InBadShape | India needs a national registry and agency to monitor infrastructure, fix accountability: Vinayak Chatterjee

Vinayak Chatterjee, founder and managing trustee, The Infravision Foundation. He is also Chairman of the Confederation of Indian Industry's Mission on Infrastructure, Trade and Investment.

In order to prevent infrastructure-related disasters like the Morbi bridge collapse from happening, the union government should create a national registry to monitor infrastructure across the country, said Vinayak Chatterjee, founder and managing trustee, of The Infravision Foundation.

The chairman of the Confederation of Indian Industry's (CII) Mission on Infrastructure, Trade, and Investment said that the proposed national registry should contain data about the state of the infrastructure, and in case of accidents, the government should hold to account the authorities responsible for their maintenance.

Talking exclusively to Moneycontrol, Chaterjee also said that in order to improve the quality of infrastructure the country should put proper systems in place. For instance, he said that the engineer monitoring the quality of the infrastructure should be paid by and report to the sponsor (the authority that has  commissioned the project), and not to the contractor.

Edited Excerpts:

Q. Indian infrastructure tends to collapse with uncanny regularity, the latest example being the Morbi bridge collapse. Why?

A. A few years ago I was part of a committee that was investigating a foot overbridge collapse in Thane, near Mumbai.  I realised then that a vast amount of our infrastructure dates back to the British times. These have deteriorated a lot and need thorough repairs. More importantly, they now carry far more traffic and load than they were meant to.

Our most vulnerable infrastructure are the railway bridges built over roads, canals, and rivers. The next most vulnerable are the hydroelectric projects and dams. In order to prevent them from collapsing, the government needs to create a national registry, or an aging registry, of our infrastructure.

The registry should contain data pertaining to all our infrastructure. The details should include the authority in charge of maintaining the construction, the last time it was inspected, what the last inspection revealed, were the issues pointed out in the inspection rectified, and when the next inspection is due.

For example, if the gram panchayat is looking after a rail over-bridge that passes through a village, they are responsible for ensuring that periodic inspection and repairs of the bridge are carried out, and that the details are captured in the national registry, thus ensuring visibility at a national level.

Apart from the creation of a registry, I feel the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) should track the health of infrastructure projects and play a proactive role in preventing infrastructure-related  disasters.

For example, if the NDMA finds out through the national registry that a road in Delhi is in a bad condition, it should contact the Municipal Commissioner and ask them to repair it.

Q. A number of agencies are involved in the implementation of infrastructure projects. Also, state governments and municipal corporations have different ways of implementing infra projects. Is there any ambiguity regarding the best practices for executing and  maintaining infrastructure?

A. No, there is no ambiguity regarding best practices. However, because India does not have a national registry, nor any agency to monitor the health of the infrastructure and hold authorities accountable, the health of the infra continues to crumble.

Q. What are the biggest reasons for new infrastructure projects to collapse?

A. Most incidents related to new projects happen because they have not been tested properly. In order to prevent this India needs a robust system of certification by independent engineers before the projects are opened for public use. While India does have a system of certification, the fact is that it is not implemented properly.

Q. Many developers and contractors say that the quality of infrastructure suffers from a lack of guidelines for deviation from standards, the impact of the deviation on safety, and the ways to mitigate impact of the deviation. Could you elaborate on this.

A. It's a very theoretical point. The issue is not so much the design as the execution, which is where most contractors cut corners.

In order to prevent contractors from cutting corners, an independent engineer is appointed to carry out inspections. However, the engineer is in the pay of the contractor, which is where the problem lies.  The government needs to change this. The engineer should be paid and be accountable to the sponsoring authority (e.g., the municipality), and not to the contractor.

Q. In the past you have asked the government to adopt the quality-cum-cost-based selection (QCBS) method, and last year the government said it would adopt the same. But what’s the ground reality when it comes to selecting bidders for infra projects.?

A. The QCBS method is used by the union government only when selecting an executing agency for technically complex infrastructure projects. It should be adopted by state governments as well, and should also be extended to procuring sophisticated goods, in my opinion.

Q. An infra project goes through various stages — where are the dark spots in the process?

A. Each stage has its challenges. During the execution stage, the system of appointing an independent engineer to monitor the quality needs to change. We also need to strengthen the institution of independent engineers.

During the design stage, sometimes design flaws happen because of compromises, sometimes because a mistake has been made. All this needs to be caught by the sponsor and the system.