RP843 Rural Access Improvement and Decentralization Project (RAIDP) Remedial Action Plan for the Project Affected People Project Co-ordinationUnit RAIDP Department of Local Infrastructure Development and Agricultural Roads Government of Nepal July, 2009 1 Abbreviations CI : Community Infrastructures DDC : District Development Committee DoLIDAR : Department of Local Infrastructure Development and Agricultural Roads DRCC : District Road Co-ordination Committee DTO : District Technical Office ESMF : Environment and Social Management Framework GoN : Government of Nepal LDO : Local Development Officer LRUC : Local Road Users' Committee MoLD : Ministry of Local Development NGO : Non-Governmental Organizations PAP : Project Affected People PCU : Project Co-ordination Unit RAIDP : Rural Access Improvement and Decentralization Project RAP : Remedial Action Plan RPF : Resettlement Policy Framework SDC : Social Development Consultants SMO : Social Mobilization Officers SPAP : Seriously Project Affected People VCDP : Vulnerable Community Development Plan VCDF : Vulnerable Community Development Framework VDC : Village Development Committee VRCC : Village Road Co-ordination Committee 2 CONTENTS Chapter I: Introduction .................................................. 4 Background ........................................................................... 4 Land Acquisition and its associated impacts ..................................... 4 Gaps in Project Implementation .................................................... 5 Approach in Assessment of Impacts ............................................... 5 Chapter II: Assessment of Adverse Impacts ......................... 7 Methodology ......................................................................... 7 Impacts of Land Donation and Structural Damage .............................. 7 Chapter III: Remedial Action Mitigation Measures ............... 11 Entitlement Matrix ................................................................... 11 Estimated Budget .................................................................... 13 Source of Budget..................................................................... 13 Chapter IV: Implementation Arrangements .......................... 14 Assistance Distribution .......................................................... 14 Grievance Redress Process ...................................................... 15 Disclosure .......................................................................... 15 Monitoring and Evaluation ...................................................... 15 Implementation Schedule ........................................................ 16 Ownership Transfer ............................................................... 16 Annexes ..................................................................................... 17 3 CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1. Background 1.1 Rural Access Improvement and Decentralization Project (RAIDP) is being implemented with the assistance of the World Bank (Grant No H171-Nep) in 20 districts.1 The executing agency is the Department of Local Infrastructure Development and Agricultural Roads (DoLIDAR) under the Ministry of Local Development (MoLD). The project aims to improve the existing rural roads, construct trail bridges and support for community infrastructure development to enhance the access of rural population to social services and economic opportunities. In addition to rural road improvement, the project also includes the construction of three dry season rural roads.2 The project envisages the reduction of rural poverty through the improvement of rural transport infrastructures and enhancement of access to social and physical services. 1.2. The project covered 35 all weather rural roads in 19 districts in the first year. Out of 35 roads covered in the first year, 22 were extended and continued improvements in the second year. In addition, 7 new roads were also identified from the same districts for the second year for improvements and upgrading. Out of the 29 all weather rural roads, four roads (2 each in Rupandehi and Udayapur districts from the first and second year) were taken up for the third year too, which are under construction now. Thus, 47 road stretches including three dry season roads cover a total length of 700.84 Km are covered under the project. The details of road stretches and current progress are summarized in Annex 1. In addition to road improvement, the project also includes the construction of 111 trail-bridges and 131 community infrastructure facilities. It is estimated that around 1.7 million people have benefited due these project activities. Land Acquisition and its associated impacts 1.3 As a result of the above-mentioned road improvements, land acquisition was necessary and there were bound to be some adverse impacts associated the land acquisition. To mitigate the impacts associated with land acquisition and associated impacts, Environment and Social Management Framework (ESMF) was formulated at the beginning of the project. The ESMF incorporated the existing legal provisions of the Government of Nepal (GoN) especially on land acquisition and environmental protection and relevant World Bank policies such as Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12), Indigenous People Development (OP 4.10) as well as other policies related to the protection of environment, natural habitats, physical and cultural resources and indigenous people. The document also presents the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) and Vulnerable Community Development Framework (VCDF) to address the problems of project affected people caused by the construction works. Its scope also includes support to vulnerable communities living in the project areas for their livelihood. 1 The project is under implementation from August 16th, 2005 and will end on December 31st, 2010. 2 Dry season rural roads are in Salyan, Rasuwa and Udayapur. 4 1.4 Since the project is basically designed for rural road improvement and improves fair weather roads to all weather roads, the roads supported under RAIDP are based on the demand of the rural communities where people are willing to provide land voluntarily for the construction and improvement of the roads at it brings direct economic benefits to them within a short time. Normally, the benefits are realized in terms of appreciation in the value of land, increased opportunities for production and marketing of agricultural and livestock products, improved access to economic and social service centers like financial institutions, health posts, hospitals, schools etc. As a result, the potential benefits from the road projects are much higher than the losses. 1.5 Since the project was primarily meant for the local people and these roads were undertaken due to the demand of the local people, the required land for the project was acquired through voluntary land donation to keep the cost of the project low and make it viable. Further, these road improvement works were limited to widening of road widths in certain road sections. Normally, the land required for widening the existing road is limited to strips of a few meters on either side of the road which does not result in any significant loss of productive lands. Thus, the impacts associated with land acquisition are expected to be minimal. However, in the event that impacts due to land acquisition are greater, then the ESMF provides for assistance in the form of compensation and support. Gaps in Project Implementation 1.6 During the Mid-Term Review Mission of the project carried out by the World Bank in the first week of March, 2009 identified certain gaps in addressing the impacts associated with the land donation process, despite the fact that the project has had success in road improvements. Voluntary land donation has affected some of vulnerable groups; some of the land owners have lost more than 10% of their land holdings; and some of them have also lost their houses and other assets. The World Bank has advised the Project Co-ordination Unit (PCU) to assess the impacts and propose suitable remedial measures to mitigate the impacts in line with the provisions ESMF. To respond to this suggestion, the PCU has undertaken a survey to assess the impacts and propose suitable remedial measures for those affected households. Approach in Assessment of Impacts 1.7. Responding to the feed-back and suggestions provided by the World Bank, the PCU prepared and submitted a memo to DoLIDAR and MoLD for necessary direction to undertake the assessment. Following this, PCU developed formats for the assessment of impacts and mobilized Social Mobilization Officers (SMO) and Social Development Consultants (SDC) for data collection and confirmation. In the third step, a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) was prepared providing the assessment of adverse impacts and mitigation measures including entitlement matrix and implementation arrangements. 1.8. The Remedial Action Plan identifies the gaps and weaknesses related to voluntary land donation during project implementation in the past and also propose mitigation measures to address the gaps. Therefore, whatever proposals and provisions are made in this document (whether the amount of assistance or the assistance distribution arrangement) is solely for the 5 purpose of mitigating the impacts suffered during the road widening activities. According to the ESMF, land donation below 10 per cent of total land holdings and up to 25 per cent of structural damages are considered marginal impacts and can be covered through voluntary donation. In the context of Nepal, 5 Kattha in Terai and 3.5 Ropani in hill (1692 square meters) are considered as minimum economic land holding size. Keeping the above thresholds in view, the ESMF proposes support in cases where any household's land holding becomes less than minimum land holding size and the loss of structure is more than 25 per cent and proposes to prepare a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) and a Vulnerable Community Development Plan (VCDP) to provide such support and assistance. However, it was observed by the World Bank that although there were some severe impacts, mitigation measures were not proposed during the implementation. This report provides the results assessment of impacts and proposed remedial measures to mitigate the adverse impacts associated with the road widening works. 6 CHAPTER II: ASSESSMENT OF ADVERSE IMPACTS 2.1 It was quite challenging to assess the impacts arising from the 45 road sub-projects since the voluntary donation has taken place quite some time ago. As mentioned earlier the project largely followed the voluntary land donation principle as specified in the ESMF. However, due to non-staffing of professional Social Development staff in PCU, the tracking of impacts associated the land donation was not undertaken. As a result, there was no system of recording and documentation of the information about Project Affected People (PAP) and Seriously Project Affected People (SPAP) and their extent of losses. Since the ESMF principles and processes were not followed adequately, information gaps about project impacts were observed. However, the NGOs providing social mobilization support have kept records on land donation, structural damages and other minor structural damages which were used to update and reconfirm during the process of assessing the impacts. 2. Methodology 2.2 The services of NGOs and Social Development consultants were used for collecting the necessary detail of impacts of land donation. The necessary data collection formats were prepared by PCU and provided the guidance and facilitated the data collection. Walk-through interviews and group discussions were the main methods adopted for data collection.3 The data was collected with close co-ordination and guidance of the PCU, the field based staff visited sub- project sites with Local Road Users Committee (LRUC) and Village Road Co-ordination Committee (VRCC) members. Prior information was given to the villagers about their visit at least a week before. Thus, the SMO/SDC with LRUC/VRCC members made their visit to sub- project sites, discussed the problems with affected people, and confirmed the data regarding the loss of land and other structures right on the spot. In some cases, the team also measured the land but in many cases the data were collected through group discussions which were again confirmed by VRCC/LRUC members. In some places, SMO/SDC filled the individual land donation form and also received signature of the land donors in compliance with the ESMF requirement on voluntary land donation. The data collection took about a month and the data was processed by PCU. The detail of land donation by district is provided in Annex 2. Impacts of Land Donation and Structural Damage 2.3 Land donation is welcome since it brings better access and prosperity, but it causes adverse impacts if the land donation leads to impoverishment in the form of reducing the remaining land holding to less than minimum land holding size or it leads to homelessness. The details of impacts are summarized in Table 2.1 below. 3At first instance SDC/SMO of each district visited the road sub-project alone to collect the information about project impacts but it was noticed that the information provide by them was curate. Therefore, the PCU decided to collect the data through the presence of LRUC/VRCC members. As VRCC/LRUC members are local people, the information provided by the land donor's papers to be more accurate. 7 Table 2.1: Impact of Land donation S.No. Land category Number of land donors 1 Donation with less than 10% of the total holding 2,174 (85.5%) 2 Above 10% land holding but the remaining holding is above 113 (4.4%) 1692 Sqm ( minimum land holding size) 3** Above 10% land donation whose remaining holding is 71 (2.8%) between 850- 1692 Sqm Above 10% land donors whose remaining holding is below 185(7.3%) 849 Sqm Total 2543 (100%) *the figures in parentheses indicate percentages ** the minim land holding size is divided into two groups to assess more sever impacts and thus provide more relief whose remaining land holdings is smaller compared to others 2.4 The above data indicates that about 10 per cent of the total 2,543 land donors have become marginal farmers and required support. The name of individual land donors, donated land and their remaining land is recorded in PCU. During the discussions, the land donors have expressed happiness with the project and wanted to have their roads improved and upgraded with higher quality. The land donors whose remaining holding is below minimum land holding size were also happy with the road but experienced a setback because their remaining land is not adequate to support them. The road wise land donors and their distribution according to the donation area of their land is shown in annex 2. The list of individual land owners and their extent of loss is available in project files and will be disclosed in respective districts once the report is approved by the government. 2.5 The project roads also affected 955 households with damage to or loss of their residential structures. In addition, 16 individuals have lost their source of income / livelihood and 57 individuals have suffered minor structure losses or damages. The names of individuals who have had residential structures damaged / lost and the percentage of the damage / loss are available in the project. Table 2.2 below presents the damage and loss of residential structures, source of livelihood and minor structural loss. Table 2.2: Extent of Impacts due to structure damages S.N. Damage categories Affected Structures 1 Up to 25% damage of residential structure 815 (79.3%) 2 Between 25 to 50% damage of residential structure 66 (6.4%) 3 Above 50 % damage of residential structure 74 (7.2%) 4 Loss of livelihood (petty shops) 16 (1.5) 5 Minor structures 57 (5.55) Total 1028 (100%) *the figures in parentheses indicate percentages 2.6 The data analysis reveals that only about 9% of households have suffered severe damages (loss of more than 50% structure loss or loss of income/livelihood). The remaining impacts can be considered as partial. Of the total affected households, about 34% are non-title holders and the rest were title holders. Discussions with affected people revealed that those who have lost their residential structures partially have repaired their homes by themselves. They are not expecting any support or compensation; rather they are keen for early completion of road improvement 8 works. Some of the people who lost their structures above 25 per cent have also repaired their structures although there are some expectations. The people who have fully lost their residential structures have already been resettled in nearby localities by the DDCs. However, some of the women headed households and poor people who were affected by damages above 25 per cent have expectations from the project for compensation. The individuals who have lost tea shops, Ghatta (indigenous water mill) and Ghumti shop (mobile shop) and whose minor assets / structures were damaged or displaced such as tube well, compound wall and cow shed are satisfied with the road and have already re-established and repaired their assets / structures. The names of individuals who have minor structure damages / loss and those whose livelihoods were disturbed are with the project. To provide relief to these people, it is proposed to provide some cash assistance to offset the expenses already incurred by these people to undertake repair or reconstruction of their affected structures. Details of residential structure and other damages including livelihood losses are shown separately for title holders and non-title holders in annex 3 and 4 respectively. The list of households who have lost part or full structures and livelihoods is available in project files and will be disclosed in respective districts once the report is approved by the Government. 2.7 In case of Siraha and Dhanusha districts, land donation was not required and similalrly in some of the roads in Kapilvastu and Rupandehi districts as well, the land donation was not required, since all the land required for road widening was already available within ROW. On the other hand, in Udayapur and Dhading districts the number of land donors is higher primarily due to the fact that the roads taken up in this district were new roads and land requirement is high. Table 2.3 below shows district wise details of land donors, households affected from structural damage, and livelihood loss. 9 Table 2.3: District-wise distribution of land donors and damage or losses of structures Land Donors Residential damage / losses eso is eso odo is Lossl % wh % ura 10 land wh land % % 25 Livelih ctu ot 10% 1693sqm 10% 1692sqm Total to Total of Str Up Up 25.1-50 50.1-100 SN District Above remaining above Above remaining below Loss Minor 1 Kailali 114 5 - 119 6 59 10 75 - 45 2 Bardiya 27 - 2 29 - - 30 30 - - 3 Banke 30 9 4 43 - 1 1 2 - - 4 Salyan 172 6 - 178 - - - - - - 5 Kapilbastu 3 3 3 9 4 9 - 13 14 - 6 Rupandehi 10 17 - 27 13 1 1 15 - - 7 Nawalparasi 51 - - 51 22 31 9 62 - - 8 Palpa 91 4 - 95 30 4 2 36 - - 9 Syangja 119 2 1 122 16 10 2 28 - 1 10 Kaski 98 2 5 105 1 - - 1 - - 11 Dhading 564 - - 564 - - 2 2 - - 12 Nuwakot 55 - 1 56 2 1 - 3 - 1 13 Rasuwa 66 50 29 145 - - - - - 4 14 Makawanpur 80 4 3 87 - - 1 1 2 - 15 Rautahat 190 8 24 222 408 - 12 420 - - 16 Sarlahi 67 10 6 83 44.00 9 16 69 - - 17 Mahottari 13 10 4 27 4 3 - 7 - 1 18 Dhanusa - - - - - - - - - - 19 Siraha - - - - 191 - - 191 - 5 20 Udayapur 424 83 74 581 - - - - - - Total 2174 213 332 2543 731 128 86 955 16 57 2.8 The nature and extent of impact across districts varies (annex 5). The proportion of land owners are found to be higher in Udaypur, Dhanding and Salyan, while the impacts on structures are found to be proportionally higher in Siraha, Sarlahi, and Nawalparasi districts. In case of Rautahat and Kailali districts the impacts in both categories is higher. In general, it is observed that many people have donated land to the roads in the hill districts whereas many people have suffered from the damage to structures in Terai because of dense settlements by the roadside. 2.9 During the data collection and discussions with project affected people, it was found out that they are keen to have better quality roads and therefore, they are not raising the issue of land donation and structural damage. In some districts like Dhading, Syangja and Kaski the land donors were eager to transfer the donated land immediately without any assistance or support. The implementation of Remedial Action will further encourage to initiating the land transfer process. 10 CHAPTER III: REMEDIAL MEASURES 3.1 The assessment of impacts due to voluntary donation reveals that there are some people affected adversely by the loss of more than 10 per cent of their land holding with the result that their remaining land holding is uneconomical in addition to the loss of structures and other assets. In order to mitigate these impacts, it is now proposed to provide some cash assistance for different type of impacts. This will help them to offset the expenses already incurred for restoring their affected structures and also supplement their income earning options. 3.2 The PCU, in consultation with MoLD and DoLIDAR, proposed to provide one time assistance for the relief of the seriously project affected people. Looking at the types of impacts, it does not seem fair to provide equal support to everyone because different individuals have donated different sizes of land and their remaining holding is also varied. Similarly, the percentage of structural damage is also different of different people. It is assumed that land donors and individuals whose structures are damaged or lost would be happy with the lump-sum assistance because it will cover most of the expenses they have already incurred. Further, the project would undertake repairs if necessary in case of those whose structures are affected up to 25 per cent. It was also decided to provide lump-sum incentive cost for all land donors who come forward to register their donated lands in favor of the DDCs. 3. Entitlement Matrix 3.3 Based on the assessment of impacts in the different road subprojects, different types of assistance and rehabilitation support have been proposed to the project affected people / families. The PCU held consultations with SMO/SDC and NGO representatives and affected people and their views were taken into consideration while finalizing the assistance amounts. It was also considered that the support amount should be meaningful for the people to purchase a piece of land, a house or some permanent assets in their efforts to reestablish their livelihoods or reconstruct the affected properties. Therefore, prevailing land rates in rural areas have been taken into account to determine the price of land. The SMO/SDC involved in data collection and confirmation also checked the price of the land and damaged assets with the local people. Thus, considering all these possibilities, the average cost is proposed for the land losers who have donated land above 10 per cent and their remaining holding is below the minimum economic holding size. A similar method is applied to assess the cost of repairing damages or the restoration of lost residential structures, livelihood and minor structures. The cost for repairing damaged houses ranges from NRs.5,000.00 to NRs.50,000.00 according to the percentage of damages and the assistance amount is also decided accordingly. These assistances are shown in the entitlement matrix in table 3.1 11 Table 3.1: Entitlement Matrix SN Impact Category Entitlement Number of Remarks affected people I Land Donors 2543 A Those losing land up to 10% of · Voluntary donation 2174 their holding · Land transfer incentive NRs. 1,000/donor B Those losing more than 10% of Assistance decided their land holding and remaining after land: assessing the (i) Above 1693Sqm · Assistance @ NRs. 20/Sqm beyond 10% average cost in of loss; subject to minimum NRs. 1,000 113 rural Nepal for the land (ii) Between 850 to · Assistance @ NRs. 20/Sqm beyond 10% 1692Sqm of loss; subject to minimum NRs. 1,000 71 for the land · Livelihood assistance @ NRs. 5,000/land donor whose remained land is between 850 to 1692Sqm (iii) Below 849Sqm · Assistance @ NRs. 20/Sqm beyond 10% of loss; subject to minimum NRs. 1,000 185 for the land Livelihood assistance @ NRs. 10,000/ land donor whose remaining land is below 849Sqm. II Loss of Residential Structures 955 A Those losing structure up to 25% · Project provides necessary repairs 817 B Those losing structure between · Support for repairs 66 Decided assessing 25.1 to 50% (title holders) @ NRs. 5,000 for Kachhi the minimum cost @ NRs.10,000 for Semi-Pakki @ NRs. 15,000 for Pakki C Those losing structure between · Support for repairs - None of the people 25.1 to 50% (non-title holders) @NRs. 3000 for Kachhi are in this category @ NRs. 5,000 for Semi-Pakki @ NRs. 10,000 for Pakki D Those losing structure fully or · Support for restoration 27 Decided assessing more than 50% (title holders) @ NRs. 15,000 for Kachhi minimum cost in @ NRs. 25,000 for Semi-Pakki rural context @ NRs. 40,000 for Pakki E Those losing structure fully or · Support for restoration 45 more than 50% (non-title holders) @ NRs .10,000 for Kachhi @ NRs .15,000 for Semi-Pakki @ NRs. 25,000 for Pakki III Loss of livelihood /Income · Assistance for rehabilitation @ NRs 16 Sources 5,000 per family (petty shops like Ghumti, tea shops, Ghatta, etc) IV Loss of Minor Assets Repair cost @ NRs. 4000 per family 57 (tube well, compound wall, etc) Note: The number of affected households under category - II are mutually inclusive with category - I. 12 Estimated Budget 3.4. The budget for remedial measures is expected to be about NRs.15.67 million. The breakdown of the estimated budget is given in table 5. Table 5: Estimated Budget for Remedial Assistance SN Impact Category Budget in NRs. in Million I Land transfer Incentive for those who donated below 10% of their 2. 01 holding II Assistance for those who donated 10% of their land and remaining 6.00 land is above 1693 Sqm, III Assistance for those who donated 10% of their land and remaining 1.80 land is between 850 to 1692 Sqm and below 849 Sqm. IV Repair assistance for partially damage residential structure (up to 2.10 50%)* V Restoration assistance for fully damage residential structure (above 1.00 50%) VI Livelihood assistance for income source losers/livelihood losers 0.10 VII Repair cost for the damage of minor assets 0.23 VIII Land transformation cost 1.00 IX Total 14.24 X Contingency cost 1.43 Grand Total 15.67 * The project would repair the residential structure of up to 25 per cent damages whereas repair cost would be provided in case of above 25 to 50 per cent damages as per entitlement matrix. Source of Budget 3.5 The government of Nepal shall provide the entire required budget for the remedial assistance. 13 CHAPTER IV: IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS 4.1 Implementation has to be efficient, fast, transparent, and participatory in handing over the assistance to the affected people. As this is a corrective action, assistance should be provided to the concerned people as early as possible. In addition, the people also need to make proper use of the support for enhancing their livelihood by investing the money in income-generating activities or improving their affected houses. However, the Government of Nepal has its own arrangements for payment of compensation related to private property acquisition, which usually takes time and also requires following certain set procedures. Since this assistance relates to providing immediate assistance, the PCU proposes a separate arrangement for effective implementation of remedial action plan under District Development Committee (DDC). Assistance Distribution 4.2 The PCU, in consultation with NGO representatives, SMO/SDCs and other concerned stakeholders, proposes to set up a Remedial Assistance Distribution Committee under the chairpersonship of Local Development Officer (LDO) in DDCs which will include two more members as follows. · Local Development Officer : Chairperson · District Technical Office Chief : Member · Chairperson of LRUC /VRCC : Member · SMO/ SDC (invitee member) : Facilitator 4.3 The office of the remedial assistance distribution committee will be established in the premises of DDCs. The committee will carry out the following responsibilities: a) Manage an office for remedial assistance distribution committee, b) Disclosure of the list of project-affected people in the DDC office and in the concerned VDC office, c) Inform the affected people by SMO/SDC through LRUC/VRCC about the remedial action, d) Fix the date and time of assistance distribution and inform to the concerned people at least one week before, e) Distribute the assistance amount (offer cheque if the amount is above 25,000/-) in public places (VDC office), f) Keep proper account of assistance distribution, g) Keep proper record of the assistance recipient (receive signatures), types of effect, assistance amount and purpose of the use of assistance and the time of land transfer, and h) Prepare a progress report monthly and a completion report of RAP at the end by the help of SMO/SDC and forward it to the PCU. 14 Grievance Redress Process 4.4 Even though the assistance is provided to all those who are affected during the voluntary donation, there bound to be some dissatisfaction among few people during the distribution of assistance or recording names in the list of people who have affected. In order to ensure that all those who have grievances while receiving the assistance will be provided an opportunity to hear their grievances and redress through an independent mechanisms. 4.5 The Grievance redress committee will consist of two members at each project district. The committee will be headed by the nominee of District Road Co-ordination Committee and one of the members will be from the DDC which will be as follows: · Nominee of District Road Co-ordination Committee : Chairperson · Planning, Monitoring and Administration Officer in DDC : Member · SMO/SDC (invitee member) : Facilitator 4.6 The office of the grievance hearing committee will be established in the premises of the DDCs. The decision of grievance hearing committee will be final for the project but it does not restrict an individual to seek further legal recourse. The grievance hearing committee will perform the following responsibilities: · Receive the complaint in written and register and record it properly, · Keep the complaint confidential and go through the name list of project affected people whether there is any mistake made in the disclosure, · Based on the nature of compliant, the committee will verify all the supporting information and also hear the compliant views personally and other witnesses as needed and give their final verdict accordingly. Disclosure 4.7 After the approval of Remedial Action Plan by the GoN and the World Bank, the Remedial Action Plan will be put in the web-site of MoLD, DoLIDAR and RAIDP-PCU as well as DDC/DTO for public acknowledgement and reference. The DDC in co-ordination with local Village Development Committee (VDC) will publish the list of the project affected people on the notice board of the concerned VDC. The list of land donors, areas of donated land, and remaining land in square meters is available in PCU and the respective DDCs. Moreover, name of individuals according to the percentage of damage or loss of residential structures are available in PCU. All this information will be provided to MoLD, DoLIDAR, DDC and VDC for disclosure. The DDC and VDC will publish the name lists of eligible for assistance in Nepali language. Monitoring and Evaluation 4.8. The PCU proposes two months' time for its implementation from the time of approval by the GoN. There are two main challenges: first is the handover of the assistance amount to the concerned people as soon as possible, and second, is the use of the assistance in a proper way. 15 For this, the PCU will be the main responsible body to monitor the process of remedial assistance distribution. Moreover, SMO/SDC including DDC will be responsible to monitor the overall process of assistance distribution and the use of the assistance amount in the field properly. The SMO/SDC will send periodical progress reports to PCU on the progress of implementation and the members of PCU during the visits to the districts will interact with the affected people to ascertain that assistance has reached them. 4.9 In order to assess the effectiveness of the remedial measures provided to the affected people an independent evaluation will be carried out by third party. The study will focus mainly on how effectively the people used the cash assistances provided to them as remedial measures. It will also provide information to the project about investments on different types of productive assets by the households and the progress towards generating sustainable income for improved livelihood. The evaluation will also assess the effectiveness of process and grievance redress process in the process of implementation of remedial measures. It will be carried out six months after implementation of remedial assistance. Implementation Schedule 4.10 Implementation of remedial mitigation assistance will be carried out by the project after endorsement of the document by the Bank and the Government of Nepal. Detailed implementation schedule is given in table 6. Table 4.1: Implementation schedule SN Activities Responsibility Completion Remarks date 1. Disclosure project affected people DDC/VDC 10 August, 2009 It is expected that GoN will approve the report by July 31, 2009. If approval is delayed the implementation will be adjusted accordingly. 2. Set up of implementation RAIDP- 20th August, arrangement and grievance PCU/DDC 2009 hearing mechanism 3 Completion of distribution of DDC/DTO/SM 30-Sept-09 It will be commenced by remedial assistance O/SDC September 01, 2009 5. Land transfer initiation DDC/SMO/SD October 01, 2009 C onwards 6. Impact Evlauation RAIDP-PCU March, 2010 Ownership Transfer 4.11 Providing remedial assistance is the foremost task of the project. The final task is to transfer the ownership of land from the people to the DDC. Therefore, SMO/SDC is required to encourage the land donors to fill up the land donation forms and ensure that they are happy and ready for the land transfer from the beginning of the assistance distribution process. Finally, with the support of the DDC, a cadastral survey will be carried out in each sub-project site and the land rights transfer process will be started. While transferring the land, it is proposed that the 16 entire land used for road including those part of land donated earlier will be taken into account. This way all the land used for the road purpose will be transferred in the DDC's favor. 17 Annex 1: District-wise Road Sub-Projects, their Lengths, Types and Progress until March 2009 S No. of No. of Length Type of Progress in N District Roads Name of the Road years (km) Improvement Per centage 1 Kailali 2 Khutiya-Matiiyari I 10.15 Otta seal 100 Sukhad-Khaliad-Bhajani II 24.32 Sand seal 85 2 Bardiya 1 Rajapur Ringroad I & II 62.07 Gravel/sand seal 66 3 Banke 2 Tithiriya-Sonpur-Udharpur I & II 12.26 Gravel 80 Paraspur-Gaughat II 12.74 Otta seal 90 4 Salyan 1 KhalangaHospital-Simkharka- Kuvindedanda I & II 24.53 Gravel/Otta seal 70 5 Kapilbastu 3 Sibalawa-Labani-lakhanchowk I 7.15 Gravel 100 Imiliya-Maharajgunj-Hardayna I 3.19 Gravel 100 Chakarchauda-Pakadi-Pipara II 27.69 Gravel/sand seal 100 6 Rupandehi 4 Madhauliya-Bhutaha I 8.43 Gravel 100 Mukundagadh-Simara I 13.37 Gravel 100 Dhakdhai-Khaireni II 8 Otta seal 100 Fireline-Lumbini II 14.5 Otta seal 100 7 Nawalparasi 2 Panchanagar-Mahespur I & II 16.01 Gravel 100 Daldale-Dhauwadi I & II 10.07 Gravel/sand seal 100 8 Palpa 3 Aryabhanjyang-Rampur I & II 23.47 Gravel/Otta seal 100 Harthok-Chhatara-Tinghare I & II 15.76 Gravel/Otta seal 100 Banstari-Jhadewa-Gothadi I & II 15.18 Gravel/Otta seal 100 9 Syangja 5 Rangkhola-Biruwa I 5.6 Otta seal 100 Mirdi-Jagabhanjyang-Chapkot I 6.71 Otta seal 100 Badkhola-Taksar-Dulegaunda II 10 Otta seal 100 Waling-Huwas II 10 Otta seal 100 Nagdanda-Karkineta II 10 Otta seal 100 10 Kaski 2 Lamachaur-Machhapuchchre I & II 15.4 Otta seal 95 Rakhi-Mijue I & II 19.66 Otta seal 90 11 Dhading 2 Bhimdhunga-Lamadanda I & II 18.42 Otta seal 100 Dhadingbesi-Salyangtar I & II 17.91 Otta seal 100 12 Nuwakot 1 Trishuli-Deutali-Meghang I & II 9.5 Gravel 100 13 Makawanpur 3 Gravel/Otta/Sand Kulekhani-Pakhel-humanebhanjyang I & II 9.84 seal 100 Gravel/Otta/Sand Hatiya-Raigaun I & II 24.33 seal 100 Hetauda-Padampokhari-Hadikhola II 3.6 Otta/sand seal 100 14 Rautahat 3 Gaur-Gangapipra-Sonpur I & II 15.85 Gravel 70 Gaur-Banjaraha-Aur-Dum-Basantapati- Inerwari I & II 10.8 Gravel 75 Auraiya-Laxminiya-Rampurkhap- Himalibas I & II 14 Gravel 60 15 Sarlahi 2 Kaudena-Jankinagar I 7 Gravel 80 Karmiya-Hathiyoul I 5 Gravel 100 16 Mahottari 2 Jaleshwor-rauja-Bardiwas I 10.04 Gravel 51 Mattihani-Pipra I 9.51 Gravel 85 17 Dhanusha 1 Janakpur-Manoharpur-Kharihani I 4.85 Gravel 85 18 Siraha 3 Siraha-Kalyanpur-Mirchaiya I 4 Sand seal 81 Zeromile-Baryarpati I 5 Otta seal 82 Lahan-Tandi I 8 Otta seal 100 19 Udaypur 2 Gaighat-Chauhade-Nepaltar I & II 11.82 Gravel/Otta seal 100 Gaighat-Beltar-Chatara I & II 12.05 Gravel/Otta seal 100 20 Rasuwa 1 Kalikasthan-Dhunge-Kamidanda - dry season II 9.6 Earthen 40 Total Length 45 597.38 18 Annex 2: Land Donors Above 10% donors Above 10% donors Above 10% land whose remaining whose remaining donors whose Up to land is more than land is between remaining land is SN District Name of Road 10% 1693 sqm 850-1692 sqm less than 849 sqm Total 1 Kailali Khutiya-Matiyari 24 - - - 24 Sukhad-Khailad-Vajani 90 5 - - 95 2 Bardiya Rajapur Ringroad 27 - - 2 29 3 Banke MRM-Titariya 12 - 3 3 18 Paraspur-Gaughat 18 - 3 4 25 4 Salyan Kha. Hospi-Simkharka- Kubindedaha 172 6 - - 178 5 Kapilbastu Chakarchauda-Pakadi-Pipara 3 - 3 3 9 Sibalawa-Labani-Lakhanchowk - - - - 0 Imiliya-Maharajgunj-Hardauna - - - - 0 Tikkar-Buddhi-Bijgauri-Hulaki - - - - 0 6 Rupandehi Mukundhagadha-Simara 8 6 14 Dhakdhai-Khaireni Road - - - - 0 Fireline-Lumbini - - - - 0 Madhauliya-Bhutaha 2 11 13 7 Nawalparasi Daldale-Dawadi - - - - 0 Panchanagar-Maheshpur 51 - - - 51 8 Palpa Aryabhanjyang-Rampur 70 - 2 2 74 Harthok-Chhahara-tingaire 12 - - - 12 Banstari-Jhadewa 9 - - - 9 9 Syangja Bhadkhola-Dulegauda 54 - - 2 56 Waling-Huwas 25 - - - 25 Nudanda-Karkineta 11 - - 1 12 Rangkhola-Biruwa 17 - - - 17 Mirdi-Jagatbhanjyang 12 - 12 10 Kaski Rakhi-Mijure Road 48 - 2 3 53 Lamachaur-Machhpuchhare 50 - - 2 52 11 Dhading Dhadingbesi-Salyantar 296 - - - 296 Bhimdhunga-Lamidanda 268 - - - 268 12 Nuwakot Trishuli-Deurali-Meghang 55 - - 1 56 13 Rasuwa Kalikasthan-Dhunge 66 27 25 27 145 14 Makwanpur Hatiya-Raigaun 27 1 1 1 30 Khulekhani-Pakhel-Humane 53 2 - 2 57 Padampokhari-Handikhola - - - - 0 15 Rautahat Gaur-Gangapipara-Santapur 20 - 2 2 24 Gaur-Banjaraha-Inrwari 100 - - 22 122 Auraiya-Bankul-Himalibas 70 - - 6 76 16 Sarlahi Kaudena-Jankinagar Road 67 9 3 4 83 Karmaiya-Hathiaul - - - - 0 17 Mahottari Jaleshwor-Rauja-Bardibas 9 - - 11 20 Mattihani-Pipara-Bhramarpur 4 - - 3 7 18 Dhanusa Janakpur-Manaharpur-khari - - - - 0 19 Siraha Siraha- Mirchiya - - - - 0 Zeromile-Bariyarpatti - - - - 0 Lahan-Tandi - - - - 0 20 Udayapur Ghaighat-Chhade-Nepaltar 152 26 15 52 245 Gaighat-Beltar-Chatara 272 20 12 32 336 Total 2174 113 71 185 2543 19 Annex 3: Losses & Damages of Residential Structures (Title Holders) & Minor Structures SN District Name of the Road Up to 25% 25.1-50% 50.1-100% i ki i ki i ki ch ch ch esr nor ctu Pakki Pakki Pakki Kach Kach Kach Mi Semi-Pak Semi-Pak Semi-Pak Stru 1 Kailali Khutiya-Matiyari 2 - - 6 - - - - - 11 Sukhad-Khaliad-Bhajani 9 - - 45 2 3 8 - - 34 2 Bardiya Rajapur Ringroad 1 - - - - - 5 - - - 3 Banke MRM-Titariya - - - - - - - - - Paraspur-Gaughat - - - 1 - - 1 - 4 Salyan Kha. Hospital-Simkharka-Kubinde - - - - - - - - - - 5 Kapilbastu Chakarchauda-Pakadi-Pipara - - - - - - - - - - Sibalawa-Lab-Lakhanchowk - - - - - - - - - - Imiliya-Maharajgunj-Hardauna 10 3 - - - - - - - - Tikkar-Buddhi-Bijgauri-Hulaki - - - - - - - - - - 6 Rupandehi Mukundagadh-Simara 11 - - - - - - - - - Dhakdhai-Khaireni - - - - - - - - - - Fireline-Lumbini - - - - - - - - - - Madhauliya-Bhutaha 2 - - - - - 1 - - - 7 Nawalparasi Daldale-Dawadi - - - - - - - - - - Panchanagar-Maheshpur 29 - 13 - - - - - - - 8 Palpa Aryabhanjyang-Rampur 30 - - - - - - - - - Harthok-Chatara-Tingaire 3 - - - - - - 1 - - Banstari-Jadhewa 1 - - - - - - - - - 9 Syangja Bhadkhola-Dulegauda - - 26 - - - - - - 1 Waling-Huwas - - - - - - - - - - Nagdanda-Karkineta 2 - - - - - - - - - Rangkhola-Biruwa - - - - - - - - - - Mirdi-Jagatbhanjyang - - - - - - - - - - 10 Kaski Rakhi-Mijure 1 - - - - - - - - - Lamachaur-Machchapuchhre - - - - - - - - - - 11 Dhading Dhadingbesi-Salyantar - - - - - - - - - - Bhimdhunga-Lamidanda - - - - - - 2 - - - 12 Nuwakot Trisuli-Deurali-Meghang 2 - 1 - - - - - - 1 13 Rasuwa Kalikasthan-Dhunge - - - - - - - - - 4 14 Makawanpur Hatiya-Raigaun - - - - - - 1 - - - Kulekhani-Pakhel-Humane - - - - - - - - - - Padampokhari-handikhola - - - - - - - - - - 15 Rautahat Gaur-Gangapipara-Santapur - - - - - - - - - - Gaur-Banjaraha-Inerwari 101 - 21 - - - 4 - - - Auraiya-Bankul-Himalibas 43 - 41 - - - 4 - - - 16 Sarlahi Kaudena-Jankinagar 34 - 10 9 - - - - - - Karmaiya-Hathauli - - - - - - - - - - 17 Mahottari Jaleshwor-Rauja-Bardibas - - - - - - - - - 1 Mattihani-Pipara-Brahmapur - - - - - - - - - - 18 Dhanusa Janakpur-Manaharpur-Khari - - - - - - - - - - 19 Siraha Siraha-Mrchaiya 53 - 98 - - - - - - 5 Zeromile-Bariyarpatti - - - - - - - - - - Lahan-Tandi - - - - - - - - - - 20 Udaypur Gaighat-Chhade-Nepaltar - - - - - - - - - - Gaighat-Beltar-Chatara - - - - - - - - - - 334 3 210 61 2 3 26 1 Total 547 66 27 Total 640 57 20 Annex 4: Losses & Damages of Residential Structures (Non-Title Holders) and Loss of livelihood SN District Name of the Road Up to 25% 25.1-50% 50.1-100% d i ki i ki i ki oo ch ch ch lih Pakki Pakki Pakki ve ssoL Kach Kach Kach Li Semi-Pak Semi-Pak Semi-Pak 1 Kailali Khutiya-Matiyari - - - - - - - - - 2 Sukhad-Khaliad-Bhajani - - - - - - - - 3 Bardiya Rajapur Ringroad - - - - - - 24 - - 4 Banke MRM-Titariya - - - - - - - - - 5 Paraspur-Gaughat - - - - - - - 6 Salyan Kha. Hospital-Simkharka-Kubinde - - - - - - - - - 7 Kapilbastu Chakarchauda-Pakadi-Pipara - - - - - - - - - 14 8 Sibalawa-Lab-Lakhanchowk - - - - - - - - - 9 Imiliya-Maharajgunj-Hardauna - - - - - - - - 10 Tikkar-Buddhi-Bijgauri-Hulaki - - - - - - - - - 11 Rupandehi Mukundagadh-Simara - - - - - - - - - 12 Dhakdhai-Khaireni - - - - - - - - - 13 Fireline-Lumbini 1 - - - - - - - - 14 Madhauliya-Bhutaha - - - - - - - - 15 Nawalparasi Daldale-Dawadi - - - - - - - - - 16 Panchanagar-Maheshpur 20 - - - - - - - 17 Palpa Aryabhanjyang-Rampur - - - - - - - - 18 Harthok-Chatara-Tingaire - - - - - - 1 - 19 Banstari-Jadhewa - - - - - - - - 20 Syangja Bhadkhola-Dulegauda - - - - - - - - 21 Waling-Huwas - - - - - - - - - 22 Nagdanda-Karkineta - - - - - - - - 23 Rangkhola-Biruwa - - - - - - - - - 24 Mirdi-Jagatbhanjyang - - - - - - - - - 25 Kaski Rakhi-Mijure - - - - - - - - 26 Lamachaur-Machchapuchhre - - - - - - - - - 27 Dhading Dhadingbesi-Salyantar - - - - - - - - - 28 Bhimdhunga-Lamidanda - - - - - - - - 29 Nuwakot Trisuli-Deurali-Meghang - - - - - - 30 Rasuwa Kalikasthan-Dhunge - - - - - - - - - 31 Makawanpur Hatiya-Raigaun - - - - - - - - 32 Kulekhani-Pakhel-Humane - - - - - - - - - 2 33 Padampokhari-handikhola - - - - - - - - - 34 Rautahat Gaur-Gangapipara-Santapur - - - - - - 4 - - 35 Gaur-Banjaraha-Inerwari 93 - - - - - - - - 36 Auraiya-Bankul-Himalibas 109 - - - - - - - - 37 Sarlahi Kaudena-Jankinagar - - - - 16 - - 38 Karmaiya-Hathauli - - - - - - - - - 39 Mahottari Jaleshwor-Rauja-Bardibas 3 - - - - - - - - 40 Mattihani-Pipara-Brahmapur 2 - 2 - - - - - - 41 Dhanusa Janakpur-Manaharpur-Khari - - - - - - - - - 42 Siraha Siraha-Mrchaiya 40 - - - - - - - - 43 Zeromile-Bariyarpatti - - - - - - - - - 44 Lahan-Tandi - - - - - - - - - 45 Udaypur Gaighat-Chhade-Nepaltar - - - - - - - - - 46 Gaighat-Beltar-Chatara - - - - - - - - - 268 0 2 0 0 0 44 1 Total 270 0 45 Grand Total 315 16 21