Question : IMPLEMENTATION OF IHSDP

(a) the present status of the IntegratedHousing and Slum DevelopmentProgramme (IHSDP) being implemented invarious cities/ towns in the country, State-wiseincluding Uttar Pradesh andMaharashtra;

(b) whether the targets set for thehousing projects have been achieved;

(c) if so, the details of works undertakenand achievement made therein during eachof the last three years and the current year, State-wise and city/town-wise;

(d) whether the Government is awarethat in certain States, only 29% of thesanctioned housing projects under IHSDPhave been completed and the rest of theprojects are being cancelled;

(e) if so, the details thereof and thereasons therefor, State-wise and city/townwise;and

(f) the steps taken/being taken by theGovernment for effective and speedyimplementation of these projects?

THE MINISTER OF HOUSING AND URBAN POVERTY ALLEVIATION (KUMARI SELJA)

(a): State-wise details of projects, including Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra sanctioned under the Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme (IHSDP) are at Annexure-I.

(b): No targets have been set under the IHSDP for housing projects.

(c): State-wise/city-wise details of projects sanctioned covering the total project cost, number of dwelling units sanctioned and total central share sanctioned, during each of the last three years and the current year are at Annexure-II. State-wise details of dwelling units completed so far are at Annexure-III.

(d) and (e): The National average of % of dwelling units reported as completed under IHSDP is 30.53%, while 25.86% dwelling units are at advance stage of completion. Only few projects have been cancelled/ replaced against non-starter projects. State-wise % completion of houses under IHSDP is at Annexure-III. The reasons for delay in completion of projects under Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme (IHSDP) among other things are as under:

(i) Lack of capacity/financial resources at the local/state levels– inability of urban local bodies to meet their share in particular,

(ii) Difficulties in making slum residents temporarily relocate in the case of in situ projects,

(iii) Beneficiaries’ reluctance to move on to the new locations in the case of relocation projects,

(iv) Cost escalation due to various factors,

(v) Inability of beneficiaries to contribute their share towards cost escalation,

(vi) Lack of availability of litigation- free land, and

(vii) Inadequate community involvement.

(f): For effective and speedyimplementation of these projects,regular reviews have been held at Central/State levels in addition to monitoring of progress through Quarterly/Monthly Progress reports. States have been advised from time to time to:

(i) start the non-starter projects or propose their cancellation or replacement by alternative projects;

(ii) achieve the completion of houses within the Mission period as early as possible by gearing up project implementation capacity; and

(iii) provide additional state share to meet cost escalation and also where urban local bodies and beneficiaries are not in a position to contribute due to poor financial health.