Nepal:

Urban planning and

development
Lecture Series 4
BDevS, Center for Development Studies
National College for Higher Education, KU, Nepal

Rajendra P Sharma
rpsharma@mailcity.com
 Nepal: Where are we ! Urban Poverty Situation
!!
Out of 664,507 HH in the Municipalities of Nepal:
 Temporary Houses : 101,005
 House made up of mud : 225,932
 Houses using Kerosene for Light : 107, 650
 HHs do not have Flush Toilets : 312,318
 HHs even have no toilet : 145,527
 HHs using fire woods for cooking : 220,616
 HHs using kerosene : 226,597
 HHs using Bio Gas only : 181,410
 HHs having traditional water source : 206,072
 HHs having piped drinking water : 439,239
 Population not having TV : 45%
 Population neither have TV nor Radio : 24%
 Nepal: Where are we ! Urban Poverty Situation
Among 664,507 Urban HHs in Nepal:
 Temporary Shelter : 15%
 Residing in Rented Houses : 35%
 Disadvantaged Groups : 21%
 No easy access to water/Quantity : 5%
 Have no proper/adequate fuel : 36%
 Have no proper light : 16 %

Source: CBS 2001

 Have no proper toilet : 22%

Among 3,227,879 Urban Population:

 Illiterate (6 years or more aged) : 28%
 Have no work (active population : 10 %
 Death by poverty related diseases : 13 %
 Population not having TV : 45%
 Population neither have TV nor Radio : 24%

This is the reason to have focus on Municipal Periodic Plan

 Defining urban area 1
 Urban and Rural character
 Economic activity and livelihood

 Population Density and composition

 Infrastructure and services; and resources

 Market, institutions

 Culture, civilization and innovation

 Concentration of population: economic, social and political

implications (higher per capita productivity; Political process
and participation)

 Resource consumption and pollution emission

 Defining Urban Area 2

 Acceptable basis: Density, occupational structure

 Criteria used in Nepal

 1952 census: prominent settlement, ≥5000 population

 1961 census: Urban environment, ≥ 5000 population

 Municipal Act 1962: Urban environment, ≥ 10,000 population

 LSGA 1999: Metropolitan City (≥ 300,000; NPR 400 m revenue;

Urban facilities; already sub-metropolitan); Sub-metropolitan (≥

100,000; NPR 100 m revenue; Urban facilities; already

Municipality);, Municipality (Tarai ≥ 20,000; NPR 5 m revenue;

Urban facilities), Municipality (Hill ≥ 10,000; NPR 500,000

 Municipal sizes

 ≥ 100,000 population:
Sizes
1 metropolitan, 4 sub-metropolitan,
Over 39% population

 20,000 to 100,000 population

45 municipalities, over 54%

population

 10,000 to 20,000:
Hill/ mountains 550
8 municipalities, over 4 % popn Kathmandu Valley 10,265
Inner Tarai 402
 Small towns: less than 10,000
Tarai 1,092
Urbanpopn
density (person/ sq.km.) 2001 Urban total 985
Rural total 136
 Urban Feature, Indicator Highlights

 Contribution to economy : urban economy growing @ 6.4 %

annum, contribute about 60% of GDP.
 Economic base: service and trade oriented, links with rural

 Distribution: along E-W Highway, India Border, Kathmandu &

Central (19 places, 55% population)

 Defined and undefined urban areas: 58 defined, 132 small

towns, 600 market centers.
 Main Constraints

 Lack of vision and coordination: no long-term perspective, linking

national development with urban development. No urban
development policy/ strategy.

 Urban expansion

 Sectoral policy/ plan and institution dominates urban development:

problems of coordination

 LSGA: municipalities increased role for urban governance,

development and management: but lack capacity (HR, Financial)-
depends on central grants/ large proportion spent on administration
and salary
 Major urban challenges

 Service and Land management

 National development policy
 Donor driven development
 Management of migration/displaced person
 Waste and pollution Management
 Maintaining Infrastructures, service & creating jobs
 Devolution/Decentralization
 High Rate of Urbanization - Increase in nos. of Municipalities
without basic infrastructures and services
 Population growth in the municipalities
 Allocation of Central Government fund to the cities is less as
compared to the contribution of the cities to GDP
 Urban Concerns

Total 1,350 t/ day: Kathmandu 383 t/day

waste
Solid

Per capita per day 0.34 kg (vary 0.11 to 0.93 kg)

Emerging issue in major towns: vehicular/industrial emission, waste
burning, adulterated fuel.
Air pollution

Kathmandu Foggy days increased: 38 d/y (1970) to 60 d/ y (1994)

Indoor air pollution in smaller towns: (biomass fuel)
Health impacts: ARI, Pneumonia, Bronchitis, Asthma

Urban roads: narrow, poor network function, lacks parking

Deficiency in planning and provision: Increase in vehicles not
Congestion

matched by provision of roads and infrastructure

Mix traffic types, poor driving, bad parking, roadside trading
add to traffic congestion
Impact: travel time, air/noise, fuel consumption
Decentralization Chronology
YEAR INITIATIVE REMARKS
1962 Constitution of Nepal Emphasis on decentralization of Panchayats

Creation of post of Chief District Officer (CDO)

1965 Local Administration Act Decentralization plan of three phases

Panchayat Development Land Tax (PDLT), Pilot scheme
1972 Local Development Department Creation of post of Panchayat Development Officer (PDO)
1974 District Administration Plan Provision for District Development Plan
1978 Integrated Panchayat Development Idea of "Service Centre" as focal point for local planning 1979, PDLT
Design withdrawn
Establishment of Ministry of Local
1980 Conversion of PDO to LDO (Local Development Officer)
Development (MLD)
Merger of Panchayat and Local
Integrated Rural Development Central Co-ordination Board
1981 Development Ministries as MPLD
1982 Decentralization Act Districts to prepare periodic plans
1984 Decentralization Rules District, Village, Town Panchayats to prepare annual/periodic plans
1989 Supporting Decentralized Planning Project (SLDP)
1992 DDC, VDC and Municipality Act Increased responsibility for local development 1992
1992 DDC, VDC and Municipality Rules Decentralization Support Project (DSP)
1995, Participatory District Development Project (PDDP)
1996 Decentralization Co-ordination 1996, Local Governance Programme (LGP)
Committee
1999 Local Self-governance Act More on delegation than devolution
27 June 2007
 Urban and Physical Planning in Nepal

 Nepal undergone several political changes after Rana regime.

 History of urban planning began with Third National Plan (1967-71)

 In 1973, Town Plan Implementation Act (TPIA) was enacted

 In 1982, a Decentralization Act to facilitate development processes

 In 1988, the Town Development Act (TDA) was promulgated

 In 1992, Municipal Act and Rules were defined

 Till date, more than 33 municipalities prepared IAPs. But, IAPs failed

due to contradictory legal framework and weaknesses in terms of

institutional capacities at both central and local levels.

 MPPW helps municipalities to develop periodic plans (3 to 5 years)

 involvement of municipalities in planning has positive results

27 June 2007
Municipal Distribution in Nepal
Framework: Municipal’s Decision Making

MUNICIPALITY
WARD/COUNCILLOR WARD
CHAIRPERSON MUNICIPAL AREA/ CITYLEVEL

TOLE SABHA REPRESENTATIVE WARD COMMITTEE

WARD FOOTPRINT

SMALL LOCAL GROUP

POLLING BOOTH LEVEL

EVERY VOTER IN
THE CONSTITUENCY
 Linkages: Municipality’s formal system

Urban Road
Water Solid
Poverty Urban Works
Municipality
Supply Police Waste
Program Planning Supervisio
Schemes Mgmt
s n

Ward Councilors
Chairperson

SWM Self Resident

Water Communit
Compost Help
N’hood
Welfare ???????
Groups y Police Forums
Groups Groups Associs’n

“Why have so many different platforms?

Why not a single, permanent platform,
linked to the city’s decision-systems, which
can be available for all issues?”
 LINKS AMONG THE URBAN STAKEHOLDERS

Urban Development Partners Central Government

(International and national) (MLD and MPPW)

NPC

Municipalities

1 2 3 4 57 58

LEGEND
• established link
• Potential link

Citizens
 Future Direction

 Clear Vision: How Urban Dev. links with National Dev. & rural dev.?

 Urban development strategy: better criteria/definition for conferring

urban status, independent body certify area for urban status, improved
coordination, mandate & responsibility.

 Strengthen urban governance : These are the key to sustainability -

decentralization, participation, Resource & Capacity Building.

 Integrated, planned and holistic approach: (not only for urban

infrastructure provision, Urban development is broad, multi-sectoral).
 Urban Planning and Development

?
Where we want to go?
And,
What should we do……….now?

If we want better future

We should question, advocate,
plan and better implement those
plans and programs
PLANNING PROCESS
 What is Urban planning?

 Urban planning is concerned with the ordering and design of

settlements, from the smallest towns to the world's largest cities.

 Urban Planning - for improvement of urban centers to provide

healthy, safe living condition, efficient transport, communication,

adequate public facility, and aesthetic surroundings.

 Urban planning is the discipline of land use planning which

explores several aspects of the infrastructures and social

environments of municipalities and communities. Other professions

deal in more detail with a smaller scale of development, namely

architecture, landscape architecture and urban design.

27 June 2007
Why urban planning ?

Urban planning, serve as a reference for all activities that

manages the promotion of urban citizens, that include:

 Setting up infrastructures or collective equipment,

 Granting land to private developers,

 Facilitating activity set-up,

 Obtaining building permits.

27 June 2007
 History of Urban Planning

 Many ancient cities were built from definite plans;

 Greek Hippodamus (c.407 BC) considered father of city plan in West

 Urban planning in organized way existed for less than a century;

 John Nash planned some section of London; Vienna; Paris in 19th century

 Since early 20th century, planning for cities has emphasized

 Early 21st century, new urban theory and innovative planning concepts

developed.

27 June 2007
Urban development Concept and
strategy

27 June 2007
City Strategic framework: Structure for
strategic agenda

27 June 2007
 a 'sustainable' or ideal home city might look like

 compact, efficient land use;

 less automobile but better access;
 efficient resource use, less pollution and
waste;
 good housing and living environments;
 a healthy social ecology;
 sustainable economics;
 community participation and preservation
of culture and wisdom.

Successful urban planning considers character, of "home"

27 June 2007
 Planning Process

Urban planning procedure follows a cyclical process

 Data collection, estimates, diagnostics,

 Determination of stakes and objectives,

 Definition and choice of strategy,

 Drawing up of plans of action,

 Promotion and implementation,

 Assessment and check.

27 June 2007
 Actors and planning process

 Traditional planning focused top-down: town planner creates plan

 Over past decades, role of urban planner become democratic

 Community workers now involved in planning at grassroots level.

 The Contemporary city Planning process is highly complex:

 step-by-step procedure, involve a series of survey/studies,

 development of land-use plan and transportation plan,

 preparation of a budget, and

 approval of unified master plan by various agency or

legislative bodies.
 Information input in urban planning

 Information input in urban planning is primarily of 2 types:

 satellite and photogrammetric images,

 tabular data garnered from censuses, studies.

 Benefits provided by satellite images include the following:

 global observations of land cover,

 fast processing of data using automated classification and

techniques,

 cost effectiveness in comparison with ground surveys and

digitization methods.

27 June 2007
 Planning tools: data use

 Physical maps

 Activity maps

 Facility maps

 Local plan maps

 Risk and pollution maps

 Land use regulation map

 Socio-economic maps: Demography, Sociology, Economy, Housing

27 June 2007
 The three Keys in Planning

 The 3-steps process determining where you are now,

determining where you want to go, and then determining
how to get there?

 These questions are the essence of success!

 It can be start with the self evaluation on your:

 Strengths,
 Weaknesses,
SWOT Analysis
 Opportunities, and
 Threats
Key aspects of participatory planning

Participation: where we can generate:

 Ideas - People deciding the factors governing them
 Democratic institution - Participatory governance institutions
 Democratic practice - the political participation

Key aspects of Participation

 Formal structure decision-making

 Permanent platform for participation

 Inclusive platform for all citizens

 Common system for various issues

 For citizens: the opportunity and no excuse not to participate!

 Key focus on urban planning

Low Education Quality

Low investment
High level of violence

Low income
Temporary job/ paid
not sufficient
Urban Poverty Health & Hygiene

[Vicious Circle]
Not rely on own Need to pay for every
Production services (Health, Sanitation,
Education, Water)

Break by external Illegal Settlement

involvement
Vision for Planning

 Vision: a comprehensive vision at citizens’ level can create participation

 Series: a series of campaign can create an ownership over the plan
The steps in the planning process

The City Government

Strategic planning
committee
Strategic planning
committee

Central Government
Community Govt.
Community NGOs, local self-help
Participation Strategic planning
Strategic planning Institutions
group, Institutions, and
Participation Workshop
Workshop Intellectuals

Strategic Plan
Strategic Plan
As product
 Outcomes from planning

Engaged citizens
A felt sense of purpose
Permanent involvement through legitimate platforms

Improved city management

Enhanced use of data
Regular sharing of information
Emergence of financially sustainable cities

Equitable outcomes
Infrastructure needs identified & prioritised by the people

Increased stakeholder ownership

Building partnerships with citizens-the permanent stakeholders
 Develop an Municipal plan
“Impact Chain” for City Development
Name of the Development Intervention:

Level Partner Organization:

Intermediary:
Target Group:

Impact

Indicators:
Direct
benefit

Utilisation
of outputs

Outputs

No need for indicator, activities are implemented

Activities

Resources
 The concluding remarks … …

In this rapidly urbanizing world,

the number of city dwellers are
increasing at a steep rate. So, is
increasing the discrepancies.

Therefore, Please let’s do

something for better plan of our cities
from our ends and send out thoughtful
messages for a safe and secure future,
wherever we are living!!
References