Smart city paradox

 Extension of deadline for completion of smart city projects till 2024 has come as a breather for worst performing cities in the Northeast, including Guwahati. Real challenge for these smart city authorities is to make best utilization of the extended period to complete and fast track as many projects. In the entire country 7821 projects for an estimated cost of Rs 1.81 lakh crore have been taken up in 100 smart cities. Of these, 5343 projects worth Rs 1 lakh crore have already been completed as on February 15. Against 68% of overall project completion in the country, only 23% of smart city projects have been completed in the northeast region. Official data shows that of the total 523 projects under Smart Cities Mission (SCM) in northeast region worth Rs 13563 crore which are in various stages of implementation, only 121 projects worth Rs 1553 crore have been completed and 268 projects for an estimated cost of Rs 8507 crore are under implementation. When it comes to SCM in Guwahati, of the total 185 projects, only nine projects have been completed till February 15 which speaks volume about the dismal performance. In Meghalaya, completion of only project against 96 projects taken for SCM in Shillong and in Mizoram, completion of only 7 projects against total 105 projects also point towards poor performance of the states in the region in executing SCM. The mission was launched in the country on June 25, 2015 with the objective of providing core infrastructure, clean and sustainable environment for a decent quality of life to the citizens through applications of smart solutions. The Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) adopted a comprehensive ranking mechanism of taking into account both physical and financial performance, compliances by SCMs which placed Guwahati, Imphal, Shillong, and Aizawl among bottom ten smart cities. When state capitals of the region have become focal points of activities under India’s Act East Policy, Neighbourhood First Policy as well as G20 events, these cities lagging far behind in execution of SCM projects is baffling. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Urban Development in its report pointed out how overall picture on performance is problematic and does not reflect the ground realities. It states that that the city-wise physical progress of projects taken up under the Smart City Mission shows that there is a contrasting difference in the performance of various cities and total number of completed projects gives a misleading picture because it also takes into account the excess projects accomplished by 32 performing Smart Cities. If the number of ‘excess projects’ is removed from the total completed projects then the actual number of projects completed under the Mission would be far less than projected as on 31.01.2023, observes the parliamentary panel. The observation is a caution to various central ministries how larger and aggregated picture often hides ground realities of gaps remaining unaddressed. The committee recommended that the ministry should rigorously pursue with the Smart Cities which are lagging and ensure that both the physical and financial targets are actually achieved within the extended time period of June 2023. It recommended no further extension of time should be granted, without detailed assessment and addressing of reasons leading to such inordinate delay, in completion of these projects. This brings into the centre stage the monitoring mechanism which plays a crucial role in evaluating the progress of the projects and helps the project authorities in undertaking necessary measures to fast track the projects and ensures judicious and timely utilization of funds. The SCM is monitored by an Apex Committee headed by the Secretary of the MoHUA, which regularly reports implementation status of projects through the Real Time Geographical Management Information System. As per SCM Statement and Guidelines, a Smart City Advisory Forum (SCAF) is established at the city level to advise and enable collaboration among various stakeholders which consists of Member(s) of Parliament, member(s) of Legislative Assembly, Mayor, district collector/deputy commissioner, local youth, technical experts, other stakeholders, etc. Ministry data shows that all 100 Smart Cities have established their SCAFs and have convened more than 756 meetings. Besides, at State level, High Powered Steering Committee chaired by the Chief Secretary has been established while Ministry Nominee Directors on the Boards of Special Purpose Vehicle constituted for SCM implementation regularly monitor the progress in respective cities. The Ministry regularly interacts with the States/ Smart Cities through video conferences, review meetings, field visits, regional workshops, etc. at various levels. Had these monitoring mechanisms worked effectively then performance of cities in the northeast region in execution of SCM projects would not have been so dismal. Unsegregated garbage piling up at landfill site, clogged drains, congested roads, lack of piped water supply, lack of public transport, also point towards the smart city paradox of misplaced priorities in Guwahati and other smart cities in the region.