of Government Schemes for the Urban Poor’
Presided by
Dr. A. Ravindra, IAS (Retd.)
Urban Advisor to Chief Minister of Karnataka
Honourable Chief Guests
Sri S. K. Nataraj
Worshipful Mayor of Bengaluru
&
Sri Dayananda, N.
Deputy Mayor of Bengaluru
Guests of Honour
Sri Bharat Lal Meena*, IAS
Commissioner, BBMP
Sri G. V. Kongwad, IAS
Secretary, Housing Department, GoK
Date: Saturday 22nd May 2010 Time: 2.30 PM to 6.00 PM
Venue: Senate Hall, Central College, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore
ALL ARE WELCOME
* Awaiting confirmation
Programme Schedule
2.30PM – 3.00PM Tea and registration
3.00PM-3.10PM Welcome & briefing on the objectives of the consultation CIVIC
3.10PM-3.30PM Screening of documentary film on BSUP-JNNURM in Bangalore CIVIC
3.30PM-3.50PM Presentation on the research findings on BSUP-JNNURM in Bangalore Kavita Kanan, Researcher
3.50PM-4.30PM Presentation on BSUP implementation by grassroots organizations and community representatives Community representatives/ workers from the slums
4.30PM-5PM Open discussion on road map for implementation through participation, accountability and transparency
5PM-5.05PM Remarks about the Compendium Lakshmikantha - CIVIC
5.05PM-5.10PM Release of books:1. BSUP-JNNURM study report2. Compendium of government schemes for the Urban Poor Chief Guests: Worshipful Mayor & Deputy Mayor of BBMP
5.10PM-5.40PM Remarks by Chief Guests
5.40PM-5.55PM Chairperson’s remarks Dr. A. Ravindra
5.55PM- 6PM Vote of thanks CIVIC
CIVIC Bangalore
(Citizens’ Voluntary Initiative for the City)
# 6, Kasturi Apartments, 35/23 Langford Road Cross, Shanthinagar
Bangalore 560025
Email: info@civicspace.in URL: www.civicspace.in
Tel: 22110584 / Telefax: 41144126
Cell Nos: 97318 17177/ 9739439220 / 9880963996
Friday, March 19, 2010
BWSSB has no plan to implement 600 crore project
So reveals an RTI inquiry into its MPIC (Monthly Programme Implementation Calendar). While 3 outcomes of this mammoth spending looks specific, the 4th
which says – slum development for 300 slums by
2013 is vague. Monthly activities that would achieve the financial and physical
targets are conveniently overlooked. This is precisely how adhoc measures are
resorted to.
Also wonder if these forms are real, meaning were submitted to the
finance commission, and if so wonder how it accepted such grossly underdone
statements.
One template from the agri sector shows how an MPIC looks
like. This is a very crucial tool in tracking each sector spending.
Will keep
pursuing these and particularly of the BWSSB, again through RTI to its logical
end – to put a planning process in BWSSB.
That is one way of using RTI in a creative way.
Other segments needs to be addressed to. More we use RTI, more we learn to put it to good use - not just as a tool for info, but to bring in systemic changes, the way govt functions. Just the begining!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)