Semi-annual Indigenous People Social Monitoring Report
Project No. 42248-013 June 2020
Second Chittagong Hill Tracts Rural Development Project (CHTRDP II) This Semi-annual Indigenous People Social Monitoring Report is a document of the borrower. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of ADB's Board of Directors, Management, or staff, and may be preliminary in nature.
In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area. CHTRDP-II IP SOCIAL Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Final
Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh Ministry of Chittagong Hill Indigenous Peoples Tracts Affairs (MoCHTA) Safeguards Monitoring Report Second Chittagong Hill Tracts Rural Development Project (CHTRDP-II) Project No.42248-013 Loan No-2763 10th Semestral Report, January – June 2020
Prepared by Project Management Office, CHTRDP-II, with the assistance from Euroconsult Mott MacDonald BV & ADSL Ltd for the Asian Development Bank
Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh
Mott MacDonald | CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft
Issue and Revision Record
Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description 1st Draft 23 June Rambadu Ben Witjes PMO Draft IP Safeguards Monitoring 2020 Tripura, Report Reetesh Roy Final 8 July Rambadu Ben Witjes PMO Final 10th IP Safeguards 2020 Tripura, Monitoring Report Reetesh Roy
Document reference: |300161/IPP #10 |
Information class: Standard
This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above- captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.
We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties.
This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.
This report has been pr epared sol ely for use by the party whic h commissi oned it (the ‘Client’) i n connecti on with the capti oned proj ect. It should not be used for any other purpos e. N o person other than the Client or any party who has ex pressly agreed terms of r eliance with us (the ‘Reci pient(s)’) may rely on the c ontent, i nformati on or any vi ews expressed i n the repor t. W e acc ept no duty of care, res ponsi bility or liability to any other r eci pient of thi s doc ument. T his r eport is confi denti al and contains pr opri etary intell ectual property.
| | | | 8 July 2020
Mott MacDonald | CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft
Disclaimer: The report uses ADB terminology ‘indigenous peoples’ for which usually alternate terminology is used by the Government of Bangladesh; such as ‘tribes’, ‘tribal peoples’, ethnic minority’, ‘small ethnic groups’, etc. Regardless of this different nomenclature, these are meant to be understood as ‘indigenous people as defined and accepted in the Safeguards Policy Statement (SPS) of ADB, as adopted in June 2009.
Note:
In this report, “$” refers to US Dollars.
This indigenous people’s safeguards monitoring report is a document of the borrower. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of ADB’s Board of Directors, Management or Staff and may be preliminary in nature.
In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any report, or by making any designation of or reference to a territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.
| | | | 8 July 2020
Mott MacDonald | CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft
Glossary
ADB : Asian Development Bank
ADRF : Alternative Dispute Resolution Forum
AP : Affected Person
BDT : Bangladesh Taka
CC : Circle Chief
CCL : Cash Compensation under Law
CHT : Chittagong Hill Tracts
CHTRC : Chittagong Hill Tracts Regional Council
CHTRDP-II : Second Chittagong Hill Tracts Rural Development Project
CI : Community Infrastructure
DC : Deputy Commissioner
DMF : Design and Monitoring Framework
DPD : Deputy Project Director
DPMO : District Project Management Committee
EP : Entitled Person
FGD : Focus Group Discussion
FPIC : Free, Prior, Informed Consent
FSR : Feasibility Study Report
GoB : Government of Bangladesh
GPS : Global Positioning System
GRC : Grievance Redress Committee
HDC : Hill District Council
HH : Household
IGA : Income Generation Activities
IP : Indigenous Peoples
IPP : Indigenous People’s Plan
LARP : Land Acquisition and Resettlement Plan
LCS : Labour Contracting Society
LGED : Local Government & Engineering Department
| | | | 8 July 2020
Mott MacDonald | CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft
LIA : Lead Implementation Agency
MAD : Micro Agribusiness Development
MOCHTA : Ministry of CHT Affairs
NGO : Non-Government Organization
NIP : Non-Indigenous People
NOC : No Objection Certificate
PCR : Project Completion Report
PDC : Para Development Committee
PIC : Project Implementation Consultants
PJSS : Parbatya Chattagram Jana Samhati Samiti
PMO : Project Management Office
PVM : Participatory Village Mapping
RAC : Regional Advisory Council Committee
R-NGO : Resettlement NGO
RR : Rural Roads
SAP : Severely Affected Person
SEIS : Social and Economic Impact Survey
SES : Socio-economic Survey
SPS : Safeguards Policy Statement
SQMC : Safeguards Quality Monitoring Cell
SSWR : Small-scale water resources
VAR : Village Access Roads
VLDC : Voluntarily Land Donation Certificate
| | | | 8 July 2020
Mott MacDonald | CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft
Contents
Glossary vii Executive summary 1
1 Background and context of the Project 9 1.1 Background 9 1.2 Context of the Project 9 1.3 Purpose of the Report 10 1.4 Methodology 10 1.5 ADB Policy of IP Safeguards 11 1.6 IP Safeguards Policy in CHTRDP-II 11 1.7 Indigenous Peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts 11
2 Institutional Arrangement of the Project 13
3 Compliance with the IPP of the Project 14 3.1 Main elements of Indigenous People Plan 14 3.2 Land Acquisition 14 3.2.1 Land acquisition for Road Construction under RR component 14 3.2.1.1 Assessment of benefits of compensation payments 17 3.2.2 Land acquisition under the Community Infrastructure Component 18 3.2.3 Land acquisition in Micro Agribusiness Development Component 20 3.3 Participatory Village Mapping and Grievance Redressal 20 3.3.1 Participatory Village Mapping 20 3.3.1.1 PVM for the Rural Roads Component 20 3.3.1.2 PVM for the Community Infrastructure Component 21 3.3.2 Consultation and Grievance Redressal 23 3.3.2.1 Community Consultation and Information Disclosure 23 3.3.2.2 Grievance Redressal 24 3.4 Prioritization of IPs and smaller IP groups in the Project 26 3.4.1 Prioritization of IPs in the Rural Road Component 27 3.4.2 Prioritization of IPs in the Community Infrastructure Component 29 3.4.3 Prioritization of IPs under the Micro-Agribusiness Development Component 32 3.5 Awareness Raising among Government of Bangladesh officials 32
4 Compliance status with ADB IP Policy Specific to Loan Covenant 34
5 Conclusion 36
| | | | 8 July 2020
Mott MacDonald | CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft
A. No Objection Certificated for Market sheds 38
Tables Table 1.1: IP and None-IP (NIP) population in CHT by district, 2011 12 Table 3.1: Status of IP & NIP household and Land Acquisition in Project areas 15 Table 3.2: Number of APs and Topics of Income Restoration trainings received 17 Table 3.3: CI Interventions – achievements at Project completion 18 Table 3.4: Type of land donation for Community Infrastructure subprojects 19 Table 3.5: Land Donation for CI interventions in three districts 19 Table 3.6: Number of APs, SAPs and Community Consultations for RR LARPs 24 Table 3.7: Number of ADRFs Committees formed 25 Table 3.8: Project beneficiaries - large and small IP, and Non-IPs (in %) 27 Table 3.9: IP beneficiaries under 15 approved subprojects under the RR Component 28 Table 3.10: Beneficiaries of Rural Road Subcomponent – IP and non-IP 29 Table 3.11: Community Infrastructure Component - IP and Non-IP beneficiary communities 31 Table 3.12: Micro-Agribusiness Development - IP and Non-IP beneficiaries 32 Table 3.13: Trainings on IP Orientation 33 Table 4.1: Compliance status with IP specific items to Loan Covenant 34
Figures Map 0.1: Map of Khagrachari Hill District showing locations of CHTRDP-II subprojects 6 Map 0.2: Map of Rangamati Hill District showing locations of CHTRDP-II subprojects 7 Map 0.3: Map of Bandarban Hill District showing locations of CHTRDP-II subprojects 8
Figure 1.1: IP & NIP population (%) of CHT, 2011 12 Figure 2.1: Project Implementation Arrangements 13 Figure 3.1: Sketch Map Pan Bazar – Chokhyong Tripura para Road 21 Figure 3.2: Village Map of Village Map of Gunguru Madyam Para 22
| | | | 8 July 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 1
Executive summary
1. The Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), located in the most eastern part of Bangladesh, is geographically isolated and ethno-culturally distinct from plain land Bangladesh. Its land area covers 13,000 square km, of which 90% are sloping lands. After a 20-year insurgency, the CHT Accord was signed in December 1997 and immediately following the signing of the Accord, ADB initiated activities under a $30 million loan. After successfully completion the first phase of CHTRDP, a Second Chittagong Hill Tracts Rural Development Project (CHTRDP-II) was designed with a total budget of $70.80 million. The project implementation period initially was from 2011-2012 to 2017-2018 which then was extended first up to 30 June 2019. A further one-year extension till 30 June 2020 was approved mid-2019. 2. CHTRDP-II has five components: ● Institutional Development & Capacity Building Component ● Rural Road (RR) Component ● Community Infrastructure (CI) Component ● Micro- Agribusiness Development (MAD) Component and ● Project Management Component. 3. The Ministry of Chittagong Hill Tracts Affairs (MOCHTA) is the executing agency (EA) and Chittagong Hill Tracts Regional Council (CHTRC) is the Lead Implementation Agency (LIA), together with the Local Government Engineering Department (LGED) which is responsible for Component B-Rural Roads. 4. Project Management Office (PMO), headed by a Project Director, has been established within the CHTRC to manage and closely coordinate project activities across all agencies. LGED activities under Component B are being coordinated by an LGED Project Director. A Project Implementation Consultant (PIC) has been recruited to support project implementation. NGOs have also been recruited to provide services for social mobilization for community infrastructure planning and implementation, Watershed management, Micro Agribusiness Development, resettlement planning and implementation. A Safeguards Quality and Monitoring Cell (SQMC) has been established within the PMO to monitor quality of construction works and compliance issues related to ADB social and environmental safeguards. 5. The aimed for project impact is an increase in rural household incomes in subproject areas in the CHT. As per the project’s Design and Monitoring Framework (DMF) the key performance indicator is that five years after project closure (i.e. in 2023 according to the original implementation closure date) average annual household income will have increased in subproject areas by Tk. 20,000 at 2010 price level (from Tk. 63,000 in 2010). The outcome of the project will be increased income generating opportunities for men and women. 6. According to the ADB’s Safeguard Policy Statement (SPS), 2009, the project is categorized as “A” for Involuntary Settlement and Indigenous Peoples (IP) and category B for Environment. 7. Being Category A for IP communities Safeguards, during formulation of the CHTRDP-II the IP communities were consulted and ADB’s Safeguards Policy on IPs we disseminated in detail to them.
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 2
8. In Bangladesh, IPs are referred to with a variety of names: as Adivasi, small ethnic groups, ethnic communities, hill people (paharis) or forest people. Adivasis are referred to here as Indigenous Peoples, in line with ADB terminology. There are thirteen ethnicities living in the CHT of which eleven groups are considered indigenous to the CHT as per the 1997 CHT Accord, while the other two are Santal (also considered as IP) and Bengalis who are considered to have migrated from the plains to the CHT at various times in history. The eleven ethnic multi-lingual minorities indigenous peoples to the CHT are: Bawm, Chak, Chakma, Khyang, Khumi, Lushai, Marma, Mro, Pankhua, Tanchangya, and Tripura. 9. The purpose of this Indigenous Peoples (IPs) Safeguards Monitoring Report is to inform the main stakeholders and the general public on the status and compliance of the respective IP Safeguards Policy. The reports are prepared on a semestral basis, i.e. twice a year for the period January-June and July-December respectively. 10. The methodology that has been adopted for the IP Safeguards Monitoring Reports includes reviewing records and documents, field visits and consultations with relevant stakeholders such as affected persons, beneficiaries, female groups, and meetings with various other stakeholders involved with implementation of this project. 11. The CHTRDP-II ensures IPs protection from adverse impact by the project’s activities by adhering to four main safeguards: ● Payment for IP Common lands to usufruct and legal owners of land (with registration by the village Headmen taken as proof of ownership) taken for the project. ● Participatory Village Mapping to delineate boundaries and major land use within villages along CHTRDP-II supported rural roads, backed up by a proactive grievance Redress System. ● Ensuring prioritization of IPs in view of their higher poverty status and by providing targeted assistance to the smaller IP groups in the project areas who are by in large more vulnerable than the large IP groups and monitoring implementation of this carefully. ● Raising awareness among Government of Bangladesh officials working in the CHT of IP issues, history and customs. 12. Regarding the first IP safeguard – payment for IP common lands – although the national law of Bangladesh does not provide for compensation for customary land, the CHTRDP-II does provide for this in view of the ADB Guidelines. A total of 17 Land Acquisition and Resettlement Plan (LARPs) were prepared by the Resettlement NGO (R-NGO) for the approved sub-projects under Rural Road component implemented by LGED. The project requires acquisition of 129 acres of titled and customary land under these 17 LARPs under the RR Component. Of these 129 acres, 82 acres consists of titled land and 47 acres of customary land. In total 624 households of Indigenous People are entitled to compensation under 16 LARPs. For the 17th LARP only one EP has been identified and he is not an IP. 13. At the end of this reporting period, IPs were compensated for loss of customary land in 8 out of 11 LARPs as the GoB concurred the LARF and Land Acquisition Guidelines formulated based on ADB’s Safeguards Policy 2009. The compensated subprojects are (i) Betbunia Chaiyibazar to Laxmichari road, (ii) Panchari road (iii) Sindukchari road (iv) Raikhali to Mitingachari Road (Part-1), (v) Marishya Bazar Road (Part-1`) (vi) Betbunia Chaiyibazar to Bara Aoulia Santirhat Road, (vii) Garitana GC Batnatali Union H/Q Road and (viii) Marishya Bazar Road (Part-2). 14. Regarding the second IP safeguards – Participatory Village Mapping and consultation of IPs backed by a grievance redress system – at every stage of sub-project/Intervention implementation the IPs were consulted with special attention to the ethnic micro communities, women groups and vulnerable people potentially affected by the project
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 3
during various stages, from problem identification, problem prioritization, need assessment, village map preparation, to the selection of project supported interventions. 15. The IP community members themselves with guidance from technical project staff prepared village maps for each village selected for project activities. These maps delineated identified village boundaries, community infrastructure, economic and natural resources, proposed construction sites, and priorities. 16. A three-tiered grievance redress mechanism has been set up in line with the ADB’s Land Acquisition and Resettlement Guidelines. The Alternative Dispute Resolution Forum (ADRF) is the first tier. At project completion on 30 June 2020 a total of 24 ADRFs had been formed in the three hill districts. The second tier is the Grievance Redress Committee (GRC), for each of the three hill districts one GRC was formed. The Regional Advisory Committee (RAC) is the top tier of GRC mechanism at regional level. Through group discussions, consultation meetings, FGD and personal contact local people have become aware of the process of the grievance redress mechanism. 17. All project related grievances should be settled through the GRC mechanism. If any dispute remains unsettled by the GRC process, the litigant is at liberty to take shelter at court of law. It is noted that so far most of the grievances are local in nature and have been settled informally at community level and therefore did not need to be brought to the attention of the ADRF. There were a few other cases where aggrieved parties have not brought their case to the ADRF but have approached the PMO and ADB directly. There were no outstanding cases at the end of this reporting period. 18. The third IP Safeguard monitored concerns the prioritization of IP communities and within these especially the smaller IP groups. The Project has been successful in targeting IPs as its main beneficiaries. IPs form 95% of the beneficiaries of the CI Component, 97% of the MAD Component and 76% of the RR Component. 19. The RR Components will benefit six out of eleven IP communities as well as Bengali’s communities in the CHT. The six IP communities are: Chakma, Marma, Tripura, Tanchangya, Bawm and Mro. Because smaller IP groups mostly live in more remote areas where construction of roads connecting village to nearby towns and markets is not yet feasible and sometimes also deemed less desirable, they are underrepresented as beneficiaries of the RR Component. 20. The project initially aimed to reach out to all eleven IP communities under the CI Component by end of the Project. This aim has largely been achieved, with ten out of the eleven IP communities considered to be indigenous for the CHT being reached. 95% of beneficiaries of the CI Component are IP and the remaining 5% are Non-IP Bengali’s. In total 245,983 members (123,737 men and 122,246 women) of IP communities are benefiting from the CI interventions and capacity building efforts. Regarding the share of smaller groups in the Project’s beneficiaries for the CI Component, the Tanchangya are very well represented with 9% of the CI Component’s beneficiaries. Three other IP group – Pangkhua, Chak and Khyang – were also well represented. Four Groups -Mro, Bawn, Kumi, and Lushai- were underrepresented. These groups are mostly hill dwellers living in remote areas that are not well connected with improved roads. In an early phase it was decided that the project would not be able to work in some of the more remote unions 21. Under the MAD component of the CHTRDP-II, 18,051 farmers joined in producer Common Interest Groups (CIGs). 97% of the CIG members were from IP communities against a provision of at least 50% IPs. 36% of the members were women. Chakma and Marma members were well represented as beneficiaries of this component. Of the smaller communities the Tanchangya were well represented. As this component focus on nine upazilas only and gave priority to communities living closer to roads and market centers,
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 4
most of the smaller remote IP communities were by definition less well represented in this component 22. The fourth IP safeguards to be monitored in this report is the raising awareness among Government of Bangladesh officials working in the CHT of IP issues, history and customs. The project conducted two trainings to increase awareness among Government officials on IP issues, all completed before the reporting semester. 23. The project has been assessed as Category “A” for IP. IP related covenants especially Schedule 5 was set forth into the Loan Agreement. Apart from the delayed mobilization of the RNGO in the early part of the project, there were no other IP related compliance issues during implementation. 24. The Project Completion Report includes further information on the outcome of the project and benefits enjoyed by IPs against the targets specified in the DMF.
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 5
Box 1: Project at a Glance 1. Project Name: Second Chittagong Hill Tracts Rural Development Project 2. Project Number: 42248-013 3. Country: Bangladesh 4. Department/Division: South Asia Department/Environment, Natural Resources & Agriculture Division 5. Sector Classification: Sectors Primary Subsectors Agriculture and natural √ Agriculture and rural sector resources development
Irrigation, drainage, and flood protection Land-based natural resources management 6. Thematic Classification: Themes Primary Subthemes Economic growth √ Widening access to markets and economic opportunities Social development Indigenous people Gender equity Gender equity in economic opportunities Capacity development Institutional development 6a. Climate Change Impact 6b. Gender Mainstreaming Adaptation Low Gender equity theme (GEN) √ Mitigation Low Effective gender mainstreaming (EGM)
Some gender benefits (SGB)
No gender elements (NGE) 7. Targeting Classification: 8. Location Impact: General Targeted Intervention National Low Intervention Geographic Millennium Income Rural High dimensions development poverty at
of inclusive goals household growth level
√ 9. Project Risk Categorization: Complex
10. Safeguards Categorization: Environment B Involuntary resettlement A Indigenous peoples A 11. ADB Financing: Sovereign/Non-sovereign Modality Source Amount ($ Million) Sovereign Project loan Asian Development Fund 55.0 Total 55.0 12. Co-financing: No Co-financing available. 13. Counterpart Financing: Source Amount ($ Million) Beneficiaries 1.4 Government 14.4 Total 15.9 14. Aid Effectiveness: Parallel project implementation unit No
Program-based approach No
Note: The total loan amount is now USD 48.633 m. due to depreciation of SDR, while to contribution of the GoB has increased to USD 15.5085 m. and that of beneficiaries been reduced to USD 1.2847 m.
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 6
Map 0.1: Map of Khagrachari Hill District showing locations of CHTRDP-II subprojects
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 7
Map 0.2: Map of Rangamati Hill District showing locations of CHTRDP-II subprojects
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 8
Map 0.3: Map of Bandarban Hill District showing locations of CHTRDP-II subprojects
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 9
1 Background and context of the Project
1.1 Background 1. The Second Chittagong Hill Tracts Rural Development Project (CHTRDP-II) is being implemented in the three Hill District of the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), located in the most eastern part of Bangladesh. This region is geographically isolated and ethno-culturally unique and distinct from plain land Bangladesh. The CHT land area covers 13,000 square km, of which 90% consists of sloping lands. Additionally, Bengali started settlings in the area from the early 1980s under a government-sponsored transmigration program, which triggered increased tensions between indigenous peoples and settlers. 2. In the early 1960s, a hydroelectric dam was constructed at Kaptai in Rangamati District, inundating about 20,000 ha or 40% of the prime cultivable lands in the CHTs. At the time, about one-third (about 1,00,000 people) of the CHT population were displaced by the reservoir. 3. After a 20-year insurgency the CHT Accord was signed in December 1997 between the Parbatya Chattagram Jana Sanghati Samiti (PCJSS) on behalf of the CHT people and the Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. Immediately following the signing of the Accord, ADB initiated activities under a $30 million loan , which objective was to reduce the incidence of absolute poverty by developing basic physical infrastructure, primarily rural roads, and expanding income and employment generating activities to substantially raise standards of living of the hill people. 4. The Second Chittagong Hill Tracts Rural Development Project (CHTRDP-II) is the successor of the CHTRDP, which was completed successfully in December 2009. The CHTRDP can be considered as a pioneer in the three hill districts, given the rather complex socio-political circumstances it was operating under.
1.2 Context of the Project 5. As follow up to the Chittagong Hill Tracts Rural Development Project (CHTRDP) first phase, a Second Chittagong Hill Tracts Rural Development Project (CHTRDP-II) was designed with a total budget of $70.80 million1, On 2nd October 2011 the Loan Agreement of this Second CHTRDP (Loan No.2763-BAN, Project No. 42248-013) was signed between the Government of the Republic of Bangladesh (GoB) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) for an amount of $55 million with an additional Government of Bangladesh contribution of $14.40 million.2 The project implementation period is 2011-2012 to 2017 – 2018 which was later extended up to 30 June 2020. The project’s Components C- Community infrastructure, and D-Micro Agribusiness Development implemented by the CHTRC and HDCs were completed at the end of June 2019. Component A-Capacity Building had some residual activities during 2019/20, mainly project coordination meetings. Component-B, Rural Roads implemented by LGED, however, has been lagging behind and at the end of June 2020, 8 subprojects were not fully completed yet, necessitating a further extension of the project till 31 December 2020 which was under consideration at the end of the reporting semester. The CHTRC ’s Components also required extension to provide continued project management inputs through the PMO, verification of final bills of
1 It became USD67.253 million after DPP revision 2 During Mid-Term, the total loan amount was revised to USD 48.633 m. due to depreciation of SDR, while to contribution of the GoB increased to USD 15.5085 m. and that of beneficiaries reduced to USD 1.2847 m.
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 10
remaining the RR subprojects and payment to contractors. PMO is also responsible for the preparation of the PCR. 6. CHTRDP-II has five components: ● • Institutional Development & Capacity Building Component ● • Rural Road (RR) Component ● • Community Infrastructure (CI) Component ● • Micro- Agribusiness Development Component and ● • Project Management Component. 7. The Ministry of Chittagong Hill Tracts Affairs (MOCHTA) is the executing agency (EA) and implementation is under the overall responsibility of the Chittagong Hill Tracts Regional Council (CHTRC) as the Lead Implementation Agency (LIA), together with the Local Government Engineering Department (LGED) responsible for Component B-Rural Roads, and the Hill District Councils (HDC) of Rangamati, Khagrachari and Bandarban Districts as the implementation agencies (IA) in their respective project districts. The project came into effect on 13th December 2011 with the establishment of the Project Management Office (PMO) in Rangamati. 8. The expected project impact will be an increase in rural household incomes in subproject areas in CHTs. As per DMF the key performance target will be an increase in average annual household income five years after project completion (in 2023) by BDT 20,000 at 2010 price level (from BDT63,000 in 2010) in subproject areas. The outcome of the project will be increased income generating opportunities for men and women in the subproject areas.
1.3 Purpose of the Report 9. As the project has been assessed as Category A for indigenous people (IP), an IP plan (IPP) has been developed for this project in compliance of ADB requirements in respect of IP. The purpose of this Indigenous Peoples (IPs) Safeguards Monitoring Report is to inform the main stakeholders and the general public the status and compliance of the respective IP Safeguards Policy through the preparation of semi-annual IP Safeguards Monitoring Reports. This report is prepared in compliance with the Loan Agreement for the Project and with ADB’s IP safeguards stipulations as per the SPS, 2009. This IP Safeguards Monitoring Report covers the period from January – June 2020, the final semester of the Project.
1.4 Methodology 10. The methodology adopted for preparing the IP Safeguards reports includes reviewing records and documents, field visits and consultations with relevant stakeholders such as affected persons, beneficiaries, women groups, Para Development Committee (PDC), karbari, Project Implementation Consultant (PIC) team members, Resettlement NGO staff, Project Management Office (PMO) representatives, and CHTs Regional Council (CHTRC), District Project Management Office (DPMO and Local Government Engineering Department (LGED) at different levels to (a) verify compliance issues pertaining to all IP safeguards matters related to contracts contained social conditions, land acquisition and resettlement process, consistent with Government of Bangladesh (GoB) and ADB requirements; and (b) assess NGO’s claims in terms of skills, staffing, experience, resources and corporate legality. From 26 March 2020, field visits were hampered due to the lockdown and general holiday declared by Government to stem the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic, therefore this report is mostly based on a review of project documents and information gathered from stakeholders over telephone.
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 11
1.5 ADB Policy of IP Safeguards 11. As per the conditions of ADB’s Safeguard Policy Statement (SPS), 2009, the project is categorized A for Involuntary Settlement and Indigenous Peoples (IP) and category B for Environment. 12. The objectives of ADB Policy are full respect for Indigenous Peoples’ identity; dignity, human rights, livelihood systems, and cultural uniqueness as defined by the Indigenous Peoples themselves so that they receive culturally appropriate social and economic benefits, do not suffer adverse impacts as a result of projects and can participate actively in projects that affect them.
1.6 IP Safeguards Policy in CHTRDP-II 13. The CHTRDP-II also ensures IPs protection from adverse impact by the project activities with four main safeguards: ● Payment for IP Common lands to usufruct and legal owners of land (through registration with Headmen) taken for the project. ● Participatory Village Mapping to delineate boundaries and major land use within villages along CHTRDP-II roads, backed up by a proactive grievance Redress System. ● Ensuring prioritization of IPs in view of their higher poverty status and monitoring the need to provide targeted assistance to the smaller IP groups in the project areas who are by in large more vulnerable than the large IP groups. ● Raising awareness among Government of Bangladesh officials working in the CHT on IP issues, history and customs.
1.7 Indigenous Peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts 14. The term Indigenous Peoples (IP) encompasses a generic concept not easily reflected in a single term. Other terms relating to the concept of indigenous peoples include "cultural minorities," "ethnic minorities," "indigenous cultural communities,” "tribal," "scheduled tribes," "natives,” and "aboriginals”. Accepted or preferred terms and definitions vary country by country, by academic discipline, and even by the usage of groups concerned. In Bangladesh, IPs are often referred to as Adivasi, small ethnic groups, ethnic communities, hill people (paharis) and forest people. Adivasis are referred to here as Indigenous Peoples, in line with ADB terminology. 15. ADB in its Safeguard Policy Statement (2009) defines IPs as a distinct, vulnerable, social and cultural group possessing the following characteristics in varying degrees: ● Self-identification as members of a distinct indigenous cultural group and recognition of this identity by others; ● Collective attachment to geographically distinct habitats or ancestral territories in the project area and to the natural resources in these habitats and territories; ● Customary, cultural, economic, social, or political institutions that are separate from those of the dominant society and culture; and ● A distinct language, often different from the official language of the country or region. 16. There are thirteen ethnicities living in the CHT of which eleven groups are considered indigenous to the CHT as per the 1997 CHT Accord, while the other two are Santal and Bengalis who are considered to have migrated from the plains to the CHT. The eleven ethnic multi-lingual minorities considered indigenous to the CHT are: Bawm, Chak, Chakma, Khyang , Khumi, Lushai, Marma, Mro, Pankhua, Tanchangya, and Tripura. The largest indigenous groups in the CHT are the Chakma, Marma, Tripura, Mro and
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 12
Tanchangya. Together they make up about 90 percent of the indigenous population of the region. The other indigenous peoples of the CHTs are the Bawm, Chak, Khumi, Khyang , Lushai and Pankhua. These smaller groups are overall, more vulnerable than the larger ones.3 17. According to the 2011 national census conducted by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) the total population of the CHT was 1,663,274 consisting of 859,938 Indigenous People (IP) or 52% of total population and 803,336 (48%) Non-Indigenous people (NIP), see Table 1.1 and Figure 1.1 for details. It is generally assumed that the percentage of the NIP population has further increased during the past decade due to continued spontaneous migration into the CHT..
Table 1.1: IP and None-IP (NIP) population in CHT by district, 2011 District IP % NIP % Total % Khagrachari 316,987 50% 321,980 50% 638,967 100%
Rangamati 363,551 59% 256,663 41% 620,214 100%
Bandarban 179,400 44% 224,693 56% 404,093 100%
Total 859,938 52% 803,336 48% 1,663,274 100% Source: Based on Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS), 2011.
Figure 1.1: IP & NIP population (%) of CHT, 2011 Chart-01: Percentage of IP & NIP population in CHT
59% 56% 60% 52% 50%50% 48% 44% 50% 41% 40% IP (%) 30% NIP (%) 20% 10% 0% Khagrachari Rangamati Bandarban Total
Source: Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS), 2011.
3 See PPTA, Supplementary Appendix D, p. 3
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 13
2 Institutional Arrangement of the Project
18. The Ministry of Chittagong Hill Tracts Affairs (MoCHTA) is the executing agency and is responsible for overall project implementation of CHTRDP-II. The Chittagong Hill Tracts Regional Council (CHTRC) is the lead implementing agency and the Local Government Engineering Department LGED) is the implementing agency for the rural road component- B. 19. The Project Management Office (PMO), headed by a Project Director (PD), has been established within the CHTRC to manage and closely coordinate project activities across all agencies. LGED activities are being coordinated by an LGED-based Project Director. District Project Management Offices (DPMO) have been established in each of the three districts, headed by a Deputy Project Director (DPD), who reports directly to the PD. 20. A Project Implementation Consultant (PIC) has been recruited for supporting PMO and the DPMOs for all aspects of project implementation. Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) have been recruited to provide social mobilization for community infrastructure, watershed management, MAD support, resettlement planning and implementation. The Safeguards Quality and Monitoring Cell (SQMC) has been established to monitor quality of construction works and compliance issues related to social and environmental safeguards.
Figure 2.1: Project Implementation Arrangements
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 14
3 Compliance with the IPP of the Project
3.1 Main elements of Indigenous People Plan 21. The Project has been assessed as Category A for indigenous people (IP). An Indigenous People’s Plan (IPP) has been prepared for the Project and has been followed during implementation. Prior to 1960, IPs made up more than 90% of the CHT population. Following the importation of labor for the construction of Kaptai Dam in the late 1950s and subsequent waves of mainland settlers to CHT, the IP portion of the population has declined to its present level of around 50%. Thus, the ethnic composition of CHT has been profoundly transformed during the second half of the twentieth century. Land administration arrangements for CHT are complex and contain anomalies. These are detailed in the IPP. There are four main IP safeguards in the IPP of CHTRDP-II: ● payment for IP common lands to usufruct and legal owners of land; ● participatory village mapping to delineate boundaries and major land use within villages along Project roads, backed up by a proactive grievance redress system; ● prioritization of smaller IP groups for receiving small community infrastructure; and, ● a training program on IPs for Government officials working within CHT. 22. The next sections provide an update for these four IP safeguards based on various monitoring activities.
3.2 Land Acquisition 23. The first IP Safeguard fir the CHTRDP-II to be monitored is payment for IP common lands to usufruct and legal owners of land. In this section we therefore deal with the status of compensation payments made for IP lands, both titled and customary land. The semestral Social Safeguards Report for January – June 2020 provides further delays on land acquisition and compensation payments.
3.2.1 Land acquisition for Road Construction under RR component 24. There is no existing law in Bangladesh that allows compensation payments for customary land of IPs. The Land Acquisition and Resettlement Framework (LARF) format which was developed during the PPTA in 2010 recognizes the customary land of the CHT IPs. The GoB also concurred the LARF. Apart from IPs, women headed households, handicapped headed household have a special provision for compensation in the CHTRDP-II. Based on the LARF, Guidelines for Land Acquisition and Resettlement for the Project were prepared in June 2013, which were finalized in January 2014. 25. LGED is the implementing agency for the RR component. In the course of the project’s implementation period, the RNGO Taungya prepared 17 Land Acquisition and Resettlement Plans (LARPs) covering 14 of the 15 Rural Roads subprojects under Component-B. For three subprojects two LARPs have been prepared, i.e. for the Naikhongchari – Tumru road, for the Raikhali GC Ferry ghat – Rajasthali HQ Road via Mitingachari, and for the Marishya Bazar-Maynimukh Bazar Road. The subproject for the 69m RCC Girder Bridge at Ugalchari did not require an LARP as required land was minimal and donated on a voluntary basis. 26. The Project requires acquisition of more than 129.3921 acres land, both titled – 82.2615 acres and customary – 47.1306 acres, for 17 LARPs under the RR Component. 624
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 15
households of Indigenous People will be affected by 16 out of the 17 rural roads LARPs. Under the 17th LARP, the one for the Raicha – Goalikhola Bridge only one Non-IP household is affected and no IPs. The road-wise summary of IP and Non-IP affected households and required land (title and customary) is provided in Table 2. There were no changes in the number of affected IPs during the reporting period as all LARPs were all completed earlier.
Table 3.1: Status of IP & NIP household and Land Acquisition in Project areas SL Roads District NO IP IP (Acre) (Acre) Non IP Non Required Required Title land Title Total HHs Total Customary Customary (Acre) land Land (acre) Land Households Households Households
1 Betbunia-Chayeri Bazar – Laxmichari Rangamati 46 0 46 14.8011 1.7184 13.0827 Road via Bormachari 2 Panchari GC – Bhaibonchara GC via Khagrachari 123 1 124 8.3700 5.7059 2.6641 Shantipur Aranya Kutir road
3 Ruma Sadar – Ruma Bazar Road Bandarban 2 3 5 0.2633 0.2633 0 4 Sindukchari Union H/Q – Dullyatali GC via Khagrachari 23 0 23 1.2007 0 1.2007 Challyatali Road 5 Raicha – Goalikhola Bridge only Bandarban 0 1 1 0.4426 0.4426 0 Chittagong Hill Tracts Part 6 Raikhali GC Ferry ghat – Rajasthali HQ Rangamati 60 3 63 9.0780 7.9180 1.1600 Road via Mitingachari (Part I) 7 Naikhongchari – Tumru Road (Part I) Bandarban 10 50 60 5.6200 4.58 1.0400 8 Garitana GC – Batnatali Union H/Q Road Khagrachari 4 79 83 5.4500 5.45 0 via Jogyachola Bazar 9 Raikhali GC – Ferry Ghat – Rajasthali HQ Rangamati 1 12 13 0.3035 0.3035 0 via Mitingachari,Road (Part II) 10 Naikhongchari – Tumru Road (Part II) Bandarban 9 158 167 15.0062 9.8595 5.1467 11 Betbunia Chairy Bazar – Bara Aoulia – Bandarban 34 24 58 7.3741 2.3600 5.0141 Santirhat Road 12 Lama – Rupashi Para Road Bandarban 5 27 32 8.2400 5.7900 2.4500 13 Baniarchar-Gozalia Road Bandarban 33 46 79 19.8200 10.4150 9.4050 14 Marishya Bazar-Maynimukh Bazar via Rangamati 62 0 62 10.0854 5.4154 4.670 Babu Para, Bottola & Dakkhin Saroatoli Road’ I 15 Marishya Bazar-Maynimukh Bazar via Rangamati 196 25 221 17.4515 15.6635 1.7880 Babu Para, Bottola & Dakkhin Saroatoli Road’ II 16 Haludia Vaggakul – Tankabati Road Bandarban 03 80 83 2.0948 2.0948 0 17 Panbazar – Chokhyng Tripura Para Bandarban 13 08 21 3.7609 3.0509 0.7100 Total 624 517 1,141 129.3921 82.2615 47.1306
27. Compensation rates for land were determined as follows. The Land Acquisition Section of the Deputy Commissioner (DC) office collects transacted deed value for preceding 12 months from the date of serving notice under section 3 of CHT LA Ordinance, 1958 for assessment of land value and then averages the mouza wise rate for different categories of land. The DC office comes to a consensus and finalizes the mouza wise rate of the land
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 16
for title land. DC office considers the proper compensation for customary land along with compensation for titled land during assessment of compensation. 28. All compensation for land acquisition is paid out of the project budget. After the budget has been prepared by the DC office, it is submitted to PMO for approval and disbursement. PMO disburses the funds for CCL to the DC, who then hands if over to the EPs. Other types of compensation are paid by CHTRC through the HDC to the EPs. 29. During the reporting semester the Award Books for the remaining two subprojects namely Holudia- Vaggakul-Tankabati Road and Baniarchar to Gajalia Road were completed by the Bandarban DC office and submitted to PMO on 16 June 2020 for approval and disbursement. Delays in completion were partly explanted by disputes which arose among APs. Therefore, by the end June 2020, the DCs of the three Hill districts had submitted the requisition for the CCL budgets for all 17 LARP to the PMO, of which 15 had been released by PMO and two are remaining to be provided by PMO. During the January-June 2020 PMO placed CCL funds with the DCs for the following four subproject LARPs: ● on 22 January 2020, PMO transferred BDT. 6,557,326.40 for the Lama Rupashi Para subproject the CCL budget to DC, Bandarban ● on 22 January 2020, PMO transferred BDT 4,254,689.00 for the Panbazar subproject, ● on 24 June 2020, PMO transferred a partial payment of BDT 14,985,416.00 for the Baniarchar subproject ● on 24 June 2020, PMO transferred BDT 11,431,584.04 for the Holudia subproject. 30. At the end of the reporting semester on 30 June, PMO has placed funds with for a total amount of BDT 513,686,037.00 for 17 LARPs with the DC offices in the three Hill Districts for CCL payment. Against this budget of BDT 529,190,205.11, the three DCs have paid CCL compensation to a total 1015 EPs for a total amount of BDT 375,999,604.24. 884 of the EPs were IPs. Together they received BDT 341,597,637.79. Total 526 EPs (IPs-133 and non-IPs-393) did not receive compensation yet. 31. During the January – June 2020 reporting period DCs distributed CCL to 257 EPs for a total amount of BDT 100,947,453 of the 208 EPS were IPs, and 49 non-IPs. 32. The details for CCL payments made for all 17 subproject LARPs are reflected in the 13th Social Safeguards Monitoring Report for the period January – June Dec 2020. 33. Though PMO has transferred CCL budget for 17 LARPs to the DCs, but the DCs have still not disbursed the CCL amounts to the EPs among 6 LARPs. Of the 232 EPs that had not yet received their CCL entitlement, 57 were IPs and 175 non-IPs. The total amount pending for disbursement to EPs is BDT146,431,884.59 consisting of BDT43,787104.31 for IPs, and BDT 102,644,780 for non-IPs. 34. After the CCL compensation has been determined and PMO has handed over the budget to the DC, the PVAT determines whether EPs will be entitled for additional grants and resettlement benefits. These are then paid through the respective HDC after funds have been released by the PMO to the HDC. 35. Out of the eleven subprojects for which CCL was distributed to the EPs, EPs of eight subprojects also received their Additional Grants. In total 317 out of 334 EPs (IPs-294, non-IPs 40) received an amount of BDT 9,661,091.99 out of an PVAT approved amount of BDT 9,819,647.70 or 98.39%. The remaining 17 EPs (IPs) did not receive any Additional Grants yet as they had also not received their CCL because they were not able to provide the documentation required for CCL payment in site of support for this provided by the RNGO. Most of these EPs have decided that the effort of securing those documents does not outweigh the benefit the relatively small CCL payment that is due to them, i.e.
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 17
BDT 10,000 on average. The 13th Social Safeguards Monitoring Report for the period January to June 2020 contains details on payments of Additional Grants. 36. The EPs of the sub-projects particularly those who received compensation were able to increase their income by investing their compensation payments in businesses, such as, grocery shops, rice mills, auto rickshaw, hilly land with teak orchard, cows, goats. EPs also invested in the construction of housing. 37. Provisions have been made for IP-SAPs and other project affected IPs to provide income restoration training and income generating training at project sites. The R-NGO conducted Social and Economic Impact surveys in all subprojects to identify SAPs and their needs. FGDs were conducted to ensure that trainings provided were based on the affected IPs’ needs. A total 106 SAPs were identified during the preparation of the 17 LARPs of these SAPs 79 were IPs and 27 non-IPs. 38. Of these 106 SAP, 48, all IPs, from two sub-projects (Betbunia-Chayeri Bazar-Laksmichari via Barmachari Road and Panchari GC-Bhaibonchara GC via Santipur Arunnya Kutir Road) were provided Income and Livelihood Restoration training in 2016 and 2017. The training was organized with the assistance of concerned line departments. The other 58 SAPs are from the other 15 subprojects and live quite scattered which makes it difficult to arrange a relevant training for them. Information on the imparted Income Restoration Trainings at project completion on 30 June 2020 is given in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: Number of APs and Topics of Income Restoration trainings received SL Sub-project name Topic Number of Date trainees trainings held M F 1 Betbunia Betbunia-Chayeri Bazar – Horticulture, Ginger, 8 1 16-17 Laxmichari Road via Bormachari Turmeric & Paddy November, 2016 Cultivation Betbunia Betbunia-Chayeri Bazar – Livestock 6 2 13-15 Laxmichari Road via Bormachari November, 2016 2 Panchari GC Bhainonchara GC via Horticulture, Ginger, 13 10 26-28 April, Santipur Arannya Kutir Road Turmeric & Paddy 2017 Cultivation Panchari GC Bhainonchara GC via Livestock 6 2 29-30 April, Santipur Arannya Kutir Road 2017 Total 33 15 Source: Taungya a contracted NGO for Resettlement
3.2.1.1 Assessment of benefits of compensation payments 39. The R-NGO had carried out house-to-house surveys on post project socio economic status of the Affected IPs (APs) and project benefited communities during the previous reporting period. In October 2018, the RNGO started a Social Impact Assessment survey of the project affected IPs for four subprojects. Although data were collected through FGDs, the RNGO was unable to finalize its report before the end of its contract on 30 June 2019. During the reporting semester the PMO with the assistance of PIC analyzed these data. The report is under preparation and will be summarized in the next Social Safeguards Monitoring Report. 40. In April-June 2019 the PIC implemented the data collection phase of the Social and Economic Impact Assessment for the Rural Roads, Community Infrastructure and Micro Agribusiness Development Components. This provides disaggregated data for the IPs and non-IPs, as well as for the various IP communities. These data are being processed and analyzed for inclusion in the PCR.
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 18
3.2.2 Land acquisition under the Community Infrastructure Component 41. Under the CI Component, the Project supports a variety of interventions, especially Village Access Roads (VAR) and various small-scale water resources (SSWR) options, such as drinking water wells and Gravity Flow Systems, irrigation channels, and supporting equipment for agriculture in irrigated areas, including power tillers and pump sets to lift irrigation water from streams into the irrigation channels. Table 3.4 gives all CI interventions per district and for the Project as a total at completion of the CI Component.
Table 3.3: CI Interventions – achievements at Project completion
Intervention Unit Rangamati Khagrachari Bandarban Total
Irrigation Canal Meter 2,674 43,272 1,133 47,079
RCC Stair/ Step Meter 978 405 14,642 16,025
HBB-Footpath Km 27 17.78 46 90.78
Foot Bridge Meter 264 88 16.1 368.1 Gravity Flow 12 7 17 36 System (GFS) / No IGF Infiltration Gallery No 4 0 0 4 (IFG) Earthen Dam Meter 0 95 204 299
Power Tiller Nos 466 260 203 929
Pump Machine Nos 744 284 85 1,113
Tube well Nos 546 1,122 230 1,898
Ring well Nos 85 18 107 210
Pond Excavation Nos 0 2 9 11 Water Reservoir 0 5 50 55 Tank for water Nos supply Market-shed Nos 8 8 7 23
42. The VAR and SSWR Interventions were planned under 601 Feasibility Study Reports (FSR) and 6 pilot subprojects without FSR. Some of the village access roads connected more than one para, so the number of paras benefiting from project interventions is higher than the number of FSRs. In total the CI component provided assets and capacity building to 650 paras. 43. In principle, only small pieces of land were required for the construction of the CI interventions which were land-based (VAR, bridges, steps, channels, wells). In all cases this land (title land / customary land) has been voluntarily donated. In case of customary land, the concerned mouza headman / concerned village Karbari (village chief, as representatives of Headman) have been provided “No Objection Certificate-NOC” to Para Development Committee (PDC) and for titled land, the land owner has donated voluntarily with a written “Voluntary Land Donation Certificate-VLDC”. Therefore, there is no requirement for developing Land Acquisition and Resettlement Plans (LARPs) in the CI component. Table 3.3 provides detailed information on the type of land donation. It is noted that most of the land donated was community land not used by individual households, and the donation was therefore made by the Karbari, UP or PDC Chairperson. For 34
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 19
subprojects no land was required. As all land was donated voluntary, there was no requirement for developing LARPs for the CI component. With all subprojects now completed it can now be concluded that this requirement did not indeed not arise for the CI Component.
Table 3.4: Type of land donation for Community Infrastructure subprojects Khagrachari Rangamati Bandarban Total For CI FSR (except market sheds) Individual 71 8 21 100 Karbari 135 163 183 481 UP Chairman 7 7 PDC Chairman 5 5 No land donated (Khas 1 32 1 34 land) Sub-Total 208 215 205 627
For market sheds Individual 1 1 5 7 Karbari 6 3 9 Market chowdhury 3 3 Sub-Total 7 4 8 194 Total 214 219 213 646 Source: Approved FSRs for CI subprojects
44. In the first year of the project when land was also provided by individuals, a detailed record was kept in the donation certificates of the size of land donated. During later years it was decided to use only community land. From that time the size of community land was no longer specified in the donation documents. According to donation documents of the first years that still specified the size of land donated, the total land donated was 127.77 acre of which 49.63 acre was voluntarily donated titled land and 78.14 acre was customary land, ref. details in Table 3.4 below.
Table 3.5: Land Donation for CI interventions in three districts # District Land Donated (In acre) Customary Land (given by Voluntarily Donated by titled Total Headman/ Karbari) landowners 1 Rangamati 20.96 7.65 28.61 2 Khagrachari 12.56 11.75 24.31 3 Bandarban 44.62 30.23 74.85 Total land in acre 78.14 49.63 127.77 Source: Land donation documents for CI subprojects and market sheds in Approved FSRs
45. The Watershed management sub-component of the CI Component is a community-based initiative for six small-scale pilot intervention, two per Hill District covering 55.00 ha. As these interventions are being implemented in the community lands no Land Acquisition and
4 4 Market shed (Jibtali Headman Para, Sapchari Wagga Para, Poa Para, Bodhipur Para) of Rangamati District and 1 market shed (Chittaranjan Karbari Para) of Khagrachari were completed without FSRs and land was donated by the community.
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 20
Resettlement requirements arose. The six pilot projects were completed in June 2018 and a concluding workshop was held on 11 June 2018 at Rangamati. 46. At project completion on 30 June 2020, against a target of 24 market sheds, 23 (Rangamati-8 and Khagrachari-8 and Bandarban-7) have been constructed. Construction of the remaining one market shed namely the one at Y-Junction was dropped due to a lack of funds and the fact that the Government declared lockdown to limit the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic made construction works during the last quarter of the project impossible. All markets sheds are constructed on community land and no objection certificates (NOC) for these lands were provided by the concerned Headmen or the market Chowdhury. Appendix 1 provides an example.
3.2.3 Land acquisition in Micro Agribusiness Development Component 47. The Micro-Agribusiness Development (MAD) component is an area-based approach with selected communities along the rural roads to enhance households’ income through promoting value chains for vegetables, fruit trees, pond fisheries, and medicinal plants, including training for some affected communities under the Rural Roads component to assist in livelihood restoration and enhancement. This component was completed on 30 June 2019. The activities under this component were carried out by farmers on their own land and hence did not require any land acquisition.
3.3 Participatory Village Mapping and Grievance Redressal 48. The second IP safeguard included in the IPP is participatory village mapping (PVM) to delineate boundaries and major land use within villages along Project roads, backed up by a proactive grievance redress system.
3.3.1 Participatory Village Mapping 49. PVM is part of the methodology for the Rural Road Component and for the Community Infrastructure component. In the RR Component village mapping is part of the community consultation process during the LARP preparation. In the CI Component it is done during needs and prioritization of interventions by communities with support of SM-NGO field staff.
3.3.1.1 PVM for the Rural Roads Component 50. For each Rural Road subproject each village within 0.5 km on either side of a road was notified that a road, with the given alignment, was due to be built or upgraded. The field staffs of the RNGO, Taungya, consulted documents and maps provided by the local LGED office and collected data by consulting members of each HHs along the indicative RoW. The RNGO then conducted a social and economic survey (SES), using a structured questionnaire to collect information about the APs and SAPs, including on land holdings, type of land and tenure, and as well as the overall amount of land under acquisition along with standing structure, trees and crops on these lands. Based on community consultations, the RNGO then prepared a sketch map, based on the map which was provided by the LGED, showing area of land with length and owners of the respective land. Map 3.1 provides an example of the sketch map for one of the last LARPs prepared under the Project.
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 21
Figure 3.1: Sketch Map Pan Bazar – Chokhyong Tripura para Road
51. As all 17 LARP had been prepared well before the current reporting semester, all the SES and mapping exercises had been completed earlier as well.
3.3.1.2 PVM for the Community Infrastructure Component 52. For the Community Infrastructure Component, during the preparation of every sub-project the Feasibly Study Team including SM NGOs, DPMO and PIC Engineers conducted community consultations with the IPs at every stage of problem identification, need assessment, and site selection. The villagers, with project technical support from the Feasibly Study Team, carried out Participatory Village Mapping exercise for all sub-project para’s and watershed pilots, marking, in particular, village boundaries, locating the houses, temples, school, roads, water points, streams, springs, horticultural orchards, jhum area, bridges, and determining the longitude and latitude of the village with the help of Global Positioning System (GPS) data and plotting it with Google Earth. These were then included in the FSR, together with the outcome of other surveys and consultations which led to a prioritization of interventions. 53. The IP women were given high priority in the site selection process for water points. Separate consultations are held with women groups from different socio-economic backgrounds to ensure that their needs are properly reflected in FSR formulation as well as during project implementation. Communities of small IP groups are also involved in problem identification, decision making and the overall project implementation. The IPs (men and women) are benefiting directly from project implementation work as they are involved in construction works through Labour Contracting Society (LCS). The communication facilities, water facilities, marketing facilities are at their doorstep now. 54. During the project period a total number of 651 subproject village mappings have been prepared. As the CI component was completed in June 2019, no further village mapping
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 22
exercises were conducted during the reporting period. Figure 3.1 on the next page gives the village map of Gunguru Madyam Para. This village in Sadar upazila, Bandarban, is inhabited by members of the Khyang community. The Khyang are one of the smaller IP groups with just a 0.23% share of total CHT population according to the 2011 BBS Census.
Figure 3.2: Village Map of Village Map of Gunguru Madyam Para
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 23
3.3.2 Consultation and Grievance Redressal
3.3.2.1 Community Consultation and Information Disclosure 55. The CHT is home to twelve different ethnic multilingual Indigenous Peoples communities, of which eleven are considered indigenous to the CHT as per the 1997 CHT Accord, while the Santal are also considered as IP but having migrated to the CHT). The eleven IP groups considered indigenous to the CHT are Chakma, Marma, Tripura, Lushai, Pankho, Bawm, Khyang , Khumi, Chak, Mro and Tanchangya. The CHTRDP-II is the only ADB funded project in Bangladesh with these IP communities. The Project has Safeguards Category A for IPs and during preparation of the project the IP communities in the three hill districts were consulted on a large scale. During these consultations, community leaders represented and contributed valuable observations and suggestions with regards to the project. All paras/ sub-projects under the project were selected by the community representatives. After selection of prioritized paras the project staff, sometimes accompanied by the Social safeguards specialist, went from door to door to visit the community members to disseminate the content of the ADB Safeguards Policy on IPs in detail. 56. At every stage of sub-project/intervention implementation the IPs were consulted specially the smaller ethnic communities, women groups and the vulnerable people for problem identification, problem prioritization, need assessment, village map preparation, water point selection, et cetera. 57. The consultations followed the principles of ‘free, prior and informed consent’ (FPIC) by which the APs were provided with relevant information beforehand and subsequently invited to give their opinions and finally, their consent. 58. These principles have been followed during the preparation of FSRs under the CI Component and of LARPs under the RR component as well as throughout the implementation of CHTRDP-II. The principles were included in planning and implementation of LAR as well as IP related activities, monitoring, grievance redress and as well as information disclosure. 59. During the preparation stage of the project, the Project’s IPP and LARF have been disclosed to the affected community properly in each of the three CHT Districts to obtain the views of APs and other stakeholders on the compensation and resettlement provisions as per Government laws and ADB’s statutory Safeguards Policy and to consider the opinions and suggestions of the participants stakeholders. 60. Subsequently, in all the steps, CHTRDP-II worked closely with the relevant institutions in the region and a broad range of other relevant stakeholders, most important being the communities and the affected persons, as part of the preparation of the LARPs for the Rural Road subprojects. The number of APs and formal community consultation at the time of LARP preparation is summarized in Table 3.5. There were no changes during the quarter as all LARPs were prepared before the reporting semester.
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 24
Table 3.6: Number of APs, SAPs and Community Consultations for RR LARPs Name of Road APs SAPs Female- Total Number of Number of headed Affected Formal formal FGD HHs* Househol Community organized ds Consultation Organized 1 Betbunia Road 32 14 08 46 12 5 2 Panchari Road 105 19 08 124 11 8 3 Sindukchari Road 23 00 23 04 4 4 Raikhali Road 63 10 03 63 04 3 5 Ruma Road 05 00 01 05 03 1 6 Naikhongchari Road I 60 09 01 60 03 3 7 Raicha-Goalikhola 01 00 00 01 02 1 Road 8 Garitana-Batnatali Road 83 00 04 83 03 3 9 Raikhali Part II Road 05 00 01 05 03 1 10 Naikhongchari Part II 81 08 09 98 03 2 Road 11 Betbunia Shantirhat - 48 05 05 58 03 4 Baja Aolia Road 12 Lama Rupasi Para 15 03 07 25 03 3 Road 13 Marishya Bazar- 81 05 01 62 04 1 Maynimukh Bazar via Babu Para, Bottola & Dakkhin Saroatoli Road 14 Baniarchar-Gozalia 79 15 01 79 03 2 Road 15 Marishya Bazar- 221 30 26 221 03 5 Maynimukh Bazar via Babu Para, Bottola&Dakkhin Saroatoli Road’ Part II 16 Haludia Vaggakul – 83 00 04 83 03 3 Tankabati Road 17 Panbazar – Chokhyng 21 02 00 21 03 2 Tripurapara Road *This category includes both APs and SAPs
3.3.2.2 Grievance Redressal 61. A three-tier Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM) has been established as part of the project to facilitate the people in getting justice in terms of social, resettlement and environmental issues. The Alternative Dispute Resolution Forum (ADRF) is the first tier of the GRM which has been established at Headman level while a Grievance Redress Committee (GRC) is stablished at Hill District Council (HDC) level. At the apex of this structure is the Regional Advisory Council (RAC) at CHT Regional level. If anyone is dissatisfied with the verdict of headman level he/she can approach the ADRF to forward the issue at GRC (HDC) level. If dissatisfaction still remains at HDC level he/she can approach the project and bring the issue to the CHTRC level. Apart from this people will have every right to bring their issue to a court of law. The Project’s Social Safeguards Monitoring Report provide further details.
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 25
62. As per LAR Guidelines an Executive Order process has been initiated for setting up ADRFs for all sub-projects. Up to the end of this reporting period, a total 24 ADRFs (lower tier of GRC) committees had been formed for all 17 sub-projects LARPs, see table 3.7 below. Detailed information on the membership of all of the ADRF Committees was presented in previous semestral Social Safeguards Monitoring reports.
Table 3.7: Number of ADRFs Committees formed SL Name of Subproject Number of No ADRF Committee
1 Betbunia Chairy Bazar-Laxmichari Road via Barmachari 2 2 Raikhali Gc Ferry Ghat - Rajastali HQ via Mitingachari Road 1 (Part-1) 3 Raikhali Gc Ferry Ghat - Rajastali HQ via Mitingachari Road 1 (Part-2) 4 Betbunia Chairy Bazar-Bara Aoulia Santir Hat Road 1 5 Marishya Bazar( Upazila Sadar)-Mayanimukh Bazar via 1 Babupara,Battoli &Daskin Saraotali Road 6 Panchari GC Bhaibonchara GC via Santipur Arunya Kutir Road 2 7 Sindukchari Union HQ Dulahtali GC via Chailyatali Road 2 8 Garitana GC Batnatali Union HQ Road via jogyachola Bazar 1 9 Ruma Sadar - Ruma Bazar Road 1 10 Naikhongchari-Tumbru (Part-1) 1 11 Naikhongchari-Tumbru (Part-2) 2 12 Lama- Rupashipara Road 2 13 Baniarchar- Gajalia Road 1 14 Raicha Goaliakhola Road 1 15 Marishya Bazar-Maynimukh Bazar via Babu Para, 2 Bottola&Dakkhin Saroatoli Road’ Part II 16 Haludia Vaggakul – Tankabati Road 2 17 Panbazar – Chokhyng Tripurapara Road 1
63. Three GRCs had been formed earlier, one for each of the three hill districts to resolve the grievances no complaint was received so far by these GRCs. 64. The RAC is the top tier of GRC mechanism at regional level. It has been activated. Its most recent meeting was on 5 October 2017. 65. The GRC mechanism is also available for anyone having complaints regarding the implementation of the other components, especially the CI Component. Till the end of the reporting semester, no dispute arose in sub-project/ intervention areas under the CI Component. 66. There were no serious grievances placed before the (ADRF) and Grievance Resolution Committee (GRC) till June 2020. Through group discussion, consultation meetings, FGD and personal contact local people have become aware of the process of the grievance redress mechanism. The committees met at least once in each sub-project without receiving any serious grievance case. Before forming the committees, the RNGO (Taungya) ensured that the local people of the concerned subproject areas were made aware about the process of grievance redress mechanism through group discussion, consultation meetings and personal contact. It is noted that villages prefer to settle conflicts
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 26
within their community, e.g. when land ownership and hence who can claim compensation is under dispute and avoid more ‘formal’ mechanism such as the GRC. There were also a few cases where claimants brought their grievances directly to the attention of PMO and ADB, effectively trying to bypass the GRC mechanism. 67. As reported in a previous report some small disputes were brought up to the Panchari Road ADRF during July – December 2017. These disputes were resolved amicably. The details are not repeated here. No such dispute occurred during the current reporting period. Till the end of its contract on 30 June 2019, the RNGO continued to visit sub-project sites frequently and to disseminate information on the GRC mechanism to APs in the community own language. After the demobilization, two of the former RNGO staff were contracted by the PIC as resettlement facilitators. They continued to follow up resettlement related matters with affected communities and visited three subprojects during the reporting semester during which the GRC mechanism was also further clarified. 68. Three GRCs had been formed earlier, one for each of the three hill districts to resolve the grievances no complaint was received so far by these GRCs. 69. The RAC is the top tier of GRC mechanism at regional level. It has been activated and one of its meeting was held on 5 October 2017 where the chairman of CHTRC presided over the meeting. 70. The GRC mechanism is also available for anyone having complaints regarding the implementation of the other components, especially the CI Component. Till the end of the reporting semester, no dispute arose in sub-project/ intervention areas under the CI Component. 71. The GRC mechanism is also equally applicable for CI Component. No dispute arose in sub-project/ intervention areas under CI Component. It indicates that the NGOs are successfully disseminated ADB’s IP Safeguards policy and motivated project beneficiaries.
3.4 Prioritization of IPs and smaller IP groups in the Project 72. The third IP safeguards to be monitored in this report is the prioritization of IPs and within this the smaller IP groups. Ensuring prioritization of IPs in view of their higher poverty status was one of the objectives of CHTRDP-II. In the IPP it was also suggested that in case the IP Safeguards monitoring needs to check whether disproportionate benefits go to Non-IPs or to the larger IP groups. In that case, the IPP suggested targeted assistance to the Small IP Groups should be considered by the project for the CI Component. The smaller IP Groups are mostly concentrated in Bandarban and Rangamati, so for these two districts the benefits accruing to smaller IP groups is most relevant. For Khagrachari it is the larger IP groups −Chakma, Marma and Tripura− who are likely to be the most vulnerable to NIP encroachment on their IP common lands, so they should be prioritized in targeting above Non-IPs. 73. Table 3.7 shows that Project has been successful in targeting IPs as its main beneficiaries. The 2011 Census indicates that 51.7% of the population of the CHT consist of IPs, and 48.3% of non-IPs. Even if it is assumed the share of IPs in the population of the CHT has gone down further during the past decade, it is still clear IPs have been the main beneficiaries of the Project. IPs form 95% of the beneficiaries of the CI Component, 97% of the MAD Component and 76% of the RR Component.
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 27
Table 3.8: Project beneficiaries - large and small IP, and Non-IPs (in %) CHTRDP-II Project Census UNDP beneficiaries 2011 2009
CI MAD RR Large IP Groups 1 Chakma 44.00 44.20 30.95 25.85 24.60 2 Marma 27.78 38.50 34.30 11.77 14.60 3 Tripura 9.80 2.04 4.24 8.10 6.30 CHTRDP-II Prioritized Small IP Groups (IPP) 4 Mro 1.57 0.44 1.47 2.30 2.30 5 Tanchangya 8.84 8.32 4.24 1.74 2.00 6 Bawm 0.86 1.88 0.81 0.75 0.70 7 Pangkhua 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.30 8 Chak 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.20 9 Khyang 0.35 1.22 0.00 0.23 0.20 10 Khumi 0.04 0.22 0.00 0.11 0.10 11 Lushai 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.10 Others
12 Santal 0.03 0.22 0.00
Other 0.00 0.48 12 Bangali (Non-IP) 5.43 2.95 24.07 48.30 48.60
100.00 100.00 100.00 99.98 100.00
3.4.1 Prioritization of IPs in the Rural Road Component 74. Table 3.8 on the next page gives an insights which communities will be the main beneficiaries of the 15 rural roads subprojects constructed under Component B of the Project.5 For each subproject the number of villages adjacent to these roads and the communities that live in them are provided as well as the total number of beneficiaries.
5 The table has 18 items as three of the rural road subprojects have been split in two subsections for the benefits of defining the required compensation for land acquisition. For each of the sub sections a separate LARP has been prepared. For the 69m RCC Girder Bridge at Ugalchari on Baghaichari Upazila HQ - Ugalchari via Bottoli Bazar Road no LARP was required as all land was donated voluntary, but this road clearly benefits communities living adjacent to the road.
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 28
Table 3.9: IP beneficiaries under 15 approved subprojects under the RR Component Name of Roads/Sub-Projects under RR Component Number of Beneficiary Communities Beneficiary Beneficiary Population
Distri ct Villages Betbunia-Chayeri Bazar – Laxmichari Road via Bormachari 11 Marma, Chakma, Bengali 2,297 BetbuniaChairy Bazar – Baja Aoulia – Santirhat Road 15 Marma, Bengali 11,920 Raikhali GC – Ferry Ghat – Rajasthali HQ via Mitingachari Part I Road 9 Marma, Tanchangya, Bengali 3,411 Raikhali GC – Ferry Ghat – Rajasthali HQ via Mitingachari Part II Road 10 Marma, Bengali 3,633 Marishya Bazar-Maynimukh Bazar via Babu Para, Bottola&Dakkhin Saroatoli Part I Road 9 Chakma 4,825 Rangamati Marishya Bazar-Maynimukh Bazar via Babu Para, Bottola&Dakkhin Saroatoli Part II Road 16 Chakma, Bengali 9,907 69m RCC Girder Bridge at Ugalchari on Baghaichari Upazila HQ - Ugalchari via Bottoli 12 Chakma 7,875 Bazar Road Panchari GC – Bhaibonchara GC via Shantipur AranyaKutir Road 17 Chakma, Marma, Tripura, Bengali 8,810 Sindukchari Union H/Q – Dullyatali GC via Challyatali Road 20 Marma, Tripura, Chakma 4,364
Khagrac hari Garitana GC – Batnatali Union H/Q Road via Jogyachola Bazar 17 Bengali, Marma, Tripura, Chakma 4,372 Raicha – Goalikhola Bridge only Chittagong Hill Tracts Part 12 Marma, Bengali, Tanchangya 3,330 Ruma Sadar – Ruma Bazar Road 16 Bawm, Marma, Tripura, Bengali 3,030 Lama – Rupashi Para Road 11 Marma, Mro, Tripura, Bengali 2,291 Baniarchar-Gozalia Road 15 Bengali, Marma, Mro, Tripura 3,489 Naikhongchari – Tumru Part I Road 11 Marma, Tanchangya, Bengali 3,258 Naikhongchari – Tumru Part II Road 17 Bengali, Marma, Chakma, 4,557
Bandarban Tanchangya Haludia Vaggakul – Tankabati Road 6 Bengali, Mro 1,444 Panbazar – Chokhyng Tripurapara Road 11 Bengali, Tripura, Mro 2,615 Total 85,428
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 29
75. Table 3.9 gives the shares of the various IP and non-IP groups living adjacent to the rural roads developed by the project. The RR Component benefits a narrow selection of IP groups compared to the CI component. This is largely due to the fact that especially the smaller IP groups mostly live in more remote areas where construction of roads connecting village to nearby towns and markets is not yet feasible and sometimes also deemed less desirable. Non-IP Bengali in turn more often live close to towns and along connecting roads, so they benefit more from the RR Component than from the CI Component. Still IP constitute 76% of the beneficiaries of the RR Components, with Chakma and Marma communities being the largest groups living adjacent to the new roads and thus most likely also deriving most benefits from their construction.
Table 3.10: Beneficiaries of Rural Road Subcomponent – IP and non-IP Percentage SL# Ethnic Group Male Female Total (%)
Large IP Groups 1 Chakma 13438 12998 26436 30.95% 2 Marma 14872 14426 29298 34.30% 3 Tripura 1836 1790 3626 4.24% CHTRDP-II Prioritized Small IP Groups (IPP) 4 Tanchangya 1793 1760 3553 4.16% 5 Bawm 353 341 694 0.81% 6 Mro 660 597 1257 1.47% Non IPs 7 Bengali 10384 10180 20564 24.07% Total 43336 42092 85428 100.00%
3.4.2 Prioritization of IPs in the Community Infrastructure Component 76. The project initially aimed to reach out to all eleven IP communities under the CI Component by end of the Project. With activities under the CI Component completed, it can now be concluded that this aim has largely been achieved, with ten out of the eleven IP communities considered to be indigenous for the CHT being reached. The Lushai are the only community not included. Apart from the IP groups consider to be indigenous for the CHT, the CI Component also benefited Santal in Khagrachari district. The Santal are considered to be non-indigenous to the CHT, but are considered as tribal or Adivasis in Bangladesh.6 Table 3.8 on the next page shows that 95% of beneficiaries of the CI Component are IP and the remaining 5% are Non-IP Bengali’s. In total 245,983 members (123,737 men and 122,246 women) of IP communities are benefiting from the CI interventions and capacity building efforts. 77. Although the project has serviced an almost equal number of paras in each district (Rangamati: 222, Khagrachari: 208, and Bandarban: 220), 44% of the CI’s IP beneficiaries are in Rangamati, 31% in Khagrachari and 25% in Bandarban. This difference is due to the larger village size in Rangamati. In Bandarban villages are especially small as many of the smaller, more remote IP communities are living in this district. The spending for the CI
6 From information provided by SM-NGO staff we understand that Santals were brought to the CHT region, especially to Khagrachari, during the Colonial period to assist with road construction work. Most have them still live in Khagrachari district, with a smaller number having settled in Rangamati. They are generally poor and land less, and work as day labourer in agriculture.
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 30
Component was almost equal across the three districts, so Bandarban IPs received a larger per capita support than the other two districts. 78. Among IP communities the Chakma with 44% and Marma with 28% form the largest group of beneficiaries, followed by Tripura with 10% and Tanchanya with 9%. Table 3.11 on the next page gives the regional break-up of the IP and NIP beneficiaries under the CI component disaggregated for the various IP communities in the CHT. 79. Regarding the share of smaller groups in the Project’s beneficiaries for the CI Component, the Tanchangya are very well represented, whereas their share in the overall population of the CHT was 1.74% in 2011, they made up close to 9% for the CI. Three other IP group – Pangkhua, Chak and Khyang – were also overrepresented. Four Groups -Mro, Bawn, Khumi, and Lushai- were underrepresented. For the precise percentages see Table 3.8 above and 3.11 below. 80. The Mro, Bawm, Khumi and Lushai are all from Bandarban, and are mostly hill dwellers living in remote areas that are not well connected with improved roads. In an early phase it was decided that the project would not be able to work in some of the more remote unions. These are precisely the areas where the mentioned smaller IP communities live. More specifically the following areas were excluded: ● Tindu and Remakree union in Thanchi upazia- where especially Mro, Khumi and also some Bawm live; ● Remakree Prangsha and Galengya union in Ruma Upazila – especially inhabited by Mro, Bawm, Lusai and Khumi ● Kru Pata union in Alikadam upazila – a newly created upazila where mostly Mro live. 81. If a future project wants to reach out to more remote smaller IP communities also, it will need to strike a balance between economic and social considerations. .
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 31
Table 3.11: Community Infrastructure Component - IP and Non-IP beneficiary communities
SL Beneficiary Bandarban Khagrachari Rangamati Total 3 districts % # Communities Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Large IP Groups 1 Chakma 255 254 509 18830 18836 37666 38413 37857 76270 57498 56947 114445 44.00 2 Marma 17978 18226 36204 10475 10358 20833 7763 7468 15231 36216 36052 72268 27.78 3 Tripura 3289 3360 6649 9022 8792 17814 518 506 1024 12829 12658 25487 9.80 Small IP Groups 4 Mro 2142 1929 4071 0 0 0 0 0 0 2142 1929 4071 1.57 5 Tanchangya 3935 3887 7822 0 0 0 7702 7475 15177 11637 11362 22999 8.84 6 Bawm 1098 1128 2226 0 0 0 0 0 0 1098 1128 2226 0.86 7 Pankhua 0 0 0 0 0 0 630 501 1131 630 501 1131 0.43 8 Chak 1134 1135 2269 0 0 0 0 0 0 1134 1135 2269 0.87 9 Khyang 457 447 904 0 0 0 0 0 0 457 447 904 0.35 10 Khumi 57 50 107 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 50 107 0.04 Non-CHT IP 11 Santal 0 0 0 39 37 76 0 0 0 39 37 76 0.03 Total IP 30345 30416 60761 38366 38023 76389 55026 53807 108833 123737 122246 245983 94.57 12 Bangali (Non-IP) 650 671 1321 3525 3703 7228 2757 2811 5568 6932 7185 14117 5.43 Total IP & NIP 30995 31087 62082 41891 41726 83617 57783 56618 114401 130669 129431 260100 100.00
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 32
3.4.3 Prioritization of IPs under the Micro-Agribusiness Development Component 82. Agro-Mech Development Initiatives (ADI) Foundation along with other three local NGOs namely; Banosree Nari Unnayan Foundation (BNUF), Jum Foundation (JF) & Progressive was engaged for implementation of the Micro Agribusiness Development (MAD) component of the CHTRDP-II. 18,051 farmers joined in 903 producer Common Interest Groups (CIGs). 97% of the CIG members were from IP communities against a provision of at least 50% IPs. 36% of the members were women. Chakma and Marma members were well represented as beneficiaries of this component. Of the smaller communities the Tanchangya were well represented. As this component focus on 9 upazilas only and gave priority to communities living closer to roads and market centers, most of the smaller remote IP communities were by definition less well represented in this component. Table 3.12 provide details on the numbers and % for each of these communities. 83. All training activities for this component were completed before 30 June 2019. Under this component 829 training sessions were organized with 16,129 participants, including 5,670 women.
Table 3.12: Micro-Agribusiness Development - IP and Non-IP beneficiaries7 Percentage SL# Ethnic Group Male Female Total (%)
Larger IP Groups 1 Chakma 5,068 2,911 7,979 45.54% 2 Marma 4,287 2,663 6,950 39.67% 3 Tripura 265 103 368 2.10%
Small IP Groups 4 Tanchangya 967 535 1,502 8.57% 5 Bawm 236 104 340 1.94% 6 Khyang 136 84 220 1.26% 7 Mro 53 27 80 0.46% 8 Khumi 27 13 40 0.23%
Non-CHT IPs 9 Santal 20 20 40 0.23%
Non-IPs 10 Bengali 409 123 532 3.04% Total 11,059 6,460 17,519 100%
3.5 Awareness Raising among Government of Bangladesh officials 84. The fourth IP safeguards to be monitored in this report is the raising awareness among Government of Bangladesh officials working in the CHT of IP issues, history and customs. 85. The project conducted two trainings to increase awareness amount Government officials on IP issues. The first was an IP Orientation training on IP issue, history and custom. This was conducted twice. A similar training was provided for traditional leaders, social activists and representatives from local government. Table 3.13 provides details on the frequency of
7 Due to lack of data on some GIC members the total number in this table is 17,519 and not 18,051 which is the total number of CIG members provided in the completion report of the MAD-NGO consortium.
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 33
these training and the number participants. All these trainings were facilitated by resource person of the ADB. 86. All training on IP Safeguards were completed before the reporting semester.
Table 3.13: Trainings on IP Orientation Participants Resour Training topic Target Achieved Participants ce SL# M F Total Person
Government officials and Local government Indigenous Peoples representatives (Upazila 1 2 2 36 7 43 ADB (IP) Orientation Parishad chairman, Union Parishad chairman, member).
Traditional Leader [Headman Workshop on IP and Karbari (village chief)], 2 10 10 237 43 280 ADB CHT orientation Social activists, UP chairman/members,
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 34
4 Compliance status with ADB IP Policy Specific to Loan Covenant
87. The project has been assessed as Category “A” for IP. IP related covenants especially Schedule 5 was set forth into the Loan Agreement. The compliance status of these covenants is shown in Table 4.1 below. Apart from the delayed mobilization of the RNGO in the early part of the project, there were no other IP related compliance issues during implementation.
Table 4.1: Compliance status with IP specific items to Loan Covenant Description Type Reference Timeline Status of Remarks Compliance / issues The Borrower shall ensure or cause the Schedule 5, Through-out Being complied Implementing Agencies to ensure that the Para. 10 the Project preparation, design, construction, life implementation and operation of the Project and all Project facilities comply with (a) the Borrower’s obligations as a signatory to the ILO Convention 107 on Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention, 1957; (b) the Indigenous Peoples Safeguards; and (c) all measures and requirements set forth in the IPP, and any corrective or preventative actions set forth in a Safeguards Monitoring Report. The Borrower shall make available the Schedule 5, Through-out Being complied necessary budgetary and human Para. 11 the Project resources to fully implement the EMPs, life the RPs and the IPP. The Borrower, together with the Safe- Schedule 5, Through-out Implementing Agencies, shall guards para. 13 the Project life. a. submit semi-annual Safeguards a. Being Monitoring Reports to ADB and complied disclose relevant information from
such reports to affected persons
promptly upon submission;
b. if any unanticipated environmental and/or social risks and impacts arise b. Complied
during construction, implementation
or operation of the Project that were
not considered in the IEE, the EMP,
the RP or the IPP, promptly inform
ADB of the occurrence of such risks or impacts, with detailed description
of the event and proposed corrective
action plan;
c. no later than 3 months after the c. 3 NGOs for Effective Date, engage qualified and Mobilization social experienced external experts or of RNGO mobilization in qualified NGOs under a selection was delayed Rangamati, process and terms of reference at start-up of Bandarban acceptable to ADB, to verify the project and information produced through the Khagrachari. Project monitoring process, and One NGO for facilitate the carrying out of any resettlement planning and
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 35
Description Type Reference Timeline Status of Remarks Compliance / issues verification activities by such external implementatio experts; and n & one NGO- for MAD
Component were engaged. The NGOs were demobilized on 30 June 2019, with remaining
tasks taken over by PMO with support of the PIC.
d. report any actual or potential breach d. Being of compliance with the measures and complied requirements set forth in the EMP, the RP or the IPP promptly after becoming aware of the breach.
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 36
5 Conclusion
88. The IP Safeguards Monitoring report focuses on four IP Safeguards defined in the IPP: ● payment for IP common lands to usufruct and legal owners of land; ● participatory village mapping to delineate boundaries and major land use within villages along Project roads, backed up by a proactive grievance redress system; ● prioritization of smaller IP groups for receiving small community infrastructure; and, ● a training program on IPs for Government officials working within CHT. 89. The LARPs adopted for the Rural Roads component include payments for IP customary land. Most IPs have now received compensation payments. However, payments were delayed for some subproject due to delays in the selection of road alignments, LARP approval, and budget preparation by the DCs. Also disbursement by DCs has been slower than desirable. Finally, some IPs did not take action to solve internal disputes on ownership claims or on arranging for proper documentation in view of high opportunity cost in terms of time, effort and money for small parcels of land and thus smaller compensation amounts. 90. The participatory village mapping has been an effective instrument for the RR and CI to identify land ownership, land use and community assets. For the RR component this has help in identifying appropriate compensation amounts for loss of land and other assets, while for the CI component it has been a valuable instrument in identifying community needs and priority interventions. 91. The grievance system has not been much used as most conflicts have either been settled at community level with assistance of community leaders or aggrieved households have directly appealed to PMO, ADB or in some cases gone to court. There were no pending grievance issues at the end of the reporting semesters although some APs continued to have disagreements within families or communities which led them not to claim compensation with appropriate documents. 92. IPs have been the primary beneficiaries of the CHTRDP-II. The CI Component has provided benefits to 10 out of 11 IP communities indigenous to the CHT as well as to Santal IPs who migrated to the CHT during the Colonial period and to Bengali Non-IPs. 95% of the CI beneficiaries are IPs, with the larger IP groups overrepresented. For the Micro-Agribusiness Component IPs formed 97% of beneficiaries. Most of the smaller IP were somewhat underrepresented, largely because it was found to be less cost-effective to engage with remote IP communities in Bandarban which were more difficult to reach at very high cost, making interventions not economically feasible. 93. The training programmes on IP issues for Government officials were helpful, but a rapid turn-over meant that new appointees sometimes could not participate.
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 37
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 38
A. No Objection Certificated for Market sheds
Figure A.1: No Objection Certificate (NOC) of Karigor Para Market shed, Raikhali union, Kaptai upazila, Rangamati District
| | | | June 2020
CHTRDP-II IP Safeguards Monitoring Report January - June 2020 Draft 39
| | | | June 2020