1PP1 88 VOL. 1 Final Report MINISTRY OF WORKS & HUMAN SETTLEMENT DEPARTMENT OF ROADS

Public Disclosure Authorized Rural Access Project 11

SOCIAL ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK 5~~~~ ~ r sw *--\|i - 4 9 Public Disclosure Authorized

p iI 3-- Public Disclosure Authorized

Focus group discussion, Dagana

Public Disclosure Authorized Kyingkhor Consultancy Services May 2006 Acronyms & Abbreviations BDFC Development Finance Corporation BHU Basic Health Unit CBO Community Based Organizations DE Engineer DoR Department of Roads DSLR Department of Survey & Land Records DYT Dzongkhag Yargye Tshogchung EA Extension Agent EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EFRC Environment Friendly Road Construction FYP Five-Year Plan GYT Gewog Yargye Tshogchung HA Health Assistant HH Household IDA International Development Assistance masl Meters above sea level MoA Ministry of Agriculture MoW&HS Ministry of Works & Human Settlement NEC National Environmental Commission Nu. Local Currency (1 US $ = Nu 45) ORC Out-reach Clinic PAP Project Affected People RAP Resettlement Action Plan RGoB Royal Govemment of Bhutan RNR Renewable Natural Resources RPF Resettlement Policy Framework SA Social Assessment SAF Social Assessment Framework SNV Netherlands Development Organization ToR Terms of Reference

Glossary of Bhutanese words Chatrim Legislation/Rules Chuzhing Wetland Chupen Gup's assistant, village messenger Dzongdag District Administrator Dzongkhag District Gewog It is the equivalent of a block: administrative unit Genja Agreement Gung Household Gup Elected Administrative head of Gewog Kamzhing Dryland Lag thram A document with details of land ownership Maang aap Village elder - Gup's Officiate Rimdo Rituals Shapto-lemi Labour contribution for developmental works Satshab Substitute land Thram Land record Tsamdo Grazing area in forest registered in individual/community land - only the right to use Tseri Slash and burn system of land use Tshogpa Committee (people's representative at village level) Woola System of labour contribution to works of communal interest Zomdue Gathering TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... IV 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 COUNTRY BACKGROUND ...... 1 1.2 THE RuRAL ACCESS PROJECT ...... 1 2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES ...... 2 3 APROACH AND METHODOLOGY ...... 2 3.1 SCOPE OF THE SOCIAL ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK ...... 2 3.2 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ...... 3 3.2.1 Socio-economic Profile and Baseline ...... 3 3.2.2 Stakeholder Consultations...... 3 3.2.3 Assessment of Social Impacts and Risks ...... 3 3.2.4 Review of Land Acquisition and Social Assessment Policies and Practices ...... 4 3.3 VOLUNTARY LAND DONATION ...... 5 3.4 IMPACTS ON VULNERABLE SOCIAL GROUPS ...... 5 3.5 DATA COLLECTION NEEDS AND SOURCES ...... 6 4 SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE ...... 6 4.1 COUNTRY OVERVIEW ...... 6 4.2 OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT AREA...... 8 4.2.1 Dzongkhag Profiles...... 8 4.2.2 Gewog Profiles...... 11 4.2.3 Household socio-economic profile ...... 14 5 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND ANALYSIS ...... 16 5.1 METHODOLOGY AND CONSULTATION PROCESS ...... 17 5.2 FINDINGS OF THE STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS ...... 18 5.3 PARTICIPATION ...... 20 6 POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND GUIDELINES ON LAND ACQUISITION ...... 21 6.1 RGoB LAND ACQUISITION REGULATORY REGIME ...... 21 6.2 WORLD BANK SOCIAL SAFEGUARD POLICIES ON INVOLUNTARY RESETTLEMENT ...... 24 6.3 HARMONIZATION OF WORLD BANK AND RGoB POLICIES ...... 26 7 EXPERIENCES AND LESSONS LEARNT FROM RAP PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION ...... 29 7.1 STAKEHOLDER ASSESSMENT ...... 29 7.2 LESSONS LEARNT DURING IMPLEMENTATION ...... 31 7.3 KEY SUGGESTIONS FOR THE FOLLOW ON PROJECT ...... 33 8 SOCIAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT ...... 34 8.1 DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVES ...... 34 8.2 SOCIAL SCREENING ...... 34 8.3 RESETTLEMENT POLIcy FRAMEWORK ...... 35 8.4 PRINCIPLES AND OBJECTIVES ...... 36 8.5 ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA ...... 37 8.6 ENTITLEMENT POLICY ...... 37 8.7 VOLUNTARY LAND DONATION ...... 38 8.8 IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS ...... 39 8.9 GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISMS ...... 39 8.10 FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS ...... 40 8.11 CONSULTATIONPARTICIPATION ...... 40 8.12 MONITORING AND E V ...... A L U A T IO N 40

ii 9 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES ...... 40 9.1 THE REGULATORY STRUCTURE ...... 40 9.2 EVALUATION OF REGULATORY STRUCTURE ...... 42 9.2.1 Institutional Arrangements for Social Issues Management ...... 43 9.2.2 Evaluation of Institutional Arrangements for Social Issues Management ...... 43 10 IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS ...... 44 10.1 INSTITUTIONALARRANGEMENTS...... 44 10.2 MONITORING & EVALUATION ...... 45 10.2.1 Indicators for monitoring ...... 46

Annexures Annexure 1 List of participants to focus group discussions & list of affected households ...... 51 Annexure 2 Socio-economic Survey Report for Drujeygang-Balung Road ...... 60 Annexure 2.1 Socio-economic Survey Report for Jangchucholing-Tashidingkha Road ...... 68 Annexure 3 Social Screening Report for Drujeygang-Balung Road ...... 73 Annexure 3.1 Social Screening Report for Jangchucholing-Tashidingkha Road ...... 77 Annexure 4 Format for voluntary land donation ...... 80 Annexure 5 Guidelines and Checklist for stakeholder consultations (focus group discussions) ...... 81 Annexure 6 Work Plan ...... 85 Annexure 7 Terms of Reference ...... 86

List of tables Table 1 Project villages covered by the assessment ...... 17 Table 2 Date of consultation, venue and the villages covered ...... 17 Table 3 No of participants in consultations in selected villages of the RAP 11 ...... 18 Table 4 Cash Compensation Rates for Land Acquisition ...... 24 Table 5 Compensation rates (in Nu.) for fruit by type and age in number of years ...... 24 Table 6 Comparisons between World Bank Safeguard Policies and RGoB Regulatory Regime ...... 27 Table 7 Entitlement Policy Matrixes ...... 38 Table 8 Comparisons of Options for Strengthening Social Issues Management Capacity ...... 44

iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Majority of Bhutan's population lives in remote villages, often several days walk from the nearest road. The rural communities face enormous challenges in accessing public services and market opportunities for their farm products. Poverty in Bhutan is primarily a rural phenomenon with 38.3 percent of the rural population and 4.2 percent of the urban population living below the national poverty line of Nu 740.36 per capita per month. The absence of roads is a major contributing factor to poverty. Less than half of Bhutan's population lives within a half-day's walk from a road. Agricultural land covers 7.8 percent of the total area with several pockets of fertile soil. Land holdings are fragmented and small (two-thirds of farmers have holdings under two hectares), and farm mechanization is very limited. Almost two-thirds of women are employed in agriculture and 70 percent of them own land, making them the primary producers in the sector. Road construction and maintenance in Bhutan's mountainous terrain is a particularly challenging endeavor, and complicated by monsoon floods, landslides, and icy conditions. Improving rural access is an important objective of the Royal Government of Bhutan (RGoB). The RGoB is implementing Rural Access Project in selected Dzongkhags with credit from the International Development Agency (IDA). Rural road infrastructure is critical not only for economic development of the area and its population, but also contributes significantly to overall social development. Besides providing improved transport services, it would reduce travel time and transport costs. Very remote areas of the country are expected to benefit through the Rural Access Project. In addition to IDA, the implementing agency, the Department of Roads (DoR) is also being supported with Technical Assistance from SNV, the Netherlands Development Organization. In the second phase of RAP, DoR under the Ministry of Works & Human Settlement (MoWHS) is seeking IDA support for financing construction of about 65-75 kms of feeder roads in Wangduephodrang and Dagana dzongkhags which cover an area of 5,427 km2 including most of the west central part of the country. The RAP Phase II will comprise of two main components: a physical component and a capacity building and advisory services component, which will be combined with institutional strengthening to ensure efficient financial processes and fund flow, reporting, and environmental and social impact management. Wangduephodrang is the second largest dzongkhag in the country with a total area of about 4,038 km2 and elevation ranging from 800 to 5800 meters above sea level. The Dzongkhag consists of fifteen gewogs. There are 3,067 rural households, making up an estimated total population of 22,800. The higher altitude gewogs of Phobjikha, Gangtey, Sephu and Dangchu mainly depend on livestock rearing. The Phobjikha Gewog is known for winter nesting place of the black-necked cranes and potato cultivation. The Jigme Dorji National Park extends into the northem part while a major portion of the dzongkhag falls under Jigmi Singye National Park. Dagana Dzongkhag lies in the west central region with a total area of approximately 1389 km2 and the elevation ranging from 600m to over 3800m above sea level. The Dzongkhag consists of 11 gewogs with 2575 households and a population of 21,363. People are comprised of Ngalong, Sharchokpa, Khengpa and Lhotsapmpa. Settlements are fairly dispersed and remote. In the four gewogs of Dagana and Wangdue dzongkhag, a socio economic survey was carried out that covered some 241 households with a total population of 1,822. Survey findings indicate that fifty two percent of the populations are women and on average there are 8.5 members per household. Forty seven percent of the sample population consisted of farmers, while 24% were students. According to survey results sixty-nine percent of the population is illiterate. The land use type is predominantly dry land followed by wetland and tseri. The average land holding is 5.18 acres in Dagana, while in Dangchu the size of land holding is 2.91 acres. In Dagana, there is a Renewable Natural Resources (RNR) Centre at Drujeygang which takes about 1-2 hrs to reach the centre from the surrounding villages. Tshangkha has an RNR Centre,

iv and there is Agriculture and Livestock centre at Lajab. Average walking distance to these centres is about 2- 3 hours walk. The nearest schools for the sample households are located at Drujeygang, Tshangkhatar, Phuensumgang under the Drujeygang, Tshangkha, and Lajab gewogs respectively. It takes about 1-3 hrs from different villages to reach the schools. There is a Basic Health Unit (BHU) in gewogs of Dagana located at Drujeygang, Tshangkhatar, and Phuensumgang. It takes about 2-3 hours walk from the villages. The nearest hospital is at Damphu in Tsirang dzongkhag, which is one-day walk from the gewog. Majority of the households reported access to emergency services as "poor". The health status of the women and children was reported to be poor. In Dangchu, Wangdue there is an RNR Centre at Tangrey. From the surrounding villages it takes about 3 to 3.5 hrs to reach he centre on foot. It takes about 3 hrs from Tashidingkha, to reach the nearest primary school at Tangrey, and about 1.5 hrs from Rida goenpa to reach the lower secondary school located at Nobding. There is a BHU at Tangrey which is 1.5 hrs far from Tashidingkha, and also at Bajo which is about 3.5 hours walk from Rida Goenpa. The nearest hospital is at Wangdue which is 3.5 hrs far from Rida Goenpa, and 5.2 hrs walk from Tashidingkha. Sixty percent of the sample households reported access to emergency services as "poor". Health status of women and children was also reported as "poor". Major sources of income for the sample households include: sale of agriculture and livestock products, sale of animals, working as casual labour and hiring out of horses/mules. The annual average income of sample households was Nu 27,000 in Drujeygang, Nu 51,000 in Lajab, Nu 45,551 in Tshangkha, and Nu 38,194 in Dangchu, Wangduephodrang. The households mainly incurred expenditures on purchase of essential food items, education of children, purchase of farm inputs, purchase of clothes, and contribution for village rituals (Rimdo). The average annual household expenditure in the three gewogs of Dagana ranged from Nu 14,669 to Nu 22,188. In of Wangdue, the average annual household expenditure was Nu. 15,616. To facilitate the assessment and management of potential adverse social impacts arising from the project, the Department of Roads, MoW&HS has prepared a Social Assessment Framework (SAF) based on RGoB's relevant legislation and guidelines including the Land Act (1979) and associated Land Compensation Rates (1996) as well as the World Bank's Operational Policy (OP) 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement and Operational Directive (OD) 4.20 on Indigenous Peoples. The SAF details the guiding principles, policies and processes for assessing the project's potential social impacts and defining opportunities to enhance benefits and mitigate adverse social impacts. It contains modalities for profiling socio-economic conditions, identifying stakeholder groups and analyzing their interests and concerns, conducting social screening to assess potential impacts and linking these findings to project design. The institutional structure to support social impact management, including capacity building requirements and monitoring and evaluation mechanisms are also detailed in the SAF. In accordance with relevant RGoB policies and procedures and World Bank's OP 4.12, the SAF also includes a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) to address any potential impacts from loss of land, structures and assets, livelihoods and community resources. This framework has been prepared on the basis of consultations with key stakeholders and project affected people, and the proposed project design of the project. Although developed on an analysis of impacts of the two proposed roads, it is a "project" framework applicable to other project roads to be constructed during the entire project period.

v Key objectives of the SAF are to: - Develop guidelines for identifying and assessing the nature and magnitude of social impacts and options for managing these impacts. - Review RGoB's existing policies, operational procedures and practices, and institutional arrangements at the national, dzongkhag and gewog levels to address and mitigate social impacts. - Assess the compatibility of the core principles of RGoB's policies and World Bank policies; identify any gaps, and present recommendations for addressing these gaps. Consultations with primary stakeholders (beneficiaries, poor and vulnerable groups, people who may potentially be impacted adversely by the project) were carried out in selected gewogs and villages of the two project for identification and assessment of social impacts. The objective of these focus group discussions was to disseminate information about the project, seek the perceptions and concerns of community members about the positive and negative social impacts of the project, and their experience with voluntary land donation. Consultations were also carried out with secondary stakeholders, community representatives as well as gewog and dzongkhag administrations and the National Environment Commission (NEC). The main stakeholders of the project include: the beneficiary community, including the rich, poor, and vulnerable groups. The Gewog level stakeholders comprised the Gewog administration, rural and social sectors and the GYT. At the Dzongkhag level the stakeholders comprised the district administration consisting of the rural and social development sectors (Health, Education, RNR, and Engineering) and the DYT. Key findings from these consultations indicate that road has always, been the top priority of people in Drujeyang, Tshangkha, Lajab and Dangchu gewogs. The proposal for a road in Dangchu was initiated by the people during the 8th Five Year Plan but was not constructed due to lack of funding. The people of Tshangkha and Lajab gewogs submitted a petition for road to Her Royal Highness Ashi Dorji Wangmo Wangchuk, the queen during her visit to these gewogs in 2002. The proposal for this road was reflected in the Road Master Plan 2002. All households in these communities had participated in the planning process and expect to be involved in the implementation of these plans. The community members expect enhanced livelihoods through production and sale of farm produce, increase in crop yields and easier access to new farming technology as positive social impacts of the project. They also expect better access to health and education services. The most negative social impact identified by community members was the potential for loss of small parcels of land. However, according to a majority of stakeholders consulted, the benefits of the project out weigh impacts from minor losses of land. There was broad consensus in all these communities that land acquired by the project would be voluntarily donated. The informal and formal procedures for voluntary land donation were viewed by these community members as satisfactory and working well. No major negative impacts were anticipated through loss of large parcels of land, assets, livelihoods and relocation during project implementation. Separate consultations were carried out in these communities with vulnerable people, including women and women headed households, the most poor, farmers with small land holdings and the landless to ascertain their views and perceptions about the project. Out of a total of 141 vulnerable people consulted, 71% of them were women. Many of them were divorcees having many children. Generally, they own less than half an acre of land or are landless with limited sources of income. They do not expect the road to benefit them directly, but they hope that the opportunities for employment may increase with the increased economic activities after the road. The poor and single divorcee women expect to get better access to health services after the road. The poor households expressed that they will leave compensation assistance to the government if they are faced with any adverse impacts.

vi From these consultations it appears that all households irrespective of their social and economic status were represented during the planning process. Site visits also concluded that there were no social groups present in these communities with a social and cultural identity distinct from the dominant society that makes them vulnerable to being disadvantaged in the development process. The policy requirements of the World Bank's Operational Directive 4.20 on Indigenous Peoples to ensure the participation of indigenous and vulnerable groups in decision making throughout the planning and implementation phases of the subprojects, and that these groups are provided assistance in accordance to their priorities are addressed by the design of the project. A stock taking of experiences and lessons learned from the implementation of the First Rural Access Project (RAP I) was carried mainly through review of Annual Impact Monitoring Reports, project documents, and consultation with executing agency (DoR) and the Dzongkhags. This is expected to guide implementation of the future projects on rural access. Key findings and suggestions are summarized below. The RAP Phase I roads have started to contribute positively on the improvement of livelihood of the communities. The roads have provided easy access to communication, health, education, and agricultural services to the rural communities. With the introduction of transport services, the travel time has been significantly reduced. Transportation of marketable surpluses and household consumables is easier and cheaper after the road. The communities are now relieved from contributing free labour for transportation of construction materials for schools, BHUs, and other infrastructure. The road has brought great relief to women from carrying loads for developmental works. New shops have come up and the trade and business has picked up. New developmental activities are planned after the road. It is expected that there will be more employment opportunities for the youth in the rural areas. No negative impact to the communities or to the environment has been observed. The beneficiary communities have expressed their willingness to participate in the maintenance of the roads For planning and selection of new roads there is a need for greater involvement of the beneficiary communities and the Dzongkhags especially during the feasibility studies. The vulnerable, poor and the affected households should be enabled to express their views on problems, needs and aspirations. A better coordination is required at the planning stage involving all stakeholders. A dzongkhag level rural access master plan is required for selection of new roads. Guidelines and selection criteria needs to be developed. The rural access development through roads needs to be linked with other development programmes to bring in the desired impact of the roads. The alignment of road should ensure connection to as many settlements as possible. The project support for EFRC should continue to build the required capacity. The monitoring on compliance of specifications for the EFRC should receive more attention. As a part of the award of contract, it is recommended that a mandatory provision of a clause is required for repairs in case of damages of community assets like irrigation water supply etc. More awareness needs to be created among contractors on the obligation and liabilities. There is a need to improve the capacity of the contractors in preparing and submitting bids. For the supervision of project site activities, a systematic supervisory mechanism needs to be put in place. There is a need to improve DoR capacity for supervision of work and the contractors should be involved in monitoring of the works. For land acquisition and resettlement planning, the RGoB should consider revising the land compensation rate due to increasing cost of land even in rural areas. The land acquisition process should include surveyors for proper assessment of the affected areas. There is a need

VIi to build capacity within the DoR or MoW&HS to address social issues. A full time social development officer is required to coordinate and lead the social impact management To assess the precise nature and magnitude of social impacts, social screening will be carried out as part of the feasibility studies for each road. A standard social screening format has been prepared which builds upon the current environmental screening guidelines. To the extent possible, social and environment screening should be carried out together with technical and economic screening. Social screening will identify the potential for loss of land, assets/structures, livelihoods, willingness of the community to donate land to the project, and other significant social impacts. The results of this review will provide recommendations for the exclusion of the project if involuntary land acquisition or serious social impacts are anticipated. The social screening criteria agreed with the World Bank is expected to eliminate all project sites that may require the acquisition of privately owned land for first year subprojects. Social screening will also enable the categorization of projects based on their level of social impacts. Where the extent of adverse social impacts is minor and no displacement or loss of assets or livelihoods is expected, further social assessment will not be necessary. However, for those projects where there is a potential for land acquisition and/or significant social impacts, detailed social assessments/studies will be carried out and if required appropriate social safeguard instruments (i.e. Project Resettlement Action Plans) developed. Social screening has been carried out for the two project roads as part of the social impact assessment. In both project roads these were no adverse social impacts observed. Initial screening findings indicate that any extra land for the proposed project roads will only be voluntary through voluntary land donations. No relocation of people is anticipated. No lands, houses or other private properties of the people were affected. Land acquisition for project roads is to be acquired on a voluntary donation basis. Also, none of the potential beneficiaries would lose 25% of more of their land as any land acquisition is expected to be very small. The acquisition of privately owned land and relocation of people affected by project activities appears unlikely. The project is also not expected to impact people's income and livelihoods. Vulnerable groups in the communities project works to be implemented likewise would not be adversely impacted. Further, the project is also not expected to impact adversely on common property resources namely religious and cultural sites and structures. The result of the screening confirms the nature of social impacts identified through stakeholder consultations and site visits to gewogs where similar works have already been implemented. No relocation of people is anticipated. The screening findings will be discussed with design engineers and to the extent possible incorporated into project design to avoid or minimize impacts. Both the roads under the projects are expected to cause minimal negative social impacts. Therefore, resettlement is unlikely in these two road sections. However, as a precautionary measure, a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) has been prepared to address any impacts arising from the construction of these two proposed feeder roads involving: (i) loss of land; (ii) loss of homes/structures; (iii) loss of livelihood systems/income opportunity (due to the lost of productive land or impact to a structure where a livelihood activity is being carried out); and (iv) loss of community property resources (religious structures, grazing land). The RPF defines the legal, institutional and implementation framework to guide the compensation for lost assets, livelihoods, community property, and resettlement and rehabilitation of project affected people in accordance with the World Bank's Operational Policy 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement and RGoB guidelines and legislation. Key provisions of RGoB's Land Act (1979) and the World Bank's policy were compared, policy gaps identified and recommendations made to address these gaps. This review formed the underlying basis of

viii developing the RPF, especially the policy matrix for entitlements for losses suffered under the project. The RPF will be applicable to all road projects funded under RAP Phase 11. To the extent possible, the project will consider alternative engineering designs to minimize adverse social impacts and land acquisition. Where the social screening indicates that land acquisition and/or loss of assets is unavoidable, a project Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) will be prepared for which the RPF provides guiding principles and procedures. The RAPs will be based on more detailed social assessment and include the following: - Project and subproject description. - Description of subproject losses and impacts. - Baseline survey and census data. - Policy entitlements related to additional impacts identified through the survey or census. - Time-bound implementation plan. - Costs and budgets. Implementation arrangements to support social impact management will basically follow normal practices, policies, and procedures. There will be a Project Management Unit in the DoR which will be responsible for overseeing the implementation of SAF activities. Oversight of the social aspects of the project will be done in close collaboration with geog and dzongkhag administrations. Implementing agencies will be decentralized and essentially comprise the 4 gewogs and 2 dzonkhags in the project area. The data collection and reporting procedures will follow the existing guidelines on Monitoring and Evaluation. At the gewog level M&E activities will be the responsibility of the GYT. At the dzongkhag level, the District Planning Officer will be the key individual for collection M & E data, including data relevant for monitoring social impacts. Tracking overall progress of the program will be the responsibility of the DoR and the MoW&HS. Project implementation will require coordination between different agencies and departments. In line with the Environment Act and following the practice of other ministries, MoW&HS will appoint internal suitably qualified staff to provide coordination and oversight on the social aspects of the project. Many of the decentralized implementation arrangements are new and capacity-building is needed at gewog, dzongkhag and MoW&HS levels to effectively implement social impact management activities and if necessary resettlement action plans. The institutional strengthening component of the project will include training to build capacity on social screening, assessment and mitigation. In line with the Environment Act, there is a need to strengthen the capacity on social management through additional training to existing (and proposed) environmental officers and road engineers, so that they have the technical ability to manage the identification, mitigation, and monitoring of the social impacts of new developments.

ix I INTRODUCTION

1.1 Country Background Majority of Bhutan's population lives in remote villages, often several days walk from the nearest road. The rural communities face enormous challenges in accessing public services and market opportunities for their farm products. Poverty in Bhutan is primarily a rural phenomenon', with 38.3 percent of the rural population and 4.2 percent of the urban population living below the national poverty line of Nu 740.36 per capita per month. The absence of roads is a major contributing factor to poverty. Less than half of Bhutan's population lives within a half-day's walk from a road. In rural areas, access to education and health services is limited. Efforts to diversification into cash crops cannot hope to reduce poverty if markets are beyond reach. Indeed, demand for rural roads features as a high priority for most gewogs in their local development plans. Road construction and maintenance in Bhutan's mountainous terrain is a particularly challenging endeavor, and complicated by monsoon floods, landslides, and icy conditions.

Bhutan is not overpopulated. It has many scattered areas of fertile soil (agricultural land covers 7.8 percent of the country) and generally with good water supply. Land holdings are fragmented and small (two-thirds of farmers have holdings under two hectares), and farm mechanization is very limited. Almost two-thirds of women are employed in agriculture and 70 percent of them own land, making them the primary producers in the sector.

1.2 The Rural Access Project Improving rural access is an important objective of the Royal Government of Bhutan (RGoB). The RGoB is implementing Rural Access Project in selected Dzongkhags with credit from the World Bank. Rural road infrastructure is critical not only for economic development of the area and its population, but also contributes significantly to overall social development of the area and better access to social services such as better access to health, education. Besides providing improved transport services, it would reduce travel time and transport costs and it opens new economic and employment opportunities through linkages to new markets, production centers and other areas of economic opportunities. Thus, there is a strong link between transport and poverty reduction and overall social development in the area. This becomes even more evident in the Bhutan Rural Access Project (BRAP), where very remote areas would benefit through the Rural Access Projects Phase I and Phase II.

The Department of Roads (DoR) under the Ministry of Works and Human Settlement is entrusted with the responsibility of roads construction and maintenance in Bhutan. The Department of Roads is implementing the Rural Access Project (RAP) with credit from the World Bank (WB) and Technical Assistance from the SNV, the Netherlands Development Organisation. The BRAP is carrying out environment friendly road construction in the five Dzongkhags of Zhemgang, Trashigang, Trashi-Yangtse, Lhuentse, and Mongar.

The department of roads under the Ministry of Works and Human Settlement (MoWHS) is seeking IDA support for financing construction of about 65-75 kilometer of feeder roads. The main objective of the project is to improve the access of rural communities to markets, schools, health centers and other economic and social infrastructure, in order to improve the quality of life and productivity of project beneficiaries,. The project will have a similar focus and implementation arrangements as the initial Road Access Project (RAP I), currently under implementation. Specifically it will comprise of two components: a physical component and a capacity building and advisory services component.

' Poverty Analysis Report 2004 The DoR plans to take up construction of about 65 to 75 Kms feeder roads mentioned below under a follow up/next credit of the World Bank. 1) Jangchucholing - Tashidingkha Road (Wangduephodrang) :14.30 kms 2) Drujeygang-Balung Road (Dagana). : 42.50 kms

The proposed roads will improve the socioeconomic status of the rural population of those villages by providing market access to the rural community.

This SAF has been based on the assessment of the two roads mentioned above out of the 3 proposed RAP II roads. This SAF will also apply to the third road and other roads in the RAP Phase II.

2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose and overall objectives of the Social Assessment Framework are to: 1) Review RGoB's current policies, operational procedures and practices to address and mitigate social issues including those related to gender; 2) Review the World Bank's social safeguard policies and guidelines and access the compatibility of the core principles of the Royal Government of Bhutan's (RGoB) policies with World Bank policies and identify any gaps; 3) Suggest measures for policy enhancements at the gewog, dzongkhag and national levels where necessary; 4) Prepare a Social Assessment Framework (SAF) that details the guiding principles and methodology for screening all project interventions for social impacts, identifies appropriate measures to manage and mitigate adverse social impacts and outlines social documentation preparation requirements (e.g. Resettlement Action Plans).

3 APROACH AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 Scope of the Social Assessment Framework The SAF provides the guiding principles, policies and processes for assessing the project's potential social impacts and defining opportunities to enhance benefits and mitigate adverse social impacts. It includes the modalities for profiling socio-economic conditions, identifying stakeholder groups and analyzing their interests and concerns, conducting social screening to assess potential impacts and linking these findings to project design. The institutional structure to support social impact management, including capacity building requirements and monitoring and evaluation mechanism are also detailed in the SAF. In accordance with relevant RGoB policies and procedures and World Bank's OP 4.12, the SAF proposes a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) to address impacts from loss of land, assets and livelihoods.

The objective of adopting a framework approach is that the detail design of all proposed project interventions spread over three years, may not be known or finalized at project appraisal. Therefore, a socio-economic assessment of a sample of planned first year project works on road sections in Wangduephodrang and Dagana have been carried out and used as a basis for preparing this framework.

2 The framework has been developed on the basis of consultations with key stakeholders and project affected people, and the project design.

3.2 Approach and Methodology The approach underlying the assessment of social impacts and developing appropriate mitigation strategies is based on the principles of local participation and consultations with stakeholders, including vulnerable groups, during all stages of the project from initial design to implementation. The broad methodology and methodological tools used for the preparation of the SAF are detailed below.

3.2.1 Socio-economic Profile and Baseline A socio-economic baseline has been prepared based on socio-economic survey of a sample of the population affected by proposed first year project interventions, as well as on secondary sources. Also presented is a broad overview of the dzongkhags where the projects will be implemented and their levels of socio-economic development. This baseline information is used to evaluate the socio-economic status of project affected people prior to the commencement of any project activities and will be used to measure the project's impact on this population at project completion.

3.2.2 Stakeholder Consultations The identification of stakeholders and social impacts involves systematic consultation with project beneficiaries, project affected people, women, vulnerable and poor members of the community, and other stakeholders who may have an influence over the project. To identify social impacts and concerns, consultations were undertaken with primarv stakeholders: beneficianes, poor and vulnerable groups, people who may potentially be impacted adversely by the project, and the implementing agency (DoR). Consultations were also carried out with secondary stakeholders: local community based organizations (CBOs), community representatives, other agencies including Planning Commission, Department of Survey & Land Records, Department of Agriculture and the National Environment Commission.

Consultations with beneficiaries of the project were held in selected gewogs and villages in the two districts were the project is to be implemented. Focus group discussions were conducted with a cross-section of men and women in the community. The objective of these discussions is to gain and in-depth understanding of project issues and concerns from a broad group of discussants, including people who may be affected from loss of land. The consultations focused on: inclusiveness in participation of community members in planning, perceptions and concerns about the positive and negative social impacts of the project, and experience of community members in voluntarily donating land. Separate individual interviews were held with vulnerable members of the community to disseminate information about the project and to understand their views about the project. A checklist of questions and guide used is presented in Annexure 5.

3.2.3 Assessment of Social Impacts and Risks The specific objectives of the Social Assessment Framework (SAF) are twofold. First, it will build upon the lessons learned from the initial Rural Access Project (RAP I) and define the overarching principles and processes for screening and assessing potential social impacts, including impacts on, benefits to, and the participation of local beneficiary communities in project preparation and implementation. It defines implementation, institutional, participatory monitoring and evaluation modalities, as well as special measures to protect and ensure the inclusion of socially and economically vulnerable groups such as female headed households, ethnic groups, and people living in extreme poverty.

3 Secondly, the SAF defines appropriate mitigation measures, and when social safeguard studies based on the guiding principles of RGoB's and the World Bank's social safeguard policies will need to be prepared (i.e. Resettlement Action Plans or Vulnerable Communities Development Plans).

3.2.3.1 Social Screening and Identification of Social Impacts Social screening will be carried out as part of the feasibility studies for each project road and social screening criteria will be developed and fully integrated into RGoB guidelines. The screening will identify the potential for loss of land, assets/structures, livelihoods, willingness of the community to donate land to the project, and other significant adverse social impacts. The results of this review will include recommendations for the exclusion of the subproject if involuntary land acquisition or serious social impacts are anticipated. The social screening criteria agreed with the World Bank is expected to eliminate all project sites that may require the acquisition of privately owned land. Where the extent of social impacts is minor and not displacement or loss of assets or livelihoods is expected, further social assessment will not be required. However, where there is potential for land acquisition and/or significant adverse social impacts a further detailed social assessment/studies be carried, and if required appropriate social safeguard instruments developed (Resettlement Action Plans). The social screening criteria agreed with the World Bank is expected to eliminate all project sites that may require the acquisition of privately owned land, for planned first year project works.

To assess the precise nature and magnitude of social impacts, social screening will be carried out as part of the feasibility studies for each road. A standard social screening format, presented in Annexure 2 has been prepared which builds upon the current NEC environmental screening guidelines and includes: - Loss of land. - Loss of structures - Loss of livelihoods - Impacts on vulnerable groups - Impacts on common community resources - Willingness of communities to volunteer land

3.2.4 Review of Land Acquisition and Social Assessment Policies and Practices A review of current RGoB policies, procedures and practices relating to land acquisition and social issues and the World Bank's social safeguard policies OP 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement and OD 4.20 on Indigenous Peoples was carried out to assess the compatibility of the core principles of both set of policies and identify how to harmonize and address any gaps.

The review identifies areas that need modification and strengthening and recommend measures for policy enhancements. Recommendations for policy enhancements where possible are made within the context of the current legal framework and existing procedures and processes.

3.2.4.1 Resettlement Policy Framework The proposed project interventions are expected cause minimal negative social impacts. However as a precautionary measure, a RPF has been prepared to address impacts arising from the construction of the proposed feeder roads: (i) loss of land; (ii) loss of homes/structures; (iii) loss of livelihood systems/income opportunity (due to the loss of productive land or impact to a structure where a livelihood activity is being carried out); and (iv) loss of community property resources such as religious and cultural structures.

4 The RPF defines the legal, institutional and implementation framework to guide the compensation for lost assets, livelihoods, community property, and resettlement and rehabilitation of project affected people in accordance with the World Bank's Operational Policy 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement and RGOB guidelines and legislation. Key provisions of RGoB's Land Act (1979) and associated Land Compensation Rates (1996) and the World Bank's policy are compared, policy gaps identified and recommendations made to address these gaps. This review forms the underlying basis of developing the RPF, especially the policy matrix for entitlements for losses suffered under the project. An Entitlement Matrix has been prepared which accommodates the provisions of RPF and the rules and regulations of RGoB.

To the extent possible, the project will consider alternative engineering designs to minimize adverse social impacts and land acquisition. Where social screening indicates that land acquisition and/or loss of assets is unavoidable, a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) needs to be prepared for which the RPF provides overarching guidance on principles and procedures. Resettlement Action Plans need to be based on more detailed social studies/assessment and include the following: - Project description. - Description of losses and impacts. - Baseline survey and census data. - Policy entitlements related to additional impacts identified through the survey or census. - Time-bound implementation plan. - Costs and budgets.

3.3 Voluntary Land Donation Although no acquisition of privately owned land is expected under the proposed project, the SAF will provide specific criteria for the acquisition of land donated voluntarily by project beneficiaries. This will include provisions that any impacts from voluntary land donation do not result in the displacement of people, any loss of incomes or livelihoods, and that people making the voluntary donations are beneficiaries of the project.

The proposed project should also ensure that the process of voluntary land donation is transparent and appropriately documented. Where displacement or negative social/environmental impacts of an involuntary nature are unavoidable, the social assessment process will provide the basis for the required compensation and rehabilitation of the affected people.

3.4 Impacts on Vulnerable Social Groups Separate stakeholder consultations were carried out in selected project gewogs and villages with vulnerable community members to identify their participation in the planning process, and ascertain their views and perceptions about the project. The field visits and consultations looked into social groups present in the communities with a social and cultural identity distinct from the dominant society that makes them vulnerable to being disadvantaged in the development process. The policy requirements of the World Bank's Operational Directive 4.20 on Indigenous Peoples to ensure the participation of indigenous and vulnerable groups in decision making throughout the planning and implementation phases of the projects, and that these groups are provided assistance in accordance to their priorities are addressed by the design of the project.

To effectively monitor project impacts on the vulnerable, the socio-economic baselines established for the project include data on representative vulnerable households. Monitoring indicators include gender and vulnerability specific indicators, and monitoring reports present data disaggregated by gender and vulnerability (i.e. women headed households). Indicators that can be monitored for this purpose include how many women/vulnerable people attended gewog meetings, how many

5 participated actively in these meetings, documentation of their opinions on project impacts and if any of their specific concerns were addressed during implementation.

3.5 Data collection needs and sources This study made use of both secondary information and primary data collected through consultations with various stakeholders. Secondary data sources include the Bhutan Land Act 1979, current RGoB policies, procedures and practices relating to land acquisition and social issues; the World Bank's social safeguard policies OP 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement and OD 4.20 on Indigenous Peoples; other relevant documents providing dzongkhag profiles, RGoB reports etc.

A desk review was carried out on relevant RGoB and World Bank Policies and guidelines to address social issues, procedures and processes as well as to harmonize these set of policies as discussed above. The desk review was supplemented by stakeholder consultations to: - Develop a consultation framework for participatory implementation; - Identify all other relevant issues including those described above in the scope of work.

Stakeholders include various interest groups who have an interest or stake in the project. They include those who are likely to be affected by the project, as well as those who may have influence over the project. Stakeholders were identified through answering the following questions: - Who are the potential beneficiaries? - Who may be adversely affected? - Have vulnerable groups been identified? - Have supporters and opponents to the project been identified?

To answer these questions, key stakeholders were categorized as primary and secondary for the consultations. Information was collected using the survey questionnaire given in Annexure 2. A detailed work plan for this task is given on Annexure 6.

Two teams of social development professionals carried out these consultations. Prior to the commencement of consultations, extensive training of the field teams by a social scientist on the approach, methodology and tools was done. Focus group discussions was conducted with a cross section of men and women in the community, including people who may be affected by loss of land, and those who had previous experience with voluntarily donating land. Separate consultations were carried out with vulnerable community members including women heading households, the most poor, farmers with marginal land and the landless. The main aim of these consultations was to specifically understand the views and the concerns of vulnerable community members and be involved in the implementation.

4 SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE

4.1 Country Overview The Kingdom of Bhutan is a small, landlocked, mountainous country in the Eastern Himalayan region. It is bordered by India to its east, west and south and by the Tibetan Autonomous Region of China to its north. The country has an area of 38,394 km2 with a population of 734,340. Almost all of the country is mountainous with altitudes ranging from about 200 metres above sea level (masl) in the south to over 7,500 masl in the north. It can be divided into three distinct physiographic zones: (1) the southern foothills along the Indian border with altitudes ranging from about 200 to 1500 masl; (2) the inner Himalayas made up of the main river valleys and steep mountains with

6 altitudes ranging from 2,000 masl to 4,000 masl; and, (3) the great Himalayas in the north along the Tibetan border consisting of snow-capped peaks and alpine meadows above 4,000 masl. Administratively, the country is divided into 20 dzongkhags (districts). The dzongkhags are further divided into several gewogs (blocks). At present, there are altogether 201 gewogs in the country. Some of the dzongkhags such as Chhukha, Samdrup Jongkhar, Samtse, Sarpang, Trashigang, and Zhemgang, have sub-districts, known as . A dzongkhag is headed by a dzongdag, a by a dungpa, and a gewog by a gup (administrative head of a Gewog). Dzongdags and dungpas are civil service officials whereas a gup is a locally elected community leader of a geog. At the central level, there are ten ministries and a number of non-ministerial bodies such as the National Commission for Cultural Affairs, National Environment Commission, and Royal Civil Service Commission. The ministries are the Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Home and Cultural Affairs, Ministry of Information and Communications, Ministry of Labour and Human Resources, Ministry of Trade and Industry, and Ministry of Works and Human Settlement. Bhutan has attained impressive achievements in its macro economy since the country opened up to the rest of the world in 1961 from its self imposed isolation. Since then the country embarked upon a far reaching development strategy that has been articulated in successive five year plans, the latest being the 9th FYP Plan (2002-2007). On the basis of the development strategy presented in these five-year plans, Bhutan has developed a physical infrastructure of roads, power supply, telecommunications, and water supply that now serves a growing share of the population. At the same time the Government has developed social infrastructure of education and health services, which have, despite the difficult terrain and scattered population, greatly improved access to education and health services. The Government's strategy in every sector is guided by its Vision Statement "Bhutan 2020: A Vision for Peace, Prosperity and Happiness" which seeks a "cautious interpretation of modernization". The Vision Statement puts human happiness, not economic growth, at the center of the nation's vision and values, and calibrates the ambitions of development policy to Bhutan's ability to absorb change without creating alienation and excessive inequality: The distinctively Bhutanese concept of Gross National Happiness... places the individual at the center of all development efforts and it recognizes that the individual has material, spiritual and emotional needs. It asserts that development cannot and should not be defined exclusively in material terms. The concept of Gross National Happiness must be translated into objectives that are able to give direction to the Kingdom's long-term development.. .These objectives are: human development; culture and heritage; balance and equitable development; governance and environmental conservation." Bhutan is predominately an agrarian country with majority of the population living in rural areas depending on integrated livelihood system based on crop agriculture, livestock and use of forest products. Agriculture is still the dominant sector with 25% share of the GDP during 2004. The arable agriculture land covers 7.8 percent of the total area with many scattered and fertile pockets. Land holdings are fragmented and small (two-thirds of farmers have land holdings under two hectares), and farm mechanizations is very limited. RGoB pursues a policy of food self-reliance, whereby export earning generated from sale of cash crops pay for whatever imports (typically rice) are required. The role of the MoA is to support farmers to make optimal use of their available resources by promoting new technologies through research and extension, organization of inputs, creating access to markets, and development of support infrastructure. About 29 percent of the rural population and 2.4 percent of the urban population live below the absolute poverty line. In this mountainous and landlocked country, the majority of Bhutan's population lives in remote villages; often several days walk from the nearest road. In this context, rural communities face enormous challenges in accessing public services and market opportunities for their farm products. Agriculture contributes one third of GDP, but the sector constitutes the majority of income, employment, and food security to most Bhutanese, particularly the poorest.

7 Despite impressive economic growth and achievements in human development at the national level, Bhutan still faces challenges on several issues: the RGoB's commitment on halving poverty by 2015 as part of the MDG effort, growing inequality of income and wealth concentration, regional disparities at the household level food insecurity and seasonal food shortages. Less than half of Bhutan's population lives within a half-day walk from the nearest road and roads are widely viewed as a catalyst for development in rural areas. The Poverty Assessment found that the absence of roads was a major contributing factor to poverty. In rural areas, diversification into cash crops cannot reduce poverty if markets are beyond reach. Demand for rural roads was one of the highest priorities identified in geog plans. Two gewogs of Wangdue (Athang and Daga) are classified as vulnerable gewogs (Poverty Assessment Report 20002). Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping (MoA & WFP 20053) identifies 6 gewogs (Dorona, Lajab, Gaserling, Khipisa, Tshangkha, and Drujeygang) under Dagana dzongkhag as most food insecure gewogs. The food insecure in Wangduephodrang include: Athang, Daga, Dangchu, Nyisho, Sephu, Nahi, Ruepisa, and Phobjikha.

4.2 Overview of the Project Area The project areas under this study, where first year works are planned, include the Wangduephodrang and Dagana dzongkhags in the west central region. These two dzongkhags have a total area of approximately 5,427 kM2, covering most of the west central part of the country. There are a total of altogether 26 gewogs in these dzongkhags, with a total population of 5,642 rural households. The 14.3 kms Jangchucholing - Tashidingkha Road is expected to benefit 178 households of 12 villages under Dangchu gewog of Wangduephodrang dzongkhag. The road alignment taking off at Jangchucholing (-Trashigang highway) passes through the main villages of Ridang, Yusagang, and terminates at Tashidingkha. The 42.50 kms Drujeygang - Balung road under Dagana Dzongkhag starts from Drujeygang gewog and passes through the main villages of Thangna, Budeychu, Baibithang, Petakha, Zinchilla, Tshangkha, Compa, Manidangra, Bana and ends in Pheunsumgang at an altitude of 1360 m under Lajab gewog. This road will benefit 100 households of Drujeygang gewog, 278 households of Tsangkha gewog, and 124 households of Lajab gewog.

4.2.1 Dzongkhag Profiles a) Wangduephodrang Dzongkhag The second largest dzongkhag in the country in terms of area, Wangduephodrang lies in the west central region and has a total area of approximately 4,038 km2 with elevation ranging from 800 to 5800 meters above sea level. The summers are moderately hot with cool winters. The dzongkhag has a forest cover of about 65 percent consisting of both broadleaf and conifer tree species. The Dzongkhag consists of the following fifteen gewogs. There are 3,060 rural households, making up an estimated total population of 22,800. The higher altitude gewogs of Phobjikha, Gangtey, Sephu and Dangchu mainly depend on livestock rearing. The Phobjikha Gewog is known for winter nesting place of the black-necked cranes and potato cultivation. The Jigme Dorji National Park extends into the northern part while a major portion of the dzongkhag falls under Jigmi Singye National Park.

2 Poverty Assessment Report 2000 - Planning Commission, RGoB 3 Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping 2005 - Ministry of Agriculture and World Food Programme 8 Gewogs Ws of hhs 1 rg IAh142 2. Bjena 277 3. Daga 152 4. Dangchu 178 5. Gangte 258 6. Gasetsho-gom 170 7. Gasetsho-om 103 8. Kazhi 210 9. Nahi 134 10. Nyisho 256 11. Phangyuel 176 12. Phobjikha 282 13. Ruepisa 309 14. Sephu 276 15. Thedtsho 137 Total . t,, :300-.- 3 060L Source: Dzongkhag Administration, Wangduephodrang Wetland dominates agricultural land use in the dzongkhag followed by dryland, mixed farming and limited areas on tseri. Rice is grown extensively, mostly along the Dang Chhu and Tsang Chhu, in Nahi, Nyisho, Phangyuel, Ruepisa and Thedtsho Gewogs. Potato is an important cash crop especially for the Phobjikha, Gangtey and Sephu Gewogs. Farmers in most the gewogs, face problems related to wildlife depredation of crops. Generally, a dominant gentle to moderate terrain also increases the possibility of farm mechanization. Land use type Area in ac Wet land 6,792 Dry land 3,518 Fallow 1,167 Tseri 393 Orchard 51 Kitchen garden 465 Source: Agriculture Statistics 2004, DoA Area and production of major crops Crops Harvested Production (MT) Yield (kgtacre) ______Area (acres) Rice 3,129 4,883 1,560 Maize 111 214 1,927 Wheat 1,513 736 486 Barley 366 152 415 Buck wheat 340 265 779 Millet 56 25 446 Oats 12 6 500 Potato 985 8,692 8,827 Chilli 201 402 2,004 Mandarin orange 7,790 (trees) 265 34 kgs (per tree) Source: Agriculture Statistics 2004, DoA

9 All gewogs have incomes near the national average except for Athang, Daga and Sephu, which have incomes below the national average. Primary school enrolment rates are near the national average in all gewogs except for Athang, Bjena and Kazhi gewogs where the primary school enrolment rates are below the national average. Adult literacy rates are below the national average in all gewogs except for Dangchu gewog where they are near the national average. All gewogs in this dzongkhag have health facilities. Dangchu, Sephu and Gangtey are located between 3 to 8 hours walk from the nearest hospital. The other gewogs are located up to 3 hours walk from the nearest hospital. The dzongkhag has a total of 24 schools ranging from community to Middle & Higher Secondary schools providing education to about 6994 students. Health services are provided by an Army Hospital located at Wangdue and 10 Basic Health units (BHUs) and 24 Out Reach Clinics (ORCs). 1490 households in the dzongkhag have electricity supply while the 175 rural water schemes provides safe drinking water to 83 percent of the households. The dzongkhag has good RNR service coverage provided by the 32 Renewable Natural Resources (RNR) facilities which include RNR Extension Centres, Agriculture Extension Centres, Seed Production Farms, Agriculture Machinery Centre, Livestock Extension Centres, Veterinary Hospitals and Forestry Offices. The Bajothang Research Centre for the West-Central region in the dzongkhag is also the National Field Crops Research Co-ordination Centre. b) Dagana Dzongkhag

Dagana Dzongkhag lies in the west central region. It shares its borders with Thimphu and Chukha Dzongkhag to the west, Wangduephodrang Dzongkhag to the north, Tsirang to the east and Sarpang to the south. Daga Lungsum (name of Dagana) refers to Tasha Sili (Lajab Gewog), Dagana, and Getana (Chukha Dzongkhag). Daga Lingsum refers to Peling (Tseza Gewog), Lhaling (Kana Gewog), and Dhaling (Kana Gewog). Daga Trashi Yangtse Dzong situated in northern part of Dagana was built in 1655 by Donyer Drunk Namgye. The total area of the Dzongkhag is approximately 1389 km2. The elevation ranges from 600m to over 3800 m above sea level. The summers are hot while the winters are cool and dry. It falls within the Temperate Zone in the north while the lower and more southerly located parts of the Dzongkhag are sub-tropical. The annual rainfall ranges from 750mm to 2000mm. Dagana has about 79% of its total area under forest cover consisting mainly of broadleaf species. The agricultural land use is predominantly dry land although Chuzhing (wetland) and tseri practices are also found. According to the area, the most important annual crops are maize, rice and millet. Mandarin orange and cardamom are important cash crops. About 1.2% of the Dzongkhag's total area is tshamdro (pasture) which supports nearly 27000 heads of livestock. Livestock rearing is another important part of the farming system.

Land use type - -Area in acres Dry land 13,248 Wet land 3,190 Fallow 31 Tseri 3,196 Orchard 1165 Kitchen garden 84 Forest 312,163 Source: Agriculture statistics 2004, DoA

10 Crops Harvested Production (MT) Yield (kg/acre) ______Area (acres) Rice 3,406 2,967 871 Maize 6,286 10,771 1713 Wheat 207 118 570 Barley 102 35 343 Buck wheat 845 235 278 Millet 1,003 398 397 Chilli 172 64 372 Potato 171 614 3,598 Mandarin orange 93,518 (trees) 3,532 38 kgs/tree Source: Agriculture statistics 2004, DoA

The Dzongkhag consists of 11 gewogs with 2575 households and a population of 21,363. People are comprised of Ngalong, Sharchokpa, Khengpa and Lhotsapmpa. Settlements are fairly dispersed and remote.

Source: Dzongkhag Administration, Dagana The Dzongkhag has good potential for cash crop and livestock development. However, the Dzongkhag is one of the least developed in the country as a result of rugged terrain and poor access conditions. High price for consumer commodities and exorbitant transportation charges to and from the Dzongkhag are some of the present problems. There are 16 schools in the Dzongkhag including 12 Community Primary Schools, 2 Primary schools and 2 Middle Secondary School. There are 3,853 students with 96 teachers. There are 7 BHUs and 17 ORCs under . The district does not have a hospital. The nearest hospital is at Damphu, Tsirang.

4.2.2 Gewog Profiles a) Dangchu Gewog, Wangduephodrang Dangchu gewog is one of the remote gewogs of Dzongkhag. The gewog has an area of approximately 171.1 sq. Km. with abundant forest resources. The topography of the gewog is predominantly rugged in nature but has gentle sloping land that are under agricultural

11 cultivation or have potential for agriculture. The settlements are widely scattered making delivery of services difficult. The Gewog consist of 12 Villages with a total of 178 households. The gewog has one basic health unit, one junior high school, one community school, one agriculture extension centre, one livestock extension centre, and one forest beat office. The community also own religious centres like Shabjey Lhakhang, Tashi Dingkha Lhakhang.

Villages Nos of hhs Distance from the highway (km) Walking distance (hrs) Goda 12 20 5 Tongmey 11 16 4 Lungza 9 20 5 Tasa 19 28 7 Tomla 15 16 4 Tokaling 20 13 3.15 Chuba 16 12 3 Dencholing 16 12 3 Tashidingkha 11 14 3.30 Yusagang 20 8 2 Ridang Geonpa 11 4 1 Ridang 18 6 1.30 ,.Total - - 178 k . - - Dzongkhag Administration, Wangduephodrang Livestock rearing is the main occupation due to its large area under tsamdrog. Agriculture activities are mostly concentrated on the beds of lower Dangchu in small scale. Although the terrain is mostly rugged, there is potential for livestock development and expansion of area under cultivation at the lower altitudes. Dangchu has a good potential for expansion of chilli cultivation. The gewog has one BHU-11 located at Tangrathang, eight RWSS schemes and six spring source protection. Construction of one ORC at Taksar village is proposed. Two schools, the Dangchu Community Primary School and Nobding Lower Secondary School serve 178 households in the gewog. Dangchu has no road access. The mobility of the people solely depends on mule tracks and suspension bridge. There are three suspension bridges connecting one village to another. b) Drujeygang Gewog, Dagana Drujeygang Gewog is located in the southeast part of Dagana Dzongkhag with altitude ranging from 400m to 2800 meters above sea level. The gewog has sub-tropical type of climate with hot and humid summer and cool and dry winter. The topography of the gewog ranges from gently sloping agriculture land stretching from rugged mountains down to the river Sunkosh to relatively few flat areas scattered in the gewog. The land use pattern of the Gewog is dominated by broadleaf forest. Important crops are rice, maize, mustard, buckwheat, and millet. Cardamom and orange are the main source of income for farmers. Cultivating mushroom, raising private fruit crop nursery, apiculture and fishery can also become good sources of income. There are 10 households with less than 0.5 acres land holding. Drujeygang gewog is the second biggest gewog in terms of total number of households. The Gewog consist of three main villages: Pangserpo, Pangna and Thangna. The gewog has a total of 375 households. The commercial centre of the gewog is situated in Pangna village. Other

12 institutions in the gewog include one Drubdra, 1 Middle Secondary School, 1 Community Primary School, Grade II BHU, RNR Centre, Wireless Office, and Forest Beat office. The gewog has 3 Lakhangs catering to the religious needs of the people. Nine-kilometer feeder road connects the Drujegang town and Junior High School to the main highway. c) Tsangkha Gewog, Dagana Tshangkha gewog is located in the eastern part of Dagana Dzongkhag with a total area of approximately 37 sq km. The geog has Tsirang dzongkhag to the east, Lajab gewog to the north and Drujeygang to the southwest. The topography of the Gewog ranges from high mountains bisected by deep gorges to relatively wide and U-shaped valleys. The gewog has a hot and humid summer and cool and dry winter. The highest altitude is 1800 meters above sea level and the lowest is 400 meters above sea level. The main Tshangkha valley is broad and runs from north to south. The land use pattern of the Gewog is dominated dry land cultivation. The important crops grown are maize followed by rice and millet. Cardamom and orange are the main cash crops. The Gewog comprises of 12 main villages with 278 households. Villages Nos of hhs Distance-from the highway (km) -. Walking distance (hrs) Babaythang 16 15 3.45 Banderchu 15 17 4.15 Budeychu 22 13 3.15 Galeychu 16 14 3.30 Namlathang/Zinchulla 35 18 4.30 Petakha 62 19 4.45 Salamjee 18 20 5 Tajey 3 24 6 Tisgarey 42 19 4.45 Tshangkhatar 40 21 5.15 Nobding 9 22 5.30 Total - 278 - Source: Dzongkhag Administration, Dagana

Sunkosh-Dagana road touches the southern part of the gewog. The gth Plan includes construction of a steel truss bridge at Budeychhu, which will benefit the communities of Tshangkha, Lajab, and Drujeygang gewogs. The geog has a BHU, RNR-Centre, and a Lhakhang. Acute Respiratory infection (ARI) constitutes 21% of all morbidities as reported from all the BHU in under-5 years of age. There is a community primary school at Tshangkhatar, which also serves as Non-Formal Education (NFE) Centre. The construction of community school at Zinchulla villages has been recently completed with financial support from Save the Children, USA with labour contribution by the communities. The gewog has two old drinking water schemes and 5 new schemes are planned during the gth FYP. The gewog gth Plan includes construction of a Gup's office. A farm road of 10.20 kms with takeoff point above Sunkosh bazaar on the Sunkosh-Dagana highway has been constructed by the Ministry of Agriculture. This farm road ends at Petakha village under Tshangkha gewog. The proposed Dujeygang-Lajab feeder road alignment runs just above 300 meters from the end of the Tshangkha farm road. The public and the GYT of Tshangkha gewog are now requesting for connecting Dujeygang-Lajab road with the already constructed feeder road at the last zig at Petakha village. By connecting these two roads, the affect on land belonging to 6 families will be avoided. Also there will be a saving on the construction of about 2 kms.

13 d) Lhajab gewog, Dagana Lajab Gewog is located in the southeast part of Dagana Dzongkhag with a total area of 649.49 hectares. Lajab Gewog borders Tshangkha and Drujeygang Gewog to the south, Khebesa Geog to the west, and Wangduephodrang Dzongkhag to the northeast. The Geog has subtropical climate with hot and humid summer and cool and dry winter. The altitude ranges from 400m to over 2700 meters above sea level. The annual rainfall ranges from 750mm to 2000mm. The topography of the Gewog ranges from high Himalayan Mountains bisected by deep gorges to relatively wide and V-shaped valleys. The land use pattern of the Gewog is dominated by dry land cultivation. Maize is the most important crop grown in the gewog besides other cereals like millet, barley, and rice. Cardamom and orange are the main source of cash income. Livestock rearing is an important part of the farming system. The gewog is rich in forests and forest products. The Gewog has nine villages with 124 households. VillagesP4A t'N*, Nos ofh lDtfroaWthbWghwhs(k -WalkIrg distance (hrsy Balung 21 54 13.30 Bana 18 38 9.30 Thasa 12 36 9 Tachey 6 62 15.30 Seepa 19 34 8.30 Manedara 3 32 8 Compgoan 22 28 7 Galeychu 6 26 6.30 Yechephu 17 44 11 Tota'>¢};--B.X

Source: Dzongkhag Administration, Dagana The gewog is the second most remote in the Dzongkhag. It has no road network. A suspension bridge connects the major villages with each other. The 9th Plan includes construction of three steel truss bridges over Cherichhu, Linglichhu and Sangtachhu. The construction of Gup's office at Phuensumgang is nearing completion. The gewog has neither telecommunication facilities nor electricity. The gewog has a BHU and two ORCs. There are four water supply schemes covering four major villages, and five spring source protections. The Phuensumgang Community Primary School is the only school in the gewog and is located almost in the centre of the gewog. The gewog has a community hall built by Agriculture. A new community school is proposed in the 9th Plan at Balung.

4.2.3 Household socio-economic profile The household level socio-economic profile presented below has been compiled from the findings of a household survey of a sample of the affected population in the two dzongkhags. The results of the survey indicate that forty seven percent of the sample population consists of farmers, while 24% are students. Seventy six percent of the population resides in villages. The survey indicates illiteracy rates of sixty-nine percent in the sample population. The land use type is predominantly dry land followed by wetland and tseri. The average land holding is 5.18 acres in Dagana, while in Dangchu the size of land holding is 2.91 acres. In Dagana, the main cereals grown include maize, rice, millet, wheat and buckwheat. Maize is the main crop grown in terms of acreage and production in all the three gewogs followed by rice and

14 minor cereals. Potato and vegetables like beans, peas, and greens are grown in small scale for home consumption. Mandarin orange is the main cash crop with an area of about 82 acres. There is a notable potential for cash crops like vegetables, mushroom, mandarin orange. Main constraint reported is access to market. In Dangchu gewog, Wangdue, the main cereals grown include wheat, buckwheat, barley, rice, and maize. The area under rice and maize is low as compared to minor cereals. Potato and vegetables like beans, peas, and greens are grown in small scale for home consumption. None of the sample households own orchard land in Dangchu. The main livestock owned by the sample households include cattle 1818, horses and mules 212, followed by poultry and pigs. Cattle form important component of the farming providing milk and milk products, FYM, and drought. Horses and mules are mainly used for transporting goods. Some improved breeds on cattle, pigs and poultry have been introduced. In Dagana, the farmers used 330 kgs of fertilizers, 205 kgs of improved seeds, and 35 kgs of pesticides annually, while none of the sample households used fertilizers and pesticides in Dangchu gewog of Wangduephodrang. In Dagana, there is an RNR Centre at Drujeygang and it takes about 1-2 hrs to reach the centre from the surrounding villages. Tshangkha has an RNR Centre, while there is Agriculture and Livestock centre at Lajab. Average walking distance to these centres is about 2- 3 hours walk. The nearest schools for the sample households are located at Drujeygang, Tshangkhatar, Phuensumgang under the Drujeygang, Tshangkha, and Lajab gewogs respectively. It takes about 1-3 hrs from different villages to reach the schools. There is a BHU in each geogs of Dagana located at Drujeygang, Tshangkhatar, and Phuensumgang. It takes about 2-3 hours walk from the villages. The nearest hospital is at Damphu under , which is one-day walk from the geog. Majority of the households reported access to emergency services as "poor". The health status of the women and children was reported to be poor. In Dangchu, Wangdue there is an RNR Centre at Tangrey. From the surrounding villages it takes about 3 to 3.5 hrs to reach he centre on foot. It takes about 3 hrs from Tashidingkha, to reach the nearest primary school at Tangrey, and about 1.5 hrs from Rida goenpa to reach the lower secondary school located at Nobding. There is a BHU at Tangrey which is 1.5 hrs far from Tashidingkha, and also at Bajo which is about 3.5 hours walk from Rida Goenpa. The nearest hospital is at Wangdue which is 3.5 hrs far from Rida Goenpa, and 5.2 hrs walk from Tashidingkha. Sixty percent of the sample households reported access to emergency services as "poor". Health status of women and children was also reported as "poor". In Dagana 32% of the households had availed loan from Bhutan Development Finance Corporation (BDFC), while in Dangchu, Wangdue only 4% of the households' availed loan from BDFC. Most households report livelihood from of off farm work opportunities like weaving, carpentry, house construction etc. The existing wage rates range from Nu 100 to Nu.150 per day. Major sources of income for the sample households include: sale of agriculture and livestock products, sale of animals, working as casual labour and hiring out of horses/mules. The annual average income of sample households was Nu 27,000 in Drujeygang, Nu 51,000 in Lajab, Nu 45,551 in Tshangkha, and Nu 38,194 in Dangchu, Wangduephodrang. The households mainly incurred expenditures on purchase of essential food items, education of children, purchase of farm inputs, purchase of clothes, and contribution for Rimdo. The average annual household expenditure in the three gewogs of Dagana ranged from Nu 14,669 to Nu 22,188. In Dangchu gewog of Wangdue, the average annual household expenditure was Nu. 15,616. In Dagana, mandarin orange, vegetables, and livestock products are the main commodities sold by the households for cash income. Small quantities of other commodities sold include maize, rice, mustard, potato, and vegetables. In Dangchu gewog, Wangdue, farmers sell vegetables, potato, chili seedlings, and livestock products including cheese and butter. Some farmers also collect

15 Cordeyceps from the high altitude areas for sale. In all the four gewogs of Dagana and Wangdue, the main items purchased by farmers are rice, cooking oil, sugar, salt and other basic necessities. In Dagana, mandarin orange and vegetables are the main commodities transported, while in Dangchu, Wangdue the main commodities transported are potato and vegetables. Manual transport is the most common means of transport. For larger quantities and heavier loads, generally horses and mules are used. Transportation of bulky commodities like oranges, potato, and vegetables is the main problem faced by the households. Transportation costs are high and it takes long time.

In the three gewogs of Dagana 45% of the sample households own simple huts with poor condition. Fifty five percent of the houses have access to potable drinking water supply. Most of the farmers reported that their priority need is housing. Only 6 households in Dangchu own double storied houses with CGI roofing. Nine households own single storied mud houses. Poor households own smaller huts constructed from stone and mud. Nine of the houses have electricity. Thirty three percent of the households reported having access to potable drinking water. The Government rate for wet land is Nu 35000 per acre and for dry land is Nu 20000 per acre, while the existing market rate for wetland ranges from 75000 to 150,000 per acre. In Dagana dzongkhag, majority of the sample households reported lack of proper housing, lack of food, and lack of cash income, and lack of access as major constraints. In Dangchu, Wangdue, the three main problems reported were: lack of road access, lack of electricity, damage to crops by wild animals.

5 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND ANALYSIS

The stakeholders include the various groups who have an interest or stake in the project. They include those who are likely to be affected by the project, as well as those who may have influence over the project. Stakeholders have been identified through answering the following questions: Who are the potential beneficiaries? Who may be adversely impacted? Who are the vulnerable groups? Who are the supporters and opponents to the project? Key stakeholders are categorized as follows: Primary Beneficiaries, poor and vulnerable groups, adversely impacted people (people Stakeholders losing land, homes, assets or livelihoods), and the DoR Secondary Community representatives, the GYT, interest groups such as local NGOs, Stakeholders CBOs, gewog social service sector (health, education, RNR) Dzongkhag Administration, the DYT, social service sectors o the Dzongkhag Administration (health, education, RNR), DSLR, DoR, NEC

To identify social impacts and any issues arising out of the proposed road project planning and implementation, detailed consultations were carried out in the two dzongkhags where first year project interventions are planned with both primary and secondary stakeholders. The main objectives of these consultations were to: (i) discuss the project with beneficiary communities and seek their views and perceptions; (ii) identify social impacts and issues;

16 (iii) review the extent to which gewog members participated in planning continue to be involved in their implementation; (iv) review the extent of which vulnerable groups in these communities participated in the preparation of project plans and will be involved in their implementation; and (v) review current procedures and mechanisms for voluntary land donations.

Table 1 identifies the districts, geogs and villages where stakeholder consultations were carried out. Table 1:Project villages covered by the assessment Name of the Road Dzongkhag Gewogs Villages covered 1. Jangchu Goda, Tongmey, Lungza, Tasa, Tomla, Tokaling, Chuba, Choling - Wangdue Dangchu Dencholing, Tashidingkha, Yusagang, Ridang Geonpa, Tashidingkha P Ridang Drujeygang Pangsepo, Thangna and Pangna Budeychu, Babaythang, Petakha, Tisgarey Zinchulla, 2. Drujeygang- Dagana Tshangkha Nobding, Banderchu, Tshangkhatar, Tajey, Galeychu, Balung Namlathang, Salamjee Galeychu, Campgoan/Kompa, Manidara, Seepa, Bana, Laja Yechephu, Phuensumgang, Balung

5.1 Methodology and Consultation Process Two teams visited the two project areas. One team visited Tshangkha and Lajab gewogs in Dagana and the other team visited Drujeygang in Dagana and Dangchu gewog in Wangdue. The communities were pre-informed of these consultations with notice delivered through the Dzongkhag Administration and the Gups. Consultations with beneficiaries of the project roads were held in the gewogs and villages as per the schedule given in Table 2. Table 2. Date of consultation, venue and the villages covered Dzongkhag >Gewog :-Village : -- , DateNenueofnsuHaton'-.K= Dagana Drujeygang Thangna, Pangna, Patala, Pangserpo, 10 January at Drujeygang Minchunang Tshangkha Budeychu, Petakha, Zinchulla, Nobding, 6-7 January 2006 at Zinchulla Banderchu, Tshangkhatar, Tajey Community School Lajab Galeychu, Campgoan/Kompa, Manidara, 8 January 2006 at Compa village. Seepa, Bana, Yechephu, Phuensumgang, 9-10 January at Phuensumgang Balung (Gups office) Wangdue Dangchu Tashidingkha, Ridha, Yusagang, Chuba, 17th January 2006 at Nobding geog Tomla, Tokaling, Lumchu, Goda, Taksha center The discussions/interviews for Tshangkha gewog was held at the centrally located Zinchula Community School on 6th and 7th January 2006 while the interviews for Lajab gewog was held at Compa village on 8th January and at Gup's office at Phuensumgang on 9th and 10th January 2006.

The discussions/interviews in Drujeygang by the second team was held on 10th and 1 th January 2006 at RNR Center, while the consultation meetings for Dangchu gewog under Wangduephodrang was held at Nobding on 17th and 18th January 2006.

17 In both these project areas the teams visited the take off as well as the main points of the proposed road to get an understanding of the alignment and to find out whether the beneficiaries have participated in the feasibility study on alignment of the road. The teams conducted focus group discussions with a cross-section of men and women in the community, including people who may be affected by loss of land. Separate consultations were carried out with vulnerable community members including, women heading households, the most poor, farmers with marginal land and the landless. The key aim of these interviews was to specifically understand the views and concerns of vulnerable community members regarding the proposed road project. For individual interviews the respondents were identified in consultation with the tshogpa (community representative). Vulnerable community members were chosen based on the size of their landholding, food security, livelihoods and women whose husbands had expired or who had been divorced and were responsible for the management of the household. Table 3 lists the types of people who participated in the focus group discussions. A more detailed list of the participants is presented in Annex 1. Out of the total participants in the focus group discussions, 41% were women. Table 3: No of participants in consultations in selected villages of the RAP II

,I; ,v t icipan r). A + -Reso

Gewog,Cs a ) WT*-d9S Individual irit f , m mn a&fce~o -Wfomen!'!:L -__ e-Xaded Men, Wie M-n Women' Tshangkha Patekha 7 4 3 3 3 3 2 Budechu 4 1 1 4 1 1 1 Zinchulla 6 3 3 2 1 2 2 Tisgarey 0 4 4 0 0 0 4 Tshangkhatar 2 3 3 2 3 0 2 Banderchu 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 Lajab Campgoan 6 1 2 3 1 1 1 Bana 3 3 3 3 1 1 0 Yechephu 5 0 0 2 1 0 0 Drujeygang Thangna 9 23 5 3 5 2 2 Pangna 1 5 4 1 1 0 1 Pangserpo 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 Menchunang 1 4 3 0 0 0 3 Patala 0 3 2 0 0 0 2 Dangchu, Godang 8 2 3 - - 1 0 Wangdue Tokaling 1 10 3 - - 02 Tashidingkha 2 1 1 - - 0 1 Yelbagang 3 7 2 - - 0 1 Ridha 3 4 2 - - 2 1 Ridha goenpa 0 4 2 - - 0 1 Tasha 1 5 1 - 3 1 . otar^X . 5+_ = 25-- 2O S ^3. 13+ 35 30

5.2 Findings of the stakeholder consultations Collectively the primary stakeholders comprised of the farming community including orchard owners, businessmen, retailers, students, caretakers of religious institutions, porters, women and

18 men. The findings from these consultations indicate that all households in these communities were fully aware of the project. They expect to be involved in implementation of the road project. Road has always been the top priority of people in Drujeyang, Tshangkha, Lajab and Dangchu gewogs. The people of Tshangkha and Lajab had submitted a petition to HRH Ashi Dorji Wangmo Wangchuk during her visit in 2002. The proposal was then reflected in the Road Master Plan of 2002. The proposal for a road in Dangchu was initiated during the 8th FYP. Though it was a part of the 8th FYP, it could not be implemented due to lack of budget. Community members expect enhanced livelihoods through sale of farm produce, increase in crop yields and easier access to agriculture technology as positive social impacts of the project. They also expect that the road will improve the access to health and education services. The communities have shown interest to work in the road construction for earning cash income. They are also willing to provide support for the maintenance work once the road is completed. The potential loss of small parcels of land to the project road was the most negative social impact identified by community members. However, the community members expressed that the benefit received from the road far outweighs the loss of land or other property due to road construction. The community reported that "the positive impact of the road is so high that we can forgo some portion of the land without any problem". They are willing to sacrifice small portion of their land for the sake of road. The project roads in both the district does not affect more than 25% of the land holding of any individual. All households (rich and poor) are willing to sacrifice some portion of their land for the road construction. In fact, most households would like the road to pass through their land. If the road alignment affects major portion of the land or property, they would request the government for compensation by providing substitute land within the geog. The alignment does not affect any type of structure in both the project road areas. If very poor people are affected, the community would like to leave it to the government to compensate vulnerable groups in whatever way that is possible as per the government rules and procedures. The poor households feel that they need support for altemative income generating opportunities to improve their livelihood. There was broad consensus in all these communities that land acquired by the project would be voluntarily donated. The procedure for voluntary land donations involves signing a genja (agreement) with the Gups in presence of the Tshopas. Such donations are discussed in public meetings several times. After such discussions, public agreement is obtained from the community duly signed by all the individual households. Separate agreement is also obtained from the gup to ensure the genuineness of such donations. The informal and formal procedures for voluntary land donation were viewed by these community members as satisfactory and working well. No major negative impacts were anticipated through loss of large parcels of land, assets, livelihoods and relocation during project implementation. However, concerns were expressed about the possible damage on the environment by cutting down of trees due to easy access through the road. Separate consultations were carried out in these communities with vulnerable people, including women and women headed households, the most poor, farmers with marginal land holdings and the landless to determine the extent of their participation in the planning process and to ascertain their views and perceptions about the project. A total of 141 vulnerable people were consulted (Table 3). Out of these, 100 (71%) were women. Many of them were divorcees having many children or those who were abandoned by husbands. Generally, they own less than half an acre of land or are landless with limited sources of income. They do not expect the road to benefit them directly, but they hope that the opportunities for employment may increase with the increased economic activities after the road. The employment

19 opportunity for the poor is expected to improve. The poor and single divorcee women expect to get better access to health services after the road. The practice to have one adult representative from each household participate in determining development activities for the next five years was generally confirmed. From these consultations it appears that all households irrespective of their social and economic status were represented in the planning process. Field visits also concluded that there were no social groups present in these communities with a social and cultural identity distinct from the dominant society that makes them vulnerable to being disadvantaged in the development process. The policy requirements of the World Bank's Operational Directive 4.20 on Indigenous Peoples to ensure the participation of indigenous and vulnerable groups in decision making throughout the planning and implementation phases of the project interventions, and that these groups are provided assistance in accordance to their priorities are addressed by the design of the project. The Gewog level stakeholders comprised the Gewog administration, rural and social sectors (agriculture, health and education) and the GYT. An elected Gup heads the local government supported by village representatives and development sectors. The GYT is the only formal body with the role of community mobilisation, planning, identification, prioritization, and implementation of developmental activities for the gewog. Other government bodies that facilitate the development process are the Health Services (BHUs), Community and Primary Schools, and Renewable Natural Resources Extension Services. At the Dzongkhag level the stakeholders comprised of the district administration consisting of the rural and social development sectors (Health, Education, RNR, and Engineering) and the DYT. The Dzongdag or the District Administrator headed the District administration besides rural development and social services. A Dzongrab and Sector Head for each sector support the Dzongdag. At the regional level the Field Division, DoR, Lobeysa, Field Sub-division at Dagapela, the Renewable Natural Resources Research centre at Bajothang, Wangduephodrang, are the other institutions that directly or indirectly influenced the project.

5.3 Participation The approach underlying the assessment of social impacts and developing appropriate social impact management strategies is based on the principles of local participation and consultation with stakeholders during all stages of the project from initial design to implementation. To encourage participation during each phase of the project, regular consultations are planned with beneficiary communities to share project related information and provide a feedback mechanism for these communities to voice their concerns and issues and address these concerns during project implementation. Key objectives of stakeholder consultation and participation during the project cycle are:

' Pre-Planning - disseminate information about the proposed and consultations to identify impacts and issues. 0 Planning and Design - consultations and site visits (as is the current practice) for mitigation and design enhancement measures. 0 Implementation - regular monitoring for impacts. ' Post Implementation - monitoring of post implementation benefits and lessons. Project affected people/communities will be made fully aware of the principles and guidelines used for project impact mitigation. Involvement of affected communities is crucial in planning and implementing RAPs, when these are required. Preparation of first year project intervention RAPs will be based on detailed consultations with affected people and other stakeholders. Details of these consultations including dates, names of participants, issues raised and how these have been

20 addressed will need to be documented in the RAPs. Grievance redress and community monitoring will also enhance stakeholder participation.

6 POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND GUIDELINES ON LAND ACQUISITION

The section reviews the current RGoB policies and procedures on land acquisition in relation to the World Bank's safeguard policies OP 4.01 (Environmental Assessment), OP 4.10 (Indigenous Peoples), OP 4.12 (Involuntary Resettlement). This will allow the core principles of RGoB and World Bank approaches to be compared, and suggestions to be made as to how they might be harmonized, and how gaps might be addressed.

6.1 RGoB Land Acquisition Regulatory Regime Social screening will be carried out as part of the feasibility studies for each sub-project. This will identify the potential loss of land, assets/structures, livelihoods, willingness of the community to donate land to the project, and other significant adverse social impacts. One of the outcomes of this screening approach will be recommendations for the exclusion of the sub-project if involuntary land acquisition or serious social impacts are anticipated. However, given that specific road alignments are yet to be finalized, and land acquisition cannot therefore be entirely discounted, this report outlines the existing RGoB land acquisition regulatory regime, and compares it against World Bank safeguard policies. The regulatory regime applicable to land acquisition in Bhutan is outlined in the Land Act (1979) and accompanying Land Compensation Rates (1996). Amongst other things, the Land Act stipulates procedures and requirements for: entitlement to land; right of possession of land; land transactions; allotment of government land; construction or renovation of social infrastructure such as irrigation channels and roads on landed property; sharing of benefits from such infrastructure; and, land conversion and encroachment. At the time of writing, a national Task Force is reviewing and revising the Land Act, to make it more suitable for evolving development needs. In villages farmers can own various types of land. These include chhuszing (wet land), kamszhing (dry land), tseri (shifting cultivation), orchards and plantations, sokshing (woodlot), and tsamdrog (pasture). Any transaction involving land is processed through a court of law. The maximum landholding an individual can own is 25 acres. An individual owning less than 5 acres of land is not allowed to sell land. The Act stipulates that land must be registered in the Thram (land record), and that any changes in the Thram must be carried out in accordance with the Act4. The Government can requisition any land if it is deemed to be in the national interest5. Clause 6.9 outlines other important rules relating to land acquisition, including: * as far as possible the Government shall give substitute land instead of cash compensation. (KA 6.9B); * in the event of acquisition of land in rural areas, if developed land is acquired by the government and is substituted by undeveloped land, in addition to substitute land, the owner concerned shall be compensated with half the cost of developed land acquired. (KA 6.9C); * allotment of substitute land shall be from the same Dzongkhag (KA 6.9E); * if a person becomes landless due to the acquisition of land, the govemment may allot substitute land, free of cost (KA 6.9A);

4 Land Act Volume KA, Chapter 1. 5 Land Act Volume KA, clause 6.9B

21 * people whose land is acquired and choose replacement land as compensation are allowed to identify replacement government owned land of equal size and value in the dzongkhag. However the government is not bound to provide replacement land chosen by affected landowners, and can recommend alternate locations.

RGoB Land Acquisition Administrative Process Clause KA 6.16 of the land Act provides the legal backing for the land acquisition process. The land acquisition is based on the "Guidelines for Land acquisition and Satshab allotment 2005" acquisition is based on these guidelines6". In practice, a Dzongkhag Land Acquisition Committee is established to review the land acquisition application. The Committee consists of the following members: 1) Ministry of Home Affairs represented by the Dzongdag who is also the Chairman of the Land Acquisition Committee Meeting; 2) Ministry of Finance represented by the Dzongkhag Finance Officer; 3) Ministry of Agriculture represented by the Dzongkhag Agriculture Officer, Divisional Forest Officer, Dzongkhag Land Record Officer 4) Ministry of Works and Human Settlement, Department of Urban Development and Engineering Services represented by Dzongkhag Engineer; 5) The concerned Municipality (a representative is required only in the event of acquisitions within Municipalities); and 6) Gup (chief geog administrator). The guideline spells out the roles and responsibilities of the land acquisition committee. The committee processes land acquisition and allotment of satshab (substitute land) in accordance with the land Act and the land Compensation Rate 1996 In considering the application the Dzongkhag Land Acquisition Committee examines the following: * identification of substitute land; * clearance from the Department of Forests if the land is Government Reserved Forest; * consultations with people in the area where the land is to be acquired; * cash compensation amount proposed in accordance with prescribed compensation rates; * exploration of alternative agriculture land if it is to be acquired; * consultation with the individual owner on the size of his land holding and land to be acquired and how such a proposal would affect him in terms of his livelihood; * efforts to conserve arable land in line with the government's policy of food self-sufficiency.

Land acquisition procedures The requisition of land for development purposes shall be made by the concerned agencies through Dzongkhag to: 1) The Council of Ministers if the requisition is from the vacant government land. The Dzongkhag Administration shall obtain local community clearance and forward it to the Department of Forestry Services. The Department of Forestry Services after verifying the land in coordination with National Environment Commission shall issue a Forest Clearance where permissible and

6RGoB, Guidelines for Land Acquisition and Satshab Allotment

22 then forward it to the Council of Ministers for Government approval. The Department of Forestry Services upon approval shall convey it to the concerned Dzongkhag Administration. 2) Department of Agriculture if the private person owns the requisitioned land. The Department of Agriculture shall issue the acquisition clearance after through verification of the Acquisition Committee. The Department shall frame a set of procedures for the verification. 3) The concerned Dzongkhag shall forward such request to the Departments for Departmental clearances. The clearance shall be issued on the basis of the feasibility study. 4) The processing of clearances shall be completed within a maximum period of one month. The Acquisition Committee shall forward their findings and recommendations to the Department of Survey & Land Records only with necessary clearances from the Department of Agriculture and Forestry Services. The Acquisition Committee shall serve notice of requisition to the concemed landowner.

Substitute land (Satshab) allotment procedures 1) The Dzongkhag Administration shall request the Department of Agriculture and Department of Forestry Services to identify the satshab and issue clearances. The Department of Agriculture and Department of Forestry Services shall jointly identify the satshab and issue necessary clearances. 2) The Dzongkhag Administration shall then obtain clearance for the identified satshab from the concerned public. 3) The Dzongkhag administration shall then convene the Acquisition Committee meeting in keeping with the Land Acquisition Rules & Regulations. 4) The recommendations of the Acquisition Committee along with the complete documents shall be forwarded to the Department of Survey and Land Records. 5) The Department of Survey and Land Records shall verify the cases, compile the documents and submit to the Satshab Allotment Committee. 6) The Satshab Allotment Committee shall convene its meeting to either approve or disapprove the case. 7) The Department of Survey and Land Records shall convey the decision of the Satshab Allotment Committee to the Dzongkhag and also inform the concerned agencies. 8) The acquisition shall be final upon completion of the above formalities and it shall be completed within a maximum period of 4 months. The Satshab Allotment Committee - consisting of the following members - approves or rejects the land acquisition application. * The Hon'ble Minister, Ministry of Agriculture (Chairperson). * The Secretary, Ministry of Home and Cultural Affairs (member) * The Secretary, Ministry of Works and Human Settlement (member) * The Director, Department of Legal Affairs (member) * The Surveyor General, Department of Survey and Land Records (member) The Satshab Allotment Committee's approval or rejection of the land acquisition is based on the following: * acquisition is for proper development purposes; * acquisition of private registered lands is approved only under unavoidable circumstances; 23 * acquisition raising any doubt or suspicion of conflict of interest either by an individual or group shall not be approved; * acquisition of large areas beyond the actual requirement (except for expansion of schools) or without proper justification shall not be approved. The DSLR conveys the decision of the Satshab Allotment Committee to the Dzongkhags.

Compensation Rates Where cash compensation is required to be paid, rates are determined by the Land Compensation Rates (1996) regulation (Table 4). Table 4: Cash Compensation Rates for Land Acquisition

Type of Land -- .--. - . -.V.. , Compensation Rate perAcre (Ngultrum) Chhuzing (wet land) 35,000 Kamzhang (dry land) 20,000 Tseri/Pangzhing (shifting cultivation plots) 5,000 Tsamdo (pasture land) 200 Fruit trees growing on acquired land are compensated at rates calculated by including the cost of land preparation, pit digging, seedling, fertilizer, planting and weeding. Compensation rates for fruit trees if damaged are listed in Table 5. Table 5: Compensation rates (in Nu.) for fruit by type and age in number of years Age of trees (in number of years) Years 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Apple 121 196 346 421 496 821 1021 1221 1221 Orange 130 233 336 439 542 589 639 739 839 Walnut 177 278 379 480 581 682 781 881 981 Arecanut 43 81 109 161 241 281 321 321 321 Peach 124 217 310 373 416 423 523 623 623 Pear 98 178 258 338 418 498 578 618 718 Plum 105 194 283 372 461 550 611 711 761 Apricot 124 213 302 391 480 569 630 780 780 Cardamom 7.40 8.40 9.40 10.40 11.40 15.40 16.40 17.40 18.40 Lemon 89 189 289 339 364 364 414 464 464 Jackfruit 162 274 386 498 610 722 834 896 934 Avocado 106 186 266 336 426 456 476 476 526 Lime 73 113 153 193 203 213 233 253 303 Litchi 155 267 379 491 603 665 677 715 765 Guava 93 144 195 246 297 298 321 396 396 Mango 121 256 391 526 661 796 931 946 1596 Banana 57 87 117 187 187 187 187 187 187 Papaya 60 75 90 95 95 95 105 105 115 P/granate 72 134 196 258 290 312 328 352 352 Olive 114 234 354 474 594 714 834 914 1114

6.2 World Bank Social Safeguard Policies on Involuntary Resettlement The Bank's safeguard policies require that potentially adverse environmental impacts and selected social impacts of Bank Group investment projects are identified, avoided or minimized where feasible, and mitigated or monitored. 24 This report analyses the nexus between World Bank social and environmental safeguard policies, and Royal Government of Bhutan regulations. This is because the Environmental Assessment Safeguard Policy (OP 4.01) provides a mechanism for integrating environmental and social concerns into development decision making. Most safeguard policies provide that: (a) potentially adverse environmental impacts as well as specific social impacts should be identified and assessed early in the project cycle; (b) unavoidable adverse impacts should be minimized or mitigated to the extent feasible; and (c) timely information should be provided to the stakeholders, who should have the opportunity to comment on both the nature and significance of impacts and the proposed mitigation measures. The safeguard policies that are potentially relevant to this project are Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01), OP 4.12 (Involuntary Resettlement), and OP 4.10 (Indigenous Peoples). The Environmental Assessment Policy (OP 4.01) requires environmental assessment of all projects/ activities that are proposed for World Bank financing and are likely to have potential environmental risks and adverse impacts in their area of influence. The sub-projects would appear to trigger the EA Safeguard Policy as they will involve development of rural infrastructure that is likely to have impacts on land, water, air, vegetation, and cultural property. Key objectives of the World Bank's policy on Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12) are: * avoid or minimize involuntary resettlement where feasible, exploring all viable alternative project designs; * assist displaced persons in improving their former living standards, income earning capacity, and production level, or at least in restoring them; * encourage community participation in planning and implementing resettlement; and * provide assistance to affected people regardless of the legality of land tenure. The policy covers not only physical relocation, but also any loss of land or other assets resulting in: * relocation or loss of shelter; * loss of assets or access to assets; and * loss of income sources or means of livelihood whether or not the affected people must move to another location. The purpose of the World Bank's OP 4.10 (Indigenous Peoples) policy is to ensure that the development process fully respects the dignity, human rights, economies, and cultures of Indigenous Peoples. For all projects that are proposed for Bank financing and affect Indigenous Peoples, the Bank requires the borrower to engage in a process of free, prior, and informed consultation. The Bank provides project financing only where free, prior and informed consultation results in broad community support to the project by the affected Indigenous Peoples. Such Bank- financed projects include measures to: a) avoid potentially adverse effects on the Indigenous Peoples' communities; or b) when avoidance is not feasible, minimize, mitigate, or compensate for such effects. Bank-financed projects also need to be designed to ensure that the Indigenous Peoples receive social and economic benefits that are culturally appropriate and gender and intergenerationally inclusive. As has already been stated, it is unlikely that the sub-projects will trigger OP 4.10. A comparison between the World Bank Safeguard Policy OP 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement and existing national legislation in Bhutan is contained in Table 3. This follows the format for Equivalence Assessment, as outlined in the World Bank's OP 4.00 (Piloting the Use of Borrower Systems to Address Environmental and Social Safeguard Issues in Bank-Supported Projects7),

7 Dated March 2005 25 and the Interim Guidance Note (Piloting the Use of Borrower Systems to Address Environmental and Social Safeguard Issues in Bank-Supported Projects8). While the World Bank will be responsible to carry out an equivalence assessment of these two policies, Table 3 aims to facilitate this process by identifying gaps in the policies and developing recommendations to bridge these gaps.

6.3 Harmonization of World Bank and RGoB Policies Table 6 presents a comparison of the core principles of RGoB and World Bank policies and provides recommendations to bridge identified policy gaps. The comparisons based on the types of impact like loss of private land, loss of homes/structures, loss of economic assets, loss of income, and loss of community resources shows that there are a number of areas where RGoB policies and procedures do not meet the requirements of the World Bank. Most of these gaps relate to compensation. The main difference is the compensation for land at current market rates. The compensation rates specified in the land compensation rate 1996 are much lower than the current rates. The regulatory processes to deal with customary rights to land are also not clear. Table 6 presents recommendations for how these concerns might be dealt with in relation to loss of private land, homes/structures, economic assets, income, and community resources.

8 Dated June 21, 2005 26 Table 6: Types of Impacts and comparison of RGOB and World Bank Policies with Gaps and Recommendations

Entitlement Unit RGOB Policy World Bank Policy Recommendations to Bridge Gaps A. LOSS OF LAND Families, - If land owner has other land holdings in - Compensation at full replacement cost. - Cash compensation equivalent to the amount households Bhutan cash compensation at govemment - For agriculture land pre-project or pre- as per Land Compensation rates (1996 RGoB); established Land Compensation Rates displacement, which ever ishigher, and (1996); or replacement land within the same market value of land of equal productive - Resettlement allowance in cash equivalent to Dzongkhag identified by the affected potential within the same vicinity. the difference between compensation as per landholder. - For urban land, pre-displacement market the Land Act and full replacement value as per - Ifland acquired by government is substituted value of land of equal size and use, with current values inthe same vicinity, plus value of with undeveloped land, landowner similar facilities and sources within the all land transaction fees and charges. compensated with half the cost of land. same vicinity. - Families who become landless allotted land as - Families who become landless as a result of - Replacement land of equivalent per provisions of the Land Act. land acquisition allotted land as per productive potential. provisions of the Land Act of 1979, KA-6(9A). Non-title holder - No compensation or assistance. - Resettlement assistance in lieu of - Resettlement assistance to those most (squatters and compensation for land occupied (land, vulnerable to restore pre-displacement level encroachers) cash, other assets, employment) to at livelihoods. Vulnerable groups may include but least restore their livelihoods and not be limited to: poor or landless, women standards of living to pre-displacement headed households, disabled and elderly. levels. - Encroachers will not be entitled to any compensation for their affected unauthorized/illegal extensions over public land. Vulnerable encroachers with economic losses may be entitled to assistance as a vulnerable group.

B.LOSS OF HOMES/STRUCTURES Families, - Compensation inaccordance with BSR - Compensation at full replacement cost. - Cash compensation equivalent to the amount households, (Bhutan Schedule of Rates), including For houses and structures the market as per BSR rates. To ensure compensation is at structure owners depreciation. BSR rates are usually updated cost of the materials and labour to build a replacement cost, additional resettlement every 3years by Department of Roads. The replacement structure of a similar quality assistance incash equivalent to cover last update was in2001. BSR rates are or better than the affected structure. depreciation over and above compensation slightly higher (by approximately 5%) than amounts determined based on the BSR. market rates because they include cost of material, labor.

27 Entitlement Unit RGOB Policy World Bank Policy Recommendations to Bridge Gaps C.LOSS OF ECONOMIC ASSETS Families, households - Compensation at full replacement cost. - Compensate and replace lost assets at their replacement cost. - Compensation for perennial crops and trees calculated as annual net product value multiplied by number of years for new crop to start producing. - Compensation incash for lost standing crop.

D. LOSS OF INCOME Affected person, - Allot landless families who suffer partial or - Measure to assist affected people in - Rehabilitation assistance for lost or diminished families, households total loss of livelihood land free of cost. improving their former living standards, livelihoods. income earning capacity, and production - Inthe case of landless families who suffer levels, or at least restoring them. partial or total loss of livelihood, allotment of land free of cost. - Pay special attention to partially affected vulnerable groups through targeted support. Provide more income generating options and support mechanisms. - Assist the affected vulnerable groups

E. LOSS OF COMMUNITY RESOURCES Affected - No provisions - Measures to assist impacted - Compensation for re-establishing or re- communities/families communities to re-establish or re-develop constructing lost community resources such as lost community resources. religious and cultural structures, irrigation structures. - Restore partially affected structures

28 7 EXPERIENCES AND LESSONS LEARNT FROM RAP PHASE 1 IMPLEMENTATION

A stock taking of experiences and lessons learned from the implementation of the First Rural Access Project was carried out. The objective of this review was to use the experiences and lessons learned from the implementation of this project to strengthen the design and preparation of the Second Rural Access project. This task was done mainly through review of Annual Impact Monitoring Reports, project documents, and consultation with executing agency (DoR) and the Dzongkhags. Some of the main points considered were: 1) Impact on poor, vulnerable groups, gender and ethnic groups 2) Stakeholder Assessment of "What difference has the project made to the people" 3) Implementation arrangements - lessons learnt * Institutional aspects : what are the lessons learnt for e.g. absence of a focal person in DoR * Lack of understanding of social issues * Issues overlooked - land acquisition, resettlement planning * Social screening process - mapping of road alignment - to show how many households would benefit from the road alignment * Instead of Bartsam-Bidung road, Rangjung - Bidung would have benefited more people. * Compliance with World Bank safe guard policies 4) Implementation arrangements - What can be done to address the concerns in the RAP Phase II.

7.1 Stakeholder Assessment An assessment through the main stakeholders was done with a key question - "What difference has the project made to the people?" The following sections present the views and perceptions. Perceptions and feed back from the beneficiary community 1. The communities expressed that the road has provided easy access to communication, health, and education. People especially women were relieved from carrying goods for the schools and BHU and they will have more time for farming and household activities. 2. With availability of transport services the travel time has been saved. Transportation of household and consumables items is easier and cheaper now. Framers expressed that they do not have to carry loads manually any more. Access to market has improved. Farmers' report that now it is possible to sell vegetables and livestock products. Farmers have started planting more fruit crops like oranges and walnut after the road. People are now relieved from contributing free labour for any new construction and from carrying goods for schools and BHU all the way from Duksum. The Shopkeepers of Lingabi and Zamling report that the expenditure on the cost of transportation has decreased significantly after the road. 3. With the road, the telecommunication facilities have reached Kikhar and Buli. This has helped farmers to make calls outside especially to their relatives and family members staying in other districts. Patient referral to the hospital has become easier with road facility and telephone services. 4. The community is willing to take up any maintenance works of the road. 5. People don't foresee any negative impact to the communities as well as to the environment. 6. The Dzondag of Lhuentse summarised the benefit of road as follows: * Benefit of the road is huge. Immediate impact may not be visible but in the long term the road would definitely bring changes to the lives of the rural population. 29 * Since the road reduces the transportation cost, important developmental activities will immediately follow once the road is completed. * There will be more employment opportunities for the youth in the rural areas, which would reduce rural urban migration. * Farmers can earn cash income through wage labour and from sale of crops and livestock products. * Road has helped in timely delivery of inputs and services to reach the farmers.

Effect on delivery of services * Reduction in cost of transportation of school stationeries & furniture * Parents relieved from contributing free labour for transportation. Education * Possible up gradation of schools * School dropouts will be reduced * In the past lady teachers were reluctant to join school due to long walking distance from the road head. Ramjar School now has two female teachers. * The delivery of health services has improved with the road and especially the evacuation of referral patients to Districts Hospitals. Health * The existing BHUs are planned to be upgraded * The road has further boosted production of vegetables, potato, fruit RNR crops. Farmers plan to increase production of potato, maize and oranges after the road. * Businessmen from district come to buy farm produce in the villages - improved access to market * Delivery of extension service has improved

Impact of Road on vulnerable groups * Relieved from carrying loads for development works - schools, BHUs Women etc. Have more time to concentrate on household works, child care, and farming. * Better access to support services * Improved health care * Better access to health and education. Children Small * Improved services from agriculture for enhanced production. marginal Farmers

30 7.2 Lessons learnt during Implementation Some of the experiences and lessons learned during implementation of the project along with suggestions for improvement is given below: EXPERIENCES AND LESSONS LEARNT SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT 1. Planning and selection of New Roads * It was probably the first time that rural * Continuity of beneficiaries' participation in beneficiaries were consulted thoroughly as a the planning of rural roads. part of planning of the road in 1999 prior to * Is essential to bring in sense of ownership to the start of Rural Access Project Roads. the beneficiary. Such a planning process brought a lot of * The vulnerable, poor and the affected should awareness to the beneficiaries. It also helped be enabled to express their problems, needs enhance people's participation. and perceptions. * All project roads connect remote areas and * Ensure continuity to reach the remote have benefited poor villages (e.g. the road to gewogs and villages Gomphu village) contributing to poverty * Link the access to other development reduction. programmes * Overall coordination at the planning stage * Need for better coordination at the planning was weak. stage with all the stakeholders including beneficiaries. Linkages with farm road, mule track and power tiller track construction is. * Lack of master plans at the dzongkhag level * Dzongkhag level rural access Planning makes new selection process difficult. (master plan) needed for selection of new Sometimes individual interests and political roads. influence the selection and alignment. * Guidelines and selection criteria need to be * The EIRR introduced by the World Bank was developed. a good example for other projects. * Involve beneficiaries during planning and implementation. * Better coordination needed for farm road, * It is important to see other activities around mule track and power tiller track the road before planning the new one. construction. * Road selected under RAP were all important * Important to have good cooperation with and good which benefited the people. other departments (network planning) * Time reduction in the construction of Gomkora-Tomijangsa road. * Lack of appropriate tools such as * Need to strengthen the capacity and access aerial/satellite imageries, maps, and geotech to appropriate tools. tools 2. Alignment of roads * Have to do better geo-technical/physical * More detail geo-technical/physical assessment. assessment required. * Ned to involve expertise like geo-tech, socio- economist, environmentalist) * Need to train surveyors for quality survey - survey and design including software and equipment.

31 * Planning in road alignment improved as * Beneficiaries and Dzongkhags should be compared to the past but a lot needs to be strongly involved as a part of initial planning done and the feasibility study. * The road should connect as many settlements as possible. * There is no flexibility for the field staff for * Built in at least some flexibility for field staff change of alignment in changing the alignment based on site conditions. Need to provide training to field staff. * Alignment encompasses several factors and * Need to address this issue stabilities are often overlooked. 3. Environment Friendly Road Construction (EFRC) Concept * The concept is new and takes time for the * EFRC standards are mandatory for power clients. tiller tracks and farm roads * Project support on EFRC support should continue * Implementation of EFRC should be given more emphasis for compliance of specifications * The contractors should use most appropriate equipment. * Technical specifications incorporated in the * BSR rates for some items needs to be EFRC standards worked out * Not all alignment sections can have EFRC * If cost permits EFRC is possible. applications for reasons of space, terrain conditions, and the cost 4. Award of contract/Tendering Procedures * Good standard bidding document is in place * There is a need to improve the capacity of and most competitive bidders are given the the contractors in preparing and submitting contract. However, there are several bids. problems like: * Contractors need education and awareness * Contractors do not follow bid procedures of the obligation and liabilities. * Bidders do not fulfil most of the qualification * Contract management for both client and the criteria set by the WB private sector need to be enhanced * Collusion of activities * Mandatory field visits are important before submitting the bid * In Kikhar, Zhemgang, the irrigation channel * Mandatory provision of a clause for repair in was badly damaged and the farmers could case of damages of community assets like not cultivate their fields for one season. irrigation, water supply etc. during road construction. * Contractors should be more careful and avoid such damages * 5. Supervision of the work * Made big step in quality assurance - * A systematic supervisory mechanism need improved. However, Quality enforcement to be put in place. Supervisors to have needs improvement check list sheets.

32 * Supervision capacity limited * Need to develop mechanisms to enforce * There is a shortage of qualified staff for quality standards. There is a need to build supervision the required capacity of DoR. * Contractors should be involved in monitoring of the works. * Improve staff strength for supervision * Need to improve DoR capacity for supervision of work (training etc.) * Work planning not up to the standard * Contractors need training in work planning * 6. Land Acquisition, Resettlement Planning and implementation * No major problems encountered. People * Acquisition process should continue to are more satisfied with cadastral surveys to involve all stakeholders including cadastral measure the affected land since it gives surveyors. better accuracy on the area acquired by * Need to revise the compensation rate with road. the increasing cost of land even in rural * Government compensation rate on land is areas. low. * 8. Project management and Coordination * Overall it was satisfactory but can be * Capacity building to address social issues. improved. * Need to place some one full time at the DoR * Social impact management capacity is project office. weak. * HRD needs to be considered on a priority basis.

The RAP Phase I roads have started to contribute positively on the improvement of livelihood of the communities. The roads have provided easy access to communication, health, education, and agricultural services to the rural communities. With the introduction of transport services, the travel time has been significantly reduced. Transportation of marketable surpluses and household consumables is easier and cheaper after the road. The communities are now relieved from contributing free labour for transportation of construction materials for schools, BHUs, and other infrastructure. The road has brought great relief to women from carrying loads for developmental works. New shops have come up and the trade and business has picked up. With the road new developmental activities are planned. It is expected that there will be more employment opportunities for the youth in the rural areas. Farmers expect to expand cash crop cultivation. So far, no negative impact to the communities or to the environment has been observed. The beneficiary communities have expressed their willingness to participate in the maintenance of the roads.

7.3 Key suggestions for the follow on project * For the planning and selection of new roads there is a need for greater involvement of the beneficiary communities and the Dzongkhags especially during the feasibility studies. The vulnerable, poor and the affected households should be enabled to express their views on problems, needs and aspirations. * There is a need for better coordination at the planning stage with all the stakeholders including beneficiaries. It is important to properly coordinate planning of farm road, mule tracks and power tiller tracks. A dzongkhag level rural access master plan is required for selection of new roads. Guidelines and selection criteria needs to be developed. The in rural access development

33 through roads needs to be linked with other development programmes to bring in the desired impact of the roads. * The alignment of road should ensure connection to as many settlements as possible. Some flexibility for minor changes on alignment should be considered based on site conditions. The project support for EFRC should continue to build the required capacity. The monitoring on compliance of specifications for the EFRC should receive more attention. * As a part of the award of contract, it is recommended that a mandatory provision of a clause is required for repairs in case of damages of community assets like irrigation water supply etc. More awareness needs to be created among contractors on the obligation and liabilities. There is a need to improve the capacity of the contractors in preparing and submitting bids, * For the supervision of project site activities, a systematic supervisory mechanism needs to be put in place. Contractors should be involved in monitoring of the works. There is a need to improve DoR capacity for supervision of work. * For land acquisition and resettlement planning, the RGoB should consider revising the land compensation rate due to increasing cost of land even in rural areas. The land acquisition process should include surveyors for proper assessment of the affected areas. * There is a need to build capacity within the DoR or MoW&HS to address social issues. A full time social development officer is required to coordinate and lead the social impact management

8 SOCIAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT

8.1 Description and Objectives The objective of the Social Assessment Framework (SAF) is to provide guiding principles for project planners, in consultation with the affected population, to identify and prioritize critical social issues and to address them in the design and implementation of the project. It details the broad methodology to systematically identify, predict and evaluate beneficial and adverse social impacts of project activities, designing enhancement measures for beneficial impacts and appropriate mitigation measures for adverse impacts.

8.2 Social Screening To assess the precise nature and magnitude of social impacts, social screening will be carried out as part of the feasibility studies for each subproject. To ensure consistency in the application of social screening criteria a standard social screening format, presented in Annexure 3 has been prepared which builds upon the current NEC and the DoR environmental screening guidelines and includes: * Loss of land. * Loss of structures. * Loss of livelihoods. * Impacts on vulnerable groups. * Impacts on common community resources. * Willingness of communities to volunteer land. To the extent possible, social and environment screening will be carried out together with technical and economic screening. Social screening will identify the potential for loss of land, assets/structures, livelihoods, willingness of the community to donate land to the project, and other significant social impacts. The results of this review will include recommendations for the exclusion

34 of the subproject if involuntary land acquisition or serious social impacts are anticipated. The social screening criteria agreed with the World Bank is expected to eliminate all project sites that may require the acquisition of privately owned land for first year subprojects. Social screening will also enable the categorization of subprojects based on their level of social impacts. Where the extent of adverse social impacts is minor and no displacement or loss of assets or livelihoods is expected, further social assessment will not be necessary. Social screening has been carried out for the two project roads as part of the social assessment. The Drujeygang-Balung road under Dagana Dzongkhag will partially affect land of around 88 households (28 households in Drujeygang, 32 households in Tshangkha and 28 households in Lajab gewog). Details of these households are presented in Annexure 1. However, the road alignment will not cause any relocation or displacement of the people. Thirty-four households out of the 88 partially affected households are poor. Twenty-three households among the affected 34 poor households are headed by women. Some of the affected people particularly in Thangna village under Drujeygang gewog consist of very poor households. Therefore, a mechanism for support is necessary to avoid adverse impact of the road for this vulnerable group of people. The concerned GYT in consultation with those affected families and communities will agree upon compensation and suitable assistance to affected households. The project will pay special attention to these vulnerable groups who will receive targeted support and be provided with more options and support mechanisms as appropriate. In both project roads these were no significant adverse social impacts observed. None of the potential beneficiaries would lose 25% or more of their owned land as any land acquisition is expected to be very small. Therefore, no lands, houses or other private properties of the people were significantly affected. In general, the vulnerable groups in the communities where the project interventions are to be implemented would not be adversely impacted (see Annexure 2, 2.1, 3 and 3.1). However, some of the affected poorer households particularly the identified 34 households should receive special attention during the implementation of the project. The project will consider support mechanisms for improving their livelihood. Land acquisitions for the project interventions are to be acquired on a voluntary donation basis therefore facilitating minor land acquisition. The project is also not expected to adversely impact on people's income and livelihoods. Further, the project is also not expected to impact adversely on common property resources namely religious and cultural sites and structures. The result of the screening confirms the nature of social impacts identified through stakeholder consultations and site visits to gewogs where similar works have already been implemented. No relocation of people is anticipated. The screening findings will be discussed with design engineers and to the extent possible incorporated into project design to avoid or minimize impacts. A socio-economic profile for the project sites has been prepared based on a separate social assessment survey and secondary sources that provides a broad overview of the dzongkhags where the project will be implemented and their levels of socio-economic development. The socio- economic survey results will provide the socio-economic conditions of the project affected people prior to the implementation of project interventions, which will provide a baseline against which the project impacts can be measured at the completion of the project.

8.3 Resettlement Policy Framework The interventions proposed for road construction under the two dzongkhags of Dagana and Wangdue are expected to be small and cause minimal negative social impacts. Resettlement is unlikely under the project. However, as a precautionary measure, a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) has been prepared to address impacts arising from the construction of other proposed feeder roads and involving: (i) loss of land; (ii) loss of homes/structures; (iii) loss of 35 livelihood systems/income opportunity (due to the lost of productive land or impact to a structure where a livelihood activity is being carried out); and (iv) loss of community property resources (religious structures, grazing land). The RPF defines the legal, institutional and implementation framework to guide the compensation for lost assets, livelihoods, community property, and resettlement and rehabilitation of project affected people in accordance with the World Bank's Operational Policy 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement and RGoB guidelines and legislation. Key provisions of RGoB's Land Act (1979) and the World Bank's policy were compared, policy gaps identified and recommendations made to address these gaps. This review formed the underlying basis of developing the RPF, especially the policy matrix for entitlements for losses suffered under the project. The RPF will be applicable to similar projects funded under by World Bank under RAP. To the extent possible, the project will consider alternative engineering designs to minimize adverse social impacts and land acquisition. Where the social screening indicates that land acquisition and/or loss of assets is unavoidable, a subproject Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) will be prepared for which the RPF provides overarching guidance on principles and procedures. Subproject RAPs will be based on more detailed social studies/assessment and include the following: * Project and subproject description. * Description of project losses and impacts. * Baseline survey and census data. * Policy entitlements related to additional impacts identified through the survey or census. * Time-bound implementation plan. * Costs and budgets. The Project RAPs will be prepared at the planning and design stage and submitted to the World Bank for review three months before the data of initiation of any land acquisition.

8.4 Principles and Objectives The RPF is based on relevant RGoB laws and policies (as summarized in the legal framework section of the document), as well as the World Bank's Operational Policy 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement. It will be guided by the following key policy principles and objectives: * Avoid or minimize involuntary resettlement and land acquisition where feasible, exploring all viable alternative project designs. * Assist displaced persons in improving their former living standards, income earning capacity, and production levels, or at least in improving them. * Provide full information and carry out consultations with affected people on resettlement and compensation so that resettlement becomes a participatory process. * Provide assistance to affected people regardless of legality of land tenure. * Applies not only to physical relocation, but loss of any land or other assets resulting in: (i) relocation or loss of shelter; (ii) loss income sources or means of livelihood, whether or not the affected people must move to another location; and (iii) loss of community resources. * Take special measures to protect socially and economic vulnerable groups, such as female headed households, people living in extreme poverty, marginal landowners and the landless. * Provide compensation for acquired land and assets at replacement values. * Compensation for loss of perennial crops and trees calculated as annual net product value multiplied by number of years for new crop to start producing.

36 * Provide replacement residential and agriculture land as close as possible to the land that was acquired by the project and which is acceptable to the affected person. * Synchronize construction schedules with land acquisition to ensure that all land acquisition activities are completed prior to commencement of construction at that site. * Implement subproject resettlement plans after consultations with the affected people. * Ensure that the entire cost of resettlement or other social development programs budgeted in the annual and overall implementation plans of the project. * Establish adequate institutional arrangements to ensure the effective and timely monitoring of all social impacts. * Establish effective mechanisms for hearing, recording and resolving grievances.

8.5 Eligibility Criteria The following groups of people are entitled to compensation and assistance under the project: Project Affected People includes any person or persons or households who because of project activities would have their: (i) standard of living adversely affected; (ii) legally recognized title, or interest in any house, land (including residential, agricultural and grazing land) or any other moveable or fixed assets acquired or possessed, in full or in part, permanently or temporarily, and; iii)place of work or residence or habitat adversely affected, with or without displacement. Project Affected Families All members of a project affected household residing under one roof and operating as a single economic unit, who are adversely affected by the project or any of its components. For resettlement purposes, affected persons will be considered as members of affected households. Squatters People who are occupying land in violation of the laws of Bhutan are not entitled to compensation for loss of land under this policy. However, if such people have uninterrupted possession of land for at least one year prior to the census, they are entitled to resettlement assistance if displaced. All displaced persons are entitled to compensation for loss of assets other than land, in particular, structures and crops. Encroachers People who have trespassed into RGoB/private/community land to which they are not authorized. Marginal farmer A farmer whose land holding is less than 1.0 acre Landless/AgriculturalLaborer A person who does not hold agricultural land himself or jointly with any family member. Persons who work as agricultural laborers are also placed under this category. Vulnerable Group Distinct groups of people who are socially distressed or economically backward and who might suffer disproportionately from resettlement effects. These include, but are not limited to the following: women headed households, people living below the poverty line, marginal land owners, landless, agricultural laborers, and the disabled and elderly. For adverse impacts on community facilities (i.e. places of worship) no financial compensation will be paid directly to individual persons or groups. DoR will rebuild the affected facilities or provide alternatives in consultation with user communities.

8.6 Entitlement Policy The project will provide entitlements to rehabilitate persons who lose their land and property. The specific entitlements are presented in the following Entitlement Matrix (Table 7) which is applicable to the Rural Access Projects and which accommodates the provisions of the RPF and the laws of Bhutan: 37 Table 7: Entitlement Policy Matrix Type of Impact Enhitlement IJnil EntilIement Responsiblity Affected person/families Cash compensation equivalent to the amount as per Dzongkhag in collaboration Land Acquisition Act; and Resettlement allowance in with the DoR cash equivalent to the difference between compensation as per the Land Act and full replacement value as per current values in the same vicinity, plus value of all land transaction fees and charges. Families who become landless allotted land as per Dzongkhag in collaboration provisions of the Land Act. with the DoR and satshab Loss of private Committee land Vulnerable groups and Resettlement assistance to those most vulnerable to Dzongkhag in collaboration non-title holder (squatters restore pre-displacement level livelihoods. Vulnerable with the DoR. and encroachers) groups may include but not be limited to: poor or landless, women headed households, disabled and elderly. Encroachers will not be entitled to any compensation for their affected unauthorized/illegal extensions over public land. Vulnerable encroachers with economic losses may be entitled to assistance as a vulnerable group. Loss of Homes Affected person/families Cash compensation equivalent to the amount as per Dzongkhag in collaboration and structures BSR rates. To ensure compensation at replacement with the DoR. value, resettlement assistance in cash equivalent to cover depreciation over and above compensaton determined on the basis of BSR rates. Loss of Affected person/families Compensate and replace lost assets at the their Dzongkhag in collaboration economic assets replacement cost. with the DoR. Compensation for perennial crops and trees calculated as annual net product value multiplied by number of years for new crop to start producing. Compensation incash for lost standing crop. Loss of income Affected person/ families Rehabilitation assistance for lost or diminished Dzongkhag in collaboration livelihoods. with the DoR. In the case of landless families who suffer partial or total loss of livelihood, allotment of land free of cost. Loss of Affected Compensation for re-establishing or re-constructing lost Dzonghkag in collaboration Community institution/community community resources such as religious and cultural with DoR. Resources structures or providing altematives inconsultation with affected communities. Temporary Affected person/families Cash compensation/transition allowance Dzongkhag incollaboration losses with DoR

8.7 Voluntary Land Donation The project roads under the Dagana and Wangdue dzongkhags are expected to cause only marginal impacts without major economic or physical loss and displacement. Obtaining land for rural roads and infrastructure has typically been based on voluntary donations. Therefore, the project envisages the acquisition of almost all lands by voluntary donation where: It is recommended that the following criteria be used if land is to be voluntarily donated by project beneficiaries: 1) The impacts should be marginal (meaning that loss of productive assets should be no more than 10% of the total owned by the volunteer.

38 2) Impacts do not result in displacement of households or cause loss of a household's incomes and livelihoods.

3) Households making voluntary donations must be direct beneficiaries of the project.

4) Land donated should be free from any dispute over ownership, or any other encumbrances.

5) Consultations with the affected households should be conducted in a free and transparent manner.

6) A Memorandum of Agreement needs to support land transactions (see Annexure 4).

7) Proper documentation needs to take place of all consultations, grievances, and actions taken to address grievances.

8) Assets that remain in the hands of volunteers should not be rendered economically unviable.

9) People affected by the sub-projects should be fully aware of the procedures and entitlements laid out in the Resettlement Planning Framework. In the event that some households are displaced, vulnerable groups are affected, or where affected households do not wish to donate land, the concerned GYT in consultation with those affected families and communities, will agree upon compensation and suitable assistance to affected households. A memorandum of agreement will be established as a means of recording the location and size of land being donated as well as the written consent and names of local witnesses for those community members donating lands voluntarily. It will contain specific provisions to record that the land being donated is free of squatters, encroachers or other claims or encumbrances. These will be recorded in a Memorandum of Agreement, a suggested format for which is presented in Annexure 4. Different impacts will affect these groups differently, depending on the reason for their vulnerability under the project. The project will pay special attention to these vulnerable groups who will receive targeted support and be provided with more options and support mechanisms as appropriate.

8.8 Implementation Process Resettlement will be coordinated with the timing of the civil works during project implementation. The project will provide adequate notification, counseling and assistance to affected people so they are able to move without undue hardship before the commencement of civil works. In the case of land acquisition, the procedures will follow the provisions of the Land Act, and SAF. The outline of the project along with the Project Resettlement Action Plan after its approval by RGoB and the World Bank, will be translated into the local language and made available in a public place accessible to affected people and other stakeholders. The project will ensure that civil works are not started on any sites before compensation and assistance to the affected population have been provided in accordance with the Resettlement Policy Framework.

8.9 Grievance Redress Mechanisms Informal traditional dispute mechanisms, based primarily on negotiations between aggrieved parties and through community meetings to reach consensus on a satisfactory resolution, are already practiced in the beneficiary gewogs. These traditional dispute practices appear to function well and are generally accepted by all community members as a satisfactory means for resolving disputes and grievances. However, to make the grievance redress process more systematic, but 39 still working within traditional community norms and practices, aggrieved parties will be able to appeal to local community committees (GYT, DYT) to facilitate resolution of the grievance. Any appeals to committees will be recorded in a register, identifying the name of the aggrieved party, date grievance registered, nature of grievance, and measures suggested to address the grievance, including escalating resolution of the grievance to MoW&HS or RGOB for recourse through traditional judicial practices, and date of grievance redressed.

8.10 Funding Arrangements All resettlement funding will be through the main project and under the oversight of DoR, MoW&HS. The Resettlement Action Plans shall be prepared during the planning and design phase and include detailed cost estimates. The budget will be prepared by the Dzongkhag land acquisition committee, GYTs, DYTs, representatives from land use and MoW&HS while acquiring the land from the affected people. The approved details are sent to the Department of Survey & Land Records, Ministry of Agriculture for obtaining approval of the Department of Budget, Ministry of Finance.

8.11 Consultation/Participation Consistent with the decentralized planning and implementation approach of RGoB, this consultation will continue throughout the implementation of the project's physical works and operation and maintenance phases. Systematic monitoring of these consultations, including minutes of regular community meetings with gewogs to ascertain their views, concerns and grievances, as well as concerns/issues identified though the participatory monitoring and evaluation processes, will be carried out by GYTs/DYTs and summarized by DoR in regular progress monitoring reports.

8.12 Monitoring and Evaluation A focal person in DoR (Project management Unit) will be responsible for coordination of land acquisition and resettlement implementation. The focal person and the District Superintendent Engineer will be also responsible for monitoring resettlement activities. These officials will undertake this task quarterly. The monitoring process will examine procedural issues, progress in land acquisition and resettlement, as well as, any critical factors that may have long term impacts on the project. Monitoring will place a specific focus on transparency, participation of project-affected people, especially women and vulnerable groups, effectiveness of the grievance redress process, and income restoration initiatives.

9 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES

This section of the report reviews and assesses the institutional arrangements currently in place in Bhutan to identify, mitigate, and monitor environmental and social issues. It also provides recommendations for the strengthening of these arrangements. Given the focus of the report, it places emphasis on the management of social issues, and especially those resulting from road projects.

9.1 The Regulatory Structure As is the case in most jurisdictions, the assessment, management, and monitoring of the social impacts of development takes place in Bhutan predominantly within the context of requirements imposed by the environmental legal structure. This structure has changed substantially since RAP I was initiated in 1999. All of the following important environmental laws, regulations, or guidelines have been produced over the course of the last six years: 40 * Environmental Assessment Act (2000); * Regulation on the Environmental Clearance of Projects (2002); * Regulation on Strategic Environmental Assessment (2002); * Sectoral Environmental Assessment Guidelines and Environmental Codes of Practice; * Biodiversity Act 2003; * Forest and Nature Conservation Rules (2000); and * Road Act (2004). The most important development in relation to the assessment and management of new roads is the commencement of the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) (2000). This law did not exist at the time of initiation of RAP I. It is of significance with regard to social impacts because the term "environment" is widely defined to mean: "the complex web of interrelationships between the abiotic and biotic components which sustains life on earth, including the social, health and cultural aspects of human beings". This definition means that all of the procedures that are laid down in the EAA with regard to the biophysical environment, also relate to the human or social environment. In brief, the EAA establishes procedures for the assessment of potential effects of strategic plans, policies, programs, and projects on the environment, and for the determination of policies and measures to reduce potential adverse effects and to promote environmental benefits. It makes environmental clearance (EC)9 mandatory for any project/ activity that may have adverse impact(s) on the environment. Based on the review of environmental information submitted by the project applicant, the National Environment Commission Secretariat (NECS) or the Competent Authority (CA)10 may issue/ deny EC or determine the need for a full environmental assessment (EA). Where a full EA is determined necessary, the applicant will be asked to prepare EA documents according to the terms of reference (ToR) approved by the NECS. The NECS will review the EA report and accordingly issue/ deny EC. The NECS or CA may issue EC when it is satisfied that: (a) the effects of the project on the environment are foreseeable and acceptable; (b) the applicant is capable of carrying out the terms of EC; (c) the project, alone or in connection with other programmes/ activities, contributes to the sustainable development of the Kingdom and the conservation of its natural and cultural heritage; (d) adequate attention has been paid to the interests of concerned people; and (e) the project is consistent with the environmental commitments of the Kingdom. EC for a project shall be reviewed and may be revised and renewed at least every five years, unless a shorter period is stated. The NECS or CA may review and modify the terms whenever there is: (a) unacceptable risks to the environment resulting from the project which were not known at the time the clearance was issued; (b) availability of improved and cleaner technology; and (c) a need to bring the project into compliance with changes to the laws of the country. Non-compliance with environmental terms specified in the issuance of environmental clearance makes the offender liable to penalties that may include compensation for environmental damage, fines, sanctions, and suspension or revocation of environmental clearance in part or full.

9 Article 6.11 of the EAA defines Environmental Clearance as the decision, issued in writing by the NECS or the relevant Competent Authority, to let a project proceed, which includes terms (and conditions) to ensure that the project is managed in an environmentally sound and sustainable way. 10Article 6.2 of the EEA defines a Competent Authority as any agency of RGoB who has the power to issue development consent for a project. 41 Another important development has been the promulgation of detailed administrative guidelines and regulations. The Regulation for the Environmental Clearance of Projects (RECOP) (2002) now provides supporting detail for the implementation of the EAA. The Regulation is also important because it provides the basis for the delegation of EC power to line Ministries and other Competent Authorities (all of which are specified in Annex 2 of the Regulation). Many other laws and regulations touch on the management of social issues, especially where consultation procedures are required. With regard to RAP 11,the most significant laws are possibly the Gewog Yargay Tshogchung ("GYT") and Dzongkhag Yargay Tshogchung ("DYT") Chatrims (2002). The GYT and DYT Chatrims were enacted to support the Government's decentralization policy and empower locally elected community bodies (DYTs and GYTs) with the authority and responsibility to decide, plan and implement development programmes and activities, including those concerning environmental management. The Chatrims confer considerable powers in the DYTs and GYTs in relation to environmental and social issues management. The abovementioned laws and regulations are now supported by strong sectoral guidelines and codes of practice, developed by the NEC and by the Department of Roads. These documents help proponents through the environmental clearance administrative system, and assist them with the practicalities of preparing environmental assessment studies, Environmental Management Plans, and Environmental Monitoring Plans. Some of these guidelines make specific mention of the need to consult over proposed developments, and to provide information on social details. For example, the NEC's Application for Environmental Clearance Guideline for Highways and Roads (2004) requires road proponents (such as the Department of Roads) to provide details of public consultation, and to comment on both the number of project beneficiaries, and on whether the siting of the road will create any adverse impacts to existing houses, infrastructure and cultural or heritage sites.1" The Guidelines are important because the RECOP (in Article 28.2(b)) requires that proponents "comply with relevant sectoral guidelines or codes of best practices" when they present environmental information to Competent Authorities.12

9.2 Evaluation of Regulatory Structure As the analysis presented above indicates, the environmental regulatory structure has improved substantially since the initiation of RAP I and the broad application of that legislation provides cover for social and cultural impacts. While no specific laws exist for the identification, mitigation, and monitoring of social issues ... this is not unusual. The definition of the term "environment" in the Environmental Assessment Act is broad enough to enable social issues to be adequately dealt with in the planning and management of new road proposals.

11 National Environment Commission, Royal Government of Bhutan (2004), Application for Environmental Clearance Guideline for Highways and Roads, pages 19-20. 12 The Department of Roads (Ministry of Works and Human Settlement), has also produced a separate Environmental Codes of Practice (Highways and Roads). This is still in draft form. In 2005, the Department also produced separate guidelines for the preparation of Environmental Management Plans (Guidelines for Preparation of Environmental Management Plan, Version I. Royal Government of Bhutan, Department of Roads, Ministry of Works and Human Settlement. Environment Friendly Road Construction - Support Project. July 2005). These Guidelines provide detailed advice to proponents with regard to preparing EMPs, and Environmental Monitoring Plans. 42 9.2.1 Institutional Arrangements for Social Issues Management Until very recently, responsibility for environmental management has rested squarely and clearly with the National Environment Commission. The same cannot be said for social issues management. While the regulatory structure outlined in section 1.2 gives the NEC power to assess the social impact of new developments, in practice the focus of NEC interest tends to be on biophysical issues. This is a natural outgrowth of the organizational culture, and background qualifications of NEC staff. Recommendations for dealing with this situation will be suggested in the next section. Over the last 2 or 3 years, the NEC has been gradually delegating its environmental clearance (EC) powers to Competent Authorities. The most recent example of this trend has been the establishment of District Environment Committees (DECs) in all 20 Dzongkhags. The NEC is currently helping these DECs to build capacity, through training of the Committees themselves, and through aid-funded scholarships for future Executive Officers. When in full operation, the DECs will be responsible for social issues management, a power that will be provided to them by Environmental Assessment Act delegation. Environmental clearance power has also been delegated to the following agencies: * Ministry of Trade and Industry (Departments of Industry, Trade and Geology and Mines); * Ministry of Works and Human Settlement (Standards and Quality Control Authority); * Ministry of Agriculture (Department of Forests, Department of Agriculture); and * City Corporations. The Government has also been establishing environmental units within line Ministries and other agencies. This is part of its policy to encourage all agencies (not just the NEC) to take responsibility for their own environmental impacts. To date, environmental units have been established in the following: * Ministry of Trade and Industry; * Ministry of Agriculture; and * Ministry of Works and Human Settlement (MoWHS). MoWHS has environmental staff placed in both the Standards and Quality Control Authority, and in the Department of Roads.

9.2.2 Evaluation of Institutional Arrangements for Social Issues Management In parallel with reforms to the environmental regulatory structure, institutional arrangements for environmental management have also developed substantially over the course of the last six years. The NEC is no longer seen as the sole public custodian of environmental management. This responsibility is shared with other Ministries, the fledgling District Environment Committees, and City Corporations. While these developments are entirely positive, they do focus strongly on the management of biophysical issues. While the social impacts of new developments are covered in law, it could be argued that they are less well provided for in a practical, institutional sense. There is therefore a need to build better institutional capacity for social issues management. There are three main options for consideration to deal with this situation. The first option is to establish a new Social Impact Management Unit, within an existing organization. This could effectively take an equivalent role to NEC, but would concentrate solely on social issues. The second option would be to appoint specialists in social impact assessment to be placed inside the NEC, and in other Competent Authorities, to take specific responsibility for social issues management. The third option would be to provide additional training to existing (and proposed) environmental officers, so that they have the technical ability to manage the identification, 43 mitigation, and monitoring of the social impacts of new developments. Table 8 presents a comparison of these options. Table 8: Comparison of Options for Consideration to strengthen Social Issues Management Capacity. Option 1(New Social Impact Option 2 (Place trained social Option 3 (Provide additional Management Unit) scientists in Competent training to existing Authorities) environmental slaff) Advantages 1.Makes responsibility for 1 Increases the profile of 1 Cheapest and quickest identification, mitigation, and social issues in Competent option to implement. monitoring of social issues Authorities. 2. Staff are already in place, clearer. 2. Less expensive than Option or currently planned. 2. Indicates that the 1. Government is taking social 3. Not difficult to implement impacts of new developments within existing Government seriously. structure. Disadvantages 1. Requires considerable 1.Would require resources to 1. Biophysical scientists resources to establish. train and place new staff. may find it difficult to adapt 2.Would require new 2. There may be cultural to social science training, legislation to make it effective. difficulties associated with and hence neglect social 3.Would necessitate taking placing social scientists in issues management. some powers away from NEC. biophysically-oriented agencies.

Option 1 is the most problematic. Not only would it require considerable resources, but establishing a proper place for such an agency within the Government agency structure would be difficult. For it to be effective, a new Social Impact Management Unit would require its own supporting legislation, and this would necessitate taking some powers and responsibilities away from the NEC. Attempts to establish similar units in other jurisdictions have not worked well. Option 2 would also require additional resources, because the Competent Authorities do not currently have staff trained in social impact assessment. However, it would be less expensive than Option 1, and would not be too difficult to implement within the Government's current administrative structure. Option 3 would be the cheapest and quickest option to implement because the staff are already in place, and/or are currently being trained while the main concem of Option 3 might be that biophysical scientists may find it difficult to adapt to social science training, and hence neglect social issues management, if training is carried out effectively this concern can be addressed.

10 IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS

10.1 Institutional Arrangements The project is aimed at relying as much as possible on existing RGoB existing policies and procedures. As such, it will be implemented within existing institutional arrangements within the MoW&HS, the DoR and dzongkhag administrations for project preparation and implementation activities. Implementation arrangements to support social impact management will largely follow normal practices, policies, and procedures. There will be a Project Management Unit in the DoR which will be responsible for overseeing the implementation of SAF activities. Oversight of the social aspects of the project will be done in close collaboration with geog and dzongkhag administrations.

44 Implementing agencies will be decentralized and essentially comprise the 4 gewogs and 2 dzonkhags in the first year project areas. The data collection and reporting procedures will follow the existing guidelines on Monitoring and Evaluation. At the geog level M&E activities will be the responsibility of the GYT. At the dzongkhag level, the District Planning Officer will be the key individual for collection M & E data, including data relevant for monitoring social impacts. Tracking overall progress of the program will be the responsibility of the DoR and the MoW&HS. Many of the decentralized implementation arrangements are new and capacity-building is needed at geog, dzongkhag and MoW&HS levels to effectively implement social impact management activities and if necessary resettlement action plans. The institutional strengthening component of the project will include training to build capacity on social screening, assessment and mitigation. Project implementation will require coordination between different agencies and departments. In line the Environment Act and following the practice of other ministries, MoW&HS will appoint internal suitably qualified staff to provide coordination and oversight on the social aspects of the project. Specifically, the role a focal person will be to work with gewogs and dzongkhags to facilitate and build local capacity on social screening, awareness of social impacts and provide outreach and disseminate information to the communities. The Terms of Reference for a focal person on social issues could include the following: 1) Coordinate planning and implementation of RAP II social aspects in accordance the provisions of the SAF. 2) Monitor the project implementation to ensure the effective implementation of social impact mitigation. 3) Regularly carry out site visits and consultations with affected communities to assess social impacts, adequacy of mitigation actions, voluntary land donations, participation of community members, especially the most vulnerable in project activities, and transparency in voluntary land donations. 4) Report progress (in quarterly progress reports) highlighting any new issues and recommendations for addressing these issues and strengthening existing practices in subsequent subprojects.

10.2 Monitoring & Evaluation The project will systematically monitor land acquisition based on: (i) process monitoring (e.g. project inputs, expenditures, staff deployment); (ii) output monitoring (e.g. results in terms of number of affected people compensated and resettled); and (iii) impact evaluation (i.e. longer term effect of the project on people's lives). The broader social monitoring program will also follow these processes. Monitoring of the social aspects of the project will be fully integrated into the broader monitoring program of the project and summarized in quarterly project progress reports for each stage including: baseline and pre-construction monitoring, compliance and impact monitoring and operational monitoring. With some orientation on the monitoring procedures and indicators, monitoring will be conducted by the gewog and dzongkhags and if necessary with the assistance of skilled social assessment consultant(s) who will be appointed for this purpose. This information will serve to inform MoW&HS about progress and results, and to adjust the work program where necessary if delays or problems arise. The results of this monitoring summarized in reports will be submitted to MoW&HS and IDA on a quarterly basis. Provisions will be made for participatory monitoring involving project affected people and beneficiaries communities in assessing results and impacts. 45 10.2.1 Indicators for monitoring

The following table presents suggested monitoring indicators to be used by the project, if as needed more specific indicators can be developed and refined during project implementation: Process Monitoring and Evaluation Indicators Type of Monito Bsin- and Evaluatiand oiin Basisfor Indi;ca tor;sn*,io.1,r' :s* * Location of sub-project area * Population composition, structures, education and skills * Access to health, education, utilities and other social services Sub-project Area * Housing type and amenities (toilets, drinking water, electricity) Information * Land and other resources ownership and use patterns * Occupations and employment patterns of households * Participation in neighborhood or community groups / development * Access to cultural sites and events * Value of all assets for entitlements and resettlement needs * Have all land acquisition and resettlement provisions been made and staff mobilized in the field and offices as per the schedule? e a* Are funds for compensation/resettlement sought to deal with Budget and Time involuntary land acquisition? * Have funds been allocated to titleholders according to RAP? * Has the social preparation phase taken place as scheduled? * How effectively have grievances been addressed? * Have all land acquisition process been finalized officially? * Are land acquisition activities being achieved according to agreed Land Acquisition principles? * Are there any resettlement related outstanding disputes? * Has all land been acquired in time for project implementation? * How many MoUs have been signed for voluntary land donation?

Output Monitoring and Evaluation Indicators

* Number of families providing lands voluntarily for project interventions and those who have been provided with compensation for lands? How much money has been disbursed as compensation under different headings? e o* Number of households due to be compensated for their properties i.e. Delivery of land, house, business displacement, crop damage etc. * Number of households/Project Affected People (PAP) to be resettled because of displacement. * Do people have access to schools, health services, cultural sites? * Are restoration plans for social infrastructure and services adequately addressed?

46 * Are incomes and livelihood restoration activities being implemented as set out in the income restoration plan, for example number of PAPs trained and provided with jobs, micro-credit disbursed, number of income generating activities assisted? * Were compensation payments made free of depreciation fees of Restoration of Living costs? Standards css * Have perceptions??? of "community" been restored? * Have consultations taken place as scheduled including meetings, groups, community activities? * How many PAPs know their entitlements? How many of them have Consultation, received entitlements?

Special Issues * Have PAPs appealed for grievance redress? What were the outcomes? * Have conflict been resolved? * Was the social preparation phase implemented?

Impact Monitoring and Evaluation Indicators

*Were compensation payments sufficient to replace lost assets? *Did transfer and relocation payments cover these costs? Restoration of * Have vulnerable groups been provided income-earning opportunities? Livelihoods Are these effective and sustainable? * Are jobs provided to Project Affected People (PAP) to restore pre- project income levels and maintain their original living standards? * How much the PAPs are aware of the resettlement procedures and entitlements? Do PAPs know their entitlements? * Do they know if these have been met? Levels of Satisfaction * How to assess the extent to which PAPs own living standards and livelihoods have been restored? * How much do PAPs know about grievance procedures and conflict resolution procedures? * Were the PAPs and their assets correctly enumerated? Effectiveness of * Was the time frame and budget sufficient to meet objectives? Resettlement * Were entitlements too generous? Planning * Were vulnerable groups identified and assisted? * How did resettlement implementers deal with unforeseen problems? Other Impacts * Were there unintended environmental impacts? * Were there unintended impacts on employment or incomes?

47 A detailed list of indicator is given below for monitoring of the impact at household and community levels. It is suggested that after completion of the road, the monitoring on the impact be carried out on an annual basis for 2-3 years using the following indicators.

List of indicators for monitoring of the impact due to project interventions Employment opportunities - No of person/days of employment generated by road construction/ maintenance. - Changes in the labor market in terms of new opportunities and wage rates - Access to alternative sectors of economy and employment opportunities Economic changes - Changes in the sources of income - pre and post transport improvement - Composition of household income (type of income sources) - Pattern of household expenditure (share of food, transportation) - Diversification from farm based economy to non-farm economy, including service and other sectors - Emergence of organized markets (replacing unorganized market) - Linkages to local and regional markets - traffic volume, transport expenses, traffic volume, prices for the produce - Changes in the volume of produce marketed - Distance to markets - Prices of key traded commodities - Price of land - Price of housing - Numbers of sellers/shops in the nearest market - Number of visits to market (as consumer and products bought and as producer and products sold) Changes in - Area under improved crop varieties Agriculture/Livestock - Area under cash crops production - Cropping intensity - Crop production (volume of agricultural outputs) - Crop productivity (increase in yields per unit area) - Changes in the cropping pattern/land use (from subsistence to commercial farming) - Specialized crop and livestock production enterprises - Time spent on various activities - Use of fertilizers, improved seeds and farm equipment - Availability of new products - Access to credit - Visits and support services by Agri Extension agents - Amount of loan disbursed in agriculture sector Access to social/welfare - Education status (literacy, average years of education by age and gender) services - Education - Nos of primary/secondary schools in village - Primary/secondary school enrollment rate (by gender) - Primary school drop out rate (by gender) - Distance to nearest primary/secondary school - Quality of schools (availability of teachers, qualification, availability of supplies) Access to social/welfare - Health status (incidence of illness, number of work days lost due to illness, by age services - Health and gender) - Nos and types of health facilities - Distance to nearest health centres - Number of visits to health facilities

48 - Health services (visits of medical officer, availability of medical drugs and supplies - Morbidity rates - Nutritional status of children - Access to emergency services - Prenatal care for pregnant women Transport - Availability of bus stops - Frequency of private and public transport services - Cost of transport - Travel time - Usage of non-motorized transport (Impact) - Occurrence of road accidents Electrification - New transmission lines - Nos of houses electrfied Access to other services - Access to postal and telecom services - Access to fair price shops and public distribution system - Access to government's development programs and other services - Social interaction (number of visits to other villages and cities, participation at social events, by age and gender)

Housing condition - Changes in the housing conditions - Changes in the housing pattern - more space for carrying out commercial activities - Changes in the occupancy pattern - rents realized - Electrification of individual houses Common - Changes in the availability of infrastructure - drinking water, health, school, infrastructure/resources electrification - street lights - Changes in the area under common properties - village wood lots, grazing land impact on livestock Impact on women - Participation of women in economic activity - Saving time on haulage of wood, water - Saving time on agriculture activities - Status of women in family and community - Improvement in general health status of women - Access to govt. development schemes - Loan sanctioned to women for business purpose Community Participation - Involvement of community in project planning - Involvement of vulnerable groups & community indeciding performance indicator - Monitoring mechanism developed for public participation - Monitoring of relationship between the local population and other stakeholders of the project - Transparency in project implementation - Level of community participation in maintenance work Adverse social impacts - Loss of land - Loss of house - Impact on irrigation channels - Conflict with outsiders - Increase in road accident - Introduction of new diseases - Loss of income to non-moterised transporters - Impact on biodiversity - Loss of community resources 49 Following indicators are suggested that could be monitored after the project is completed. These have been segregated at different levels namely at the process or activity level, the output or result level and at the outcome or objective level. Monitoring indicators are suggested in the table below. Suggested indicators for project interventions Project element Level & Suggested indicator Responsible Overall obiectives Outcome Enhanced income and living 3 years after completion of standard through increased the project 50% of farmers in rural communities have DoR agricultural out puts; increased improved access to social services and increase in their access to social services and income market for rural communities in selected dzongkhags Intermediate Results Output Improved Road Access due to A year after completion of the project, frequency of visits DoR project interventions to district head offices and service centres double for half the population

2 years after completion of the project, food security of farmers enhanced with 25% increase their crop production; increase in income of 50% of the beneficiary community.

50 Annexurel.List of participants, affected households, and vulnerable groups.

List of participants to Focus group discussions and interviews, Tshangkha Gewog, Dagana Si No Name Male/ Rich/ Village Female Poor/Average 1 Mrs. Dungchimo F P Budeychu 2 Mr. Maita Bdr. Subba M R 3 Mr. Damber Singh Mongar M R 4 Mr. Kharga Bdr. Mongar M A 5 Mr. Leki M P 6 Mr. Lokman Tamang M A Petakha 7 Mrs. Renuka Chhetri F P 8 Mrs. Chandri Maya Tamang F P 9 Mrs. Sancha Maya Tamang F P 10 Mr. Kaman Singh Tamang M A 11 Mrs. Rupa Tamang F P 12 Mr. Chechey M P 13 Mr. Dil Bdr. Tamang M R 14 Mr. Jit Bdr. Tamang M A 15 Mr. Buddhiman Tamang M A 16 Mr. Ram Bdr. Tamang M A 17 Mrs. Kamala Devi Rai F P Banderchu 18 Mrs. Pema Lhamo F P 19 Mr. Padma Kumar Thapa M A 20 Mr. Kesher Bdr. Thapa M A 21 Mr. Bakhad Bdr. Neopani M R Zinchula 22 Mrs. Phurba Lham F P 23 Mrs. Kali Maya Mongar F P 24 Mrs. Tshethumo F P 25 Mr. Tula Ram Kaderia M R 26 Mr. Nandalal Orari M R 27 Mr. Kesher Bdr. Rai M A 28 Mr. Dhendup M P 29 Mr. Wangdi M A 30 Mr. Pasang (A) M A Tshangkhatar 31 Mrs. Shabkey Lham F P 32 Mrs. Tshomo F A 33 Mrs. Tandi Om F P 34 Mr. Pasang (B) M A 35 Mr. Kadar Kumar Rai M R Tshangkha 36 Mr. Sangay Dori M A

51 37 Mr. Jagat Bdr. Tamang M P Taey 38 Mrs. Seti Maya F P Tisgarey 39 Mrs. Padma Maya Gurung F P 40 Mrs. Lali Maya F P 41 Mrs. Bishnu Maya Gurung F P

List of participants to Focus group discussions and interviews,,Lajab Geog, Dagana

Si No Name . -. , Male/ Rich!. Village

!_____ Female Poor/Average . 1. Mr. Man Bdr. Bhattarai M R Campgoan 2. Mr. Tshering Dorji M A 3. Mr. Kul Bdr. Gurung M A 4. Mr. Buddhim Mongar M P 5. Mr. Kharka Singh Gurung M A 6. Mr. Nandalal Gurung M R 7. Mrs. Norbu Om F P 8. Mr. Garjaman Rai M P Seepa 9. Mrs. Mani Dem F P 10. Mrs. Pem Zam F P 11. Mr. Sonam M P 12. Mr. Sam Bdr. Rai M A Manidara 13. Mr. Buddhiman Rai M A 14. Mr. Tsherng Gyeltshen M A 15. Mr. Gariaman Gurung M A Bana 16. Mr. Jit Bdr Gurung M P 17. Ms. Cheku Lham F A 18. Mr. Ram Kumar Gurung F A 19. Mr. Nakchung M R 20. Mrs. Tshering Zam F A 21. Tshewang Dorji M P 22. Mr. Lal Bdr. Gurung M A Yechephu 23. Mr. Prem Bdr. Gurung M R 24. Mr. Gopal Singh Gurung M R 25. Mr. Dal Bdr. Gurung M A 26. Mr. Kaluram Gurung M A 27. Mrs. Gyem Lham F A Balung 28. Mr. Phub Dorji M A 29. Mr. Gembo M R 30. Mr. Kama Bdr. Subba M R Galeychu 31. Mr. Nar Bdr. Gurung M R Kompa

52 List of participants to Focus group discussions and interviews, Drujeygang Gewog, Dagana 1. Adeo M A 2. Bumpamo F P 3. Deki F A 4. Dhothola M P 5. Gyem Lhamo F P 6. Kaleymo F A 7. Keshmo M A 8. Khandu M P 9. Kinley Pemo F A 10. Kinzang Lhamo F P 11. Labtangmo F P 12. Lhamchumo F P 13. Ochemo F P 14. Oktoma M P 15. Panglemo F P 16. Pegoma F P Thangna 17. Mindumo F P 18. Makuma F A 19. Meckshamo F P 20. Sangmo F A 21. Sumchumo F A 22. Tsheri Wangmo F P 23. Tshering Lham F P 24. Tshering Pemo F P 25. Wangchuk M P 26. Yangden F P 27. Yeshey Lhamo F R 28. Rinzin Wangchuk M R 29. Rinchenmo F R 30. Phurba M R 31. Man Bahadur Bhatarai M A 32. Pinchu F R 33. Sangay Lhamo (Khipa) F P 34. Karma F P 35. Khandu Zangmo F P Pangna 36. Kinzang Lhamo F A 37. Luku F R 38. Merka M A 39. Sangay F A 40. Sangay Dema F A 41. Takumo F P Minchunang 42. Lhadenmo F P 43. Lhatu M P 44. Norbu Lhadon F P Patala

53 45. Pema choki F A 46. Chimi F P 47. Chimi F P Pangserpo

List of participants to Focus group discussions and interviews, Dangchu Gewog, Wangdue SI No Name Male/ Poor Village Female 1. Mr. Kencho M Godang 2. Mr. Gyem Dorji M 3. Mr. Nima M 4. Mr. Gaku M 5. Mr. Phupa M P 6. Mr. Phupa M 7. Mr. Phub Dorji M 8. Mrs. Samgay Om F 9. Mrs. Pasang Gem F 10. Mr. Namgay M 11. Mr. Pasang Dodi M Chubar 12. Mr. Tshering Penjor M 13. Mr. Sangay Penjor M Tashidingkha 14. Mrs. Kinley Sithub F P 15. Mr. Namgyel M 16. Mr. Khandu M Gonpa 17. Mr. Goley M P 18. Mr. Mani Dorji M 19. Mrs. Yanka F Yelbagang 20. Mrs. Tshering Dolma F 21. Mrs. Kumbu Dolma F P 22. Mr. Chagay M 23. Mrs. Phub Gem F 24. Mrs. Sangay Lham F 25. Mr. Lham Rinzin M 26. Mrs. Kunzang Dema F 27. Mr. Rinchen Tshering M 28. Mrs. Nim Dem F 29. Mrs. Sangay Om F Tokaling 30. Mrs. Pasang F 31. Mrs. Dhram F P 32. Mrs. Phub Dem F 33. Mrs. Tshewang Dem F P 34. Mrs. Pema Lhamo F 35. Mr. Sangay M

54 36. Mrs Om F 37. Mrs. Sigay F 38. Mrs. Sanqay Dem F 39. Mrs. Pema Lham F 40. Mr. Dhau M P Ridha 41. Mrs. Wangen F 42. Mrs. Phub Dem F 43. Mrs. Gordha F P 44. Mrs. Dawa Pem F 45. Mr. Kaka M 46. Mr. Khandu M P 47. Mrs. Doenchum F Ridha Gonpa 48. Mrs. Nim Chuzam F 49. Mrs. Daw Pem F P 50. Mrs. Rinchen Dem F 51. Mrs. Tashi Budha F P Tasha 52. Mrs. Phub Pem F 53. Mrs. Dema F P 54. Mrs. Namgay F 55. Mrs. Doma F 56. Mr. Sangay Dorji M P

List of poor households, Drujeygang,Dagana

Name - t-,,M/F j, Wtulnerable -- Villagee- - .

______Category, 1. Bamtomo F Poor Thangna 2. Chimi F Poor Pangserpo 3. Chimi F Very Poor Patala 4. Chokimo F poor Patala 5. Dhothola M Poor Thangna 6. Gangthermo F Poor Minchunang 7. Karma F Poor Pangna 8. Khandu Zangmo F Poor Pangna 9. Kinzang Lhamo F Landless Pangna 10. Lanu F Poor Pangna 11. Lhadenmo F Poor Minchunang 12. Lhadin F Poor Minchonang 13. Lhato M Poor Minchonang 14. Mindumo F Poor Thangna 15. Norbu Lhadon F Poor Patala 16. Octomo F Poor Thangna 17. Pasang F Landless Thangna 18. Pemach choki F Poor Patala 19. Pingkamo F Poor Pangna 20. Pinkamo F Divorce Thangna 21. Rinchenmo F Poor Thangna

55 22. Rinziamo F Poor Pangsevso 23. Rinzin Lhamo F Poor Minchonang 24. Sangay F Poor Minchunang 25. Sangay Dema F Poor Minchunang 26. Sangmo F Poor Thangna 27. Tashi Pema F Poor Thangna 28. Tuku F Poor Minchuna 29. Yangden F Landless Thangna 30. Yeshey Lhamo F Poor Minchunang 31. Yeshey Lhamo F Poor (orphan) Thangna

List of affected households Tshangkha gewog, Dagana Name; ,,. . .' -; Affected,--- k,i+,4;,,,-. P,oor - Village - E $ 0' L i' ; '> nr!,*la"nd properWt3 '-v-6s ,F' 1 --, /.., 1. Mrs. Dungchimo Wetland P Budeychu 2. Mr. Maita Bdr. Subba Wetland Budeychu 3. Mr. Damber Singh Mongar Wetland Budeychu 4. Mr. Kharga Bdr. Mongar Dryland Budeychu 5. Mr. Leki Wetland P Budeychu 6. Mr. Lokman Tamang Dryland Petakha 7. Mrs. Renuka Chhetri Dryland P Petakha 8. Mrs. Chandri Maya Tamang Dryland P Petakha 9. Mr. Kaman Singh Tamang Dryland Petakha 10. Mrs. Rupa Tamang Dryland P Petakha 11. Mr. Chechey Dryland P Petakha 12. Mr. Dil Bdr. Tamang Dryland Petakha 13. Mr. Jit Bdr. Tamang Dryland Petakha 14. Mr. Buddhiman Tamang Dryland Petakha 15. Mr. Ram Bdr. Tamang Dryland Petakha 16. Mrs. Kamala Devi Rai Dryland P Banderchu 17. Mrs. Pema Lhamo Wetland P Banderchu 18. Mr. Padma Kumar Thapa Wetland Banderchu 19. Mr. Kesher Bdr. Thapa Dryland Banderchu 20. Mr. Bakhad Bdr. Neopani Wetland/Dryland Zinchulla 21. Mrs. Phurba Lham Dryland P Zinchulla 22. Mr. Tula Ram Kaderia Dryland Zinchulla 23. Mr. Nandalal Orari Wetland/Dryland Zinchulla 24. Mr. Kesher Bdr. Rai Dryland Zinchulla 25. Mr. Dhendup Dryland P Zinchulla 26. Mr. Wangdi Dryland Zinchulla 27. Mr. Pasang (A) Dryland Tshangkhatar 28. Mrs. Shabkey Lham Dryland P Tshangkhatar 29. Mrs. Tshomo Dryland Tshangkhatar 30. Mrs. Tandi Om Dryland P Tshangkhatar 31. Mr. Pasang (B) Dryland Tshangkhatar 32. Mr. Jagat Bdr. Tamang Dryland P Tajey

56 List of affected households, Lajab gewog, dagana 1. Mr. Karna Bdr. Subba Dryland Galeychu 2. Mr. Nar Bdr. Gurung Dryland Kompa 3. Mr. Man Bdr. Bhattarai Dryland/Wetland Campgoan 4. Mr. Tshering Dorji Dryland P Campgoan 5. Mr. Kul Bdr. Gurung Dryland Campgoan 6. Mr. Buddhim Mongar Dryland P Campgoan 7. Mr. Kharka Singh Gurung Dryland Campgoan 8. Mr. Nandalal Gurung Dryland/Wetland Campgoan 9. Mrs. Norbu Om Dryland/Wetland P Campgoan 10. Mr. Garjaman Rai Wetland P Seepa 11. Mrs. Mani Dem Dryland P Seepa 12. Mrs. Pem Zam Dryland P Seepa 13. Mr. Sonam Dryland P Seepa 14. Mr. San Bdr. Rai Dryland Manidara 15. Mr. Buddhiman Rai Cardamom field Manidara 16. Mr. Tshering Gyeltshen Wetland Manidara 17. Mr. Garjaman Gurung Dryland Bana 18. Mr. Jit Bdr Gurung Dryland P Bana 19. Ms. Cheku Lham Dryland Bana 20. Mr. Ram Kumar Gurung Dryland Bana 21. Mr. Nakchung Dryland Bana 22. Mrs. Tshering Zam Dryland Bana 23. Mr. Lal Bdr. Gurung Cardamom field Yechephu 24. Mr. Prem Bdr. Gurung Dryland Yechephu 25. Mr. Gopal Singh Gurung Wetland Yechephu 26. Mr. Dal Bdr. Gurung Dryland Yechephu 27. Mr. Kaluram Gurung Dryland Yechephu 28. Mrs. Gyem Lham Wetland Balung

List of affected households, Drujeygang, Dagana

,Name,-, Affetc,ed . -Poor-- illage4 :-j r 1 'land/property, 2: 1. Adeo M Dryland Thangna 2. Bumpamo F Orchard P Thangna 3. Chakola M Orchard Thangna 4. Deki F Orchard Thangna 5. Keshimo M Orchard Thangna 6. Khandu F Wetland P Thangna 7. Kinzang Lhamo F Wetland P Thangna 8. Lhamchumo F Wetland P Thangna 9. Luku M Dryland Thangna 10. Meckshamo F Dryland P Thangna 11. Makhoma F Dryland Thangna 12. Ochamo F Dryland P Thangna 13. Oktoma M Dryland P Thangna

57 14. Panglemo F Dryland P Thangna 15. Pegoma F Dryland P Thangna 16. Phurba M Dryland Thangna 17. Pinchu F Dryland Thangna 18. Prekarmo F Dryland Thangna 19. Rinchenmo F Dryland Thangna 20. Sumchumo F Dryland Thangna 21. Tawla M Dryland Thangna 22. Tsheri Wangmo F Dryland P Thangna 23. Tshering Lham F Dryland P Thangna 24. Tshering Pemo F Dryland P Thangna 25. Wangchuk M Dryland P Thangna 26. Zangmo F Dryland Thangna

List of households whose Irrigati n Channels are affected, Druijygang, Dagan Name- # Male/female'.- -O-Rich/Poor 4C'", VilageA. 4' 1. Chachmo F P Thangna 2. Chakola M Thangna 3. Changki F P Thangna 4. Dhan Bahadur Bandri M Thangna 5. Gyem Lhamo F P Thangna 6. Gyemchamo F Thangna 7. Gyemlhamo F P Thangna 8. Jachumo F P Thangna 9. Kaleymo F P Thangna 10. Khandu M P Thangna 11. Khepa P Thangna 12. Kinley Pemo F Thangna 13. Labtangmo F P Thangna 14. Lhamo F P Thangna 15. Luku Thangna 16. Megsharmo F Thangna 17. Nado/Lhamo Thangna 18. Nado/Pemo F Thangna 19. Nakhomo F Thangna 20. Naley P Thangna 21. Naleymo F P Thangna 22. Nima Tshering M Thangna 23. Pewangmo F Thangna 24. Phuntsho F Thangna 25. Phurba M Thangna 26. Puekarmo F P Thangna 27. Ran Bdr. Tamang M Thangna 28. Rinchenmo F P Thangna 29. Rinzin Pemo F Thangna 30. Sangaymo F Thangna 31. Saw Bdr Gurung M Thangna 32. Tashimo F Thangna

58 33. Towla M Thangna 34. Tsham Dubba M Thangna 35. Zangmo F Thangna

59 r i I

i

I Annexure 2: Socio-economic Survey Format & Questionnaire for RAP 11Roads Projects

I BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Name of the Road: I)rujeyvang - Baluii-. Total length 42.50 kms

Alignment of road for proposed work: From Drujeygang to Phuenlsumgang

Date of survey 9, 10, 11 January, 2006

Names of surveyors/Enumerators (1) K.B. Basnet (2) S. Tsherinig Yangcheni (3) Gup SheuLib Doiji (4) Tshogpa Norbu (5) Chimmi Karma Samdrup

1. Does the road need to acquire lands, houses or other private properties of the people for its improvement? No

2. Does the road impact houses/assets or other private properties? No

3. Is the acquisition of land based on voluntary donation? Ycs

4. Will any of the affected households lose 25% or more of their owned land or income due to project interventions or any affected family who will lose a residential house as a consequence of the project? No

5. Will the road adversely impact livelihoods? No

6. Are there any impacts on common property resources (religious or cultural structures)? No

7. Are there any adverse impacts on vulnerable groups in the community? No

Names of respondents (Please attach list) 1I 2 3

8. Location and physical characteristics of road: Identify locations on strip map of road (show land use, land ownership i.e. private land, public land and community resources/properties, and human settlement/density of households showing villages. This has to be completed on a road design map for each road/project intervention.

60 2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC INFORMATION

9. Does the road pass through village settlements? Yes

9.1 If yes, please provide the following information in the table below:

Geog Name of village Total No. of hhs in No. of wvomen headed hhs village

Drujeygang Thangna 95 60 Tshangkha Budeychu 16 I Petakha 62 6 Zinchulla 35 4 Nobding 9 0 Banderchu 15 0 Tshangkhatar 40 20 Tajey 3 0 Lajab Galeychu 6 0 Campgoan/Kompa 22 4 Manidara 3 0 Seepa 19 3 Bana 18 4 Yechephu 17 5 Phuensumgang 3 2 Balung 21 16 Total

10.0 Does the road construction need to acquire lands, houses or other private properties of the people for its improvement? No

If yes, fill in the following tables:-

10.1 Impacts on land . -]

4.t ;; * - Ngalong K-heng Sh L hotshonipa

ih'n--A iRis.9-; srSn archop 32in Tshangkha 7 4 21 12 28 in Lajab 5 4 19 9

27 Drujeygang - 27 - 2

10.2 Impacts on structures

61 (1) Total hhs losing Ethnicir. b Nt ot voomen lheaded structures Nof) No o h.h kv ethnit Iosing households losing structures structures) Ntvalon Khenu Sh| L Ilhuiini p. C,rc holp -Nil Nil Nil -- Nil Nil

10.3 Impacts on livelihoods

(1) Total hhs losing Ethnicity* No. of women headed livelihoods (No.) (No. of h/h by ethnicity losing households losing livelihoods) livelihoods Ngalong Kheng Sha Lhotshompa rchop Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil

10.4 Is the acquisition of land based on voluntary donation? Yes

10.5 If yes, how much has been acquired (specify approximate acreage) (Attach copies of the Memorandum of Undlerstanding signed with persons voluntarily contributing land)- land will be acquired7.

10.5 Will any of the affected households lose 25% or more of their owned land or income due to project interventions or any affected family who will lose a residential house as a consequence of the project? No

If yes, list down the affected families by impact category

Village -N&offafni1ies`-:--- No: of farhilies' ota iTes - NW omen-' -*, * i >- dlosingUresiueni householIds

:4 'house -'-land-dng0A is# -= Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil

11.0 In case of such affected households what could be the mitigation measures (resettlement/rehabilitation) to be adopted by the Dzongkhag? Please specify. No resettlement/rehabilitation required.

12.0 What community resources and systems the road will adversely affect. Please list them in the table below:

No. Community . ,-Uni@;_ [Quantity Remarks (Spcify)

Resources/Properties -iv7-- 4 . .r , - 1. Community forests (including No. No idea

62 sokshing) 2. Community and private No. 10 7 in l)ruje-an (privatc. I irrigation in Tshangkha & 2 in Ldjab 3. Drinking water source and No. 7 'shangkha & Pctakha system village 4. Schools No. Nil 5. Public buildings No. Nil 6. Temple No. Nil 7. Others (specify) No Nil

13. Does the road provide better access to health facilities? Yes If yes, how and in what way? Please specify. Easy access to health services with reduced travel time, referral to hospitals will be faster and easier with road. Construction of ORC in each village could be initiated. Due to remoteness and high transportation cost therc are no ORCs in most villages. P'resently, the BI-IU staffs use the Tshzogpas' houses for their monthly visit to provide vaccination and immunization. Transportation of drugs will be easier and faster.

14. Does the road provide better access to schools, education and communication? Yes If yes, how and in what way? Please specify. Possibility for up gradation of schools in the geog (students do not have to go to other schools outside the geog which is more expensive). More trained teachers would prefer to join schools if there are road services. Transportation of stationeries, furniture and other items would be easier. Farmers will be relieved from providing manpower for such activities.

15. How would the poor and disadvantaged people benefit from the road and to what extent? The road will provide better job opportunities as wage laborers during and after construction for cash income. Small marketable surpluses could be sold more easily with the road. 'I'he access to health and education will improve with road.

16. What are the potential income generating activities in the area following construction of the road? Please list them in detail. D)airy farming: The project road areas have high number of cattle and almost all houscholds have a minimum of 1-2 milking cows. l)ue to market problem, livestock products like cheese and butter are sold in the villages at low prices. One of the major sources of income for the farmers is from the sale of livestock products.

17. Would the road promote marketing opportunities of local produce? Yes

If yes, how that would happen? Please elaborate.

63 atirketing of' cash crops mainly oranges aind potatoes Wou!d he casieS. At present, fa-rmers scll thirli produce (orchard) to thie contractors DlUe to distanit roa(i hlead. the fhai-ners arc paid very low price. Farmcers can sell oranges at good prices otncc thc road is constrUcted. Similarly, rnarkc-ting ol' livestock prrodLucts an(d the *ecgetables Would be mulch easier with road.

18. Are people ready to cooperate in the project? Yes If yes or no - why? Please elaborate. The beneficiaries are willing to cooperate f'ully tor the sake of road. '['hey have even agreed to volLintarily contribute their land for road construction wvithout any compensation flom the government. Even during construction and maintenanice phase, the farmers are willing to provide required support as and when reqtIired and as per the directives of the concerned authorities.

19. How would the project benefit women, children and vulnerable groups? Please specify in detail. Long walking distance to market, school and health facilities are major problems for this group of people. In some villages, the students have to travel for more than two hours to reach the school. Marketing of farm produce is very difficult and most people produce for their own consumption only. Sick people have difficulty going to BHU or the hospital due to long walking distance and difficult terrain. If the road is constructed, they will have easy access to these facilities.

20. Are there disputes, which might hinder/delay successful accomplishment of proposed roadwork? No

If yes, how could these be resolved? How can the ownership by locals be ensured? No disputes are foreseen at this stage

3 LOCAL COMMUNITY MOBILISATION

1) Are there already established groups similar to Road User Committee and Road User Group (RUG)? No

If yes, how active are these groups? Please specify.

2) If no, would people like to form RUC? Yes

3) If yes, how would these Committees be formed? What would be their role in road works? Please specify.

People are willing to form committee/groups if it helps the community as a whole. Since they do not have any experiences of having such committee in the geog they need guidance from the government on the roles and responisibilities to be provided by the people.

4) In what way social mobilization and community participation could be enhanced for the improvement of people's livelihood.

64 With the decentralized approach of acti\ itics at the ,geog level. the gcog representatives fecl that it voVLIld be theil- responsibility to be involved in the prloject as k ell althoughll the work \ ill be given to the contractors. l1-hev would like to enlsUIre that the workers reqLuircd by the contractors lor the road construction are (givein pretcrence friom the geogs and if' cqLlired additional mray be recruited fi-om other geogs or outsidc.

The farmers from thle project gcogs have shown interest to work in the road conlstructioin for cash income and there are few skilled workers (masons and carpenters) as well. 'I'he road would even provide employment opportunities for the stidents during winiter vacation.

C'ommunity participation could be improved through creating better awareness on their roles and responsibilities. Training and exposure will also help. The GYT xwill play a very important role on this.

Name of respondents. Tshangkha gewog, Dagana Name- Affected land/property -Poor- Village 1. Mrs. Dungchimo Wetland P Budeychu 2. Mr. Maita Bdr. Subba Wetland Budeychu 3. Mr. Damber Singh Mongar Wetland Budeychu 4. Mr. Kharga Bdr. Mongar Dryland Budeychu 5. Mr. Leki Wetland P Budeychu 6. Mr. Lokman Tamang Dryland Petakha 7. Mrs. Renuka Chhetri Dryland P Petakha 8. Mrs. Chandri Maya Tamang Dryland P Petakha 9. Mr. Kaman Singh Tamang Dryland Petakha 10. Mrs. Rupa Tamang Dryland P Petakha 11. Mr. Chechey Dryland P Petakha 12. Mr. Dil Bdr. Tamang Dryland Petakha 13. Mr. Jit Bdr. Tamang Dryland Petakha 14. Mr. Buddhiman Tamang Dryland Petakha 15. Mr. Ram Bdr. Tamang Dryland Petakha 16. Mrs. Kamala Devi Rai Dryland P Banderchu 17. Mrs. Pema Lhamo Wetland P Banderchu 18. Mr. Padma KumarThapa Wetland Banderchu 19. Mr. Kesher Bdr. Thapa Dryland Banderchu 20. Mr. Bakhad Bdr. Neopani Wetland/Dryland Zinchulla 21. Mrs. Phurba Lham Dryland P Zinchulla 22. Mr. Tula Ram Kadera Dryland Zinchulla 23. Mr. Nandalal Orari Wetland/Dryland Zinchulla 24. Mr. Kesher Bdr. Rai Dryland Zinchulla 25. Mr. Dhendup Dryland P Zinchulla 26. Mr. Wangdi Dryland Zinchulla 27. Mr. Pasang (A) Dryland Tshangkhatar 28. Mrs. Shabkey Lham Dryland P Tshangkhatar 29. Mrs. Tshomo Dryland Tshangkhatar 30. Mrs. Tandi Om Dryland P Tshangkhatar 31. Mr. Pasang (B) Dryland Tshangkhatar 32. Mr. Jagat Bdr. Tamang Dryland P Tajey

65 Lajab Gewog, Dagana 1. Mr. Karna Bdr. Subba Dryland Galeychu 2. Mr. Nar Bdr. Gurung Dryland Kompa 3. Mr. Man Bdr. Bhattarai Dryland/Wetland Campgoan 4. Mr. Tshering Dorji Dryland P Campgoan 5. Mr. Kul Bdr. Gurung Dryland Campgoan 6. Mr. Buddhim Mongar Dryland P Campgoan 7. Mr. Kharka Singh Gurung Dryland Campgoan 8. Mr. Nandalal Gurung Dryland/Wetland Campgoan 9. Mrs. Norbu Om Dryland/Wetland P Campgoan 10. Mr. Garjaman Rai Wetland P Seepa 11. Mrs. Mani Dem Dryland P Seepa 12. Mrs. Pem Zam Dryland P Seepa 13. Mr. Sonam Dryland P Seepa 14. Mr. San Bdr. Rai Dryland Manidara 15. Mr. Buddhiman Rai Cardamom field Manidara 16. Mr. Tshering Gyeltshen Wetland Manidara 17. Mr. Garjaman Gurung Dryland Bana 18. Mr. Jit Bdr Gurung Dryland P Bana 19. Ms. Cheku Lham Dryland Bana 20. Mr. Ram Kumar Gurung Dryland Bana 21. Mr. Nakchung Dryland Bana 22. Mrs. Tshering Zam Dryland Bana 23. Mr. Lal Bdr. Gurung Cardamom field Yechephu 24. Mr. Prem Bdr. Gurung Dryland Yechephu 25. Mr. Gopal Singh Gurung Wetland Yechephu 26. Mr. Dal Bdr. Gurung Dryland Yechephu 27. Mr. Kaluram Gurung Dryland Yechephu 28. Mrs. Gyem Lham Wetland Balung Drujeygang Gewog, Dagana Name Male/Female -. Affected . Poor Vilage yptr,'- land/property 1. Adeo M Dryland Thangna 2. Bumpamo F Orchard P Thangna 3. Chakola M Orchard Thangna 4. Deki F Orchard Thangna 5. Keshimo M Orchard Thangna 6. Khandu F Wetland P Thangna 7. Kinzang Lhamo F Wetland P Thangna 8. Lhamchumo F Wetiand P Thangna 9. Luku M Dryland Thangna 10. Meckshamo F Dryland P Thangna 11. Makhoma F Dryland Thangna 12. Ochamo F Dryland P Thangna 13. Oktoma M Dryland P Thangna 14. Panglemo F Dryland P Thangna 15. Pegoma F Dryland P Thangna 16. Phurba M Dryland Thangna 17. Pinchu F Dryland Thangna 18. Prekarmo F Dryland Thangna 19. Rinchenmo F Dryland Thangna 20. Sumchumo F Dryland Thangna 21. Tawla M Dryland Thangna 22. Tsheri Wangmo F Dryland P Thangna 23. Tshering Lham F Dryland P Thangna 66 24. Tshering Pemo F Dryland P Thanqna 25. Wangchuk M Dryland P Thangna 26. Zangmo F Dryland Thangna

List of households whose Irrigation Channels are affected, Drujeygang, Dagana Name Male/lemale Rich/Poor Village 1. Chachmo F P Thangna 2. Chakola M Thangna 3. Changki F P Thangna 4. Dhan Bahadur Bandri M Thangna 5. Gyem Lhamo F P Thangna 6. Gyemchamo F Thangna 7. Gyemlhamo F P Thangna 8. Jachumo F P Thangna 9. Kaleymo F P Thangna 10. Khandu M P Thangna 11. Khepa P Thangna 12. Kinley Pemo F Thangna 13. Labtangmo F P Thangna 14. Lhamo F P Thangna 15. Luku Thangna 16. Megsharmo F Thangna 17. Nado/Lhamo Thangna 18. Nado/Pemo F Thangna 19. Nakhomo F Thangna 20. Naley P Thangna 21. Naleymo F P Thangna 22. Nima Tshering M Thangna 23. Pewangmo F Thangna 24. Phuntsho F Thangna 25. Phurba M Thangna 26. Puekarmo F P Thangna 27. Ran Bdr. Tamang M Thangna 28. Rinchenmo F P Thangna 29. Rinzin Pemo F Thangna 30. Sangaymo F Thangna 31. Saw Bdr Gurung M Thangna 32. Tashimo F Thangna 33. Towla M Thangna 34. Tsham Dubba M Thangna 35. Zangmo F Thangna

67 Annexure 2.1: Socio-economic Survey Format & Questionnaire for RAP II Roads Projects

1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Name of the Road: Jangcholing - Tashidingkha. ..Total length 14.30 kms

2. Alignment of road for proposed work: From Jangchocholing to Tashidingkha

3. Date of survey: 12, 17, and 18 January, 2006

4. Names of surveyors/Enumerators (1) Ms. Tshering Yanghcen (2 Gup Phub Tshering (3) Mang- Ap Gyem Dorji (4) Gup Dep Tshewang (5) Chimmi Sangey Penjore

1. Does the road need to acquire lands, houses or other private properties of the people for its improvement? No

2. Does the subproject impact houses/assets or other private properties. No

3. Is the acquisition of land based on voluntary donation? Yes

4. Will any of the affected households lose 25% or more of their owned land or income due to project interventions or any affected family who will lose a residential house as a consequence of the project? No

5. Will the project adversely impact livelihoods? No

6. Are there any impacts on common property resources (religious or cultural structures). No

7. Are there any adverse impacts on vulnerable g-roups in the community? No

Names of respondents: See attached list below.

8. Location and physical characteristics of road: Identify locations on strip map of road (show land use, land ownership i.e. private land, public land and community resources/properties. This has to be completed on a road design map for each road/project intervention.

2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC INFORMATION

9. Does the road pass through village settlements? No (close to the village mostly through the forest) No.

9.1 If yes, please provide the following information in the table below:

No Name of village .-::Geog . .Total, No. -of hhs No: of women headed hhsq inyillage;--. *

68 10.0 Does the road construction need to acquire lands, houses or other private properties of the people for its improvement? No

If yes, fill in the following tables:-

10.1 Impacts on land (1) Total Households Ethnicity* No. of women headed losing land (No.) (No. of h/h by ethnicity losing land) households losing land

Nil Nil INil Nil Nil In a village if there are for e.g. Ngalongpa, Sharchokpa and Lhotsampa people, number of h/h from these groups affected to be noted in relevant sub-columns.

10.2 Impacts on structures

(1i)Total hhs losing rEthn, t i -n2 - _No.-.ofSwo9penheaded*' 1 istructures(No.) (No. of' ethnicity losing structures) Iosingstructures ' Nil Nil I Nil Nil Nil In a village if there are for e.g. Ngalongpa, Sharchokpa and Lhotsampa people, number of h/h from these groups affected to be noted in relevant sub-columns. 10.3 Impacts on livelihoods

(1'):Total Hhs]losing - . N=4of;worneyrieadedpewhEthi - livelihoods ((. -- ht --byethnicityifosin live ihoods)- losinglivelihoods . Nil Nil I Nil Nil Nil In a village if there are for e.g. Ngalongpa, Sharchokpa and Lhotsampa people, number of h/h from these groups affected to be noted in relevant sub-columns.

10.4 Is the acquisition of land based on voluntary donation? Yes

If yes, how much has been acquired (specify approximate acreage) (Attach copies of the Memorandum of Understanding signed with persons voluntarily contributing land).

10.5 Will any of the affected households lose 25% or more of their owned land or income due to project interventions or any affected family who will lose a residential house as a consequence of the project? No

If yes, list down the affected families by impact category

Village,; N "of far i le ffmiis ~womefl,

11.0 In case of such affected households what could be the mitigation measures (resettlement/rehabilitation) to be adopted by the Dzongkhag? Please specify. No affected hhs

69 12.0 What community resources and systems the road will adversely affect. Please list them in the table below:

No. Community Resources/Properties Unit Quantity Remarks (Specify) 1. Community forests (including sokshing) No. Nil 2. Community irrigation No. Nil 3. Drinking water source and system No. Nil 4. Schools No. Nil 5. Public buildings No. Nil 6. Temple No. Nil 7. Others (specify) No. Nil

13. Does the road provide better access to health facilities? Yes If yes, how and in what way? Please specify. The BHU is planned to be upgraded after the road. Emergency cases could be more efficiently. The health services will improve through visits by health professionals and provision of medicines.

1. Does the road provide better access to schools, education and communication? Yes If yes, how and in what way? Please specify. With road the services will improve through placement of more qualified teachers, reduced cost of expenses to parents, better feeding programmes. The enrollment especially of the girls is expected to improve. The communication will also improve through access to telephones and postal services.

2. How would the poor and disadvantaged people benefit from the road and to what extent? The poor can gain employment after the road due to increased economic activities. The opportunity for alternative income sources will increase.

3. What are the potential income generating activities in the area following construction of the road? Please list them in detail. 1. Cultivation of cash crops including vegetables and fruits. 2. Production of vegetable seeds 3. Harvesting of medicinal herbs. 4. Backyard poultry and piggery rearing.

4. - Would the road promote marketing opportunities of local produce? Yes

If yes, how that would happen? Please elaborate. The buyers can easily reach the villages. Transportation cost will reduce. Commodity could be sent out quickly.

5. Are people ready to cooperate in the project? Yes If yes or no - why? Please elaborate.

70 The cv'n:vnun,, expressed the benefit of the road saying that the road brings all the required development to their villages - better access to services on health, education, and market. They expect to increase their cash incomes and improvement in their living standard.

6. How would the project benefit women, children and vulnerable groups? Please specify in detail. The focus group women expressed that their chances of generating cash income will increase due to better employment opportunities. Rich households will be more activities and they can work for them. Small surpluses could be easily sold.

Are there disputes, which might hinder/delay successful accomplishment of proposed f roadwork? No

If yes, how could these be resolved? How can the ownership by locals be ensured?

Ownership can be ensured through continuous consultations and addressing their needs as the project progresses.

3 LOCAL COMMUNITY MOBILISATION

1) Are there already established groups similar to Road User CommiUtee and Road User Group (RUG)? No If yes, how active are these groups? Please specify. There are few water user associations but these are not very active.

2) If no, would people like to form RUC? Yes

3) If yes, how would these Committees be formed? What would be their role in road works? Please specify. The direct beneficiaries would like want to form groups in consultation with the Gup and the village representatives. Usually the beneficiaries including the village elderly get together and meet in a Zomdue and discuss and form such association. The chairperson is elected among them. If financial aspect is involved, then they select a treasurer too for keeping the record of funds. Such a body is expected to monitor the road condition and initiate maintenance work if it involves minor repairs and maintenance.

4) In what way social mobilization and community participation could be enhanced for the improvement of people's livelihood. It can be improved through increased awareness, training, study visits to successful communities and facilitation.

Name of the respondents Si No Name I. V-O- ,- Vllage.; i, ; -c . 1. Mr. Kencho Godang 2. Mr. Gyem Dorji Godang 3. Mr. Nima Godang 4. Mr. Gaku Godang 5. Mr. Phupa Godang 6. Mr. Phupa Godang 7. Mr. Phub Dorji Godang 8. Mrs. Samgay Om Godang 9. Mrs. Pasang Gem Godang

71 10. Mr. Namgay Godang 11. Mr. Pasang Dorji Chubar 12. Mr. Tshering Penjor Chubar 13. Mr. Sangay Penjor Tashidingkha 14. Mrs. Kinley Sithub Tashidingkha 15. Mr. Namgyel Tashidingkha 16. Mr. Khandu Gonpa 17. Mr. Goley Gonpa 18. Mr. Mani Dorji Gonpa 19. Mrs. Yanka Yelbagang 20. Mrs. Tshering Dolma Yelbagang 21. Mrs. Kumbu Dolma Yelbagang 22. Mr. Chagay Yelbagang 23. Mrs. Phub Gem Yelbagang 24. Mrs. Sangay Lham Yelbagang 25. Mr. Lham Rinzin Yelbagang 26. Mrs. Kunzang Dema Yelbagang 27. Mr. Rinchen Tshering Yelbagang 28. Mrs. Nim Dem Yelbagang 29. Mrs. Sangay Om Tokaling 30. Mrs. Pasang Tokaling 31. Mrs. Dhram Tokaling 32. Mrs. Phub Dem Tokaling 33. Mrs. Tshewang Dem Tokaling 34. Mrs. Pema Lhamo Tokaling 35. Mr. Sangay Tokaling 36. Mrs Om Tokaling 37. Mrs. Sigay Tokaling 38. Mrs. Sangay Dem Tokaling 39. Mrs. Pema Lham Tokaling 40. Mr. Dhau Ridha 41. Mrs. Wangen Ridha 42. Mrs. Phub Dem Ridha 43. Mrs. Gordha Ridha 44. Mrs. Dawa Pem Ridha 45. Mr. Kaka Ridha 46. Mr. Khandu Ridha 47. Mrs. Doenchum Ridha Gonpa 48. Mrs. Nim Chuzam Ridha Gonpa 49. Mrs. Daw Pem Ridha Gonpa 50. Mrs. Rinchen Dem Ridha Gonpa 51. Mrs. Tashi Budha Tasha 52. Mrs. Phub Pem Tasha 53. Mrs. Dema Tasha 54. Mrs. Namgay Tasha 55. Mrs. Doma Tasha 56. Mr. Sangay Dorji Tasha

72 I

I I i

I Annexure 3: Social Screening Format for Road Projects RAP 11(SAF)

Background Information

1. Name of road: Drujevgang -Balung Road

Total length: 42.50 kms

2. Alignment of road for proposed work: From Drujegang to Balung

3. Date of survey 9, 10, 11 January, 2006

4. Names of surveyors:

(1) K.B. Basnet (2) S. Tshering Yangchen (3) Gup Sherub Dorji (4) Tshogpa Norbu (5) Chimmi Karma Samdrup (6)

Social Impacts

1) Does the subproject need to acquire lands, houses or other private properties of the people for its improvement? No

2) Does the subproject impact houses/assets or other private properties. No

3) Is the acquisition of land based on voluntary donation? No

4) Will any of the affected households lose 25% or more of their owned land or income due to project interventions or any affected family who will lose a residential house as a consequence of the project ? No

5) Will the subproject adversely impact livelihoods. No

6) Are there any impacts on common property resources (religious or cultural structures). No Are there any adverse impacts on vulnerable groups in the community? No

Names of respondents (Please attach list) List attached at the end.

6. Location and physical characteristics of road: Identify locations on strip map of road (show land use, land ownership i.e. private land, public land and community resources/properties. This has to be completed on a road design map for each road/project intervention.

73 Name of respondents shangkha gewog, Dagana Name Affected land/property Poor Village 1. Mrs. Dungchimo Wetland P Budeychu 2. Mr. Maita Bdr. Subba Wetland Budeychu 3. Mr. Damber Singh Mongar Wetland Budeychu 4. Mr. Kharga Bdr. Mongar Dryland Budeychu 5. Mr. Leki Wetland P Budeychu 6. Mr. Lokman Tamang Dryland Petakha 7. Mrs. Renuka Chhetri Dryland P Petakha 8. Mrs. Chandri Maya Tamang Dryland P Petakha 9. Mr. Kaman Singh Tamang Dryland Petakha 10. Mrs. Rupa Tamang Dryland P Petakha 11. Mr. Chechey Dryland P Petakha 12. Mr. Dil Bdr. Tamang Dryland Petakha 13. Mr. Jit Bdr. Tamang Dryland Petakha 14. Mr. Buddhiman Tamang Dryland Petakha 15. Mr. Ram Bdr. Tamang Dryland Petakha 16. Mrs. Kamala Devi Rai Dryland P Banderchu 17. Mrs. Pema Lhamo Wetland P Banderchu 18. Mr. Padma KumarThapa Wetland Banderchu 19. Mr. Kesher Bdr. Thapa Dryland Banderchu 20. Mr. Bakhad Bdr. Neopani Wetland/Dryland Zinchulla 21. Mrs. Phurba Lham Dryland P Zinchulla 22. Mr. Tula Ram Kaderia Dryland Zinchulla 23. Mr. Nandalal Orari Wetland/Dryland Zinchulla 24. Mr. Kesher Bdr. Rai Dryland Zinchulla 25. Mr. Dhendup Dryland P Zinchulla 26. Mr. Wangdi Dryland Zinchulla 27. Mr. Pasang (A) Dryland Tshangkhatar 28. Mrs. Shabkey Lham Dryland P Tshangkhatar 29. Mrs. Tshomo Dryland Tshangkhatar 30. Mrs. Tandi Om Dryland P Tshangkhatar 31. Mr. Pasang (B) Dryland Tshangkhatar 32. Mr. Jagat Bdr. Tamang Dryland P Tajey

Lajab gewog, Dagana 1. Mr. Kama Bdr. Subba Dryland Galeychu 2. Mr. Nar Bdr. Gurung Dryland Kompa 3. Mr. Man Bdr. Bhattarai Dryland/Wetland Campgoan 4. Mr. Tshering Dorji Dryland P Campgoan 5. Mr. Kul Bdr. Gurung Dryland Campgoan 6. Mr. Buddhim Mongar Dryland P Campgoan 7. Mr. Kharka Singh Gurung Dryland Campgoan 8. Mr. Nandalal Gurung Dryland/Wetland Campgoan 9. Mrs. Norbu Om Dryland/Wetland P Campgoan 10. Mr. Garjaman Rai Wetland P Seepa 11. Mrs. Mani Dem Dryland P Seepa 12. Mrs. Pem Zam Dryland P Seepa 13. Mr. Sonam Dryland P Seepa 14. Mr. San Bdr. Rai Dryland Manidara 15. Mr. Buddhiman Rai Cardamom field Manidara 16. Mr. Tshering Gyeltshen Wetland Manidara 17. Mr. Gariaman Gurung Dryland Bana 18. Mr. Jit Bdr Gurung Dryland P Bana 74 19. Ms. Cheku Lham Dryland Bana 20. Mr. Ram Kumar Gurung Dryland Bana 21. Mr. Nakchung Dryland Bana 22. Mrs. Tshering Zam Dryland Bana 23. Mr. Lal Bdr. Gurung Cardamom field Yechephu 24. Mr. Prem Bdr. Gurung Dryland Yechephu 25. Mr. Gopal Singh Gurung Wetland Yechephu 26. Mr. Dal Bdr. Gurung Dryland Yechephu 27. Mr. Kaluram Gurung Dryland Yechephu 28. Mrs. Gyem Lham Wetland Balung Dru evgan. Dagana Name Male/Female Affected Poor Village land/property 1. Adeo M Dryland Thangna 2. Bumpamo F Orchard P Thangna 3. Chakola M Orchard Thangna 4. Deki F Orchard Thangna 5. Keshimo M Orchard Thangna 6. Khandu F Wetland P Thangna 7. Kinzang Lhamo F Wetland P Thangna 8. Lhamchumo F Wetland P Thangna 9. Luku M Dryland Thangna 10. Meckshamo F Dryland P Thangna 11. Makhoma F Dryland Thangna 12. Ochamo F Dryland P Thangna 13. Oktoma M Dryland P Thangna 14. Panglemo F Dryland P Thangna 15. Pegoma F Dryland P Thangna 16. Phurba M Dryland Thangna 17. Pinchu F Dryland Thangna 18. Prekarmo F Dryland Thangna 19. Rinchenmo F Dryland Thangna 20. Sumchumo F Dryland Thangna 21. Tawla M Dryland Thangna 22. Tsheri Wangmo F Dryland P Thangna 23. Tshering Lham F Dryland P Thangna 24. Tshering Pemo F Dryland P Thangna 25. Wangchuk M Dryland P Thangna 26. Zangmo F Dryland Thangna

List of households whose Irrigation Channels are affec ted. Drujeyganci. Dagana ,__,__-Name . ~Male/female l Rich/Poor VillageRs->A4 1. Chachmo F P Thangna 2. Chakola M Thangna 3. Changki F P Thangna 4. Dhan Bahadur Bandri M Thangna 5. Gyem Lhamo F P Thangna 6. Gyemchamo F Than,na 7. Gyemlhamo F P Thangna 8. Jachumo F P Thangna 9. Kaleymo F P Thangna 10. Khandu M P Thangna 11. Khepa P Thangna 12. Kinley Pemo F Thangna 13. Labtangmo F P Thangna 75 14. Lhamo F P Thangna 15. Luku Thangna 16. Megsharmo F Thangna 17. Nado/Lhamo Thangna 18. Nado/Pemo F Thangna 19. Nakhomo F Thangna 20. Naley _ P_ Thangna 21. Naleymo F P Thangna 22. Nima Tshering M Thangna 23. Pewangmo F Thangna 24. Phuntsho F Thangna 25. Phurba M Thangna 26. Puekarmo F P Thangna 27. Ran Bdr. Tamang M Thangna 28. Rinchenmo F P Thangna 29. Rinzin Pemo F Thangna 30. Sangaymo F Thangna 31. Saw Bdr Gurung M Thangna 32. Tashimo F Thangna 33. Towla M Thangna 34. Tsham Dubba M Thangna 35. Zangmo F Thangna

76 Annexure 3.1: Social Screening Format for Road Projects RAP II (SAF)

Background Information

1. Name of road: JanghchLCholing - Tashidingklha Road (Wangduephodrang) Total length: 14.30 kms

2. Alignment of road for proposed work: From Jangchucholing to Tashidingkha Road

3. Date of survey 12, 17, 18 January, 2006

4. Names of surveyors: (1) Ms. Tshering Yanghcen (2 Gup Phub Tshering (3) Mang- Ap Gyem Dorji (4) Gup Dep Tshewang (5) Chimmi Sangey Penjore

Social Impacts

1) Does the subproject need to acquire lands, houses or other private properties of the people for its improvement? No

2) Does the subproject impact houses/assets or other private properties. No

3) Is the acquisition of land based on voluntary donation? Yes

4) Will any of the affected households lose 25% or more of their owned land or income due to project interventions or any affected family who will lose a residential house as a consequence of the project ? No

5) Will the subproject adversely impact livelihoods? No

6) Are there any impacts on common property resources (religious or cultural structures). No

7) Are there any adverse impacts on vulnerable groups in the community? No

Names of respondents (Please attach list) List attached.

6. Location and physical characteristics of road: Identify locations on strip map of road (show land use, land ownership i.e. private land, public land and community resources/properties. This has to be completed on a road design map for each road/project intervention.

77 Name of the respondents, Dangchu SI No Name Village 1. Mr. Kencho Godang 2. Mr. Gyem Dorji Godang 3. Mr. Nima Godang 4. Mr. Gaku Godang 5. Mr. Phupa Godang 6. Mr. Phupa Godang 7. Mr. Phub Dorji Godang 8. Mrs. Samgay Om Godang 9. Mrs. Pasang Gem Godang 10. Mr. Namgay Godang 11. Mr. Pasang Dorji Chubar 12. Mr. Tshering Penjor Chubar 13. Mr. Sangay Penjor Tashidingkha 14. Mrs. Kinley Sithub Tashidingkha 15. Mr. Namgyel Tashidingkha 16. Mr. Khandu Gonpa 17. Mr. Goley Gonpa 18. Mr. Mani Dorji Gonpa 19. Mrs. Yanka Yelbagang 20. Mrs. Tshering Dolma Yelbagang 21. Mrs. Kumbu Dolma Yelbagang 22. Mr. Chagay Yelbagang 23. Mrs. Phub Gem Yelbagang 24. Mrs. Sangay Lham Yelbagang 25. Mr. Lham Rinzin Yelbagang 26. Mrs. Kunzang Dema Yelbagang 27. Mr. Rinchen Tshering Yelbagang 28. Mrs. Nim Dem Yelbagang 29. Mrs. Sangay Om Tokaling 30. Mrs. Pasang Tokaling 31. Mrs. Dhram Tokaling 32. Mrs. Phub Dem Tokaling 33. Mrs. Tshewang Dem Tokaling 34. Mrs. Pema Lhamo Tokaling 35. Mr. Sangay Tokaling 36. Mrs Om Tokaling 37. Mrs. Sigay Tokaling 38. Mrs. Sangay Dem Tokaling 39. Mrs. Pema Lham Tokaling 40. Mr. Dhau Ridha 41. Mrs. Wangen Ridha 42. Mrs. Phub Dem Ridha 43. Mrs. Gordha Ridha 44. Mrs. Dawa Pem Ridha 45. Mr. Kaka Ridha 46. Mr. Khandu Ridha 47. Mrs. Doenchum Ridha Gonpa 48. Mrs. Nim Chuzam Ridha Gonpa 49. Mrs. Daw Pem Ridha Gonpa 50. Mrs. Rinchen Dem Ridha Gonpa 51. Mrs. Tashi Budha Tasha 78 I52. Mrs. Phub Pem Tasha 53. Mrs. Dema Tasha 54. Mrs. Namgay Tasha 55. Mrs. Doma Tasha 56. Mr. Sangay Dorji Tasha

79 I Anexure 4: Format for a Memorandum of Agreement for Voluntary Land Donation

Memorandum of Agreement between a land volunteer and the Department of Roads.

The following agreement has been made on ...... day of ...... between Mr./Ms ...... Resident of ...... Geog ...... dzongkhag ...... the grandson/daughter of ...... and son/daughter of ......

1) That the land with certificate no ...... is a part of ...... is surrounded from eastern side by ...... western side by ...... on northern side, by ...... and southern side by ......

2) That the owner holds the transferable right of ...... (unit of land) of land/structure/asset ......

3) That the owner testifies that the land/structure is free of squatters and encroachers, and is not subject to any other claims.

4) That the owner hereby grants to the ...... this asset for the construction and development of a feeder road ...... in ...... geog ...... dzongkhag supported by the Rural Access Project (RAP) II for the benefit of the community.

5) That the owner will not claim any compensation against the grant of this asset nor obstruct the construction process on the land in case of which he/she would be subject to sanctions according to law and regulations.

6) That the GYT/DYT agrees to accept this grant of asset for the purposes mentioned.

7) That the GYT/DYT of ...... shall construct and develop the RAP 11sub-project

8) and take all possible precautions to avoid damage to adjacent land/structure/other assets.

9) That both the parties agree that the RAPII sub-project so constructed shall be a community asset.

10) That the provisions of this agreement will come into force from the date of signing of this deed.

Signature of the Owner Signature of Gup

Signature of the Tshogpa

Witness:

80 !

I Annexure 5: Check List of Questions for focus group discussions - stakeholder consultations Objectives The main objectives of the group discussions/consultations are: 1) To discuss the project with beneficiary communities and seek their views and perceptions; 2) To identify social impacts and issues; 3) To review the extent to which geog members participated in the preparation of geog plans and continue to be involved in their implementation; 4) To review the extent of which vulnerable groups in these communities participated in the preparation of the geog plans and will be involved in their implementation; and 5) To review current procedures and mechanisms for voluntary land donations.

Guidelines and Procedures A) General Meeting (with primary stakeholders) Primary Stakeholders include: * Beneficiaries * Poor and vulnerable groups * Adversely impacted people (households losing land, home, assets or livelihoods) * The Department of Roads (representative) Conduct a general meeting with cross section of men and women in the community, including people who may be affected by loss of land and those who had previous experience in donating land. 1) Discuss the project proposal with the community. 2) Perceptions, expectations and participation of the community for the new road. 3) Amongst other important and immediate needs for the village, how the need for a road became the most important? 4) How was the need to build a road processed as a first step?

5) Is the road, a part of the 9th Plan? If so how was it planned? 6) What are the benefits from the road? 7) How do the community plan to participate during and after the project (in the planning, implementation and monitoring and maintenance/restoration works) 8) How will the loss of land/property affect the community? How can this be compensated?

81 9) What problems (conflicts), constraints or opportunities are foreseen during construction of the road? 10) If the alignment and then the road passes through a cultivated land, what opinions are formed and course of action taken to decide to part with the land. 1) Which type of households voluntarily or willingly give land for the road and which types do not (elicit criteria{by households, by wealth - income level and sources}, amount and type of land given)? Are households genuinely willing to sacrifice land? 12) What is the view of community if the road displaces households? 13) What are the procedures for voluntary land donations?

B) Group meeting with affected persons (primary stakeholders) Conduct a group meeting with the persons - those impacted by the facility. These persons may lose land, property and livelihoods. Provide details of public consultation held with affected people (names) whose land or property is affected by the road. People who had contributed land to previous projects or whose lands might be affected should be identified during consultations. Some of the guiding questions for the discussions could include: 1) What benefits will the facility bring you? 2) How will the loss of your land/property impact you? 3) How would you manage that impact? 4) What has the community decided in the meeting to discuss the impacts and what mode of settlement has been agreed? 5) If you cannot manage the impact, and if you are not satisfied with the community's management plan, what support would you require? From whom? 6) If it was agreed that the impacted would not voluntarily contribute land but seek compensation then describe the options that are open. For e.g. from the side of the government - compensation (in replacement land according to the Land Act, compensation according to the Compensation Rates (1996), relocation assistance etc.) 7) Agree with the impacted persons what their needs would be and discuss the time frame and procedures to process compensation. 8) Record views and concerns of the vulnerable community members. 9) Describe issues that remain unresolved.

C) Individual Interviews/vulnerable groups Conduct Separate meeting with the vulnerable groups. For individual interviews the respondents should be identified in consultation with the Gup or tshogpa. * Vulnerable community members should be chosen based on the size of their landholding, food security, livelihoods and women whose husbands had expired or who had been divorced and were responsible for the management of the household. 82 * How will the road benefit the vulnerable groups * Record adverse impacts to the vulnerable groups due to the road. * Record views and concerns of the vulnerable community members.

D) List of persons met (focus group discussions, stakeholder meetings)

Participants of the focus group discussions and interviews (Dzongkhag ...... ) Name Male/Female Rich/Poor Village Gewog

List of affected households

Name -Affected t Rich/Poor Village--. Gewog -and/poperty. w V,; -- -8

83 E) Consultations with the Secondary Stakeholders Secondary stakeholders include: - local community based organizations (CBOs) - community representatives (Gup, Tshogpa, village elders) - Department of Planning, Planning Commission - Department of Survey & Land Records - Ministry of Agriculture - National Environment Commission Check List of questions: 1. Discuss the project proposal 2. Perceptions, expectations and participation 3. Perceptions and concerns about the positive and negative social impacts of the project 4. What are the main social impacts and issues? 5. What are your roles and responsibilities for new roads construction? 6. What are your main interests as stakeholder? 7. Who are the potential beneficiaries? 8. Who may be adversely affected? 9. What are the mechanisms in place to address the adverse social impacts 10. What could be the possible mitigation strategies and measures to address the social issues? 11. What are the current procedures and mechanisms for voluntary land donations

84 Annexure 6. Work Plan for development of Social Assessment Framework (SAF) RAP 11

Activity January 2005 February 2006 Weeks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1.. Inception Report 2. Reviews/Desk study 3. Field Work Surveys = I 4. Data Compilation, analysis and report writing

6. First Draft Report l

7. Final Report l

85 I Annexure 7 DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR DEVELOPING A SOCIAL ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK For Follow up Project RAP II (World Bank Financing)

1. Introduction

The Department of Roads (DoR) under the Ministry of Works and Human Settlement (MoWHS) is seeking IDA support for financing construction of about 65-75 kilometer of feeder roads. The main objective of the project is to improve the access of rural communities to markets, schools, health centers and other economic and social infrastructure, in order to improve the quality of life and productivity of project beneficiaries. The project will have a similar focus and follow similar implementation arrangements as the initial Road Access Project (RAP I), currently under implementation. Specifically it will comprise of two components: a physical component and a capacity building and advisory services component.

2. Obiectives

The objective of the services that form the subject of these TOR are to: (i) review RGoB's current policies, operational procedures and practices to address and mitigate social issues including those related to gender; (ii) review the World Bank's social safeguard policies and guidelines and assess the compatibility of the core principles of the Royal Government of Bhutan's (RGoB) policies with World Bank policies and identify any gaps; (iii) suggest measures for policy enhancements at the geog, dzongkhag and national levels where necessary; (iv) prepare a Social Impact Management Framework (SIMF) that details the guiding principles and methodology for screening all subprojects for social impacts, identifies appropnrate measures to manage and mitigate adverse social impacts and outlines social documentation preparation requirements (e.g. Resettlement Action Plans).

3. Scope of Work

Review of Bhutan 's Land Acquisition and Social Assessment Policies and Practices. A review of current RGoB policies, procedures and practices relating to land acquisition and social issues and the World Bank's social safeguard policies OP 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement and OD 4.20 on Indigenous Peoples will be carried out to assess the compatibility of the core principles of both set of policies and identify how to harmonize and address any gaps. The review will identify areas that need modification and strengthening and recommend measures for policy enhancements. Recommendations for policy enhancements where possible will be made within the context of the current legal framework in Bhutan and existing procedures and processes. The consultant will coordinate this work with the World Bank's study on the use of country systems in Bhutan.

86 Assessment of Social Impacts and Risks. Since the proposed project will support multiple subprojects spread over three years, the detailed design of which may not be known at project appraisal, a Social Impact Management Framework (SIMF) will be prepared. This Framework based on the findings of the Initial Social Assessment for first year subprojects will be included as a section of the SIMF. The objective of the SIMF is twofold. First, it will build upon the lessons learned from the initial Rural Access Project (RAP I) and define the overarching principles and processes for screening and assessing potential social impacts, including impacts on, benefits to, and the participation of local beneficiary communities in project preparation and implementation. It will define implementation, institutional, participatory monitoring and evaluation modalities, as well as special measures to protect and ensure the inclusion of socially and economically vulnerable groups such as female headed households, ethnic groups, and people living in extreme poverty. Second it will define appropriate mitigation measures, and when social safeguard studies based on the guiding principles of RGoB's and the World Bank's social safeguard policies will need to be prepared (i.e. Resettlement Action Plans or Vulnerable Communities Development Plans). A detailed suggested outline for the SIMF is given in paragraph 5.

Voluntary Land Donation. Although no acquisition of privately owned land is expected under the proposed project, the SIMF should contain specific criteria for the acquisition of land donated voluntarily by project beneficiaries. This will include provisions that any impacts from voluntary land donation do not result in the displacement of people, any loss of incomes or livelihoods, and that people making the voluntary donations are beneficiaries of the project. The proposed project should also ensure that the process of voluntary land donation is transparent and appropriately documented. Where displacement or negative social/environmental impacts of an involuntary nature are unavoidable, the social assessment process will provide the basis for the required compensation and rehabilitation of the affected people.

Impacts on Vulnerable Social Groups. The results of the Initial Social Assessment will identify the presence of ethnic minorities in the subproject areas and whether the World Bank's OD 4.20 on Indigenous Peoples is applicable. If the policy is applicable, rather than prepare individual site specific Vulnerable Communities Development Plans, the SIMF will include specific provisions and processes to ensure that issues associated with ethnic and other vulnerable social groups are adequately addressed and modalities defined to ensure their participation in decision making throughout the planning and implementation phases of the project.

4. Methodolouy

The Consultant will carry out a desk review of relevant RGoB and World Bank Policies and guidelines to address social issues, procedures and processes as well as to harmonize these set of policies as discussed above. The desk review will be supplemented by some stakeholder consultations to: (i) develop a consultation framework for participatory implementation; (ii) identify all other relevant issues including those described above in the scope of work.

87 5. Output.

The Consultant will prepare a Social Impact Assessment Framework as detailed below. All draft outputs will be reviewed and commented by DOR, the World Bank and SNV (Netherlands Development Organization). These comments should be suitably incorporated into the final versions.

Social Impact Management Framework Outline

Acronyms

Executive Summary

Introduction * Project Description and Objectives * Project Components

Approach and Methodology * Objectives and Scope of the Social Impact Monitoring Framework * Methodology and Tools

Socio-Economic Profile * Country Overview

Stakeholder Analysis and Consultation * Rationale * Methodology * Stakeholder Analysis and Consultation Strategy

Policies, Regulations and Guidelines * RGoB Land Acquisition Act and Regulations * Land Ownership and Tenure * World Bank Policies on Involuntary Resettlement and Indigenous Peoples * Comparison of RGoB and World Bank Policies

Social Impact Management * Description and Social Development Outcomes * Social Screening * Socio-Economic Baseline * Social Impacts and Mitigation Arrangements o Gender Issues and Impacts o Impacts on the Poor and Other Vulnerable Social Groups * Resettlement Policy Framework o Principles and Objectives

88 o Eligibility Criteria o Entitlement Policy Matrix o Voluntary Land Donation * Vulnerable Communities Development Framework o Principles and Objectives o Participation and Mitigation Measures

Implementation Arrangements o Institutional Arrangements o Capacity Building o Monitoring and Evaluation

Annexes * Summary of Consultations * List of Consultation Participants * Social Screening Format * Socio-Economic Household Survey Questionnaire * Format of Memorandum of Understanding for Voluntary Land Donation

6. Reportingy and timing! of the assignment

The consultancy work including reporting is estimated to take about two months.

The consultant shall submit the draft report (in five fold) at the end of these months. The comments on the draft report from DoR, SNV and other stakeholder agencies shall be incorporated in the Final Report.

The final reports in five hard copies and a soft copy in CDs shall be submitted to DoR and SNV in two week's time after receipt of comments from DoR, SNV and other stakeholder agencies.

7. Oualification & Experience of the consultant

Minimum Masters Degree in Social Studies with at least 5 years of professional experience in with social assessments and preferably working experience under Himalayan conditions, and ability to train other persons.

8. Submission of Proposal and criteria for award of the assignment

The consultant's proposal for the assignment shall include, but not limited to, the following:

i) Copies of relevant documents like valid Trade License, (CDB) Registration Certificate, and Tax Clearance Certificate proving the firm's eligibility to carry out the assignment;

89 ii) The company profile demonstrating the firm's ability to carry out the assignment. The information on the firm's experiences in similar projects in the recent past should also be provided;

iii) Details of the personnel proposed to be deployed for performing the assignment. Copies of Academic & Training Certificates, Experience Certificates and Curriculum Vitae should be attached;

iv) Tentative work plan/schedule and methodology proposed to be adopted for carrying out the assignment;

v) Financial Proposal (in a separate sealed envelope), indicating the costs for carrying out the assignment. The financial proposal should be inclusive of all items of expenses that would be incurred in carrying out the assignment. The proposal should reflect the cost-breakups indicating clearly all the items of expenses including remuneration for personnel to be deployed, overhead costs, consultant's fee, and tax deductible at source. The firm may also indicate in their proposal the mode of payments to be made by the client for carrying out the assignment.

The evaluation of the proposal will be based on the comparison of the technical capability of the firms (which shall include experience of the firms, quality and suitability of the approach and methodology, work program, experience and qualification of the personnel proposed to be assigned for the work). This evaluation is called Quality Based Selection. The evaluation will be carried out by SNV and DoR. The evaluation and the technical proposal of the highest ranking firm will be sent to the World Bank Only the financial proposal of the firm with the technically best proposal will be opened and will be negotiated.

The sealed proposals must be delivered at the following address not later than 13:00 hours of 26th October 2005:

The DirectorSNVBhutan, PO Box 815, Thimphu, Bhutan

The contract will only be awarded when SNV and RGoB have a written agreement regarding the reimbursement of this consultancy.

9. Support services to be provided by the client

Any documents related to the project, if required for the purpose of the study, shall be provided by the client upon receipt of a written request from the consultant. The consultant will work closely with the Department of Roads (DoR), SNV and, where

90 necessary, Dzongkhag Administration officials. The client may also, at its discretion, consider fielding of its representative to accompany the consultant's study team during field works upon receipt of a written request from the consultant. However, the responsibility of completing the assignment successfully will lie solely with the consultant.

91