Climate Change and Asian Cities: So Near Yet So Far

Abstract

You can run up to the packed compartments and find many hands stretching out to grab you on board, unfolding outward from the train like petals … And at the moment of contact, they do not know if the hand that is reaching for theirs belongs to a Hindu or Muslim or Christian or Brahmin or untouchable or whether you were born in this city or arrived only this morning … All they know is that you’re trying to get to the city of gold, and that’s enough. Come on board, they say. We’ll adjust (Mehta, 2004, p. 496).

Introduction

In the challenging times of climate change, the recent surge in urban population in Asia is posing an intriguing scenario for researchers as well as for policy entrepreneurs. Changes in global average temperatures threaten the survival and continuity of rapidly growing Asian cities, either due to impending increases in sea level (in the case of coastal cities), or due to the gradual decline in the availability of natural resources to sustain the burgeoning population. Simultaneously, prosperity and growth associated with this phenomenon are fuelling greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at an alarming rate. Within these cities, more risks are created for the large number of residents that inhabit the informal areas and have fewer assets to cope (UN-HABITAT, 2010b). Globally, developing countries are not bound by any specific target in emissions reduction; but Asian cities, using the standard climate change prescriptions, are redesigning their existing development strategies.

The relationship between cities and climate change has been thoroughly researched (OECD, 2009). Treating the city as a single and cohesive unit, focus has been placed on the need for changes in behaviour (Banister, 2007), adoption of low carbon (or carbon-free) technology (Weisz and Steinberger, 2010) and sector-specific studies (Newman, 1996). Academic work on climate change in the context of Asian cities has focused on health (Kovats and Akhtar, 2008), air pollution (Gurjar et al., 2004), transport (Li, 2011), carbon management (Lebel et al., 2007) and urban poverty and slums (Satterthwaite, 2008). Recently, international organisations like the United Nations and the World Bank have released a number of reports centred on climate change in Asian cities (UN-HABITAT, 2010a, 2010b; World Bank, 2010). These studies cover a wide range of issues concerning the implications of climate change for these cities. Governments at the city level show awareness of these implications and accordingly they have opted for appropriate policy responses. In such responses, the focus is on transforming the urban landscape with green thinking and taking mitigation measures in the cities wherever necessary. The prescription in these strategies is uniform and stereotyped and is of limited concern to the local conditions in the Asian cities. These cities are dominated by informality, both in habitation and in practice, and other than conventional negative understandings, this has a positive and valuable role in the overall scheme of urban governance. As a way of life, it has the potential to strengthen and complement the efforts of the city governments in tackling various aspects of climate change, within the broad framework of urban management. Using Delhi as a case study, this paper claims that the climate change strategies pursued by Asian city governments are: ignoring the relevance of informality and its importance in this policy praxis; and, redesigning the cityscape without disturbing the apple-cart of inequities. It argues that deepening and broadening these strategies will help in enhancing the coping capacity to create more resilient urban systems.

The paper has three sections: the first sheds light on various aspects of the Asian urbanisation process and its specific characteristics; the second considers vulnerability and the response of these cities to climate change; the third assesses the climate change strategies in Delhi. Finally, the paper draws out the broader implications for theory and policy on climate change and Asian cities.

Urbanisation in Asia, its Specific Features: Size, Speed, Density and Complexity

Asia is home to 60 per cent of the global population. Five of the eight most populous countries in the world—Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia and Pakistan—located in this continent, account for 45 per cent of the human race. In the past 20 years, the share of population living in urban areas in Asia has increased from 31.5 per cent (1990) to 42.5 per cent (2010) and, by 2025, this share will reach 50 per cent (UN-HABITAT, 2010b). This increase is reflected in the growth in urban population in these five countries (Table 1). This trend seems likely to continue in the future as these countries are still far away from population stabilisation. In the past two decades, the rate of urbanisation in China and Indonesia has been 80 per cent and 47 per cent respectively, whereas it has been 30 per cent, 20 per cent and 18 per cent for Bangladesh, India and Pakistan respectively. This remarkable growth has changed the habitat of the world’s population, where more than 50 per cent of people now reside in urban centres.

Table 1.

Percentage urban population

	1990	1995	2000	2005	2010	2015	2020	2025
World	42.6	44.5	46.4	48.6	50.5	52.4	54.4	56.6
Asia	31.5	34.1	36.8	39.8	42.5	44.6	47.2	49.9
China	26.4	30.9	35.8	42.5	47.0	51.1	55.0	58.6
Indonesia	30.6	35.6	42.0	43.0	44.3	46.0	48.1	50.7
Bangladesh	19.8	21.7	23.6	25.7	28.1	30.8	33.9	37.4
India	25.5	26.6	27.7	28.7	30.0	31.7	33.9	36.6
Pakistan	30.6	31.8	33.1	34.5	35.9	37.7	39.9	42.5

Source: UN-HABITAT (2010b)

This urban growth has witnessed an increase in the share of large urban agglomerations. In 2010, out of 467 million plus cities in the world, 246 were located in Asia. By 2025, Asia will have 332 such cities in comparison with 267 million plus cities in rest of the world (UN-HABITAT, 2010b). The smaller and medium-sized cities, with a population of 1 million or less, contribute 60 per cent in this urban revolution. The speed of this growth in these cities has been stupendous. For example, five megacities in South Asia are growing far more rapidly than the counterpart megacities in the global North (Figure 1). This sudden rise in population has far-reaching implications for the urban system and services.

Figure 1.

Population in 1000s.

Asian cities have twice the population density of those in Latin America, three times that of cities in Europe and 10 times that of US cities (UN-HABITAT, 2010b). However, this density is not uniform throughout Asian cities. There are significant variations in the intracity density. Within Delhi, the North East district has a density of 37 346 persons/square km, whereas the New Delhi district, the seat of national government, has a density of 3820 persons/square km (Census, 2011). Similarly, informal city areas like Dharavi in Mumbai and Orangi in Karachi tend to have higher densities than the planned city areas. This can be attributed to the geographical expanse of a city, complex interactions among land markets, transport systems, local culture and government decisions (UN-HABITAT, 2010b).

Asian cities have fuelled economic growth and prosperity in the region. This has brought complexity and dynamism to the urbanisation process itself.

Asian Cities: Exclusivity, Informality, Inequity and Governance

Asian urbanisation has a history of more than 5000 years. Some of the large cities (like Delhi, Lahore, Hyderabad and Ahmedabad) have been in existence for more than 500 years. Since the 18th century, a large part of Asia has come under European colonialism. Colonial needs saw the emergence of cities like Mumbai, Kolkata, Dhaka, Karachi, Bangkok, Jakarta and Colombo. Colonisers imported distinct types of urban system in both old and new cities. This import not only displaced the old order, but also demonised the native system (Prakash, 1999). This led to privileging ‘national’ over ‘local’ and ‘modern’ over ‘traditional’ (Gadgil and Guha, 1995). The process relied on segregation of urban spaces and associated amenities and with it the formalisation of inequity in these cities (Prashad, 2001). It carved out a specific urban space exclusively for some residents (Legg, 2007) and in the process, by acts of commission or omission, created the informal city. In the post-independence phase, continuing with the colonial instruments of planning (the land use approach), differential treatment in urban amenities (especially in water and sanitation), regulation (through licensing) and order (through the legal framework), these cities dreamed of creating prototypes of the Western cities of the early 20th century.¹ However, the scale, speed and complexity of the urbanisation process overwhelmed the desire and the ability to manage that process. As a result, these cities overshadowed formal arrangements.

Informality as a way of life has been interwoven with the urban fabric for centuries in Asia. This informality has been reflected in habitation as well as in livelihood activities in these cities. Consistent attempts to formalise urban space, in the 20th century, disparaged the concept of informality in a number of ways: it is opposite to a formal urban system; it is associated with illegality or extralegality (De Soto, 2000); its existence is attributed to commission or omission of the formal system; it is synonymous with filth, deprivation, poverty and vulnerability (Davis, 2004). The symbol of this informality is the ‘slum’. The apocalyptic allegory of Mike Davis (2004) created an impression that the new urban world is a planet of slums, full of filth and horror, a disaster in itself. Some came to the defence of these slums as a way of urbanism (Roy and Ong, 2011). The fact remains that Asian cities are not formal, in a conventional sense. Some portions of these cities are poor replicas of Western cities; whereas most of the cities negate this design.

Nevertheless, first removal, then upgrading, became the policy measures for governments to get rid or to transform these informal urban spaces. Globally, the United Nations speaks of improving the lives of 100 million slum dwellers by 2020.² Asian cities are home to a slum population of 550 million with two-thirds of this total residing in the five most populous Asian countries (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Slum population numbers and percentages

Country	Slum population (1000s)			Percentage of urban population living in slums
	1990	2000	2007	1990	2000	2007
Bangladesh	19 552	25 574	29 871	87.3	77.8	70.8
China	137 272	169 600	173 988	43.6	37.3	31.0
India	120 746	120 117	109 501	54.9	41.5	32.1
Indonesia	28 407	30 620	26 852	50.8	34.4	23.0
Pakistan	17 620	23 304	27 508	51.0	48.7	47.0

Source: UN-HABITAT (2010b, p. 178).

While all of the urban poor live in slums, not every slum dweller is poor. However, every household in a slum is vulnerable. These slums lack proper urban infrastructure, face neglect by the formal system, are often located in disaster-prone areas and hence are more vulnerable to risk. Amidst these precarious living conditions, these informal places show remarkable resilience and character to survive and thrive.

This thriving is witnessed in the dominance of the informal economy in Asian cities. Some 67 per cent of Delhi’s workforce is informal; Karachi has 65 per cent; Mumbai has 70 per cent; Dhaka has 50 per cent and Kolkata has 40 per cent of its work force in the informal economy.³ Three common aspects are visible in this economy: first, a systemic connection with the formal economy; secondly, the special characteristic of labour employed (or self-employed) in informal activities; thirdly, the government’s disparaging attitude towards this sector (Unni and Rani, 2003). This sector plays a crucial role in complementing the role of the city governments by facilitating civic amenities in those areas of the cities that face deficiencies or neglect from the formal system. These amenities include solid waste management, water supply, sanitation and transport.

Related to informality, Asian cities demonstrate an extreme form of intracity inequities. At least three dimensions of inequity are present here. First there is inequity in resources: resource allocation and distribution within the city are inequitable. The formal planned city area receives more resources in an assured form whereas informal inhabitants struggle for basic civic amenities. Secondly, there is inequity in income: the gap between rich and poor in Asian cities is widening. The three largest Asian countries are showing increasing trends in inequality (Table 3). Thirdly, there is inequity in opportunities: formal urban mechanisms creates fewer opportunities for improvement in the lives and livelihoods of the inhabitants of the informal city.

Table 3.

Gini coefficient

Country	Year	Gini index
China	1990	31	26
	2005	36	35
India	1993	29	34
	2004	30	38
Indonesia	1990	26	35
	2005	30	40

Source: UN-HABITAT (2010b).

Faced with these inequities, a vast section of the urban population remains poor and deprived. Residing in the informal settlements, they struggle in everyday life to improve their living conditions and livelihood options. Higher costs of living, shelter deprivation, poor accessibility to civic amenities and absence of a social safety-net remain barriers in their attempts of socioeconomic advancement (UN-HABITAT, 2010a). The resulting vulnerability of these urban inhabitants further increases in times of natural disaster (Kovats and Akhtar, 2008). In these situations, reducing the inequities and enhancing the capacity of this population are major challenges of urban governance.

Governance in these cities does not follow a simple command structure. It works at multiple levels in multilayers. Delhi is a prime example (elaborated later). Some common features of urban governance are noticeable: the overwhelming presence of central/state government in city governance; the absence of bottom–up approaches in city planning; lack of urban managerial skills; an obsession with growth, undermining the issue of sustainability; and limited attempts to mainstream informality in broader schemes of governance (UN-HABITAT, 2010b). Another trend is a large-city bias in governance (Douglass, 2005). In India, a major urban development programme—the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission—was launched in 2005 with US$20 billion investment for 65 large and important cities.⁴ This mission aims to encourage reforms and fast track planned development in these cities with a focus on efficiency in urban infrastructure and service delivery mechanisms, community participation and accountability of urban local bodies/parastatal agencies towards the citizen. This has helped these identified cities to undergo institutional reforms to receive necessary funding for infrastructural development. Small and medium-sized towns (in 2011, India had 4041 statutory towns⁵ including 468 towns with more than 100 000 inhabitants) are not as fortunate to have the focused policy prescriptions and the investment to run the system smoothly (UN-HABITAT, 2010b). When 60 per cent of urban growth is happening in small and medium-sized towns, attention needs to shift to these places for a better urban future for the world.

As urban growth continues unabated, the implications of climate change for Asian cities are of global significance. This growth is pushing up the emissions of greenhouse gases and, in the process, is increasing the vulnerability of the cities and their residents. However, the evaluation of the implications of climate change for them needs to factor in the already-discussed specific characteristics of these cities as it exposes the differential vulnerability within the city, as well revealing the working of informal arrangements to cope with the emerging risks. The next section discusses this.

Climate Change: Vulnerability, Adaptation and Mitigation

Vulnerability

It is estimated that 54 per cent of Asia’s urban population lives in low-lying coastal zones (UN-HABITAT, 2010b). These are the sites of some of the largest megacities of the world. A combination of factors related to climate change—including a rise in sea level and a likely increase in intensity of tropical cyclones, bringing higher winds and heavier precipitation, stronger storm surges and increased coastal flooding—will increase the vulnerability of these cities. Nicholls et al. (2007) found that Bangkok, Dhaka, Guangzhou, Hai Phong, Ho Chi Minh City, Jakarta, Kolkata, Mumbai, Shanghai and Yangon—all located between the tropics—are the world’s most exposed cities to increased flooding due to climate change. In a study of climate-change-related vulnerabilities in Manila, Bangkok and Ho Chi Minh City, it has been argued that the flood-prone areas would increase in all three cities, which would expose more people to risk and would increase the cost of damage to 2–6 per cent of regional gross domestic product (World Bank, 2010).

Asian cities experience differential vulnerabilities because of existing inequity and informality within them. The urban poor—occupying riskier areas like low-lying flood-prone land or mountainous slopes and having fewer assets with limited livelihood safety—are most vulnerable to climate-change-related disasters (UN-HABITAT, 2010b).

Risk in Prosperity

Rapid urbanisation has brought economic growth in the region. It has increased the demand for energy substantially. Asia is heavily dependent upon coal for its energy generation, which is putting a burden on its fragile environment (UN-HABITAT, 2010b). Rising personal wealth and changing lifestyles are increasing vehicle ownership in Asian cities. This is further aggravated due to the absence of reliable and adequate public transport systems in most of these cities. Almost one-third or more of total emissions are coming from the transport sector. The International Energy Agency (2008) estimates that Asia’s share of global energy consumption is expected to increase almost threefold by 2030; China and India will increase their energy use by 1200 per cent and 700 per cent respectively. The increased use of air-conditioning in resource-intensive building designs is another climate-affecting activity in Asian cities. China has witnessed a 25 per cent rise every year in its production of air-conditioning units since 2003 (Wang et al., 2008). Clearly, current patterns of prosperity are a major concern in relation to global warming.

Searching for Ecological Security

The growing urban population precipitates demands for various civic amenities including water supply, sanitation, waste disposal, power and transport. This necessitates scaling up the requirements of various ecological resources, which are already under stress due to the impacts of climate change. However, large urban centres are in an advantageous position, in comparison with small and medium-sized towns, to strategise their concerns (Hodson and Marvin, 2009). In India, Delhi has been able to articulate its demand for an increased share in river water for drinking purposes before the national government and the judiciary (DDA, 2007). Ironically, inefficient and inequitable water supply systems within the city keep a quarter of the population deprived of potable water (DDA, 2007). The impact of climate change will be felt in at least two ways: the accesibility of small and medium towns to ecological resources will be affected; the informal city, which may already be receiving rationed or no ecological resources through formal mechanisms, will become more vulnerable.

Adaptability and Mitigation

The complex production of Asian cities is reflected in their responses also. Broadly, this seems to operate at two levels, with multiple layers working within these—first, at the informal level and, secondly, at the formal level. The former reflects intuitive, indigenous, organic and adaptable characteristics; whereas the later reflects planned, fixed, borrowed and mitigation characteristics.

Comparing two recent city disasters, the Katrina Hurricane⁶ and the Mumbai floods,⁷ Anjaria comments that

in contrast to New Orleans, the Mumbai floods were not marked by social disorder and violence but by widespread acts of generosity and altruism (Anjaria, 2006, p. 80).

He argues that, paradoxically, it was the very ‘Third World-ness’ of Mumbai that prevented the city from experiencing the chaos witnessed in New Orleans. Informality has helped in times of crisis to keep intact the inherent virtue of the urban society. Rooted in the strong informal social networks in the informal cities, this continuing sense of community is often lost in the formal city areas. The urban society needs to retain such righteous virtues to enhances its capacity to cope with such climate related disasters.

Informal places in Asian cities are also places of innovation in governance that play significant roles in urban systems to minimise GHG emissions. The informal-sector-led recycling work in Asian cities has been lauded for its efforts in solid waste management that reduce the GHG emission rate considerably (UN-HABITAT, 2010b). One study suggests that the informal sector in Delhi alone accounts for estimated net GHG reductions of 962 133 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent annually.⁸

As national governments from Asia continue articulating their noncommittal positions on a global climate action strategy, Asian cities are collaborating on various platforms⁹ to discuss and deliberate various aspects of the city-specific implications of climate change, to share best practices and to partner with expert agencies to inform themselves of current know-how to reduce GHG emissions. Delhi has brought its own “Climate change agenda for 2009–2012”.¹⁰ Mumbai is working towards a similar plan (Hindustan Times, 2010). Shanghai organised World Expo in 2010 with the theme “Better City, Better Lives” to showcase its commitment towards climate change with a holistic vision of green public transport, renewable energy use, green buildings, rainwater harvesting, green spaces, etc. Similar efforts are being made in other large Asian cities (World Bank, 2010). The focus has been on minimising the emissions from transport, recycling waste, greening and encouraging the use of renewable energy. The impact of such efforts on the urbanisation process has been mixed. On the positive side, Asian cities are targeting clean public transport, reviving water bodies, adopting recycling technology and arresting the loss of green cover; however, on the negative side, not only has it ignored the coping strategies adopted by the informal city, but it has also taken the side of the informed middle class who want their city to be clean, pollution-free and green and who have, in the process, set their own environmental agenda for the city (Mawdsley, 2004).

Against this background, the next section evaluates the efforts of the government of Delhi to gear up to the challenges of climate change.

Climate Change Agenda for Delhi, 2009–12

In 2009, the Delhi municipal government brought out a monograph entitled “Climate change agenda for Delhi 2009–2012” (in short, Agenda). In a country of 35 million plus cities, this has been hailed as one of the first attempts to bring the issue of climate change into the domain of urban governance.¹¹ This monograph draws its narratives from the Prime Minister’s (2008) National Action Plan on Climate Change¹² and coalesces with the development discourse of the megacity. The Agenda intends to address five sectors—air, water, noise, land and knowledge—to improve the environment of the megacity. Although the National Action Plan focuses on eight specific areas,¹³ Delhi targets six of these—national solar mission, enhanced energy efficiency, sustainable habitat, mission for Green India, national water mission and mission for strategic knowledge—to draw up an action plan consisting of 65 activities to create a livable and sustainable habitat. Government departments and agencies are expected to achieve specific targets under these activities by 2012. These activities are not in isolation, but are linked with the existing initiatives to reduce GHG emissions, expand green space and improve the condition of the Yamuna river. For Asian cities, which are struggling to maintain the pace of development with rapid urbanisation and its implications, the climate change agenda adds a new dimension with significant consequences. Delhi’s Agenda is laudable but falls short of expectations on many accounts. The spatial diversity of the megacity, the informal city and the informal practices need careful consideration in this new strategy. However, the Agenda ignores these and opts for the convenient route of sectoral interventions to set targets to become part of the global climate discourse.

Aspirations, Governance and the Informal

Every city in Asia desires to become a global and sustainable city. In its Master Plan—2021, Delhi aspires to become a “global metropolis” and a “world class” city (DDA, 2007, p. 1). Through the climate change action plan, the city government intends to bring a paradigm shift in its development goals to make Delhi a “sustainable global city of the future”. Such aspirations help in drawing lessons or comparisons from other well-known cities of the world and in bringing fresh thinking to its development discourse. In the seamless world, cities are considered as the epitome of the regional and national aspirations of the political elite and the emerging urban middle class. World class infrastructure with an eye for sustainability is integral to these aspirations. Delhi, the capital of the largest democracy, is a unique place of experimentation in governance to fulfill these aspirations. A national government, a city government and a local urban body (second only to Tokyo in spatial size) are all involved in shaping and reshaping the environment of this megacity through complex processes. At the city level, three distinct power centres exist—the Lieutenant Governor/Administrator (nominated by the national government and a successor of the colonial period’s Chief Commissioner, with executive control of all administrative affairs); the Chief Minister (leader of the majority political party in the Assembly with powers over transferred subjects including environment, but needing approval of the national government to make any law); and the Mayor (annually elected by councillors in the Municipal Corporation, with the responsibility for civic services including sanitation and solid waste disposal). Ideally for Delhi, the city master plan is finalised by the national government, sectoral plans are designed and implemented by the city government and civic services are managed by the local body. In practice, the city’s governance is confronted with hazy vision, incoherent plan formulation and muddled implementation.

Climate Change, the Informal Delhi and the Agenda

Delhi is one of the fastest growing megacities and in the past 60 years has seen its population grow from 1.7 million (1951) to 16.7 million (2011) (Census, 2011). Attempts to regulate urbanisation through master plans (1962, 2001 and 2021) proved inadequate to provide shelter and civic amenities to a large section of this population. People occupied vacant government land, purchased agricultural land and built their houses without any layout plan and service facilities. It is estimated that 50 per cent of the inhabitants reside in unplanned areas and face difficulties in accessing urban services including water and sanitation (DDA, 2007). Beyond the formal framework, this informal city continues to thrive as a political society (Chatterjee, 2004), but remains vulnerable to any disaster due to its precarious set-up. This vulnerability travels in its everyday life in the form of resource accessibility (water, sanitation, etc.), as the formal framework treats the informal city as parasite or pickpocket (Baviskar, 2003). In these situations, the informal city has devised its own coping mechanisms, which are products of scarcity, necessity and traditions.

The coping mechanisms of the society (predominantly visible in the informal city, but practised throughout the city) are valuable in the context of climate change. The following three examples in Delhi illustrate this point.

Waste collection and disposal

Outside the formal solid waste management structure in Delhi, more than 300 000 rag-pickers are involved in house-to-house collection, segregation and disposal of garbage ( The Economist, 2007). An estimate suggests that their efforts account for net GHG Reductions of 962 133 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent annually (Chintan, 2009). They work in unhealthy conditions and are often threatened by the introduction of machines. This informal network rarely gets acknowledged in the scheme of governance. In a recent report of UNEP (2010), the role of this network in avoiding emissions through the prevention and recovery of waste (i.e. as secondary materials or energy) has been recognised. It advocates the development of a legal framework, social safety-net, health facilities, livelihood protection and capacity building for this network.

The Agenda devotes its attention to various types of waste—domestic waste; biomedical, mercury and electronic waste; construction waste; plastic waste; and hazardous waste—and talks about a multipronged approach to handle these. It relies on future technological interventions to clean up the city’s waste, but ignores the existing recycling network in the informal sector. The Agenda works on the familiar terrain of indifference to the informal sector. This approach works against the rag-pickers, who leave no rubbish that is reusable and are the original recyclers ( The Economist, 2007).

Rainwater harvesting

The geo-climatic setting of Delhi has made rainwater harvesting integral to the city’s environment for the past 1000 years. It used natural hydrology and climate to create water bodies to support everyday life. It was a traditional wisdom possessed by the local community, nurtured by the state (Agarwal and Narain, 1997). The Agenda recognises 629 water bodies within the geographical area of the city. However, most of these water bodies are lost in the spread of urbanisation. This is affecting the groundwater level, which is further compounded by the inadequate, inequitable and intermittent domestic supply of water in the city. Delhi projects it as a gap in requirement and wants to construct a hydel dam in the Himalayas to receive more water. The Agenda stresses this demand. However, simultaneously it also advocates rainwater harvesting in government buildings and large buildings. Community-level rainwater harvesting has been limited to a few pockets in Delhi. The informal city, which knows the value of rainwater harvesting in Delhi, finds it difficult due to the lack of space¹⁴ and inflexible design. The climate change situation provides an opportunity for the city government to utilise this local wisdom, by involving informal inhabitants, to enhance its ecological security and to reduce its outside dependency.

Household water infrastructure

Influencing household behaviour to reduce the consumption of resources is an important aspect of climate change strategy. Various kinds of incentive structure including pricing are advocated for this purpose. Little attention is paid to the use of existing traditional water infrastructure, such as clay pots (surahi), at the household level, which are bio-friendly and save energy. In the summer, which lasts for four long months in Delhi, these clay pots are used extensively¹⁵ by the households located in the informal city areas. The Agenda talks about water efficiency through technology, but ignores the need for adoption and promotion of such local water infrastructure at the household level.

So Near and Yet So Far

The Agenda signals an important change in the governance of the city. Mainstreaming environmental concerns in the development strategy will help in making it a better place for living. However, it remains indifferent from the informal city which needs consideration because of its vulnerabilities. Some of the informal practices play a significant role in climate change strategies and the existing Agenda needs to recognise this and mainstream such practices into the development strategy.

Conclusion

Asian cities are fuelling the growth of world urban population. The scale, speed and complexity of this process make these cities distinct from the other cities in the world. Often influenced by the colonial and/or Western design of urbanisation, this process has produced inequity-led informality within Asian cities. On one side, the growth and prosperity of Asian cities are fuelling the GHG emissions and, on the other side, these cities face differential vulnerability for their residents. As the city governments are struggling to keep pace with growing urban needs, the informal cityscapes are making their own arrangements to face the challenges of climate change.

Asian cities are making laudable attempts to restructure their growth strategies to incorporate the set standards of climate-change-centred development. However, as seen in the case of Delhi, such efforts remain confined to the convenient prescriptions of control in air, noise and water pollution, and fail to address the concerns of differential vulnerabilities as well as the need to mainstream the locally evolved adaptation strategies of the informal city within the city’s approach.

The recognition of the important potential contribution of informal adaptation practices and their suitable integration within the formal approaches will make the climate change interventions acceptable (being already practised in some form by the urban community), cost-effective (with a lesser dependency on technological solutions and costly mitigation efforts) and environmentally friendly (being locally evolved and culturally integrated). Moreover, this will assist in breaking the artificial barrier between the formal and informal city spaces that dominates urban planning approaches in Asian cities.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

References

Agarwal

Narain

(1997) Dying wisdom: rise, fall, and potential of India’s traditional water harvesting systems. Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi.

Anjaria

(2006) Urban calamities: a view from Mumbai, Space and Culture, 9(1), pp. 80–82.

Banister

(2007) Cities, mobility, and climate change, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 11(2), pp. 7–10.

Baviskar

(2003) Between violence and desire: space, power, and identity in the making of metropolitan Delhi, International Social Science Journal, 55(175), pp. 89–98.

Census of India (2011) Provisional Population Totals Paper 1 of 2011: NCT of Delhi. New Delhi: Government of India.

Chatterjee

(2004) The Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in Most of the World. New York: Columbia University Press.

Chintan (2009) Cooling agents: an analysis of climate change mitigation by the informal recycling sector in India. Report prepared in association with The Advocacy Project, Washington DC.

Davis

(2004) Planet of slums, New Left Review, 26(March/April), online.

DDA (Delhi Development Authority) (1962) Master Plan for Delhi:1962. New Delhi: Government of India.

10.

DDA (2007) Master Plan for Delhi-2021. Delhi: Government of India.

11.

De Soto

. (2000) The Mystery of Capital. New York: Basic Books.

12.

Douglass

(2005) Local city, capital city or world city? Civil society, the (post-) developmental state and the globalization of urban space in Pacific Asia, Pacific Affairs, 78(Winter), pp. 543–558.

13.

The Economist (2007) India’s ragpickers, 15 November.

14.

Gadgil

Guha

(1995) Ecology and Equity: The Use and Abuse of Nature in Contemporary India. London: Routledge.

15.

GNCTD (Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi) (2006) Delhi Human Development Report. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

16.

Gurjar

Aardenne

van, Lelieveld

Mohan

(2004) Emission estimates and trends (1990–2000) for megacity Delhi and implications, Atmospheric Environment, 38, pp. 5663–5681.

17.

Hindustan Times (2010) Climate change action plan for Mumbai in two years, Mumbai, 1 April.

18.

Hodson

Marvin

(2009) ‘Urban ecological security’: a new urban paradigm?, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(1), pp. 193–215.

19.

IEA (International Energy Agency) (2008) World Energy Outlook. Paris: OECD/IEA.

20.

Kovats

Akhtar

(2008) Climate, climate change and human health in Asian cities, Environment Urbanization, 20, pp. 165–176.

21.

Lebel

Garden

Banaticla

M. R.

Lasco

R. D.

. (2007) Management into the development strategies of urbanizing regions in Asia: implications of urban function, form, and role, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 11, pp. 61–81.

22.

Legg

(2007) Spaces of Colonialism: Delhi’s Urban Governmentalities. Oxford: Blackwell.

23.

(2011) Decoupling urban transport from GHG emissions in Indian cities: a critical review and perspectives, Energy Policy, 39(6), pp. 3503–3514.

24.

Mawdsley

(2004) India’s middle classes and the environment, Development and Change, 35, pp. 79–103.

25.

Mehta

(2004) Maximum City: Bombay Lost and Found. London: Headline Book Publishing.

26.

Newman

(1996) Reducing automobile dependence, Environment and Urbanization, 8, pp. 67–92.

27.

Nicholls

Wong

Burkett

Codignotto

. (2007) Coastal systems and low-lying areas, in: Parry

M. L.

(Ed.) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, pp. 315–356. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

28.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2009) Cities, Climate Change and Multilevel Governance. Paris: OECD.

29.

Prakash

(1999) Another Reason: Science and the Imagination of Modern India. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

30.

Prashad

(2001) The technology of sanitation in colonial Delhi, Modern Asian Studies, 35, pp. 113–155.

31.

Roy

Ong

(2011) Worlding Cities: Asian Experiments and the Art of Being Global. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

32.

Satterthwaite

(2008) Cities’ contribution to global warming: notes on the allocation of green-house gas emissions, Environment & Urbanization, 20, pp. 539–549.

33.

Sundaram

(2009) Pirate Modernity: Media Urbanism in Delhi. London: Routledge.

34.

UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) (2010) Waste and Climate Change: Global Trends and Strategy Framework. Nairobi: UNEP.

35.

UN-HABITAT (2010a) State of the World’s Cities 2010/2011: Bridging the Urban Divide. London: Earthscan.

36.

UN-HABITAT (2010b) The State of Asian Cities 2010/11. Fukuoka: UN-HABITAT.

37.

Unni

Rani

(2003) Informal workers in Asia: insecurities, instruments and institutional arrangements. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific, Bangkok.

38.

Wang

Zhou

Tan

. (2008) Environment and energy challenge of air conditioner in China. Paper presented to the 2nd International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering, Shanghai, May.

39.

Weisz

Steinberger

(2010) Reducing energy and material flows in cities, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2, pp. 185–192.

40.

Williams

Mawdsley

(2006) Postcolonial environmental justice: government and governance in India, Geoforum, 37, pp. 660–670.

41.

World Bank (2010) Climate risks and adaptation in Asian coastal megacities, a synthesis report. World Bank, Washington, DC.