 EIA case in Bangalore. So, environmental impact assessment notification the 2006 version which was adopted by Department of Environment Ecology and Environment by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. It made domestic polluters responsible. So, under that whenever you are proposing a building or a construction establishment either commercial or technopart or residential you have to take a consent which is known as consent mechanism. You have to take a consent from different authorities to establish that particular establishment and in that consent you have to clearly state that how you are going to manage your pollution solid waste liquid waste and if you are producing any air pollution. So, that was there in the building plan approval earlier it was not part of building plan approval. So, the key components within domestic drilling work that zero liquid discharge each and every property establishment has to maintain zero liquid discharge and to maintain the zero liquid discharge to motivate people to use recycled to recycle the sewage treated sewage they made environmental standard very stringent. It is like below 10 milligram per liter of BOD it is like ok if it is clean then people going to be use it for their toilets and for flushing or for recycling in their gardens. So, consent mechanism involves lot of agencies sometime it can go up to 10 to 15 multiple agencies. So, they have to take approval from Karnataka State Pollution Control Board development authorities BBMP which is their municipality and this particular example of EIA actually comes under command and control approach. As you see are you able to see this diagram? So, there are different dimensions of law most of the laws in India they fall under reactive category as in where we want to decide the norms we want to decide the standards and we want to it is kind of a vigilance it does not promote you know proactive actions it just you regulate something you are just regulating you are just holding a stick ok you do this thing you do this thing. So, which does not give that sense of ownership that you want to do something for your you know your country or your state or your city it is always comes from the top down approach that we think that you need to maintain your water bodies ok. So, this EIA radiation comes under reactive type of law which have which is a command and control approach and it follows certain norms consent and standards. So, the adoption of EIA by Bangaluru chose to adopt this particular EIA there was a two-fold motive behind this thing Bangalore was experience was experiencing a lot of urbanization and unplanned urbanization because of IT sector because of other kind of employment opportunities that it was providing and because of that the Bangalore water sewerage boat that was not able to provide water and wastewater services to the peripheral region that led to untreated waste going into the strong drain drains and the lakes that the Bangalore has. So, that kind of to reduce the burden BWSSB which is Bangalore water and sewerage boat, Karnataka state pollution control boat thought of implementing this EIA 2006. Under this certain properties of 20,000 square meter of build up area they were supposed to have their own solid waste management unit and liquid waste management unit. This led to a mixed model as I said. So, in Bangalore currently at least in 2015 they had centralized systems 14 and decentralized system about 3000 functional unit. The number is higher when you go to the records they are around 6000 units decentralized units, but out of that only 3000 are currently operational and functional on maintaining certain kind of standards. This I have already spoken about that how it is to deal with the growing population geographical expansion and burden on the current water supply and sanitation infrastructure. So, when I studied this case I came to understand that it is achieving some what better operational efficiency with respect to pollution treatment. So, I compared centralized systems with the decentralized system. What I came to know is that centralized systems are not able to achieve they are not even able to function at 25 percent of what they are supposed to function. While decentralized systems were able to function achieve some kind of an efficiency. Secondly, they were reaching to answer population that which was there in the peripheral region. Centralized systems were not reaching. So, at least that they were addressing that particular region. Secondly, thirdly reduce certain burden on public utility. Now, BWSSB does not have to you know reach to these areas. So, they can focus on other more important aspects and there was some degree of recycle and reuse was happening for a larger units like big technoparts they are there in back law peripheral region and for them there is no BWSSB supply, there is no public water supply or even if it is there it is very limited. So, they make use of this treated sewage and they kind of at least use it for non-potable purposes like flushing and irrigating and irrigation purposes. So, for them this model was useful for them this model was working even though it was slightly expensive for them because as I discussed here yesterday sanitation tax is very low in Indian cities most of the Indian cities. So, at least even though they were paying extra amount under this model they were able to recover it through recycling the sewage. So, this was useful for the bigger establishment, but not for the smaller establishments. So, these were the key challenges as I mentioned yesterday when you have so many decentralized units you need to government need to have that kind of resources to monitor so many such kind of units. So, KSPCB is currently dealing with that resource mismatch you have 6000 units and if you go to Bangalore I think Bangalore has four regional offices in Karnataka state in Bangalore itself and those regional offices has one environmental engineer senior environmental engineer they are supposed to frequently visit these units decentralized unit at least monthly once they are not even able to do that that is a kind of a crunch mismatch is there between the resources required and resources they have and KSPCB does not have any real power and why I say so? So, KSPCB are at most or any state pollution control board at most what they can do they can file a criminal case against the whoever is a defaulter in pollution management. So, what they did was they filed a case criminal case against BWSSB which is another government agency. So, they filed a criminal case against BWSSB there are 18 cases running since 2006 and nothing has been done after those cases. So, the maximum they can do is just file a criminal case and second thing what they can do which is kind of understood as a administrative power they can ask local authorities, local utilities to cut electricity or to cut water supply to certain industries or commercial properties, but these two measures are not applicable for domestic users because water and electricity is considered as a basic services. So, you cannot cut these two services if a domestic person or domestic like polluter is default out then you cannot do these things and then they have different measurements like the ZLD compliance the zero liquid discharge was not working as I said for smaller units it was very expensive for them to manage residential units they had to because as I said this was a command and control approach. So, they had to establish these systems otherwise building plan approval was not possible. So, they made the capital investment in these units, but ultimately when it comes to maintaining and you know recovering the ONM cost they were not able to. So, most of these systems 6000 were there only 3000 are working and the out of these 3000 only few are able to recycle or do the zero liquid discharge because the demand is very low for the recyclable water they are not even allowed to sell to another party so that they can make some money out of it. So, these are the certain policy recommendations that people are now making that at least allow us to sell our treated sewage so that we can make some money out of it and also this model does not include slums. So, centralized model anyway slums are not part of it because slums do not have a land tenure. So, you can get connected to centralized system only if you have a kind of a land tenure like if only if you own certain land household connection can happen only then and obviously decentralized systems are also not meant for slums. So, slums were anyways part are not part of centralized system or decentralized system. So, poor were anyways excluded from either the two models. So, if you have any question I can take one or two questions regarding this case study then otherwise I can move to next case study. So, with this case what has happened that. So, at the point that I have missed here is this point information is symmetry. So, what has happened that buildings are made by builders and then even though such kind of systems like solid waste management system or liquid waste management system these are established by the builders. The buyers potential buyers like me or you if you want to buy a flat in that particular building complex we are not aware of the expected or potential cost. So, when it comes to our hands building operator builders actually builders are supposed to maintain these system for five years such kind of solid waste and liquid waste system after five years they are supposed to hand over the system to resident welfare association. But because we are not part of the decision making of which technology is appropriate which technology do we want how much do we you know can we really pay the ONM cost for these technologies because we are not part of that selection process we are not aware of that. So, ultimately when it comes to us we do not want to manage that it is too much of a burden for them in terms of you know it is better to pay a very minimal sanitation tax to the government than maintaining our entire facility on our own it is very expensive for them at least for the smaller residential units or smaller units. Now, I am going to talk about national urban sanitation policy why this policy is important is that it is the first ever policy that concerns urban sanitation before that before 2008 we never had a any policy concerning urban sanitation ok. And it provides national goals on sanitation that means it links the SDGs and MDGs with the national level goals. It connects sanitation with health and environment which I told you that sanitation was used to be part of health and in 2008 NUSB again made that connect that sanitation should be linked with the public health then only you will be able to improve sanitation goals or achieve sanitation goals. It questioned the sustainability of centralized systems that why as I said a centralized system cannot connect to the slums because they do not have land tenure. Centralized systems are too expensive to be managed by smaller cities as I mentioned yesterday they cannot have they do not have the required capital and the capacities. So, centralized systems are actually failed to resolve equity issues and environmental sustainability issues. So, NUSB questions the sustainability of such centralized imagination in context of sanitation. And then it recommends certain things which cities should adopt over a period of time. It said that currently sanitation does not have any institutional hope. So, when you talk about sanitation, sanitation does not fit into any of the categories. Rural sanitation has a ministry urban sanitation does not have any ministry it comes under some urban development this thing. And even ULPs if you go at state level in some cities ULPs are managing sanitation in some states it is sewage boat that are managing you know sanitation. So, it is like different components of sanitation are being managed by different agencies even at the state and city level. Slum sanitation is being managed by a slum development board. Cities are being managed by water sewage board. So, they wanted that who is ultimately responsible for sanitation. So, NUSB said that you want to have an institutional hope and it said that ULPs should be the nodal agency to manage sanitation. And it said that you need to establish city sanitation task force. So, they understood that sanitation policies or sanitation solution should be developed bottom up rather than top down. Because when you go top down you just go for the centralized imagination. And each city as you are going to I think today we are going to talk about that LEP itself has a very heterogeneous pockets. So, there are certain pockets which has higher sanitation infrastructure and good practices there are certain pockets where sanitation infrastructure is very poor and the practices are very poor. So, at city level you need to adopt rather than one size fits all solution which is centralized solution. You need to have heterodox model of sanitation where you choose technical options based on those heterogeneous pockets. So, that is how the NUSB said that you have to make city sanitation plans according to your need, according to whatever your pockets are there and according to your capacity which is your institutional capacity, your technical capacity and your financial capacity. Otherwise how it happens is that each city irrespective of their finances they want to adopt centralized systems. So, NUSB said that you have to adopt different models according to your need and capacity. So, then what I did was to understand if NUSB recommendation ultimately you know kind of translated on ground in with respect to cities. So, I studied few city sanitation plans. This process started in 2011. We have 134 city sanitation plans. And out of that I could banish to lay my hands on only 31 CSPs because others were not available in public domain. And out of that I studied around 27 CSPs. And I studied these CSPs to understand how many recommendations of NUSB are actually are part of CSPs. So, what I understood or what I learn from this study is that CSP actually all the CSPs they adopt is centralized system. The CSPs were very bad documents. All these CSPs were more of a what do you say, project reports rather than a plan. They were not plans. They were just project reports made by some consultant drawing upon secondary data whatever old data 2011 2010 2008 data and they sat there for two months and made a CSP. So, there was no participation. There was no consultation workshops. It was just a formality to draw funds from the center and the state. So, CSPs were not actually participative documents at all. So, that is what we understood over there and but then I wanted to understand that why cities adopted centralized option. Why they did not go for the decentralized option even when there was a opportunity for them to plan. So, what I understood was that there was no consultation. I do not know how many of you understand this thing, but when you say policy centralization it means that policy is being affected by the top down model. They were at different steps CSP formation, CSP content was affected by other actors not just the ULBs. So, like first thing was it was a consultant driven process. So, ULBs were supposed to develop these CSPs the consultants were decided at MOUD level. ULBs were not even allowed to choose their own consultant for developing CSPs. So, there was a policy centralization happening there. So, it was a chunk kind of a thing where MOUD gave contract to one big agency and MOU and that particular agency had to establish CSPs for 21 cities. So, when you see when you compare all these CSPs all CSPs will look copy paste documents only the name of city is changed or may be certain the data is changed otherwise same language is there same everything is similar. So, it shows that how much consultant can sit for two months and can equally like can easily prepare 11 CSP in one book it was so easy for them. And then where is the you know process there. And the second thing which they said was that why they didn't adopt decentralized option they said that we already have big money coming under JNNURM decentralization is this you need small money small pockets. Centralization means that we have big money which is already there with JNNURM why do we want to adopt decentralized options. So, this was the second reason. Third reason was service level benchmarks. Service level benchmarks I have you heard of these service level benchmarks. So, these are the service level benchmark that are given by Ministry of Urban Development in water supply and sewage and solid waste management. So, these if you see these service level benchmarks they are they don't consider they are not based on city size or city population. These are based on that every city has to reach to 100% level of sewage network. Every city has to have 100% collection. Every city has to have 100% you know disposal rate. But when you see each said each city is very specific. Each city has their own problems, their own issues and own strengths. But this model actually advocates that every city has to have a one size overall solution. So, when you compare these norms with the previous norms which were given by Zakira committee which was given by CPHDEO which were given by a nine five year plan those are very differential differential kind of standards in which they acknowledge that if a city is of one lakh population they have to have only 70 LPCD water supply. If the city is of bigger size they might want to have 120 LPCD. In this case every city has to have a 150 LPCD every city has to have you know 24 hour 7 hour water supply every city has to have 100% sewage network. So, this differentiality and the concept that every city has their own problems or own needs, own capacity that was not acknowledged in this SLB. In case of liquid waste management there are two types of standards that they are talking about they said that every city has to have 100% sewage network but within that there are two things that are there you can reach these 100% sewage network either a centralized way or decentralized way. But when I saw these, when I reviewed these CSPs most of the cities kind of ignored this factor that you can achieve 100% sewage by combining both the models so there comes that even the cities they don't want to adopt decentralized model. So, it is not just the SLBs it is just that they don't want to adopt decentralized model. And what is promoting them or what is promoting pushing cities towards service level benchmarks of 100% is the fact that SLBs are actually under 13 finance commission are linked to fund release. So, when something is linked to fund release you have to show that you want to achieve 100% of everything because that's how you are going to get funds from the center. If you are going to say I will just have a decentralized system and that we will see how it works who is going to give you funds for that. So, this is one factor as she said that there is an ambiguity in this SLBs and when there is ambiguous policy or the open policy or all inclusive policies every actor can choose to interpret that particular policy the way they want. So, the policy can swing either ways wherever you want it suitable thing. So, that is one thing which is going to be implementation at city level. In Alibagh what we try to do is that we try to develop sanitation zones. I think we mentioned about that. So, in sanitation zones you divide zones according to their infrastructure practices and future needs. So, that is how CSP's were expected to made but that didn't happen. What they did they gave a very brief introduction da da da da these are the status this is the problems and in the end oh we need so many big projects that was the city sanitation plan which even I can do. So, what is the need of having you know a participative institution like having a city sanitation task force where you have representative from public health department from sanitation from solid waste. So, all these things were not reflected in any of the CSP's where they like you can clearly see the linkages between proposed solution and how it improves public health. So, you can see that these documents are just copy paste from one to another to second to third and just city name is changing and some this thing are changing data is changing.