Social, Poverty, and Gender Analysis

Madhya Pradesh Urban Services Improvement Project – Additional Financing (RRP IND 42486-018)

SOCIAL, POVERTY, AND GENDER ANALYSIS

I. Background

1. Madhya Pradesh Urban Services Improvement Project (MPUSIP) intends to provide improved urban services (defined as water supply and sanitation) in selected clusters in the state of Madhya Pradesh. It will complement past and ongoing efforts of the Government of Madhya Pradesh (GOMP) to improve water supply and wastewater management for the residents of Madhya Pradesh under the additional financing phase. The Project will invest in the water supply system in 64 towns, wastewater system in eight towns and integrated approach in two towns under the additional financing phase. The State’s Urban Development and Housing Department (UDHD) will be the executing agency and the Madhya Pradesh Urban Development Company Limited (MPUDC) shall establish a dedicated project management unit (PMU).

II. The State Context

2. As per the Census 2011, the population of Madhya Pradesh is 72,626,809 of which 20,069,405 (27.63%) resides in urban areas. Of the state population, total male and female population is 37,612,306 and 35,014,503, respectively. In urban areas, population distribution by male and female is 10,462,918 and 9,606,487, respectively. Population growth in the state in the decade 2001–2011 has been recorded as 20.35% and forms 6% of India’s population. Literacy rate in Madhya Pradesh is 69.32%, of which male literacy is 78.73% and female literacy is 54.49%. The sex ratio in Madhya Pradesh is 931 females per 1000 males, which is below the national average of 940 female per 1000 men. As compared to the Census 2001, over the past decade, there has been an increase in this ratio in Madhya Pradesh from 920 females per 1000 men.1

3. As per Census 2011, in urban areas, the sex ratio is 918 females per 1000 males in Madhya Pradesh. Child (0–6) sex ratio in urban areas is 901 girls per 1000 boys. Total children (0-6 age) living in urban areas of Madhya Pradesh are 2,483,664. Of total population in urban areas, 12.38 % are children (0–6). For urban areas, average literacy rate is 82.85% where 88.67% of males and 69.46% females are literate (footnote 1).

4. Madhya Pradesh was estimated to have a total of 31.65% population living below poverty line in 2011–2012 with 35.74% living in rural and 21% in urban areas. Government of India accepted these estimates and defined ₹ 771/- and ₹ 897/- per capita per month as the poverty line in rural and urban areas of Madhya Pradesh, respectively.2 The estimated poverty line for rural and urban areas of Madhya Pradesh with adjustment for inflation is provided in table 1 below.

Table 1: Poverty Line–Adjusted for Inflation Year Urban Rural 2011–2012 897 771 2011–2013 951 817 2011–2014 1008 866 2011–2015 1068 918 2011–2016 1132 973 2011–2017 1200 1032 2011–2018 1272 1094

1 Government of India. 2011. Census on India. Delhi. 2 Government of India. Planning Commission, 2013. Press Note on Poverty Estimates, 2011–2012. Delhi. https://niti.gov.in/planningcommission.gov.in/docs/news/pre_pov2307.pdf Year Urban Rural 2011–2019 1349 1159 2011–2020 1430 1229

5. Total scheduled caste population in Madhya Pradesh as per Census 2011 is 11.3 million out of which 8.3 million live in rural areas and 3.0 million are residing in urban areas. The total scheduled tribe population as per Census 2011 is 15.3 million out of which 14.3 million are in rural areas and 1.0 million in urban areas.

6. As per the Handbook of Urban Statistics,3 there are 303 towns reporting the presence of slums in Madhya Pradesh. The total slum population is 5,688,993 of which 1,900,942 are in notified slums, 2,530,637 in recognised slums and 1,257,414 in identified slums. The state share of slum population to total slum population of India has been reported as 8.7% in 2011.

7. The urban population in Madhya Pradesh is about 20 million and is growing at an annual rate of 2.57%, higher than the national average of 2.45%. The increasing urban population has exacerbated the gap in urban service delivery system, which is proving to be largely inadequate at present. The state has now 408 urban local bodies (ULBs) comprising 16 municipal corporations, 98 municipal councils and 294 Nagar Parishads.4 Most of the ULBs across the state lack facilities of piped water systems and proper measures to handle wastewater and sanitation systems. The State Government has taken the initiative to improve urban service delivery systems in the ULBs and MPUSIP contributes to its initiatives.

III. Project Context: Poverty and Social aspects

8. In the 70 project towns, under additional financing, out of a total of 452,196 households, 186,011 (41.1%) households are reported as registered households living below poverty line (BPL). Out of these, 62,878 (13.9%) have been verified on the Samagra portal of Government of India,5 which is GOMP’s BPL families’ registration and management system. Town-wise BPL households information for the project towns is provided in the table below.

Table 2: Town-wise Below Poverty Line Households in Project Towns Certified % BPL BPL certified Total BPL households % on S.No Town District Households Households on Portal BPL Portal 1 Jawar Sehore 1884 818 405 43.42 21.50 2 Pachore Rajgarh 7967 3872 397 48.60 4.98 3 Sanchi Raisen 2290 999 223 43.62 9.74 4 Shahpur Burhanpur 5255 2815 1061 53.57 20.19 5 Chanera Khandwa 7233 3321 2281 45.91 31.54 6 Nepanagar Burhanpur 8655 3139 1416 36.27 16.36 7 Polykalan Shahjahpur 2830 1625 655 57.42 23.14

3 Government of India. Ministry of Housing and Urban Services. 2019. Handbook of Urban Statistics 2019. http://mohua.gov.in/pdf/5c80e2225a124Handbook%20of%20Urban%20Statistics%202019.pdf 4 Government of Madhya Pradesh. Urban Development and Housing Department. 2019. Annual Report 2018–2019. http://www.mpurban.gov.in/Uploaded%20Document/adminstrative%20report/PrashaskiyaPrativedan2018_19.pdf 5 BPL Families Registration & Management System. India. http://bpl.samagra.gov.in/default.aspx#

Certified % BPL BPL certified Total BPL households % on S.No Town District Households Households on Portal BPL Portal 8 Bagh Dewas 2577 868 399 33.68 15.48 9 Hathpipliya Dewas 4821 2327 888 48.27 18.42 10 Loharda Dewas 2302 720 89 31.28 3.87 11 Kantaphod Dewas 2504 1228 207 49.04 8.27 12 Khategaun Dewas 7382 3035 584 41.11 7.91 13 Nemawar Dewas 2171 283 193 13.04 8.89 14 Dhamnod Ratlam 1768 518 203 29.30 11.48 15 Athana Neemuch 1908 446 136 23.38 7.13 16 Gohad Bhind 20314 6530 1471 32.15 7.24 17 Aantri Gwalior 2870 970 919 33.80 32.02 18 Biloua Gwalior 3155 1293 279 40.98 8.84 19 Pichore Gwalior 3017 1185 279 39.28 9.25 20 Kailaras Morena 6325 737 414 11.65 6.55 21 Jhundpura Morena 2457 769 343 31.30 13.96 22 Joura Morena 11669 2664 1352 22.83 11.59 23 Badoda Sheopur 5444 2163 645 39.73 11.85 24 Dhoda Bhind 2664 812 461 30.48 17.30 25 Chand Chindwara 3107 932 817 30.00 26.30 26 Kymore Katni 5385 2659 760 49.38 14.11 27 Vijayraghavgarh Katni 2182 1093 193 50.09 8.85 28 Barela Jabalpur 3693 1432 315 38.78 8.53 29 Chichli Narshinghpur 3836 1575 672 41.06 17.52 30 Saikheda Narshinghpur 4079 1905 453 46.70 11.11 31 Salichauka ( Narshinghpur 3976 1794 1464 45.12 36.82 babai Kalan) 32 Malajganj Balaghat 8447 5387 579 63.77 6.85 33 Baihar Balaghat 5059 2751 643 54.38 12.71 34 Bamhanibanjar Mandla 3284 1787 502 54.42 15.29 35 Niwas Mandla 2728 1552 753 56.89 27.60 36 Barigarh Chhatarpur 2433 1280 145 52.61 5.96 37 Chandla Chhatarpur 3951 1494 339 37.81 8.58 38 Ajaygarh Panna 4310 2003 1076 46.47 24.97 39 Devendranagar Panna 3344 1337 718 39.98 21.47 40 Jeron Khalsa Tikamgarh 2546 1353 263 53.14 10.33 41 Kari Tikamgarh 2857 2089 219 73.12 7.67 42 Lidhora Khas Tikamgarh 3755 976 256 25.99 6.82 43 Shahpur Sagar 4690 1807 466 38.53 9.94 44 Satai Chhatarpur 2710 1073 202 39.59 7.45 45 Bijawar Chhatarpur 4534 1825 1825 40.25 40.25

Certified % BPL BPL certified Total BPL households % on S.No Town District Households Households on Portal BPL Portal 46 Khargapur Tikamgarh 3624 1762 420 48.62 11.59 47 Jatara Tikamgarh 5048 1872 244 37.08 4.83 48 Bada Malhera Chhatarpur 4694 1684 1007 35.88 21.45 49 Patera Damoh 3645 1453 195 39.86 5.35 50 Maharajpur Chhatarpur 5836 2988 665 51.20 11.39 51 Gadimalhara Chhatarpur 3101 1467 324 47.31 10.45 52 Kothi Satna 2305 1161 149 50.37 6.46 53 Jaitwara Satna 2506 1515 405 60.45 16.16 54 Kotar Satna 1861 679 230 36.49 12.36 55 Birsinghpur Satna 3738 2256 573 60.35 15.33 56 Mangawan Rewa 2962 1334 258 45.04 8.71 57 Rampur Naikin Sidhi 3415 1255 189 36.75 5.53 58 Maihar Satna 16287 6403 4883 39.31 29.98 59 Pasan Anuppur 6749 1903 437 28.20 6.48 60 Harpalpur Chhatarpur 4454 1040 106 23.35 2.38 61 Badagaon Tikamgarh 2008 1068 114 53.19 5.68 62 Ghuwara 0.00 0.00 63 New Ramnagar Satna 8482 4695 929 55.35 10.95 64 Amarpatan Satna 64544 30345 8245 47.01 12.77 65 Nagda Ujjain 30791 9490 2255 30.82 7.32 66 Dhamnod Dhar 9033 3006 614 33.28 6.80 67 Rajnagar Chhatarpur 4136 2074 1389 50.15 33.58 68 Khajuraho Chhatarpur 6600 889 266 13.47 4.03 69 Raghogarh Guna 18019 6697 746 37.17 4.14 70 Betul Betul 37990 17734 10275 46.68 27.05 Total 452196 186011 62878 41.14 13.91 BPL = below poverty line.

9. Based on the Census 2011, out of a population of 1,328,253 in the 70 project towns, the total scheduled caste population is 229,544 (17.3%) with 691,724 male and 636,529 female. The total scheduled tribe population in these towns is 99,559, which is 7.5% of the total population with 50,472 male and 49,087 female. The town wise data of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe population is provided in the tables below.

Table 3: Town-wise Sex-disaggregated Scheduled Caste Population in Project Towns6 Total Total Total Sched Sched Sched uled uled Total uled Caste Caste Total Femal Caste % s Femal Male e s Sched Male e Total Popul Popul Popul ules Popul Popul Populatio ation ation ation Caste ation ation S.N District n of of of of Popul of of o. Town Name Name Town Town Town Town ation Town Town 1 Jawar (NP) SEHORE 8206 4182 4024 2159 26.31 1107 1052 2 Pachore RAJGARH 27396 14077 13319 4715 17.21 2392 2323 (NP) 3 Sanchi (NP) RAISEN 8401 4384 4017 2333 27.77 1220 1113 4 Chhanera KHANDWA 22052 11194 10858 3406 15.45 1706 1700 (NP) 5 Shahpur BURHANPU 19719 10174 9545 2582 13.09 1324 1258 (NP) R 6 Nepanagar BURHANPU 29682 15165 14517 5560 18.73 2811 2749 (M) R 7 Polaykalan SHAJAPUR 12268 6369 5899 2035 16.59 1049 986 (NP) 8 Bagli (NP) DEWAS 10310 5318 4992 1217 11.80 607 610 9 Hatpiplya DEWAS 17419 8952 8467 3674 21.09 1916 1758 (NP) 10 Loharda DEWAS 9202 4761 4441 1221 13.27 628 593 (NP) 11 Kantaphod DEWAS 10405 5426 4979 751 7.22 361 390 (NP) 12 Nemwar DEWAS 5978 3131 2847 643 10.76 331 312 13 Khategaon DEWAS 25413 13166 12247 1902 7.48 984 918 (NP) 14 Dhamnod RATLAM 8341 4226 4115 591 7.09 307 284 (NP) 15 Athana NNEEMUC 6456 3251 3205 633 9.80 323 310 H 16 Gohad (M) BHIND 58939 31913 27026 14902 25.28 8042 6860 17 Bilaua (NP) GWALIOR 12893 6879 6014 2481 19.24 1279 1202 18 Antari (NP) GWALIOR 9949 5331 4618 1515 15.23 831 684 19 Pichhore GWALIOR 12425 6581 5844 2382 19.17 1272 1110 (NP) 20 Joura (NP) MORENA 42153 22683 19470 8338 19.78 4510 3828 21 Kailaras MORENA 25920 13936 11984 4454 17.18 2375 2079 (NP) 22 Jhundpura MORENA 9803 5335 4468 1783 18.19 966 817 (NP) 23 Badoda (NP) SHEOPUR 18437 9667 8770 3097 16.80 1633 1464 24 Akoda (NP) BHIND 12534 6866 5668 2728 21.76 1505 1223

6 Census of India, 2011.

Total Total Total Sched Sched Sched uled uled Total uled Caste Caste Total Femal Caste % s Femal Male e s Sched Male e Total Popul Popul Popul ules Popul Popul Populatio ation ation ation Caste ation ation S.N District n of of of of Popul of of o. Town Name Name Town Town Town Town ation Town Town 25 Chand CHHINDWA 6926 3621 3305 933 13.47 465 468 RA 26 Kymore (NP) KATNI 19343 9913 9430 1864 9.64 944 920 27 Vijayraghavg KATNI 8371 4353 4018 1402 16.75 712 690 arh (NP) 28 Barela (NP) JABALPUR 12620 6665 5955 1564 12.39 817 747 29 Chichli (CT) NARSIMHA 9977 5294 4683 1524 15.28 796 728 PUR 30 Salichauka NARSIMHA 8008 4154 3854 1804 22.53 931 873 (Babai PUR Kalan) 31 Saikheda NARSIMHA 9602 4974 4628 1171 12.20 584 587 PUR 32 Baihar (NP) BALAGHAT 16650 8334 8316 1086 6.52 549 537 33 Malaj khand BALAGHAT 34176 16907 17269 2363 6.91 1176 1187 (M) 34 Niwas (NP) MANDLA 8248 4185 4063 650 7.88 329 321 35 Bamhani MANDLA 10266 5159 5107 637 6.20 323 314 (NP) 36 Barigarh CHHATARP 8918 4697 4221 3038 34.07 1579 1459 (NP) UR 37 Chandla CHHATARP 12838 6718 6120 3556 27.70 1864 1692 (NP) UR 38 Ajaigarh PANNA 16656 8851 7805 2866 17.21 1532 1334 (NP) 39 Devendrana PANNA 12785 6676 6109 2611 20.42 1347 1264 gar (NP) 40 Jeron TIKAMGAR 9426 5027 4399 1279 13.57 704 575 Khalsa (NP) H 41 Lidhora TIKAMGAR 12974 6704 6270 3671 28.30 1891 1780 Khas (NP) H 42 Kari (NP) TIKAMGAR 10409 5473 4936 2023 19.44 1045 978 H 43 Shahpur SAGAR 13668 7152 6516 2693 19.70 1431 1262 (NP) 44 Satai (NP) CHHATARP 10592 5509 5083 2199 20.76 1142 1057 UR 45 Bijawar (NP) CHHATARP 20513 10838 9675 3850 18.77 2011 1839 UR 46 Khargapur TIKAMGAR 14813 7915 6898 3680 24.84 1953 1727 (NP) H

Total Total Total Sched Sched Sched uled uled Total uled Caste Caste Total Femal Caste % s Femal Male e s Sched Male e Total Popul Popul Popul ules Popul Popul Populatio ation ation ation Caste ation ation S.N District n of of of of Popul of of o. Town Name Name Town Town Town Town ation Town Town 47 Jatara (NP) TIKAMGAR 17499 9075 8424 2987 17.07 1560 1427 H 48 Bada CHHATARP 18335 9656 8679 3561 19.42 1867 1694 Malhera UR (NP) 49 Patera DAMOH 9927 5191 4736 2354 23.71 1231 1123 50 Garhi - CHHATARP 13625 7280 6345 3006 22.06 1576 1430 Malhera UR (NP) 51 Maharajpur CHHATARP 23328 12270 11058 4977 21.33 2624 2353 (NP) UR 52 Kothi (NP) SATNA 8793 4542 4251 2125 24.17 1084 1041 53 Birsinghpur SATNA 14339 7486 6853 3757 26.20 1918 1839 (NP) 54 Jaitwara SATNA 9685 4940 4745 2987 30.84 1523 1464 (NP) 55 Kotar (NP) SATNA 7520 3803 3717 1460 19.41 752 708 56 Mangawan REWA 13700 7022 6678 3008 21.96 1540 1468 (NP) 57 Rampur SIDHI 11936 6083 5853 2202 18.45 1094 1108 Naikin (NP) 58 Maihar (M) SATNA 40192 21031 19161 5615 13.97 2914 2701 59 Pasan (M) ANUPPUR * 28447 14771 13676 3632 12.77 1837 1795 60 Ghuwara CHHATARP 13301 6994 6307 2716 20.42 1437 1279 (NP) UR 61 Harpalpur CHHATARP 18529 9674 8855 4018 21.68 2115 1903 (NP) UR 62 Badagaon TIKAMGAR 9282 4833 4449 2164 23.31 1150 1014 (NP) H 63 New SATNA 1967 1036 931 277 14.08 150 127 Ramnagar ( earlier village) 64 Amarpatan SATNA 19409 10130 9279 4125 21.25 2100 2025 (NP) 65 Nagda (M) UJJAIN 100039 51373 48666 20020 20.01 10223 9797 66 Dhamnod DHAR 32093 16723 15370 3128 9.75 1602 1526 (NP) 67 Rajnagar CHHATARP 14253 7573 6680 2160 15.15 1158 1002 (NP) UR 68 Khajuraho CHHATARP 24481 12962 11519 3836 15.67 1999 1837 (NP) UR

Total 69172 63652 22954 17.28 11912 11042 1328253 4 9 4 % 0 4

Table 4: Town wise sex disaggregated scheduled tribe population in project towns7 Total Total Sched Total Total Sched uled Sched Total Femal uled % Tribes uled Male e Tribes Sched Male Tribes Total Popul Popul Popul uled Popul Female Populatio ation ation ation Tribe ation Popula S. District n of of of of Popul of tion of No Town Name Name Town Town Town Town ation Town Town 1 Jawar (NP) SEHORE 8206 4182 4024 256 3.12 128 128 2 Pachore (NP) RAJGARH 27396 14077 13319 506 1.85 261 245 3 Sanchi (NP) RAISEN 8401 4384 4017 190 2.26 89 101 4 Chhanera KHANDWA 22052 11194 10858 2617 11.87 1292 1325 (NP) 5 Shahpur (NP) BURHANP 19719 10174 9545 1199 6.08 623 576 UR 6 Nepanagar BURHANP 29682 15165 14517 4585 15.45 2365 2220 (M) UR 7 Polaykalan SHAJAPU 12268 6369 5899 89 0.73 42 47 (NP) R 8 Bagli (NP) DEWAS 10310 5318 4992 1461 14.17 754 707 9 Hatpiplya DEWAS 17419 8952 8467 715 4.10 352 363 (NP) 10 Loharda (NP) DEWAS 9202 4761 4441 2253 24.48 1174 1079 11 Kantaphod DEWAS 10405 5426 4979 2816 27.06 1505 1311 (NP) 12 Nemwar DEWAS 5978 3131 2847 781 13.06 427 354 13 Khategaon DEWAS 25413 13166 12247 1927 7.58 983 944 (NP) 14 Dhamnod RATLAM 8341 4226 4115 2832 33.95 1421 1411 (NP)

7 Census of India,2011.

Total Total Sched Total Total Sched uled Sched Total Femal uled % Tribes uled Male e Tribes Sched Male Tribes Total Popul Popul Popul uled Popul Female Populatio ation ation ation Tribe ation Popula S. District n of of of of Popul of tion of No Town Name Name Town Town Town Town ation Town Town 15 Athana NNEEMUC 6456 3251 3205 238 3.69 107 131 H 16 Gohad (M) BHIND 58939 31913 27026 1932 3.28 1053 879 17 Bilaua (NP) GWALIOR 12893 6879 6014 279 2.16 145 134 18 Antari (NP) GWALIOR 9949 5331 4618 6 0.06 3 3 19 Pichhore GWALIOR 12425 6581 5844 275 2.21 137 138 (NP) 20 Joura (NP) MORENA 42153 22683 19470 549 1.30 296 253 21 Kailaras (NP) MORENA 25920 13936 11984 257 0.99 129 128 22 Jhundpura MORENA 9803 5335 4468 76 0.78 37 39 (NP) 23 Badoda (NP) SHEOPUR 18437 9667 8770 1094 5.93 589 505 24 Akoda (NP) BHIND 12534 6866 5668 26 0.21 16 10 25 Chand CHHINDW 6926 3621 3305 500 7.22 226 274 ARA 26 Kymore (NP) KATNI 19343 9913 9430 3524 18.22 1767 1757 27 Vijayraghavg KATNI 8371 4353 4018 682 8.15 352 330 arh (NP) 28 Barela (NP) JABALPUR 12620 6665 5955 1220 9.67 662 558 29 Chichli (CT) NARSIMHA 9977 5294 4683 592 5.93 313 279 PUR 30 Salichauka NARSIMHA 8008 4154 3854 183 2.29 96 87 (Babai Kalan) PUR 31 Saikheda NARSIMHA 9602 4974 4628 140 1.46 58 82 PUR 32 Baihar (NP) BALAGHA 16650 8334 8316 4907 29.47 2438 2469 T 33 Malaj khand BALAGHA 34176 16907 17269 12621 36.93 6073 6548 (M) T 34 Niwas (NP) MANDLA 8248 4185 4063 3156 38.26 1559 1597 35 Bamhani MANDLA 10266 5159 5107 1610 15.68 776 834 (NP) 36 Barigarh (NP) CHHATAR 8918 4697 4221 8 0.09 7 1 PUR 37 Chandla (NP) CHHATAR 12838 6718 6120 51 0.40 26 25 PUR 38 Ajaigarh (NP) PANNA 16656 8851 7805 1535 9.22 786 749 39 Devendranag PANNA 12785 6676 6109 593 4.64 307 286 ar (NP) 40 Jeron Khalsa TIKAMGAR 9426 5027 4399 384 4.07 185 199 (NP) H

Total Total Sched Total Total Sched uled Sched Total Femal uled % Tribes uled Male e Tribes Sched Male Tribes Total Popul Popul Popul uled Popul Female Populatio ation ation ation Tribe ation Popula S. District n of of of of Popul of tion of No Town Name Name Town Town Town Town ation Town Town 41 Lidhora Khas TIKAMGAR 12974 6704 6270 162 1.25 88 74 (NP) H 42 Kari (NP) TIKAMGAR 10409 5473 4936 563 5.41 280 283 H 43 Shahpur (NP) SAGAR 13668 7152 6516 1775 12.99 929 846 44 Satai (NP) CHHATAR 10592 5509 5083 356 3.36 184 172 PUR 45 Bijawar (NP) CHHATAR 20513 10838 9675 801 3.90 412 389 PUR 46 Khargapur TIKAMGAR 14813 7915 6898 45 0.30 24 21 (NP) H 47 Jatara (NP) TIKAMGAR 17499 9075 8424 371 2.12 175 196 H 48 Bada CHHATAR 18335 9656 8679 847 4.62 441 406 Malhera (NP) PUR 49 Patera DAMOH 9927 5191 4736 1024 10.32 535 489 50 Garhi - CHHATAR 13625 7280 6345 156 1.14 78 78 Malhera (NP) PUR 51 Maharajpur CHHATAR 23328 12270 11058 104 0.45 59 45 (NP) PUR 52 Kothi (NP) SATNA 8793 4542 4251 834 9.48 437 397 53 Birsinghpur SATNA 14339 7486 6853 438 3.05 223 215 (NP) 54 Jaitwara (NP) SATNA 9685 4940 4745 153 1.58 84 69 55 Kotar (NP) SATNA 7520 3803 3717 616 8.19 308 308 56 Mangawan REWA 13700 7022 6678 716 5.23 362 354 (NP) 57 Rampur SIDHI 11936 6083 5853 1358 11.38 703 655 Naikin (NP) 58 Maihar (M) SATNA 40192 21031 19161 2338 5.82 1188 1150 59 Pasan (M) ANUPPUR 28447 14771 13676 4829 16.98 2449 2380 * 60 Ghuwara CHHATAR 13301 6994 6307 147 1.11 63 84 (NP) PUR 61 Harpalpur CHHATAR 18529 9674 8855 59 0.32 31 28 (NP) PUR 62 Badagaon TIKAMGAR 9282 4833 4449 459 4.95 221 238 (NP) H 63 New SATNA 1967 1036 931 43 2.19 23 20 Ramnagar (earlier village)

10. With regard to slum information, there is paucity of data availability. Town wise information on slum households and slum population as per the Census 2011 is available only for some 49 towns while for towns like (i) Chanera, (ii) Loharda, (iii) Nemawar, (iv) Athana, (v) Bilaua, (vi) Kailaras, (vii) Akoda, (viii) Chand, (ix) Barela, (x) Chichli, (xi) Saikheda, (xii) Salilchauka, (xiii) Baihar, (xiv) Bambhanibazar, (xv) Satai, (xvi) Patera, (xvii) Maharjpur, (xviii) Gadimalhara, (xix) Rajnagar, (xx) New Ramnagar, and (xxi) Gurwara slum data is not available. The information available for the 49 project towns are provided in the table below.

Table 5: Town-wise Slum Households and Sex Disaggregated Population8 S.N Total Total Total Total o Town Households Population Male Female 1 Jawar (NP) 500 2773 1383 1390 2 Pachore (NP) 2778 13770 7083 6687 3 Sanchi (NP) 241 1307 679 628 4 Shahpur (NP) 1472 7122 3661 3461 5 Nepanagar (M) 3291 16173 8221 7952 6 Polaykalan (NP) 1261 6791 3501 3290 7 Bagli (NP) 487 2442 1224 1218 8 Hatpiplya (NP) 672 3356 1769 1587 9 Kantaphod (NP) 1185 6195 3239 2956 10 Khategaon (NP) 1110 6131 3217 2914 11 Dhamnod (NP) 957 4666 2368 2298 12 Gohad (M) 1934 10751 5797 4954 13 Antari (NP) 110 615 323 292 14 Pichhore (NP) 1441 8045 4244 3801

8 Source: Primary Census Abstract data for slums (India, States/UTs_Town level)

S.N Total Total Total Total o Town Households Population Male Female 15 Jhundpura (NP) 615 3912 2178 1734 16 Joura (NP) 656 4040 2196 1844 17 Badoda (NP) 393 2094 1082 1012 18 Kymore (NP) 1115 5110 2607 2503 19 Vijayraghavgarh (NP) 310 1466 739 727 20 Malaj khand (M) 2563 12460 6125 6335 21 Niwas (NP) 1597 6730 3415 3315 22 Barigarh (NP) 855 4731 2445 2286 23 Chandla (NP) 456 2343 1221 1122 24 Ajaigarh (NP) 1048 5421 2823 2598 25 Devendranagar (NP) 1428 7488 3922 3566 26 Jeron Khalsa (NP) 578 3080 1625 1455 27 Kari (NP) 1473 7893 4133 3760 28 Lidhora Khas (NP) 131 682 315 367 29 Shahpur (NP Sagar) 235 1131 588 543 30 Bijawar (NP) 1069 5997 3159 2838 31 Khargapur (NP) 891 4908 2619 2289 32 Jatara (NP) 1518 8596 4506 4090 33 Bada Malhera (NP) 1431 7324 3840 3484 34 Kothi (NP) 1342 6471 3347 3124 35 Jaitwara (NP) 848 4500 2297 2203 36 Kotar (NP) 262 1329 670 659 37 Birsinghpur (NP) 336 1905 1005 900 38 Mangawan (NP) 996 4888 2510 2378 39 Rampur Naikin (NP) 360 1731 910 821 40 Maihar (M) 1485 7081 3635 3446 41 Pasan (M) 2188 10965 5704 5261 42 Dhamnod (NP) 1646 8230 4225 4005 43 Nagda (M) 2719 13715 7108 6607 44 Khajuraho (NP) 310 1700 898 802 45 Harpalpur (NP) 970 5360 2838 2522 46 Badagaon (NP) 695 3874 2026 1848 47 Amarpatan (NP) 1435 7412 3798 3614 Raghogarh -Vijaypur 48 (M) 2802 14454 7384 7070 49 Betul (M) 3040 14051 7307 6744 Total 57235 293209 151909 141300

IV. Project Context: Gender and Poverty aspects

11. During the project preparation, qualitative methods were applied with the objective of examining gender differences in knowledge, attitudes, practices, roles, constraints, needs, and priorities in terms of water supply and sanitation, and the factors that account for such differences. This included: (i) Focus Group Discussion (FGD) Method in slum areas; (ii) Participatory Rapid Appraisal (PRA); and (iii) Participatory safety audits and slum mapping to assess community needs with regard to infrastructure and women safety in slums.

V. Key Considerations and Recommendations

12. Infrastructural Considerations: More than 50% of the poor households (50.8%) in the sample during project preparation depended on hand pumps/bore well/tube wells and 18.7% on public taps for drinking water, and 47.2% households face scarcity of water during dry season. Where the source of drinking water was piped water, the availability, quantity and quality of water supplied needed attention. As far as women’s needs are concerned, they had expressed that they will be satisfied if they can have access to water: (i) At the household level (reducing their trips, workload, drudgery and safety risks due to harassment faced of men who congregate at public water points); (ii) Which is sufficient in quantity (enough for a family size of six); (iii) Which is good in quality (no bad smell, bad colour, bad taste); (iv) Which is delivered at the right time (preferably in morning and evening); (v) Which is served with reliability (not erratic); (vi) Affordable (such that men who control household finances are ready to pay for it); (vii) Can be managed in situation of problems/conflicts; and (viii) Should have accessible measures where women can place their grievances.

13. Hence, inclusion of poor households in the provision of pressurised, continuous 24x7 water supply will address the needs of women and girls and reduce their drudgery of fetching water from distant locations and transporting it to the household.

14. Reduction in drudgery. Gender analysis conducted during project preparation has illustrated that the project has a potential to support gender equity through gender inclusive approaches and should pay adequate attention to gender issues in water supply and sanitation. The program can lead to better opportunities for poor especially women by improving their access to water supply, reduce drudgery of collecting water from a distance at odd hours and improve water management at household and community level.

15. Reduction spent in water collection. As per the findings during project preparation, average time spent in collection of water in sample households was 50-55 minutes, With a metered water connection at the door step within the premises, there should be a considerable reduction in time spent in collecting and transporting water. In FGDs conducted during the study, citizens especially women have expressed that the time saved from water collection can be used for income and education opportunities for women and girls.

16. Community Mobilisation. The consultations during project preparation have revealed that community mobilization should be the entry point activities. Through the community mobilisation communities especially the poor beneficiaries will be able to: (i) Articulate water and sanitation related needs; (ii) Choose the type of water supply (shared/household) and sanitation technology they want; (iii) Communicate the level of service they are willing and can afford to pay; (iv) Play a significant role in project planning and design, and implementation; (v) Develop hygiene and sanitation related behaviour change practices; (vi) Participate in grievance redressal mechanism; and (vii) Practice wise water use.

17. Focus on women’s participation. Gender equality and social inclusion (GESI) action plan was designed for the current project to address the needs, priorities and expectations of women from the project. Efforts were made to strengthen women’s role in water management by

maximizing their participation and decision making and involving them in consultations during design, planning, and implementation.

18. Economic considerations and need of skill enhancement. The consultations during project preparation had revealed that women are less economically active as compared to men. The study shows that of the economically active population in the sample slum area, 84.5% were male and only 15.4% are female. The FGDs with 49.5% women and 50.4% men have illustrated that women’s participation in decision making as to the use of household budgets is limited. Since male members provide most of the household earning, women are expected to manage the household finance upon consultation with men. If men withhold these, women are constrained. They are also criticized if they make expenditures without the consent of their husbands. Men participating in FGDs have reported low level of incomes and income opportunities, which put expenses such as sanitation on low priority for them. Hence skill enhancement activities were identified as a crucial area that will have potential of improving livelihood opportunities of the local age appropriate population especially women.

19. Health Considerations. As per the study conducted during project preparation, major health related issues that impacted specifically women and girls were a high incidence of diarrhea and to a lesser degree dysentery. These diseases could be related to consumption of contaminated water, unsanitary and poor drainage affecting the environmental conditions. Women and pubescent girls reported constraints and challenges related to menstrual management. Due to lack of toilets with bathing facility, hygiene practices observed were limited. School age girls shared problems in attending schools especially at the onset of puberty because of lack of suitable, maintained and secure toilets in schools. The toilets were reported to be poorly supplied by water. It was also observed that due to women’s reproductive role of caregivers, disease incidence in the family added longer hours to the normal working hours and increase domestic burden. For men, this added cost and inability to cope due to limited incomes. Hence, there is a strong need of including a robust behaviour change communication element in the design that includes aspects of health, hygiene, water handling and storage practices and hand washing practices.

20. Gender roles and responsibility considerations. The gender analysis provided a clear picture of separate roles in poor households. The analysis illustrated that women are primarily responsible for domestic work and looking after the family. FGDs revealed that on an average basis a woman spends about 2 to 3 hours daily involving at least three trips on water collection and approximately 7 to 8 hours in water related tasks such as cooking, washing, cleaning, etc. Within the family, household composition and division of labour influence the amount of water collection work. Depending on the workload of mothers, the girls become involved in water collection and transportation. While men mostly carry water on bicycles or motor vehicles, women carry buckets or head loads. Single women, elderly and disabled have no help and are constrained. Hence, by providing and improving services at the slum level/poor households, women and girls will benefit the most.

21. Hygiene practices. Consultations have revealed that women are largely responsible for family hygiene education. Women, with their biological roles, teach children where to defecate and where not to. They teach the critical occasions for hand washing. Hygiene education was observed and introduced in school curriculum focusing on hand washing practices. However, it was observed then that hygiene information did not necessarily translate itself into practice due to the problem of unsanitary existing toilets and dependence on open defecation. The poor water supply in schools made them dirty and unhygienic. The campaigns on sanitation aired by the sanitation mission had raised awareness and households started viewing ownership of a

household toilet with dignity and hygiene. Solid waste collection was introduced but partially. In slums, garbage was reported as thrown at secondary points, open plots and collection of garbage was not regular. This illustrates that the project needs to include hygiene education to optimise the benefits of improved water and sanitation services.

22. Willingness and Affordability aspects. During the project preparation, it was noted that 45.8% were not willing to pay any connection charges for water but were willing to pay only the user charge or tariff. In the slums, however this proportion is 46.2%. This was because a large proportion of slum population was not making any expenditure on water. However, about 50% to 60% households were willing to pay for improved water supply provided they receive water at their doorstep. This finding is important to inform policy of water tariff setting, payment modality as well as including willingness to pay to improved services and benefits in the community participation framework. Since control over household finance is primarily with men, male involvement in public participation, communication (with equal women’s participation should also be ascertained. ULBs will need to expand outreach of programmes and schemes for urban poor such as livelihood, social security etc. to the target communities to ease affordability.

23. This requires a strong need to implement a Behaviour Change Communication (BCC) program that will address willingness to pay for water and toilet for sustained benefits. Community mobilisation should encourage communities to use piped water rather than depend on poor quality, hard to fetch non-piped water. Their willingness to pay will increase if the community is consulted and informed on the potential pro poor benefits on immediate basis and long-term basis. Following benefits need to be disseminated widely during mass communication and community mobilization- (i) Immediate basis: (a) Improved pressure at doorstep; (b) Improved continuity of water supply; (c) Improved water supply; (d) Reduced work load leading to income, education and leisure opportunities; (e) Improving sanitation conditions; and (f) Improved hygiene behaviour, improving health conditions and productivity. (ii) Long term basis: (a) Better water management at household and community level; (b) More coverage improving profitability of business which will further lead to inclusion of poor areas; and (c) City wise revenue increase will make funds available for poor investment.

24. Institutional capacity. Weak institutional capacity is likely to affect addressing gender and inclusion issues in projects. The institutional capacity to implement gender and inclusion strategies within the executing and implementing agencies was identified weak. To institutionalize and sustain community participation and gender benefits, organizational strengthening within PMU, project implementation unit (PIU) and ULBs will be required in the form of focal points to support implementation of gender related activities. These will be required to be supported at PMU, PIU and town level.

25. Grievance redressal. Field study has indicated that in order to lodge complaints, the poor communities follow an informal approach by approaching ULB public representatives or lower level ULB staff. Women are at a greater disadvantage to approach the ULB office to lodge complaints. The complaints lodged are either on a single household basis or as a group of neighbouring households. Approaching a formal venue to lodge complaint is a constraint particularly for women due to the following reasons:

(i) Lack of knowledge; (ii) Lack of capability and resources to access ULB to lodge complaints; (iii) Lack of connections to approach ULB; (iv) Geographical distance and location of services; and (v) Time constraints to make multiple visits for follow ups.

26. With the institutional constraints, the ULBs also face the following constraints in addressing these complaints: (i) Lack of staff; (ii) Lack of financial resources to redress grievances; and (iii) Lack of institutional mechanism to follow up with grievances.

27. Hence there is a need to establish a grievance redressal mechanism, which can be approached to use as a platform to make the grievances known to the ULB who can meet the citizens’ demands and address their grievances with follow up. Dissemination of information of grievance redressal mechanism will also be essential to inform communities about such a mechanism.

28. Safety Considerations. Women in sample slums during the study for project preparation also participated in safety audits, which have established a strong connection between infrastructure deficiencies and experience of violence and threat perceptions among women and girls. Women have reported that water collection from public water points is an unorganized process. It involves quarrel over water and disputes while waiting in queues. Safety audit also highlighted that men congregate around the water points which leads to experience of violence and threat perceptions among the women and girls. Individual household toilet coverage was reported very less in slums during the study. In absence of household toilet and lack of community toilets, open defecation was the most sorted option. Even in families with household toilets, children and men practiced open defecation. Women considered open defecation as highly unsafe as in most of the cases, women are compelled to use open defecation in the early hours of the morning or after dark in the evening which was taken by men as an opportunity to follow women and girls and harass. A number of instances of sexual violence and harassment during open defecation or in areas used for open defecation were reported during the interviews. Garbage disposal and clearance was reported as not being done regularly in the poor areas and garbage are on open plots and streets, which impeded movement. Drains were not maintained and water logging took place especially during rains. As a result, women and girls reported of being compelled to change their routes and take shorter/non-familiar routes and pose themselves to risk of sexual harassment. For older women, reduced mobility capacities added to the constraints.

29. Some of the safety threat perceptions indicated during the field study were: (i) Dilapidated community toilets (a) Men collect; (b) Unclean/latches broken/doors broken/no lights; (c) Men play cards/gamble/drink; and (d) Obscene graffiti. (ii) Public water collection points (a) Men congregate; and (b) Women experience harassment/threat perceptions.

30. Safety audits have served as an effective tool to establish a strong connection between deficiencies in urban infrastructure and experience and threat perceptions among women and girls and can be used as a tool in the project activities to address gender concerns.

Figure 1: Safety Audits Conducted During Project Preparation

31. Considerations in Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Plan for Current Project. Based on the needs identified during project preparation the GESI action plan included actions at three levels: (i) Access to improved water supply and sanitation system, which included target of access to improved water supply and sanitation services with at least 25% households from vulnerable (scheduled caste, scheduled tribe, other backward classes [OBC] and BPL) and female-headed households; (ii) Demand side capacity including actions like: (a) Preparing and implementing gender sensitive BCC plan for project towns, and conducting awareness raising events aiming to cover at least 240,000 households with at least 50% women. However, by December 2019 the project has reported covering 8,408 households only with 41% women; (b) Formation of grievance redressal committees (GRCs) in each project town with at least 30% women members. Towards this end, the project had formed GRCs in all the project towns with 32% women representation; and (c) Formation of community/neighbourhood networks (128) in poor settlements of project towns with at least 50% women and train them on participatory planning, community monitoring and maintenance of water, sanitation and hygiene practices. In this regard the project formed 352 neighbourhood groups with 100% women. (iii) Supply side Capacity including actions like:

(a) Establishing a Gender Budget Cell (GBC) in UDHD. Against this activity, GBC was established in MPUDC. The Managing Director MPUDC is the Chairperson of the GBC having approved roles and responsibilities of the members and standard operating procedures; (b) Designating gender focal point in MPUDC, Gender Specialist in project management consultant (PMC) and communication assistants in each PIU. Towards this end, a project officer was designated in PMU to oversee implementation of GESI actions. A gender and communication expert was in place in the PMU supported by one Communication assistant in each of the four PIUs; (c) Developing gender sensitive training/learning material for ULBs and communities. In this regard six types of training/learning materials were developed covering aspects of gender and socially inclusive operation and maintenance (O&M) services and urban management and community based participatory planning, monitoring and maintenance of water, sanitation and hygiene; (d) Enhancing capacities of UDHD, MPUDC, ULBs and service utilities covering 400 persons with at least 90% eligible women staff. Against this activity, all (116) eligible women staff and a total of 937 persons were trained in 15 training programs on various aspects; (e) Providing skill enhancement/livelihood training to at least 1000 persons with at least 50% women for employment/income earning opportunities (especially O&M of assets). Progress against this indicator was reported low with the project having trained only 21 women on plumbing techniques; (f) Developing linkages with ongoing income generating livelihood and social security schemes for women (at least 300 linked with existing schemes and programs). In this direction, 110 women members from 10 self-help groups were linked with DAY- NULM, a government scheme on livelihood; (g) Ensuring equal employment opportunities for women in project activities with a target of at least 25% women. However, progress was noted very low in this regard with only 12% women engaged in project units; (h) Ensuring inclusion and monitoring of national core labour standards in contract document against which relevant clauses were reported in all 25 contract agreements executed and its compliance monitored by PMC during field visits; and (i) Ensuring sex disaggregated indicators in project performance management system for which the project was reporting town wise sex disaggregated data on households provided with water and sanitation services, households reached by awareness raising activities, GRC members, persons trained in MPUDC/ULBs and persons trained at the community level on income generation.

VI. Lessons learnt from Current Project

32. Access to metered house service connections has been initiated with connections reported as 68% provided to vulnerable (BPL, scheduled caste, scheduled tribe, OBC, and female headed household) in Barhi project town by January 2020. It is noted that targets related to access to water and sanitation systems are dependent on awareness outreach, physical works and policy level constraints of connection charged levied by the respective ULBs.

33. Overall engagement of ULB from the design phase has been limited which is affecting the progress of the project especially the policy level barriers of connection charges. Urban Administration Development Department has developed a clear policy on water connection and tariff with relaxation to the poor households. However, the respective ULBs have to establish consensus within ULBs on policy decisions and adopt them in the council so that clear messages on charges borne by household can be disseminated. Lack of clear messages from ULBs affects access to improved services by the target vulnerable groups.

34. Focus on implementation of BCC/information, education and communication activities has been very low. The human resources available in PMC for implementing GESI and information education communication (IEC) activities have faced mobility constraints to continuously spread awareness in all phases of construction in 70 towns with informally engaged nonpaid community volunteers. As a result, the IEC plan has now included monetary incentive to the volunteers. However, progress, on engagement of the community volunteers with monetary incentive is yet to be observed.

35. MPUDC has not been able to increase employment opportunities for women in project activities (presently 12%) to meet the target of 25%. It is also pertinent to note here that over a long engagement of GOMP with ADB in the sector, there has not been any concrete attempt to build technical capacity of women and provide conducive environment for women to engage in the project activities in a technical capacity. This calls for attention to creating supportive environment for women coming with technical background and encourage them to join the project units. Towards this end, providing women an opportunity to gain technical skills in the form of internship programs can be an innovative measure that can help in preparing a pool of potential women graduates for relevant employment opportunities in the future.

36. The monitoring and evaluation/management information system has to more efficiently maintain a systematic centralised database of consumers door-to-door survey conducted by the contractor and track progress on design monitoring framework and GESI indicators. Periodic feedback surveys need to be undertaken to gain valuable feedback of community/customers, listen to what they have to say, understand their perspective, determine projects priorities and encourage customers to continue to pay for legal metered water connection.

37. Awareness generation for behaviour change requires continuous dialogue with relevant messages during all phases of construction (pre, during and post). The civil works contracts should also include a social outreach team of support staff at the town level to engage with community.

38. Given the large area and the number of towns covered under the project, there is need to have more human resources for the implementation of GESI and BCC activities with adequate resources for mobility and to undertake field level activities. Additional financing may consider engaging a full-fledged Institutional development and capacity building consultant with a specific mandate and expertise on communication, training, gender, monitoring and evaluation, personnel support at PIU level and support staff in each town to overcome the mobility constraints and ensure continuous dialogue with the community. Monitoring of the separate entity with a specific mandate by MPUDC will also ensure effective communication in project towns.

39. Safety audits conducted during project preparation have illustrated a strong connection between deficiencies in urban infrastructure and experience and threat perceptions among women and girls. The additional financing provides an opportunity to include participatory processes to inform the design features from a women safety perspective in the integrated plans

of the town proposed towns in the coming phase. This will also complement the State’s priority set out in ‘The Vision to delivery 2020–2025’ document laying thrust on integrating women safety in the development plans of all smart cities and ULBs and their periodic review.

VII. Way Forward for Additional Financing

40. Considering the lessons learnt from the current project, and the outputs of the forthcoming phase, additional financing should consider strengthening the institutional arrangements which can enable management support to PMU, PIUs, and ULBs in establishing systematic governance practices, institutionalising financial management practices, provide backstopping support for financial planning, implementing reforms, monitoring and evaluation, and most importantly implementing all the activities specified in the BCC, the GESI action plan, and other capacity building activities. By engaging institutional development and capacity building consultants the additional financing is more likely to assist ULBs in: (i) Facilitate capacity building initiatives such as workshops, trainings; exposure visits for knowledge transfer in relevant sector; (ii) Coordinate with elected representatives, line departments, district administration as per the projects requirements to implement project activities; (iii) Design communication material and strategy to implement BCC plan in project area during the project life (pre-construction, during construction and post construction) and motivating the end users to apply for connections and seek water and sewer connections and continue to pay; (iv) Facilitate the project units and ULBs in developing a consumer voice mechanism to positively influence the quality, efficiency and accountability of improved services; (v) Ensure GESI in project activities by implementing GESI action plans. It is to be noted that the GESI action plan proposed for additional financing has included 10 activity areas with defined indicators and targets to assist the project in achieving gender results against the outputs of improved water supply and wastewater management infrastructure and institutional capacity of UDHD, MPUDC, and ULBs; and (vi) Documentation and reporting requirements and timely submission and exit strategy so that the ULBs are better equipped with improved financial planning and governance practices for improving the water and sanitation operations and management and monitoring of contracts during O&M period, once the systems are handed over to the ULBs.