Urban Agenda: Call for Action

The Sustainable Habitat Programme convened a round table conversation titled “Urban Agenda: Call for Action” on April 7, 2025, at India Habitat Centre, New Delhi. The conversationaimed to inform the recently announced Urban Challenge Fund by outlining the co-benefits of decarbonisation in urban systems, structured around five themes: climate finance, buildings and thermal comfort, low-carbon mobility, urban resilience, and circularity. The event brought together 44 participants in person and 15 online, including leading experts, academicians, and a network of civil society organisations from India and Germany, working at the grassroots level on urban planning, climate resilience, and housing. Online participants included Misereor, Climate Action Network South Asia (CANSA), Youth for Unity and Voluntary Action (YUVA), Indian Network on Ethics and Climate Change (INECC), Institute for Governance Sustainable Societies (IGSS), Jan Vikas, Mahila Housing Trust (MHT), and other organisations working with vulnerable communities. In-person participants included institutions such as the National Institute of Urban Affairs (NIUA), Deloitte, the Institute of Urban Transport, Celestial Earth, Creative Footprints, Environmental Design Solutions, and Integrated Research and Action for Development (IRADe), along with academicians from the School of Planning and Architecture (SPA) Delhi, Jamia Millia Islamia, and Sushant University, as well as various NGOs.

Ms. Anumita RoyChowdhury, Executive Director, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), kick-started the conversationby explaining the big picture. She introduced the importance of aligning the urban challenge fund announced in the Union Budget with climate-resilient development, especially in light of the World Bank’s estimate of a 45 per cent shortfall in urban infrastructure financing. Moreover, she gave an overview of all the themes to set the tone of discussion for the entire day. On mobility and air quality, she raised concerns about declining bus ridership despite fleet expansion, attributing it to high last-mile costs. She pointed out that 64 per cent of National Clean Air Programme funds continue to be spent on road dust control. On the built environment, she questioned whether programmes like the India Cooling Action Plan (ICAP), Energy Conservation Building Code (ECBC), Energy Management Standards (EMS), and Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY)are delivering thermal comfort. She stressed the need for formal design support systems for self-built homes. She also called for decentralised infrastructure, such as localised wastewater treatment, in underserved areas. On urban heat, she observed a disconnect between Heat Action Plans and actual investment in green–blue infrastructure.

Theme 1: Informing new Urban Challenge fund
Under the first theme, Dr. Jagan Shah, CEO of The Infravision Foundation, highlighted the need to scale up digital solutions in cities. He stressed that cities should focus on replicating proven models that effectively address urban challenges. Dr. Shah pointed out the lack of strong policies and monitoring systems as key factors deterring private investors from supporting city projects. He emphasised that behaviour change can lead to significant results and called for a single, integrated plan that addresses air pollution, heat, and transport. He also underlined the importance of involving communities in both the planning and implementation processes.

This was followed by Mr. Arekh Kapoor, Associate Director at Deloitte, who stressed the importance of climate financing for urban infrastructure, noting that cities contribute 65-70 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). He highlighted the need to tap into innovative financing solutions beyond public funds and design projects that can attract private and multilateral investments. He pointed to funding sources such as green climate funds and green municipal bonds and underscored the importance of integrating challenge funds to enhance project bankability, alongside strong institutional frameworks. He also discussed the relevance of nature-based solutions and a structured public-private partnership (PPP) framework for adaptation and mitigation.

Respondents Mr. Anshul Abbasi from NIUA and Ms. Hina Zia from Jamia Millia Islamia shared their views on the discussion. Mr. Abbasi highlighted that while most urban challenges and their solutions are already identified, implementation remains the biggest hurdle. He stressed the need for prioritised fund allocation, revised standards that reflect evolving issues, and stronger monitoring of fund use, along with clear backup financing plans. Ms. Zia emphasised the role of academic institutions in shaping urban action and outlined the “3-Cs”: Capacity building to tap into diverse funding sources, Convergence of efforts under a climate-risk lens, and Cooperation and Collaboration across institutions and universities to drive effective implementation.

Theme 2: Shaping Transit-Oriented Cities for Clean Air and Low-Carbon Mobility
The discussion began with Prof. Sanjay Gupta from the School of Planning and Architecture, Delhi, explaining how transit-oriented cities are essential to minimise congestion and improve public transport. He cautioned that failure to prioritise this could result in significant monetary losses and productivity hours, surpassing the actual benefits. Redevelopment will be a central agenda in the coming years, and transit must play a central role in this. He highlighted that master plans often fail to adequately address the importance of public transport. He stressed that many projects fail due to a lack of a governing framework, inadequate infrastructure, and limited stakeholder participation. He called for a review of Development Control Regulations (DCRs) to align them with the objectives of transit-oriented projects and emphasised the importance of timely improvements. Furthermore, he pointed out that multimodal integration is crucial – Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) cannot work without it. Transit cities should not only focus on metros but also consider buses, which are, in fact, more important. He concluded by stressing the need for a thorough assessment of readiness for TOD.

In response, Mr. R. Srinivas, Honorary Secretary, The Institute of Urban Transport, underscored the need to revisit the national TOD policy, originally framed in 2015, and suggested that the policy should also include regulations. He mentioned that several states have developed their own TOD policies. For example, Ahmedabad has integrated TOD features and regulations into the Ahmedabad Master Plan 2031. He highlighted the importance of authentic land records for TOD implementation, as without them, the process becomes difficult. He referred to Delhi, where 33 TOD plans were proposed but none were implemented, citing that a local area plan cannot succeed without the participation of ward councillors. He also emphasised that a Unified Metropolitan Transport Authority (UMTA) is essential, as it can provide direction for a comprehensive mobility plan, with TOD explicitly mentioned.

Theme 3: Designing for Thermal Comfort and Low Energy Pathways
Under this theme, Mr. Mayank Bhatnagar from Environmental Design Solutions opened the discussion by highlighting the urgent need for thermal comfort in affordable housing. He pointed out that government-subsidised housing programmes are often fragmented and disjointed, and that India’s housing sector is dominated by high cooling demands. He emphasised that buildings must be designed in a climate-responsive manner, with a focus on reducing thermal loads through passive strategies. Where mechanical cooling is required, low-energy systems should be used and complemented with renewable energy integration. He called for a strict thermal comfort policy, noting that existing standards fall short on both comfort and efficiency parameters.

Following this, Mr. Anindya Bhattacharya, Executive Director, The Celestial Earth, highlighted that India is among the first countries to develop a Cooling Action Plan. He pointed out the absence of a comprehensive national database to track cooling demand by floor area across the country. He stated that by 2047, if India is to become a developed economy, there will be an enormous energy requirement – much of which will go toward meeting cooling needs. He stressed the importance of clearly defining thermal comfort and linking it to public health risks. He also suggested measures such as heat stress insurance and adoption of models like cooling-as-a-service, which could enable scalable technologies like district cooling systems.

As a response, Dr. Mahfuzur Rahman Barbhuiya from Netaji Subhas University of Technology highlighted that nearly 3,00,000 global publications focus on Net-Zero – covering electric mobility, urban planning, and citizen engagement – yet only 42 papers relate directly to the Indian context. He argued that this gap reflects a lack of attention to localised solutions. He pointed out that simple architectural features such as chajjas and the use of local materials can lead to up to 30 per cent energy savings and a 5–10 per cent reduction in overall energy consumption. He concluded by stating that urban heat can only be tackled by addressing the heat load of individual buildings.

Theme 4: Urban Resilience
Under this theme, Mr. Rohit Magotra, Deputy Director at IRADe, opened the session by emphasising that heat is no longer confined to cities – it has become a widespread challenge. He stressed that cities must be seen not just as drivers of climate action, but also as spaces where scalable and inclusive solutions are developed. Highlighting the need for convergence, he called for all departments to come together to address heat through coordinated planning. He argued that heat action plans must go beyond a health-centric approach and incorporate vulnerable populations and geographies, with both medium- and long-term strategies. He pointed out that certain urban locations experience much higher temperatures than those recorded by India Meteorological Department (IMD) stations – on which current alerts are based – making localised and targeted interventions critical. With cooling still unaffordable for large sections of the population, he underscored the role of nature-based solutions and passive cooling measures. He noted that infrastructure investments must focus on ecosystem restoration – pollution reduction, water table recharge, and hot air management – linking urban cooling with broader resilience goals.

In response, Mr. Himadri Shekhar Dey from Sushant University reinforced the importance of integrating nature-based solutions into infrastructure planning. He stressed that cities must identify specific locations for such integration and ensure that environmental parameters are included in local planning efforts. Mr. Aravind Unni, an urban practitioner from New Delhi, added that heat action plans must be treated as long-term strategies rather than reactive tools. He called for prioritising vulnerable populations, promoting community-led actions, decentralising governance, and ensuring convergence through inclusive, cross-departmental planning.

Theme 5: Circularity
Mr. Rajneesh Sareen concluded the conversation by underscoring that heat must be recognised as a core component of circularity. He pointed out that, unlike air and water, there are currently no standards for heat discharge or for material recovery – two critical areas that must be addressed. He stressed the need to establish clear, enforceable standards that account for the thermal impacts of materials used in construction. Noting that concrete alone contributes nearly 35 per cent of the built environment, he highlighted its impact in shaping the urban microclimate. While several performance grants are being rolled out, their on-ground impact remains limited due to the absence of defined performance benchmarks. He called for the urgent formulation of robust, measurable standards to drive effective implementation and climate responsiveness in urban development.

Overall, theround table conversation underscored the urgent need for integrated and climate-responsive urban planning, supported by robust policy frameworks, inclusive governance, and measurable performance standards to build sustainable, low-carbon, and resilient cities.