New town planning methodology approved

It has been known for long that the Town Development Council (TDC) has not been functioning as envisaged. In an interview with Auroville Today in April 2014 [issue # 297], Sauro, a member of the TDC, explained the problems in great detail. The Governing Board too took notice. In its meeting in March 2015, it asked the Working Committee to reconstitute the TDC. But the proposal of the Working Committee, presented to the Board in its subsequent meeting in October 2015, was not accepted. The Board then constituted a selection committee consisting of a member of the Board, three Aurovilian architects and one non-Aurovilian architect to formulate the strategy, tasks, and programs for the new Town Planning Department. However, this committee too was not able to deliver. In March 2016, the Board rejected yet another reconstitution proposal from the Working Committee, and directed it to present a proposal for a reconstituted TDC by April 30th, 2016. However, the Working Committee was at a loss how to proceed. At this time, the Auroville Council took over.

Auroville Today: When did you get involved and how did the work proceed?

Shama: Around January 2016, some Auroville architects had started brainstorming on how Auroville’s development could proceed with more involvement from the residents. The Council called a few of us to see how we could get a new TDC together. This became, over time, a Core Group. The group identified the need for a facilitator to help us to structure the process as it was not clear from the beginning what we would do. So we started by sorting through and developing a list of ‘Key Issues’ regarding Town Planning in Auroville. We also identified from the outset a strong need for community involvement, not only the few people which had been consulted by the Working Committee earlier.

Mamata: This is how we arrived at the decision to hold a two-day community workshop by the end of April, beginning of May 2016. About 50-60 people participated. The main objective was to go deeper into the issues pertinent to town planning.

Suhasini: But the workshop was not successful as the facilitators were not able to identify with the underlying issues that are paralyzing our planning. Rather the focus was on airing of different viewpoints, and looking at how people were aligning themselves vis-a-vis these view points. At this point we realized how little understanding most people have of the developmental challenges of Auroville. This led to thinking about levels of participation, and how to create a methodology to channel this so that we have an accountable and effective planning organization.

Shama: I made a database of all studies and reports stored in the archives of the TDC in order to get an idea of how much previous work has been done on this topic. It really is huge, so many studies and proposals have been done and yet not implemented. The database will serve to inform and support the new members of the TDC in the work ahead.

Suhasini: So how to go forward? We had had the Retreat, this workshop, a previous workshop with Sanjay Prakash, but it seemed we were going nowhere.

Sauro: I had given an update on how the TDC had been working; that each time a new group of people is selected they take up portfolios, but that over time there is only a project-by-project discussion rather than the TDC functions as a planning body. People dropped out because of the way it functioned.

Suhasini: We came up with an alternative. Instead of focusing on restructuring the TDC by coming up with some new ideas about how the people were going to function, we agreed that guidelines were needed, and so work started on Planning Principles and Terms of Reference (ToR). These two documents would collate the intent of the project, the concerns of the residents and the context within which Auroville is located; they would then be guiding documents for the next planning group.

Shama: The Terms of Reference and Planning Principles were informed by a series of work sessions known as Sounding Boards. These were topic-specified sessions that focussed on real issues on the ground, using case studies. We found this to be a really effective way of gathering community specific input. After the Sounding Boards, we produced a draft ToR on which we invited and received comments. The work of integrating that feedback was extremely complex and challenging. Since it was an open process, anybody could join at any time. Each point needed to be explained and illustrated, and over and again we had to bring people up to speed. It was frustrating work and made me question if the concept of ‘participatory decision making’ shouldn’t be replaced by ‘selected participatory decision making’. Not having a tried and tested method for participation was one of the major reasons why it has taken more than a year before we could present the community with something to take a decision on.

Suhasini: After having worked on the ToR for several months, we realized we were back to square one as it was too long and the technical portion was obscure in its vocabulary for a lay person. So if we really wanted to get a more effective participation review of the way we plan and develop Auroville, this 24-page document had to be condensed into a simple and easy to read document. These are the “Planning Principles.”

What about the TDC structure?

Suhasini: We felt that there was a need for two groups to comprise the planning body: one of ‘political appointees’ called the Interface Group, the other of technicians. The Interface Group would be the interface between the community and the technical team. They would undertake completing the ToR, present it to the community and define the development priorities of Auroville for the next four to five years. The technical group would then translate these planning priorities into a development plan using the ToR as the framework within which the development plans would be set.

Mamata: We had three General Meetings on this topic: one was in September 2016, where the approach for different levels of participation was explained. The next was in March 2017, where we explained the Planning Principles, the ToR and the TDC structure; and the third in April, where the decision was made to call for a vote on all three key documents as a package deal, the compiled results of consultations with working groups and of inputs received from the community.

The new structure of the TDC looks remarkably similar to the present one, which was set up by the Governing Board by Standing Order. The present one too has 13 coordinators, and a technical group of people. But this has proven not to work. Why was this repeated?

Sauro: Initially we had envisaged the Interface Group consisting of 10 people without job specifications. Five of them would be selected through the Residents’ Assembly process, and five would be appointed by various working groups. In this way we wanted to involve the various working groups directly. We didn’t want a group of 13 people who were unique and isolated from all the other working groups.

But this proposal was not supported by the Study Group and a few others who, in the last General Meeting, strongly expressed that we should follow the principles of the participatory selection process, which says that someone who serves in one group cannot also serve in another. They also didn’t like the concept of 10 people without portfolio, and insisted that we should go back to the 13 coordinators and their portfolios as has been detailed in the Standing Order.

Shama: We have told the Council that we are willing to help with the selection process; but I for one am not willing to select ‘coordinators’ for specific tasks. We don’t need 13 coordinators who each have a specific job; we need a group of experienced and competent people in various areas, and above all people who have ‘people skills’ – problem-solving abilities, empathy for others and a willingness to work together toward the common goal. For that’s the only way you can get the residents involved.

Is the Interface Group envisaged as a group of people who meet once or a few times a week or do you see a full time involvement? What about the financing of these groups?

Sauro: The Interface Group will need a mix – a few people who can offer a full-time commitment, others less. 13 members is a maximum, but it is not compulsory. The technical group should be full-time. But the main question will be how to get those people. And the second question, how they will be paid.

For the financing is not at all clear. The present TDC has been able to function as it received a grant from the Government of India. But recently, we were informed that from April onwards that grant may no longer be available. This would put an effective stop to the work of the TDC. For the community income is insufficient to pay maintenances to the members of the TDC.

Ultimately, this is an issue for the Governing Board. Making a Master Plan is a responsibility which the Auroville Foundation Act has put on the shoulders of both the Governing Board and the Residents’ Assembly. It seems to me that the funds required are part of the running costs of the Auroville Foundation which the Government, in accordance with the Auroville Foundation Act, should cover.

This also would include the costs of hiring outside consultants and experts to help make the Detailed Development Plans. What is the thinking about this – do we have sufficiently qualified people in Auroville to do that work?

Shama: There are differing views about the word ‘outsourcing’. In terms of ‘outsourcing’, I have no objection to involving outsiders if the work to be done is too large for Aurovilians to take up by themselves. But the pilot flying the plane should remain an Aurovilian.

Sauro: When former Governing Board member Mr. Doshi was asked who could do the DDP, he returned the question: ‘Who can do it? You are so special, you have such a particular situation, you cannot just outsource it’. He studied the issue for a few months and came to the conclusion that his organization could do it, provided there was an interrelating process with the community which would give him the necessary input. That should now be secured by the Interface Group. For that, the Group will need to engage massively with the community.

Shama: The only way that we can get a Master Plan and DDPs that makes sense for Auroville is if the Interface Group take-in community inputs and comes up with clear directions for the technical team and outside planners. That’s the main thing we have been trying to change. For all these years, the inputs of the residents – who know and understand the situation as it is on the ground – have not been valued.

Suhasini: An outsider can do the technical part of the development plan, but not the conceptual part, our development brief and development priorities. That needs people who understand where we are today and where we want to go. And even then, when you have a DDP, no matter how good it is, it needs a lot of tweaking and working to get implemented on the ground. That takes community involvement and a lot of time.

For the last few years, whenever people feel adversely affected by a decision of the TDC, they either come up with petitions or want to call for a decision of the Residents’ Assembly. Would that change once the Interface Group is in place?

Sauro: The planning principles have now been accepted by the community. And if the DDP would be approved by the community, this too would end a lot of discussion. But to resolve issues that would result from implementing the DDP, I propose that the Interface Group starts interacting with local area groups – groups formed of members of the communities that would be affected by a decision. A lot of energy has to go into having debates with the community to finally be able to move with the town planning of Auroville.