The stakeholder consultations and open portal inviting inputs into preparation of the 2036 and 2047 Utkarsh Odisha Vision have been widely welcomed. A Vision (and Roadmap) that includes wide-ranging suggestions from citizens and local stakeholder groups and is to be implemented by a “double-engine sarkar”, bodes well for the state. Certainly it is more likely to yield more balanced, sustained, grounded, citizen-centric development than closed-room consultocratic policy-making. 

But an effective, inclusive and sustained movement forward that benefits all sections can only be achieved if the Vision, and eventually, the Roadmap to its realisation, are grounded in two realities – one, the urgent need to address climate change through green transitions and environmentally sustainable development pathways, and two, to preclude the increasing bads of urbanisation through systematic adaptation and transitioning urban development trajectories towards more resilient and sustainable paths. The imperative of climate-adaptive and sustainable development paths is self-evident, and its importance in a disaster-prone state need not be re-emphasised. But the urbanisation that is inevitable - whether it happens organically as a consequence of development or by focusing on cities as engines for growth – this needs very close attention indeed.

Because of three reasons. First, business-as-usual urbanisation has a disproportionate environmental and exclusionary impact. Prevalent patterns of urban development are known to be responsible for two-thirds of our global environmental issues and climatic woe; and larger cities tend to have more informal settlements. Of course, it is also urban areas that produce almost 80% of global GDP; so urbanization is desirable – but only if we do things differently, patterned in ecologically compatible and socially inclusive terms. Odisha is actually in a good place in its current low levels of urbanisation, at perhaps about 20%, in comparison with possibly over 40% nationally (without a recent census, these are the more conservative, systematic estimates). For here is an opportunity for Odisha to build resilience and urbanise sustainably, before further developments create lock-ins which are difficult and expensive to retrofit. Indeed, we are very well placed to demonstrate a model of sustainable urban development to the country and the world. Sure, the current low level of urbanisation in the state signals its moderate economic development, with the higher rate of SGDP growth stemming in large part from industries in areas classified as rural. But even at this level, some of our cities are already among the most polluted in the world, and hottest places in the country. With business-as-usual development, we have lost forests, mangroves and water bodies (for example), that kept our coastal settlements from the worst effects of cyclones, protected our water sources, checked landslides in our uplands and mountainsides, and prevented higher temperatures and flooding in cities.

Second, human settlements are extremely complex; in fact, complexity scientists consider large cities to be among the most complex of human creations, because of very high variety, multi-level heterogeneous interconnections, dynamic interrelationships, circular causalities and the like. Urban areas are a dynamic, integrated microcosm of every sector, and linked to all aspects of our natural systems – a manufactured ‘urbanosphere’ as complex as any of the natural ‘spheres’ on earth (eg., the oceanosphere). This  reflects also in the 17 SDGs - though ‘sustainable cities’ is one SDG (11), the 10 targets under SDG 11 link to all the other 16 SDGs, and almost half of the 159 targets under them. And in fact being populated, developed and managed by humans with sophisticated cognition, creativity, reasoning, sociopolitical and cultural preferences, and dynamic agency, unlike life in other spheres where survival is the prime driving force, interventions can have unintended consequences. Urban development is known to be rife with wicked problems, which call for an unusually high level of understanding of the phenomena, and creative and lateral thinking. Sustainable urbanisation and urban development therefore requires a spectrum of expertise, but with all grounded in a multi-dimensional, multi disciplinary and spatial understanding of how human settlements function, grow and develop. Indeed, to minimise unintended and perverse outcomes, all those engaged in their planning, development and management must have this basic understanding. Sector-specific projects to provide services or alter socio-economic conditions are necessary, but if not based on and emerging from a multi-sectoral, integrated strategy for the city, may not sustain or may lead to unintended negative consequences. Lets face it - even in a moderate sized formal business entity, most of those involved have had either the training, education or experience of what an/the organization is, what it does and how it changes… but can we say that for our urban areas?

This brings us to the third reason - as a state we simply have little of the capacities needed to tackle the issues in the present urban areas, and definitely not those that are needed to midwife and steer further urbanisation - especially if it has to be resilient and sustainable, as it must. This issue has many facets. One is that we have alarmingly few urban planners – the only professionals in this country educated to understand the ‘urban’, and human settlements in general; they are also thin in the country. (It is interesting that the state has often accessed architecture and business management expertise for urban development tasks, despite the fact that neither group has training in addressing the urban commons.) But urban planning is not the only kind of expertise needed. A Working Group set up by the HUDD in 2012-13 identified a host of other talent (with either the requisite education, training or accumulated experience) which is required - including in urban systems management, urban economic development and livelihoods, urban policy, urban and municipal finance, urban public health, community organising, among others.

Another facet is the unique characteristic of the state’s urban development department. Unlike most other departments – Public Works with engineers, Health with doctors, Water Resources and Irrigation with engineers, Agriculture with sector specialists, to name a few - the UD dept has no internal permanent pool of technically trained experts, even though it is in a domain that is arguably more complex than the others. “Urbanist” personnel (either by training or long experience) are also a very small proportion of the Municipal cadres, except perhaps in the Corporations. And with civil service officers rotated frequently across departments, and sketchy documentation, there is a negligibly small repository of historical understanding and experience. Front-runner states have had substantial departments or directorates of town and country planning (the names differ) for decades, with significant pools of expertise within them as well as in their municipal cadres. So if we want to join (or overtake?) the front-runners, we need to build this internal capacity. Consultants cannot fill this gap - apart from conflict-of-interest issues, they too have slim internal expertise and the same scanty pool of urbanists in the country to draw from. Not to say that the State has not achieved some lighthouse urban projects and flagship events with their help, which have put it on the national and world map. But speaking truth to power is hardly the hallmark of private consultants who must look to their bottom-line; reposing faith in extensive policy and implementation through the consultocracy can severely limit public good and/or be extremely costly, as other countries have seen. It is worth noting that some of the most impressive achievements in the last decade – for example the universal piped water supply accross 115 urban areas in the state – have been done with in-house expertise and/or support from non-profit foundations, think tanks, academic institutions and the like. 

So these are three key imperatives for effecting growth-oriented, people-centric sustainable development in the state - as is no doubt being envisioned for 2036 or 2047 or after. One, climate-conscious and environmentally sustainable development should be the overarching vision and filter into all themes; resilience and sustainability principles and emerging green technologies should figure in thematic visions and roadmaps in all sectors, including for urban development. The old environment versus development debates are now moot – sustainability make sense economically, ecologically, and (because they protect livelihoods, property and health), also politically.

Two, the inevitable urbanisation - which includes transformations in parts that are now rural - must be needs to be resilient, inclusive and sustainable. Urbanization in Odisha must systematically understood, mapped, strategically planned for and managed - in partnership with and the expertise of those who know the state and understand the complexities of urbanisation and urban development. A state urbanization vision and strategy needs to be developed at the earliest to guide the roadmap towards the Utkarsh Odisha Vision 2036/47 – constitution of an Odisha Urban Commission, with experts in this domain, would be the right step for this.

Three, state capacities, for building the urban planning, development and management capacities required in the state, need to be ramped up urgently - including institutional frameworks and organisational structures, a permanent technical core with the different specializations required, the urban knowledge ecosystem, and attendant policy and governance reforms. A State Urban Capacity Building Framework is needed to guide this process, and should be in the ToR of the suggested Urban Commission.

Absent any of these three interconnected imperatives, the economy may grow but slower than hoped for, progress undercut by inevitable increases in extreme weather and climatic events, and the attendant disruptions to in the economy, lives and livelihoods. People will not be happy, for they will be baked or steamed in the high temperatures, flooded in their homes and neighbourhoods, battered by natural and man-made disasters, struggling with bottlenecks in essential goods and services, and scrambling to recover through the year. More, all these erode the livelihoods of lower-income and informally housed groups, undercutting efforts to improve their lives. Not a vision to look forward to when the state turns 100.

This article has been contributed by Kajri Misra, Dean, School of Human Settlements, XIM University