September 17, 2016

changing economy and spatial, planning response

by VIDYADHAR K. PHATAK
sourced from Revisioning Mumbai, Conceiving A Manifesto for Sustainable Development A Collection of Papers/ Presentations edited by Vimal Shah & Pankaj Joshi. Published for The Asiatic Society of Mumbai by Promilla & Co., Publishers | Bibliophile South Asia, Dated 2010

PAGES 98 - 106 #

The present controversy about the use of the mills’ land in Mumbai raises generic problems/ fundamental problems of the changing economy of Mumbai and the spatial planning response to such changes. In this paper therefore I intend -

to briefly recount how the economy of Mumbai has reflected spatial planning, particularly since 1970
to review the ability of spatial planning to participate the changing structure of the economy for long-term plans, and
to propose the change in spatial planning practices that would improve the response mechanism

REGIONAL PLAN 1973
I begin by the first statutory Regional Plan for Bombay Metropolitan Region sanctioned by the state government in 1973. though the plan was sanctioned in 1973, the draft had been published in 1970 while its preparation had begun in 1967 under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act 1966. The Regional Planning Board had access to the 1961 census and employment data over a short period of 1960 - 61 to 1964 - 65. The plan therefore used trend projections to estimate the employment and economy for 1991, the horizon year of the plan. Let us look at the plan proposals for industry and tertiary or office sectors.

MANUFACTURING
For factory sector employment the Plan assumed that the share of Maharashtra in India would continue to be 20% and that of Mumbai in Maharashtra would continue to be 70%. The forecast of factory sector employment based on these assumptions, for Greater Mumbai was 9.62 lakhs in 1981 and 10.6 lakhs in 1991. Corresponding estimates for MMR were 12 lakhs and 14 lakhs.

The plan however did not want the trends of spatial concentration to continue. It is, therefore, recommended that _

areas zones for industries in Greater Mumbai be reduced by 800 ha.
new industrial zones be created for relocation of existing industries and accommodating future growth at Nhava-Sheva for port based industries - 1500 ha. Bhiwandi Tehsil - 200 ha. Vasai Tehsil - 200 ha. Apte-Turade (near Rasayani) - 100 ha.
in Greater Mumbai only consumer industries and ancillaries of existing industries be allowed.
no new industrial unites be allowed in the Thane-Kalyan Complex

In the development plan of Navi Mumbai sanctioned by the State Government in 1973 CIDCO went a step further and based on the study commissioned by it recommended that

manufacturing employment in Greater Mumbai be frozen at its 1969 level
employment in TTC and Taloja should not be allowed to increase by more than 2000 (something), during between 1974 - ‘80 (today such definitive and deterministic recommendations may appear to be very strange)

The recommendations of the Regional Plan were translated into the Industrial Location Policy for MMR in 1974 by the Industries Department of the State Government and continued through various amendments until 1992. In Greater Mumbai and Thane the policy initially prescribed “no new industries”. It allowed modernisation without increase in production - a stipulation that may seem wired in today’s macro-economic framework.

THE OUTCOME
On this background it would be interesting to note the outcome in terms of employment. Against the estimates of 9.62 and 12 lakh factory jobs in Greater Mumbai and MMR respectively the actual jobs in 1981 were only 6.04 and 7.36 lakhs. The picture worsened (or dramatically improved depending upon how you look at it) in 1991. Factory jobs in Greater Mumbai declined to 4.47 lakhs and in MMR to 5.99 lakhs. Clearly the notion of suppressing growth at one place to divert t to another place did not work. None of the new locations recommended by the plan developed during that period.

But this was not the result of spatial planning alone. In fact it could be argued that it was a result of licence and permit raj and labour policies. In fact, the employment in manufacturing (other than household industries), as reported in the primary census, increased from 11.12 lakhs in 1981 to 12.12 lakhs in 1991 indicating a substantial shift towards unregistered manufacturing units not easily amendable to policy control.

OFFICE SECTOR
We may now turn to the other “white collar” or office sector. The Regional Plan, 1973 diagnosed continued concentration of office activities on the southern tip of the Island as the key spatial planning problem. It is, therefore recommended:

not to perpetuate the north-south development trend that aggravates structural imbalance in the city. Restrict commercial areas to 20% in the Backbay Reclamation Scheme
establish control on the location of new offices that require more than 250 sq.m. or employment potential of more than 50
plan for eventual location of all offices not connected with Mumbai, in Navi Mumbai and to shift as many such offices to Navi Mumbai as possible
to develop Bandra Kurla Complex as an alternative commercial complex to give immediate relief to relocate the offices that must essentially exist in Mumbai to this centre

The MMRDA translated some of these recommendations into policy in 1977 that disallowed any new development for office purpose or wholesale trade in the Island City without the explicit permission of the MMRDA. This continued for some time even after the provisions were incorporated in the DCR’s of 1991.

It is difficult to track the growth of office employment because of the definitional problems. However, there are indications that the office sector employment too slowed down in the 1980’s. Moreover, the growth in employment took place more by the way of new smaller establishments than new large establishments. Growth in large establishments was by way of expansion of existing establishment. Such growth was less amendable to the policy of decentralisation. Neither Bandra Kurla nor Navi Mumbai saw any significant new office growth during this period.

As the economic forecast both in terms of manufacturing and office sector did not materialize, demographic targets of Navi Mumbai attaining population of two million by 1991 and thereby limiting growth of Greater Mumbai could not be realized.

THE POST 1991 SCENCE
In 1991, the horizon year of the first Regional Plan, significant changes in the macro-economic policies occurred. The industrial policy underwent a substantial change. The licensing policy that had been pernicious for manufacturing growth was almost disbanded. New avenues opened for private sector growth in financial services and IT services. The Draft Regional Plan for 1991 - 2011 consequently pleaded for change in the industrial location policy. Such a policy was adopted in 1993. The policy emphasized the environmental characteristics of the industries. It allowed non-polluted, high-tech industries even in the Island City; confined polluting and hazardous units to MIDC areas outside the Mumbai-Thane zone. However, the Development Control Regulations of Greater Mumbai approved in 1991 permitted alternative uses of industrial lands. In case of cotton textile mills a condition of sharing two-thirds of vacant land with BMC and MHADA for open spaces and public housing was imposed. Despite the policy attempts to attract manufacturing or at least facilitate its transformation, many industrial units converted to residences, offices, ITES and retail trade. Creating a new centre of offices along Andheri Kurla Road was not proposed in any “Plan”.

Navi Mumbai too suffered from decline in manufacturing and also the absence of office sector growth, the main plank of the Regional Plan. Navi Mumbai now seems to have pinned its hope for economic revival and growth on the SEZ near Nhava Sheva Port.

In the liberalization of Indian economy MMRDA saw an opportunity of expanding financial services and recommended a new office location policy in its Regional Plan. The important features of this policy were _

equipping Mumbai to host international finance and business operations and for that purpose developing BKC (Bandra Kurla Complex) as international business and finance centre (and not as a place to relocate offices from CBD for decongestion)
existing industrial and commercial zones in the Island City be allowed to have office development, making manufacturing and offices compete for the limited space
recycling of land of textile mills or cotton warehouses in BPT (Bombay Port Trust) may be promoted through integrated planning and development for office use
however, for these changes in policy to be brought about, rent control and property tax reforms have to be treated as pre-conditions

The policy changes were adopted, without of course any action on the property tax front, and no integrated planning was ever undertaken for the textile mills district prior to allowing conversion to commercial or residential use. In fact the rules of change of use that were introduced in the Development Control Regulations while sanctioning the Development Plan that was essentially prepared in 1987 set a trail of “planning by rules alone”. First in 1995, the Slum Rehabilitation regulations were introduced, then in 1995 rules promoting reconstruction of cessed buildings were introduced and in 2001 rules related to redevelopment of mill lands were also amended. In none of these any spatial content was present or the impacts of development assessed.

THE LEFT-OUTS
Throughout the planning period from 1973, significant growth occurred due to small business service establishments, unregistered factories and workshops, informal trade and services and also perhaps therefore by way of slums. They found crevices in the plan for their operations as the plan had neither recognised nor anticipated their growth for making spatial planning provisions. As a result large informal economy came to be labelled as illegal. Consequently, private investment in improving the operations too remained restrained or was made with the support of the corrupt system.

LONG-TERM ECONOMIC FORECASTS
This brief review highlights the hazards of long-term economic forecasts _

in the late sixties the planners apprehended continued growth of manufacturing and continued concentration of office employment in the CBD as the key problems and proposed a decentralisation and control strategy
in fact during the plan period the manufacturing sector declined losing employment in absolute number and office sector stagnated
by the time these trends were revealed and corrective steps were mooted it was too late

Mumbai now faces new opportunities for growth.

in the emerging WTO regime textile and garment industries seem to have significant opportunities for growth. Tax incentives are also proposed in the budget. Will Mumbai’s economics take advantage of this? And if yes how can that be facilitated from the spatial planning point of view?
what will be the spatial requirements of Mumbai becoming a Regional Financial Centre? Will it require a district zone? If so where should it be - a group of NTC Mills, BKC or SEZ in Navi Mumbai?
the question that then comes up is can we have improved more reliable economic and employment forecasts for a 20 year horizon at the city level? Despite elaborate economic forecasting methodologies the answer will be NO.
if a 20 year spatial plan in terms of broad land use allocation, arterial road network, public transport network etc. is considered necessary (and not in terms of where a primary school will be where a small garden would be) then we should be satisfied with very broad estimates of economic growth and employment.

NEW STYLE PLANNING
It also brings out the limitations of planning by rules alone.

mumbai’s Development Plan though approved in 1991 was prepared in the mid-80s. Some of the economic changes that were not anticipated at the time of plan preparation had begun to surface at the time of its approval almost a decade later. The tendency has been to accommodate these emerging needs by changing the DCRs alone without carrying out necessary spatial planning changes. For example,
although the Regional Plan talked about textile mill land being recycled through integrated planning and development no such effort has been made. Only land sharing rule was introduced. This did not take care of any of the impacts of the resultant development - such as road network capacities, parking requirements, additional requirement of open spaces and social infrastructure depending upon the new development being offices, residences or retail trade. It is obvious that the present spatial planning practices are inadequate to meet the challenges of growth being experienced by Mumbai. This therefore brings me to the last point that I set out in the beginning - the need for new style planning. I present a few important features of such planning.
as the national economy gets integrated with global economy, growth and character of city economy will become more uncertain. What will be required are data systems that track the city economy to quickly reveal changes in trends. Domestic product of the city and its sectorial composition, savings and capital formation need to be tracked annually through national accounts. City-specific data systems covering employment in formal and informal would be necessary. Additional floor space constructed in various parts of the city for different uses including change of use of existing buildings represents data available with local government in the course of exercise of its powers and responsibilities under Town Planning Act. Such data needs to be converted into information that helps monitor growth of the city on an annual basis. A systemic analysis of data is necessary to discern trends. Such information (as distinct from raw data which could be obtained through Right to Information) also needs to be placed in public domain for citizens use.
it will be important to understand the activities that are difficult to be monitored through formal data systems, and make room for them in the spatial plan in a way that does not compel such activities to seek space meant for other public uses.
based on these trends and the nature of growth expected over the next five years, the 20-year development plan needs to be reviewed every five years not only in terms of DCRs but also in terms of detailed local plans and the other infrastructure requirements. With a good database the process of review and change should be quick.
corresponding to the five-year cycle of Development Plan Review, there should also be Capital Improvement Plan. The luxury of stalling growth for securing breathing time for infrastructure strengthening was not available and will never be available as cities become more competitive. How infrastructure investment will be made to augment capacities required by the changes in spatial plans will also have to be a transparent and participatory exercise.
besides a 20-year plan and its five-yearly review, there will be a need to have comprehensive local plans. Rules alone cannot guide development.

Hopefully, such changes in planning practices would make spatial planning more responsive to changes in the economic profile of Mumbai, particularly when the pace of change is going to increase in the next few decades.