SLUM REHABILITATION PROGRAMME (In Situ ) in Ahmedabad, India
finalapprovedopenspaces
1. 1
RE-ENVISION MCGM’S FLAWED ADOPTION POLICY
TO ENSURE HOLISTIC AND PRO-PEOPLE DEVELOPMENT
OF MUMBAI’S OPEN SPACES
‘ADOPTION’ MUST NOT LEAD TO APPROPRIATION OF THE CITY’S SCARCE OPEN SPACES BY VESTED INTERESTS
WHAT’SRIGHT: Pherozeshah MehtaGardens, popularly known as HangingGardens at Malabar Hill, maintained by theMCGM
WHAT’SWRONG: The member-exclusive MatoshreeArts and Sports Club at Jogeshwari has been built on MCGM’s public recreation ground
Observer Research Foundation Mumbai
2. 2
Dear Friend,
The following document is a report on the proposed adoption policy for open spaces of
Mumbai initiated by the ObserverResearchFoundation(ORF)Mumbai. Werecogniseyou
as a key stakeholder in the future of Mumbai city, and we would like to share this with
you. We request your critical input and feedback on this report.
ORF Mumbai’s role in the current debate kicked off in October 2015 when the policy was
broughtinto thepublic domain andwas placed in thegroupleadersmeeting ofthe MCGM.
Considering ORF Mumbai’s long-term engagement with the issue of all open
spaces/green spaces and public spaces in Mumbai we decided to have a closer look at it.
We first translated the policy into English, did an analysis report, and took it to the next
level by holding a multi-stakeholder discussion where we provided an interactive
platform for healthy exchange of ideas.
This report has been compiled through ORF’s in-house research, engagement with
experts and finally a roundtable with stakeholders.
We would like to thank our colleagues Nilesh Bane, Siddharth Haralkar and Swarup
Pandit for helping us interpret and translate the government documents and the draft
policy.
It is the principal objective of this report to empower citizens and all tiers of government
to understand this policy in its entirety and suitably represent the views and feedback of
key stakeholder groups. We feel that such policies will inevitably make their way into the
workings of other urban local bodies across India.
Yours Sincerely,
Sayli Udas-Mankikar & Gautam Kirtane
Research Fellows
Observer Research Foundation Mumbai
NKM International House, 5th Floor
178, Backbay Reclamation, Babubhai Chinai Marg
Mumbai 400020
3. 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NUMBER
Mumbai’s open spaces - An overview 04
English translation of MCGM’s proposed adoption policy 08
The multi-stakeholder discussion at ORF Mumbai 15
ORF Mumbai’s analysis on the proposed policy
Our Recommendations
18
22
4. 4
MUMBAI’S OPEN SPACES - AN OVERVIEW
The island city of Mumbai commands some of the most expensive real estate in the world
within its finite boundaries. Rapid urbanisation over centuries has resulted in a
population explosionunmatched byhousing supply which has resulted in over60% of its
residents staying in informal settlements.
One of the city’s biggest challenges is to protect and maintain its public spaces,
particularly its open spaces including parks, gardens, playgrounds and recreation
grounds spread across 1,200 acres over 1068 plots.
The total open space in possession of the Mumbai Corporation ofGreaterMumbai
(MCGM) is roughly the size of 588 international football pitches. This converts to
a suffocating 1 square meter of open space per capita compared to nearly twice
that in Hong Kong, six times in Singapore and a staggering 25 times in New York.
This makes every square inch of green open space available all the more valuable.
5. 5
Several policies are being formulated that will give a push to real estate which means
more business parks and townships. This indirectly limits the thought and priority given
to nurturing the green spaces dotting the city.
Open spaces in Mumbai have been classified through land ownerships where they are
either owned by the Central government, State government, Municipal Corporation or
privately owned.
This report looks at the proposed adoption policy of the MCGM in which, 1068 plots
across the city will be put out for ‘adoption’ to organisations, and in some cases even
allowed for development of clubs which in the past have become member-exclusive
enclaves.
As a think-tank having a long-term engagement with the issue of all open spaces/green
spaces and public spaces in Mumbai, we want to call for a review in the adoption policy.
We specifically call for phasing out the 'caretaker clause' which has made a 'backdoor-
entry' through this policy. It would be also progressive if some ‘out of the box’ and new
thinking is introduced while framing this policy which will determine the future of public
green spaces of Mumbai.
History ofMCGM and open spaces
The Bombay Municipal Corporation was founded in 1888 along with the formulation of
the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act 1888. For nearly a 100-years, the corporation
maintained and protected all the open spaces in the city completely within its own
resources. This however was never an obligatory function of the city government.
The Bombay Municipal Corporation Act 1888, clearly defined the obligatory and
discretionary duties of the corporation, listed out in sections 61 and 63 respectively.
Things started changing after the 1991 development plan (DP). A provision was made in
the DP, to augment the supply of land for open spaces. A number of plots were
designated or reserved for the purpose of open spaces- as either parks, gardens,
playgrounds or recreation grounds. It became the duty of the MCGM to ensure that
these plots were acquired and developed as per provisions within a stipulated period.
For recreation grounds, the corporation set aside a range from 15% to 25%
of the total plot area for development towards recreational activities for
larger public benefit. In this period about 9 plots, which were recreation
grounds were given on a ‘development agreement’.
Organisations that were handed over the plots, could build up to 25% of the
total plot area, but were required to keep the remainder of the space open
for public use. These plots were then to be handed back to the MCGM.
Subsequently the MCGM was to give the plots back to the respective
‘developers’ under a new ‘caretaker agreement’. The plots were never
handed back to the MCGM forcing the corporation to take legal recourse
which is still unresolved.
6. 6
In 1995, Bombay’s name was officially changed to Mumbai and with it the corporation
was renamed the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM).
The 2002 MCGM records show that the municipal corporation moved court after giving
eviction notices to two clubs – Matoshree Arts and Sports Club in Jogeshwari and Kamala
Vihar Sports Club in Kandivali, for not handing over public property, reserved for
recreational purposes, to the corporation – its principal owner. The MCGM had alleged
that the recreation facilities were being misused for political and religious purposes.
However, despite the court upholding the MCGM's claim, possession of the plots has not
been reverted. Simultaneously, other plots were given on an ‘adoption’ basis where
organisations were not permitted to carry out any construction but were required to
maintain and secure such plots.
Based on this background, in 2005, the corporation framed revised policy guidelines for
allotting municipal plots reserved for recreation grounds (RG’s) and playgrounds (PG’s)
on both adoption and caretaker basis. The policy saw huge opposition from several
stakeholders in the city, citing the misuse of the plots given in the 1990’s, and finally in
December 2007 the policy was stalled by the state government. From 2007 till about
2012, there was a status-quo on the maintenance and protection of these spaces. In
several cases spaces got encroached and public access was compromised or disallowed,
following a policy paralysis.
On September 1, 2012, the government of Maharashtra had resolved that a committee
shall be constituted for preparing a comprehensive policy of framework for planning of
open spaces. The committee chaired by the Municipal Commissioner, MCGM comprising
of experts and NGO’s in addition to representatives from the government, was expected
to address the following aspects:
To prepare comprehensiveanduniform guidelines foropenspaces. This would be
done by collecting data on open spaces, using maps, surveys and conducting visits
where required.
Taking view of the existing policies of the municipal corporation and other
authorities
Comparing the policies of the state government and central government and
giving recommendations
Study the suggestions given by both the government and non-government sectors
on planning and maintenance of open spaces
Looking at national and international policies on open spaces, making a
comparative study and putting forth recommendations.
The committee put forth its report in April 2014 which gave its recommendations
based on all these aspects. However, this was not taken ahead with the 2014
elections on the horizon and the new government formation in October 2014. The
recommendations still remain on paper and were not put to use.
7. 7
Citizen activism and open spaces
Citizens have playeda significant role in protecting the openspacesin Mumbai. There are
several inspiring examples of how public places can be saved from destruction, or can be
enhanced in creative ways, through the dedicated efforts of urban activists and
responsible citizenry.
Newly created or renovated public parks that stand out include Priyadarshini Park at
Napean Sea Road, Joggers Park at Juhu, Horniman Circle Garden at Fort, Oval Maidan,
Cross Maidan, Ram Hari Kishan Dhote Udyan near Hinduja Hospital in Mahim, and Nana
Nani Parks.
In case of the open space policy of MCGM in particular, a non-governmental organisation
NAGAR (then CitiSpace in 2007), with the help of media, exposed the misuse of spaces
given under the caretaker clause in the late 1990’s. Citizen rallied together across the city
to protest against the policy. This eventually led to the stalling of the proposed policy of
2005. Civil society has come together yet again to oppose the policy in its present form.
Current status:
In September 2015, the MCGM proposed an ‘adoption policy of open spaces’. This policy
lays downguidelines for 1068plots across1200acresofland to be given outonadoption.
The policy has been given a go-ahead from the Group Leaders (political representative in
the MCGM) and the Civic Improvements Committee (empowered committee for decision
related to MCGM’s properties). At the time of publishing this report the policy is waiting
to be tabled at the MCGM’s General Body (apex decision making authority), where it will
get its final nod. Once again, civil society has raised several objections on the proposed
policy and there is a strong case a rethink on the policy.
The Oval Maidan maintainedbya the OCRA (Oval-Cooperage Residents Association), a public charitable trust set upbythe residents of the area
8. 8
ENGLISH TRANSLATION OFMCGM’S PROPOSEDADOPTION POLICY
Adoption policy of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for open spaces in
Mumbai city and suburbs
Tabled at the Group Leaders Meeting
Note NO: MOP/6099/SG/MC/1869 dated October 3, 2015 from the office of the
municipal commissioner
Subject: Proposed policy guidelines for giving out gardens/recreation grounds/play
grounds/ parks on ‘Adoption Basis’
Mumbai is a megacity and the financial capital of India. The MCGM formulates
developmentplans (DP’s)in which thereare specific reservationsforall openspacessuch
as gardens, recreation grounds, playgrounds and parks. These in turn can be developed/
redeveloped/refurbished in accordance with their reservation for the access and benefit
of general public and tourists.
By developing/redeveloping/refurbishing these open spaces as per their respective
reservations, the pollution of the city can be controlled, thus contributing towards
improved air quality.
According to the Development Control Regulations (DCR) 1991, the Parks and Gardens
Department ofthe MCGMhas alreadytaken possessionof1068plots covering 1200acres
of open spaces.
These plots are to be developed as per their reservations. Some additional plots are
expected to be taken over by the MCGM’s Parks and Gardens Department. Fresh policy
guidelines are in the process of being framed for the development of each such reserved
plot including all plots already in possession and use.
The proposedpolicyguideline which is beingformulated bythe MCGM shall be submitted
to the group leaders meeting for their perusal and approval.
9. 9
Application Procedure:
I) Eligibility criteria:
Applicant maybe one or more of the following:
Association OR Federations of the local housing societies
Resident associations
Business associations
Associations of shopkeepers
NGO’s from respective electoral wards.
Public sector undertakings (PSU’s)
Government Institutions
Institutions/Bodies which organise or sponsor sporting events (having presence
at administrative ward levels)
Educational institutes (having presence at administrative ward levels)
Corporate houses who want to use their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
fund
II) Plot eligibility:
Plots developed by the municipal corporation
Plots developed using MP/MLA funds or District Planning and Development
Committee (DPDC) funds (under guardian minister) or corporator fund
Plots developed and preserved using funds from private institutions
III) Public outreach and intimation for ‘Notice of plots to be given on adoption’:
Every ward officer with the advice of the zonal garden superintendent or his deputy
will prepare a list of recreation grounds, playgrounds, gardens and parks. Such a list
will be put up onthe notice boardofthe ward office as well as the MCGM website. The
lists will also be published in leading English and Marathi newspapers.
IV) Submission requirements:
All eligible parties interested in adopting the aforementioned plots shall within 30
days of the public notice by the MCGM, submit an application along with the following
documents:
Statement of accounts/audited financial reports of last 3 years ( to establish
financial capacity)
Documents to establish the jurisdiction of NGO’s
Experience certificate detailing facilities developed and maintained (with
reference to previous adoptions)
10. 10
The proposed plan for development/redevelopment/refurbishment of the plot
during the adoption period. A separate maintenance plan for the same period is
also to be provided.
Certified copy of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between local citizen
groups and the public institution/corporation/corporate house.
V) Scrutiny Committee:
For scrutinising applications a scrutiny committee shall be formed in each ward.
The deputy superintendent of parks and gardens will scrutinise the proposals and
forward them to the Scrutiny Committee.
The committee shall consist of the following members:
1 Additional Municipal Commissioner, MCGM ( in
charge of Gardens department)
CHAIRPERSON
2 Deputy Municipal Commissioner, MCGM
(Gardens)
MEMBER
3 Ward officer (for each ward) MEMBER
4 Ward executive engineer (Spl) MEMBER
5 Zonal deputy superintendent of gardens MEMBER
After the 30-day period the scrutiny committee will compile its remarks. The zonal
deputy municipal commissioner will submit the applications along with the remarks to
the additional municipal commissioner (in-charge of gardens) within 60-days.
Thus, the entire process will be completed within a period of 90-days, along with
informing the applicant about the ‘adoption’ application outcome.
VI) Letter of acceptance
After specifying a time for commencement of taking over the plot and developing it, the
ward officer will issue a letter of acceptance.
11. 11
VII) Agreement
The selected party will enter into an agreement with the MCGM. This agreement will be
registered on Rs 200 stamp paper, in a format prescribed by the MCGM.
The agreement will be as per the terms and conditions laid in the new adoption policy
guidelines. The license fee, security andmaintenance charges,and otherimportant points
will need to be specified in the document. There has to be an affidavit which assure
compliance with conditions stated in the policy.
The aforementioned format may require additions/deletions/modifications to be made
on a case by case basis by the deputy law officer of the municipal zone. The zonal deputy
municipal commissioner will approve the same. The selected party will bear all charges
for preparation and registration of the said agreement.
VIII) Performance guarantee
The selected party will need to give a bank guarantee of Rs 25,000 for each adopted plot.
This guarantee should be from a scheduled or a nationalised bank and should be legally
valid for the specified period of the agreement.
Aftercompleting thedevelopment workwithin theprescribedperiod,thebank guarantee
will be released.
IX) Security deposit
The selected organisationwill haveto give asecurity deposit a demand draftof Rs25,000
to MCGM within 1 month of its selection. If the monitoring committee (of the ward) finds
the performance satisfactory, then it will return the deposit in 5 years.
X) Monitoring committee
A monitoring committee shall be formed to evaluate the performance of the organisation
which has adopted the plot. This committee will look into every case, and evaluate the
quality and progress of the development works, taking into view the facilities available
andmaintenance ofthe plot. The committee shall visit theplot and notethe observations.
The monitoring committee shall consist of the following members:
1 Zonal deputy municipal commissioner, MCGM CHAIRMAN
2 Ward officer, MCGM MEMBER
3 Sectional executive engineer, MCGM MEMBER
4 Zonal deputy superintendent of gardens, MCGM MEMBER
The monitoring committee will hold a meeting every quarter after visiting and inspecting
the adopted plots. The Zonal deputy superintendent of gardens will maintain a register
which will contain notes of the period of visit, observations and remarks made by the
committee.
12. 12
X) Evaluation criteria:
Sr.NO Criteria Max
marks
Marks
out of
1
Background of Application:
1) Institutions/Bodies which organise sporting events (having
presence at administrative ward levels) and affiliated to the
state government sports department
2) Institutions/Bodies which organise or sponsor sporting
events (having presence at administrative ward levels)
10/10
5/10
10
2
Previous Experience of developing/maintaining facilities on plots
1) More than 10 years
2) More than 5 years
10/10
5/10
10
3
Financial responsibility
1) Association/Organisation havingan annualturnoveroverRs
5 crore
2) Association/Organisation havingan annualturnoveroverRs
1 crore
3) Association/Organisation having an annual turnover up to
Rs 1 crore
15/15
10/15
5/15
15
4 Jurisdiction of the association/organisation
1) Associations/Federationsofthelocal housingsocieties/resident
associations/ business associations/ associations of shopkeepers/
NGO’s from respective electoral wards.
2)Associations/ Federations of the local housing societies/ resident
associations/ business associations/ associations of shopkeepers/
NGO’s from the respective municipal ward
10/10
5/10
10
5 Proposed plan for the development and maintenance of the plot
( Discretion of the scrutiny committee)
25
TOTAL 70
Sponsored:
Priority for prominent and well-known companies registered under
corporate social responsibility (CSR)in addition to above points
50
Proposed plan 20
TOTAL 70
13. 13
XI) Terms and conditions:
1) The ward officer shall initially give the plot on a 5-year adoption agreement to the
selected party. During this period, the selected party will have to fulfil all the terms
and conditions prescribed in the guidelines of the policy. The ward officer will
periodically inspect the site and subsequently renew the adoption agreement on
an annual basis.
2) After taking the plot on adoption, it will be the responsibility of the organisation
to protect the plot.
3) The facilities created on the plot will be used only for specified purposes and not
for any other activities.
4) All facilities will be open to people across all caste, creed, and religion.
5) The organisation will not be allowed to put up more than 5 advertisement boards
and the dimensions will be restricted to 6X2 feet.
6) The organisation will be allowed to charge an entry fee of Rs 2 per person. But if
the organisation has spent over Rs 1 crore on the plot, then it will be allowed to
charge Rs 5 per person.
7) Children below 12 and senior citizens will enjoy all the facilities ‘free of charge’.
The organisation will need to seek permission from the municipal commissioner
if it decides to charge a fee for playing facilities other than entry charges.
8) Any commercial use of the facility will not be made without the nod from the
Additional Municipal Commissioner (gardens).
9) At the entry point of the plot, a board will be put up specifying the facilities
providedby the organisation/association.This boardwill berestricted to 6X4 feet
or as prescribed by the municipal corporation standards.
10)The organisation/association will make a provision for waste management by
vermi- composting inside the plot.
11) The RTI Act of 2005 will be applicable to such organisations and it will be
mandatory for them to appoint an information officer/ appellant officer.
12) The organisation shall carry out the development of the plot and its facilities, and
its maintenance at its own risk and cost.
13)The toilet facilities should be provided after seeking directions from the ward
officer.
14)No construction of gymnasiums or clubhouses or any such construction will be
permitted on the plot.
15) The plots shall be kept open from 6am to 9pm.
On previous occasions, some of these plots have been given on caretaker basis.
These plots will be kept as they are.
Some others have been given on adoption, and they have applied for converting
the same into a caretaker provision. If these organisations have made an
application on or before December 31, 2014, and if they can prove to have spent
Rs 3 crore or more towards the development/redevelopment/refurbishment of
14. 14
the plot, then these applications should be considered as eligible for caretaker
agreements. It will be mandatory for such organisations to submit the audited
balance sheet. In such cases, if the plot is given on caretaker, it will be mandatory
for the organisation to ensure that 30% of its total members should be local
residents. These residents should be charged 20% of the total membership fee.
Apart from these cases, henceforth, no plots will be given on caretaker basis.
XIII) Special terms and conditions for PG’s/RG’s
Playgrounds (PG’s)
1) The right to name the ground will remain with the MCGM. No organisation
given the plot on adoption will be allowed to do so under any circumstance.
2) No construction will be allowed on the PG. Only a toilet block can be built
according to the directions given by the MCGM.
3) A canopy/shed can be constructed on the boundary of the plot.
4) If the organisation which has taken a plot on adoption for a specific sporting
facility, thenthe organisationwill beallowed to maintain the plot forminimum
7 year period.
5) If the organisation which has taken a plot on adoption has not created any
specific sporting facility, then the organisation will be allowed to maintain the
plot for a 3- year period.
6) The PG cannot be given to any individual for adoption.
7) The organisations which want to create special sports facilities on PG’s will get
priority.
8) The organisation will not be allowed to put up more than 5 advertisement
boards and the dimensions will be restricted to 6X2 feet.
Recreation grounds (RG’s)
1) No construction will be allowed on the RG. Only a toilet block can be built
according to the directions given by the MCGM. If required, a canopy/shed can
be constructed on the boundary of the plot.
2) The RG cannot be given to any individual for adoption.
3) The organisation will not be allowed to put up more than 5 advertisement
boards and the dimensions will be restricted to 6X2 feet. As per directions of
the MCGM, the name boards of MCGM should be displayed in Marathi, English
and one additional language.
4) If anyrecognisednational/state level sportsorganisation/federationproposes
to provide facilities as a special case on a recreation ground of the MCGM, then
the eligible organisation will be granted permission in accordance with the
Development Control Rules (DCR) as a ‘special case’.
Disclaimer: The original policy was published only in Marathi. This is an English
interpretation of the policy provided by the Observer Research Foundation (ORF)
Mumbai.
15. 15
THE MULTI-STAKEHOLDER DISCUSSION ATORFMUMBAI
ORF Mumbai took the lead to initiate a dialogue between the MCGM and the various
stakeholders to discuss the adoption policy on November 17, 2015.
The purpose of this discussion was to understand the objectives and procedures of the
policy from MCGM.
Each participant representing the various stakeholder groups in the city, expressed their
concerns and made suggestions for additions, deletions and modifications to the policy.
This feedback is being compiled and will be submitted to MCGM and circulated amongst
the participants as a part of this report.
The discussion chaired by Sudheendra Kulkarni, Chairman, ORF Mumbai, saw Ashish
Shelar, BJP legislator and city president as the chief guest along with SVR Srinivas, MCGM
additional municipal commissioner (city) as a key-speaker.
About 24-stakeholders from varied backgrounds attended the meeting.
A multi-stakeholder discussion on the‘Adoption policy’that took placeat theORF Mumbai officeon November 17, 2015
16. 16
The following participants took part in the discussion:
Abha Narain Lambah, Conservation Architect and Advisor, ORF Mumbai
Ashok Datar , Transport Expert
Ashok Ravat , Trustee, WECOM Trust
Atul Kumar, Trustee, Nariman Point Churchgate Citizens Welfare Trust
(NPCCWT)
Chandrashekhar Prabhu, Architect - Urban Planner
Darryl D'Monte, Journalist
Dayanand Jadhav, Triratna Prerana Mandal
Dayanand Mohite, Triratna Prerana Mandal
Hafiz Contractor, Architect - Urban Planner
Hutokshi Rustomfram, Trustee, Save Rani Bagh committee
Imran Ali Basle, AIILSG
Kaustubh Dhavse, OSD Chief Minister’s Office (GoM)
Meher Rafaat, Trustee NAGAR
Nayana Kathpalia, Trustee NAGAR
Omkar Gupta, Urban Development Research Institute (UDRI)
Prakash Padikkal, HRW Association, Mulund
Ratan Batliboi, Architect - Urban Planner
Rishi Aggarwal, Fellow, ORF Mumbai
Sandip Deshpande, Corporator and Group Leader ofMNS in MCGM
Sarfaraz Momin, Architect - Urban Planner
Shubhada Nikharge, Trustee, Save Rani Bagh committee
Shailesh Gandhi, former Central Information Commissioner
Vidya Vaidya, Trustee, H-West Residents trust
Vidyadhar Date, Journalist
The discussion saw several points of consensus emerging across participants and even
being echoed by Ashish Shelar and SRV Srinivas. Some participants raised issues with
direct reference to the proposed policy while others made recommendations which were
generic in nature and not necessarily under the purview of this policy. We have put
together the suggestions that came from the stakeholders along with those which came
up during our in-house analysis as part of the recommendations enumerated on page XX.
17. 17
Some significant statements and commitments were made by Ashish Shelar and SRV
Srinivas before and during the discussion.
SRV Srinivas admitted upfront that it is not a ‘perfect’ policy and that the MCGM will try
to make a substantial change pursuant to the concerns raised by citizens. He assured that
it will be further ‘calibrated’ and the suggestions that have been given as a part of ORF’s
analysis along with those from experts and citizens in the stakeholders’ discussion will
be incorporated as a part of the circular with the policy. The MCGM’s policy on open
spaces has been in limbo over the past 8 years, he explained, following a stay given by the
state governmentin 2007.He said that the new policy bringsthe adoptionagencies under
the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) act, which promotes transparency.
Ashish Shelar who represents the political party BJP which rules the state government
and partners with the Shiv Sena in the MCGM, called for a white paper on the issue. He
stressed on the need to review the policy and said that his party will refer it back to the
improvements committee before it goes ahead. He also said that he will be putting forth
a proposal in the legislature during the upcoming winter session whereby the MCGM
makes a change in the MMC Act 1888 and the maintenance and protection of open spaces
becomes an obligatory duty from a discretionary duty that it is today.
18. 18
ADOPTION POLICYANALYSIS BY ORF MUMBAI
On November9, 2015,the proposedadoptionpolicyof the MCGMwas cleared by the civic
improvements committee. Our analysis is based on that policy document.
Enumerated below is our viewpoint on the proposed policy:
Unclear objective:
The stated objective of the current policy is to provide cleaner air through adoption
policy. It says “By developing/redeveloping/refurbishing the said open spaces as per
their respective reservations, the pollution of the city can be controlled thus contributing
towards improved air quality.”
The preamble of the policy should be clearly spelt out. It must clearly mention the
vision/mission/goals along with this history of the policy and justification of the
amendments.
Ideally objectives of such a policy for Mumbai should speak of social equity, universal
access, inclusiveness, urban greening, improved safety and security etc. There must be a
comprehensive needs assessment study at the city and ward level followed by
stakeholder consultations which will lead to specific goal setting that will form the basis
of the policy.
Goals and targets stated in such a policy should address aspects like infrastructures for
sports, fitness for the promotion of arts/culture/ and heritage. It should establish annual
urban greening targets across all public spaces in the city. All these are drivers that will
determine the fate of all open spaces in Mumbai and their usefulness to Mumbaikars
including the most vulnerable sections.
The caretaker clause:
As per the policy, ‘all existing caretaker plots remain status quo’.
From 1991, the MCGM has allotted 9 plots on caretaker basis which have subsequently
become member-exclusive enclaves.
This has seemingly benefitted the most affluent members of civil society and effectively
denied access to the most vulnerable sections and those who are most in need of
democratic, well-designed open spaces. Several violations related to public access of the
adjoining green open spaces (the non-developed parts) and huge membership fees been
the single-most negative of this policy.
We recommend:
A review of these spaces, keeping in check violations and finally taking
back these MCGM owned spaces.
A scrutiny of all caretaker agreements, and their legal status as of today.
ORF advocates stringent financial review of the 9 plots which were given
on caretaker previously, as the first step.
19. 19
Another clause in the policy states that ‘All applicants for caretaker having applied prior
to December 31, 2014 and can prove to have spent Rs 3 crore on the adopted plot can be
upgraded to caretaker status.’
According to information provided on the MCGM website, ORF estimates that there are
about 12 plots which are currently given on adoption that have crossed the Rs 3 crore
mark as explained. The caretaker policy is so structured as to always be preferred over
an adoption policy as it is clearly profit driven. Hence one may find large sums of money
been spent in adhoc and poorly planned ways so as to qualify existing adopters as
caretakers in the future. This justifies the existence of the existing plots on caretaker and
gives credibility to their functioning. One cannot rule outthe possibility that this becomes
a precedent for such adoption to caretaker conversions in the future.
Finally, the policy says that ‘If the plot is given on caretaker basis, it will be mandatory for
the organisationsto ensurethat 30% ofits total members shouldbelocal residents.These
residents should be charged 20% of total membership fee’.
Procedures/Committees and transparency:
Eligibility criteria: In the absence of clear objectives/goals and targets
establishing eligibility criteria is a pointless exercise. ORF advocates having a
strong and trustworthy local champion to be the primary applicant for adoption.
Priority shouldbe given to citizen groups/ALM.No government institutions/PSU's
institutions/PSU should be allowed to adopt since it defeats the purpose of
adoption and citizen participation. Any private, profit-driven institutions should
be ineligible to apply for adoption. Corporate houses should be eligible as
applicants exclusively through their CSR funds ONLY.
Plot eligibility: The MCGM has included all plots in its possession for adoption. It
appears that the MCGM wants to absolve itself of all financial and administrative
responsibility of all its public spaces through these means.
Scrutiny and Monitoring committee: Both the committees have a significant
overlap of members comprising exclusively of MCGM employees. The procedures
give a disproportionately large power to the additional municipal commissioner.
There is zero representation from any civil society, architects, green planners,
We feel that all public spaces should be above profiteering. There should be no
membership fees. Any usage fee should be affordable and there should be no
access control whatsoever. A good example in this case is the way Delhi
Development Authority (DDA) provides sport facilities like gyms, swimming pools,
tennis courts at almost 75 locations across New Delhi at affordable rates.
20. 20
experts in social sciences, art and heritage, landscapists, botanists and
environmental experts. Entire fate of these properties will be effectively
determined bythe same set ofpeoplewho arein chargeofourpublic spacestoday.
If these public spaces are poorly kept, how can we realistically expect the same
people wearing the same hats to end up doing justice to these spaces?
Evaluation criteria: ORF believes that applicants can be either eligible or not
eligible. After this point there needs to be a level playing field. This is applicable to
all evaluation parameters including previous experience, financial strength,
jurisdiction, background of applicant. The evaluation should be on the proposal
and its ability to meet clear objects that need to be defined.
CSR initiative: As per the policy, 50 additional points are to be given to
'prominent and well-known' companies registered under corporate social
responsibility (CSR). Here ORF's view is that such terms are not quantifiable and
subject to individual interpretation of scrutiny committee and must be done away
with. We feel principal applicants such as local citizen groups should be allowed
to seek funding from such companies through CSR, even at the time of application.
History and issue of paucity of funds:
The MCGM which was looking after its green spaces till the late 1980's brought in a
change through the DCR 1991 which brought in the open spaces policy- of adoption and
caretaker.
This was based on a new provision in the DCR 1991 which allowed the development of
variousland uses for reservations like Gymkhanas, Clubs, Stadiums, Swimming Poolsand
Recreation Grounds.
The 1991 DCR said " Considering the prohibitive cost of implementing the development
plan, certain innovative provisions for acquisition/development of lands under
reservation without straining civic finances have been incorporated in the development
control regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991". This clearly showed that MCGM was
strained for funds to maintain the open spaces in 1991.
The MCGM should clearly state in the proposed policy, if there is a paucity of funds or not
and state viability gap funding as a key objectives of the policy, if it is still the case.
21. 21
With the available funds of Rs 36 lakh for the number of spaces put up on adoption for
now, it seems that MCGM is more than capable of providing high-quality and consistent
security, maintenance and upkeep of all such properties. These funds do not include the
MP/MLA or DPDC funds used for the same purpose
We believe that viability gap funding can be adequately met without a caretaker
approach. Adoption also should be incentive-based and linked to proactive citizen work
(ALM's, solid waste management, community building activities) which fosters a sense of
ownership.
All the plots adopted MUST get funding from MCGM for the basic maintenance and
security of these plots. The adopting organisation should be free to seek additional
fundingfromphilanthropic organisationsorthroughCSRforinstallation ofextraordinary
infrastructure under the DP reservations.
Conclusion:
After studying the policy we have come to the conclusion that the adoption policy
needs to go through a complete revamp.
It lacks a preamble and gives no justification, objectives, priorities, goals and
targets of any nature. The eligibility and evaluation criteria laid in the policy does
not seem to be favouring citizen organisations on several accounts including
financial capacities. This is indicative of a myopic planning approach and
unnatural urgency to implement a policy which will be solely responsible for
determining the fate of all open/ green spaces of the city.
This policy, through its caretaker clause, effectively subsidies the lavish lifestyles
for the uber-rich at the cost of public resource and social equity. This is clearly a
violation of the mandate of the policy for public spaces and against the principles
of equal and universal access, and needs to be done away with.
Based on primary data available, ORF has some basic number crunching which
refutes this claim:
Number of plots out for adoption/caretaker: 1068
Plots already given on adoption: 458
Plots already given on caretaker: 9
Plots left to be given out under the new policy: 601
Average annual budget of the MCGM put aside for maintenance and upkeep of
these plots- Rs 200 crore
Effective Funds available per plot- Rs 36 lakh annually
22. 22
OUR RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the in-house analysis of ORF Mumbai and the suggestions which came from the
multi-stakeholder meeting, we are putting forth the following recommendations for
MCGM’s consideration:
There has to be only one singular ‘open spaces policy’ versus a focussed adoption
policy. There is a need for an all-encompassing umbrella policy for planning and
management of all open spaces in the city. This should go beyond the issue of
jurisdiction and ownershipofthesespaces. This is also in sync with Prime Minister
Narendra Modi and Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis’s vision of Smart Cities,
which recommends uniform and futuristic planning of open green spaces.
There needs to be a change in the nomenclature, particularly the use of words
‘adoption’ and ‘caretaker’ currently used in the policy. Nomenclatures can be
confusing and create a misplaced sense of rights and ownerships.
Plots sizes vary significantly from a few square meters to several acres. All sizes of
open spaces cannot have the same policy. The land-uses and activity patterns
should be determined following a city and ward level needs assessment. This can
be done as per the scale/stakeholder profile/activity of and around the space.
The caretaker clause, although not illegal, needs to be removed considering the
past examples of member-exclusive clubs created on these spaces. An audit of the
organisations who have been given out plots on caretaker basis, needs to be done
at the earliest.
There needs to be an effort on behalf of the MCGM and government to make
changes in the municipal law and bring the maintenance and protection of open
spaces under its ‘mandatory’ duties. Currently this falls under section 63 of the
BMC Act 1881 which makes it a discretionary duty.
Although it is a discretionary duty as per the MCGM Act, the corporation has
enough funds (an annual budget of Rs 33,000 crore) to take care of all its plots.
This year the MCGM has set aside Rs 200 crore for this purposes. Additionally, the
government collects premiums for several schemes across the city like SRA which
has to be mandatorily spent on public amenities, which includes
developing/redeveloping and refurbishing open spaces. Participants estimated
that the amount collected under such schemes to date is to the tune of Rs 5000
crore.
23. 23
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is an important factor in the success of the
public-private partnership(PPP) models.The guidelines needto bebolderandnot
restrictive in encouraging corporate funds to be contributed into maintaining
open spaces.
Good design needs to be an integrated part of the open spaces planning.
Architects, urban planners, landscapists, botanists and other resource persons
living in the vicinity who are keen to help in designing their local area plots should
be roped in.
The proposed policy needs to be more people-oriented. It is desirable to have a
resource rich non-government-collective, having expertise in botany,
architecture, landscapearchitecture and urbandesign, which can beaccessible for
ideation and planning. This can be done at the ward-level so that there is more
local engagement and ownership as well as at the city level.
Multi-use surfaces should be encouraged that allow a variety of sport/community
activities to take place on theseplots. Forexample, the samesurfacecould be used
for farmers and fishermen’s market, volley ball, roller skating, book reading
afternoon and a cultural dance performance. Open spaces need to be put to
alternate use. For example, many can be wifi-enabled making them more
attractive. The areas can be double-up as spots for assembly during disasters/
evacuations.
Urban afforestation should be integral part of any open space policy. Mumbai
should become a City of Gardens and Parks, with a special focus on protection of
its mangroves, nature parks and biodiversity, and on urban greening. It must be
taken up on a mission mode after setting realistic targets and earmarking
locations for planting native species of trees across public spaces in the city
including within premises of government buildings. Thematic avenues must also
be planned as part of a beatification initiative.
All plots having historical significance with respect to the freedom movement,
heritage, and other arts/cultural heritage should be treated separately and
removed from the purview of this policy. MCGM should retain ownership of such
plots and be responsible for such makeovers that highlight their significance.
*****
24. 24
About the Observer Research Foundation (ORF) Mumbai:
Dedicated to India’s holistic development
Observer Research Foundation (ORF) is India’s leading non-partisan, not-for-profit and
independent think tank that seeks to influence public debate and public policy
formulation. It was established in New Delhi in 1990 by the late R. K. Mishra, a widely
respectedpublic figure, who envisagedit as abroad-based intellectual platform pulsating
with ideas needed for India’s nation-building.
In its journey of nearly 25 years, ORF has brought together leading Indian policy makers,
academics, public figures, social activists and business leaders to discuss various issues
of national importance.
Beginning 2010, ORF Mumbai has been re-activated to pursue the Foundation’s vision in
India’s business and finance capital. It has started research and advocacy in six main
areas: Education, Public Health, Inclusive Development, Urban Renewal, Youth
Development, and Promotion of India’s Priceless Artistic and Cultural Heritage. It is
headed by Shri Sudheendra Kulkarni, a social activist and public intellectual who worked
as an aide to former Prime Minister Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee in the PMO.
ORF Mumbai’s mission statement is: Ideas and Action for a Better India. It champions
the cause of balanced socio-economic development and a better quality of life for all
Indians.
