Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet Section I – Basic Information Date ISDS Prepared/Updated: May 15, 2004 Report No AC714 A. Basic Project Data Public Disclosure Authorized A.1. Project Statistics Country: India Project ID: P077856 Project: to Muzaffarpur National TTL: Piers A Vickers Highway Project Total project cost (by component): Single component of Highway Upgrading - US$849 million Appraisal Date: May 30, 2004 Loan Amount($m): IBRD: 640 Board Date: September 23, 2004 Public Disclosure Authorized Other financing amounts by source: ($m.) Managing Unit: SASEI Sector: Roads and highways (100%) Lending Instruments: Specific Investment Loan Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency Yes? [ ] No? [X] recovery? Environmental Category: A Safeguard classification: S1 A.2. Project Objective:

Public Disclosure Authorized The project development objective is for road users to benefit from an improved journey between Lucknow and Muzaffarpur. This project will be the fourth Bank loan to support the Government of India’s (GOI) National Highway Development Program (NHDP), which seeks to upgrade to four lane standard 13,000 km of the core national highway network, including the Golden Quadrilateral (linking Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai and Mumbai) and the East-West and North-South Corridors. The project will finance the upgrading of a 482 km national highway stretch between Lucknow, and Muzaffarpur, Bihar on the East-West Corridor. Public Disclosure Authorized A.3. Project Description Highway upgrading: The national highway sections proposed for upgrading to 4-lane divided carriageway under the project are all located along a 513 km continuous stretch between Lucknow and Muzzafarpur along the East-West Corridor in the states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. The project includes improving the existing two lane carriageway through construction of two additional lanes, rehabilitation of existing carriageway, as well as the construction of necessary railway over-bridges, flyovers, service lanes, pedestrian over/under bridges, junction improvements, cross drainage structures and safety/noise barriers. The loan will also finance new bypasses at , Barabanki, and Ramsanehighat. The route is divided into five homogenous sections: (i) Lucknow-Ayodhya (126 km); (ii) Ayodhya-Gorakhpur (117 km); (iii) Gorakhpur-Gopalganj (106 km); (iv) Gopalganj-Muzaffarpur (134 km), and (v) Gorakhpur Bypass (40 km). The civil works for the first four sections (total 483 km) are to be financed by the Bank, while the Gorakhpur Bypass will be financed by the GOI. As the Gorakhpur Bypass is considered an integral part of the stretch between Lucknow and Muzaffarpur, its EA and RAP has been prepared and will be implemented in the same manner as for the rest of the project financed by the Bank. The project is to be implemented by the National Highway Authority of India, a statutory body mandated to develop, maintain and manage key portions of the national highway network on behalf of the Government of India.

A.4. Project Location and Salient Physical Characteristics relevant to safeguard analysis: The project is located on the National Highway 28, between Lucknow and Muzaffarpur. NH28 is part of the East-West Corridor from Silchar in Assam in the north east and Porbander in Gujarat on the west coast. The project road traverses 8 districts of Uttar Pradesh (Lucknow, Barabanki, Gonda, Basti, , Sant Kabir Nagar, Gorakhpur and Deoria) and 3 districts of Bihar (Gopalganj, East Champaran and Muzaffarpur). The population density in these two states (and all the 11 districts traversed) is high, the economy primarily agricultural and the level of poverty very high. The highway lies below the lower periphery of the Terai (“lowlands”, foothill valleys of Eastern Himalayas), but no stretch of the highway is within 50 km of the Terai Arc, which is one of the Global 200 eco-regions. The highway does not pass through any national park or wildlife sanctuary. Protected areas close to the highway include Bakhira Wildlife Sanctuary (18 km from the highway) Udaipur Bird Sanctuary (25 km) and Valmiki National Park (40 km). There is only one stretch of Reserved Forests for about 1 km along the road in Uttar Pradesh. The Bihar section of the highway is located in the flood plains of several rivers and is currently overtopped frequently by seasonal floods. The highway passes very close to the World Heritage site of Kushinagar. These 2,500 year old Buddhist excavations at Kushinagar are about 400 m away from the highway. The highway bypasses Ayodhya-Faizabad, which are historical settlements and major pilgrimage centers. Devasharif Dargah (25 km from the highway) and Gorakhnath Math (10 km) are also important religious places.

B. Check Environmental Category A [X], B [ ], C [ ], FI [ ] Comments: The project has been categorized as ‘A’ considering the impacts on the socio- economic environment and important heritage sites and cultural properties along the highway. Most of the environmental impacts are local and reversible, and can be mitigated and managed through good environmental management practices. Important cultural properties, like the World Heritage Site in Kushinagar are to be protected and enhanced where feasible. C. Safeguard Policies Triggered Yes No Environmental Assessment (OP/BP/GP 4.01) [X] [ ] Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) [ ] [X] Pest Management (OP 4.09) [ ] [X] Cultural Property (draft OP 4.11 - OPN 11.03-) [X] [ ] Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) [X] [ ] Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20) [ ] [X] Forests (OP/BP 4.36) [X] [] Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) [ ] [X] Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP/GP 7.60)* [ ] [X] Projects on International Waterways [ ] [X] (OP/BP/GP 7.50)

* By supporting the proposed project, the Bank does not intend to prejudice the final determination of the parties’ claims on the disputed areas Section II – Key Safeguard Issues and Their Management D. Summary of Key Safeguards Issues. D.1. Describe any safeguard issues and impacts associated with the proposed project. Identify and describe any potential large scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts. Environment Assessment (OP 4.01): The main environmental issues in the project are: (i) unavoidable felling of a large number of roadside trees (about 74,000), (ii) impairment to or worsening of the local and regional drainage and flood situations, if the road works are not properly designed and built, (iii) unavoidable conversion of some fertile agricultural to right or way and road carriageway, (iv) the potential for poorly planned or managed development induced by the improved highway, especially close to important sites like Kushinagar, (v) possible impacts on aquatic flora and fauna in the rivers and rivulets the project highway passes over, and (vi) construction related temporary impacts such as dust from the haul roads, pollution from the plants and machinery required for construction. These potential impacts will be avoided, minimized and/or mitigated through sound management practices as detailed in the Environmental Management Plans. Community resources that are impacted will be either shifted or re-built in as good or better condition than before the project, with local communities encouraged to commit to their upkeep. On the positive side, a large section of the highway will use a very significant quantity of fly ash from nearby thermal power plants in embankment construction; and a number of roadside community assets and environmental resources will be enhanced by the project. Involuntary Resettlement (OP4.12). The project road passes through a total of 527 villages and 12 districts in two states, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. Since the legal ROW varies between 18 - 90 meters, additional land will be acquired to meet the design specifications - 658 ha of private land will be acquired and 56 ha will be transferred from other government departments. This will lead to loss of properties and income. A total of 33,880 families will be affected, out of which 15,683 will lose their agriculture land partially and 1,352 will become landless. Of the remaining 16,845 families, 5,646 will be displaced due to loss of shelter or commercial structures and 11,199 families’ structures will be partially affected. Relocation or resettlement is required for 3,869 common property structures such as schools, temples, mazhars, mosques, panchayat offices, police stations, hand pumps and wells. Cultural Property (OPN 11.03): The project traverses an area of rich history, and potentially involves impacts on archaeological chance finds, particularly near the heritage sites of Ayodhya-Faizabad, Gorakhpur and Kushinagar. Kushinagar, a World Heritage site, is 400 meters from the highway. Forests (OP4.36): The project road passes through the Zaidpur Reserved Forest for a short distance. However, the forest is reported not to house any significant wildlife species. However, there is a remote possibility that the improved road ‘may affect health of the forests’ and as such the OP is triggered. In summary, there will be no significant and irreversible environmental impacts as a result of the project. However, this is a large project that has impacts on a large number of people which will require careful management. D.2 Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area. No adverse long-term environmental impact is anticipated due to future activities on the highway. Due to road improvements, it is anticipated that some local drainage problems will be resolved, and road safety would be improved. However, substantial land and property development is expected to follow from the highway improvement. Poor management of this development may create negative impacts in the medium term, by way of additional stress on natural resources or by encouraging ribbon development. Co-ordination is essential with the Archaeological Departments during construction and operation periods to ensure that sites like Kushinagar can benefit from an increased tourist flow while being protected from adverse impacts of improvements to the road close to the site. D.3. Describe the treatment of alternatives This project will widen the highway largely along the existing alignment only. Route alternatives have only been investigated for short by-passes at Ayodya, Barabanki, Ramsanehigat and Katra Chowk where technical, cost, social and environmental considerations were all factored into the decision on the final alignment. For the rest of the project, during the detailed feasibility studies and the EA and SIA, several cross- sectional, structural and geometric design alternatives were considered. The factors which have influenced the designs of various components of the road improvements include resettlement, tree cutting, loss of arable land vis-à-vis the traffic-carrying performance of the highway, and impacts on cultural properties. As far as feasible, concentric widening has been adopted in the built up stretches to minimize impacts on properties and land acquisition. D.4. Describe measures taken by the borrower to address safeguard issues. Provide an assessment of borrower capacity to plan and implement the measures described. Environmental Assessment OP 4.01: The borrower has carried out a detailed EA, and Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) have been prepared for each contract package. The EMPs include mitigation and enhancement measures for all identified impacts, and form a part of the construction contract documents. About 630,000 trees are to be planted in forest blocks or within the Right of Way (ROW). An independent review of the EA has been carried out and its finding have been incorporated in the appropriate documents. Involuntary Resettlement OP 4.12: The borrower has prepared an Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R&R) entitlement framework that covers all project affected people. The framework addresses the nature of entitlements to be given to titleholders and non- titleholders, including for affected sharecroppers, squatters, and vulnerable encroachers. A Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) has been prepared which is consistent with the R&R entitlement framework for the project. Resettlement will be necessary where residential and/or commercial buildings will be fully demolished or made uninhabitable. Rehabilitation will help improve or restore the standard of living of affected persons. The RAP provides free plots for those willing to settle at resettlement sites and alternate arrangements for others losing shelter. It also includes provisions for relocation of common property resources and enhancement of existing structures. Effective preventive plans for raising awareness on sexually transmitted disease, facilitating convergence of national and state health programs and road safety awareness will be implemented through contracting with suitable NGOs over the life of the project. Cultural Property OPN 11.03: Although no protected monuments will be directly impacted, detailed plans have been prepared to safeguard important locations such as Kushinagar, smaller affected temples and other common property resources that have been identified during the EA to be culturally significant. The measures include construction management practices as well as environmental enhancements. These measures have been included in the EMPs which will be incorporated into the contract documents. Forests OP 4.36: The one kilometer stretch of Reserved Forests through which the project passes will be fenced under the project. This will reduce chances of improved access resulting in more damage to this ‘reserved’ forest area which is already being altered by human interference. Borrower Capacity: This is the fourth Bank loan being made to a national highway project being implemented by the NHAI. NHAI’s safeguard management capacity has developed to respond to the Bank’s policies with increasing efficiency. NHAI had the safeguard instruments for this project independently reviewed to ensure that these conformed to the Bank’s policies. The Authority is also in the process of getting an Environmental Management System established for its entire organization reflecting the increased importance it attaches to these key aspects of its operation.

D.5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. Key Stakeholders. There are various stakeholders such as project affected people, non- government organizations, district administration, officials from line departments, local political representatives and others in the project area. The project has conducted consultation with all stakeholders at different stages of project preparation and this consultation will continue during implementation. Methodology: The different methods of consultation utilized included door-to-door personal interviews, village meetings, focus group discussions, and consultation with experts and NGOs working in the area. At the village level, group discussions with different social communities and especially women and other vulnerable groups were also included. Workshops were also held at the district level to co-ordinate with line agencies and important government departments. Preparation stage consultations: Consultations began early in project preparation. These were focused on potentially directly affected persons seeking to appraise them about the proposed project and to identify social issues. Extensive discussions have been held at the local level to finalize alignments for by-passes, widening along existing alignment, location of underpasses / overpasses, median openings as well as determining the requirement for service lanes. Consultations have continued with other line departments such as Revenue and state Public Works Department to seek support through available documents to establish the legal right of way and preparing land acquisition plans. Furthermore, consultations have been held regarding entitlements for resettlement and rehabilitation appropriate for affected and displaced people. The consultations have also helped in finalizing income generation activities suitable to the skills and market opportunities in the project area. The Executive Summary, translated into the local language, has been available in the project affected districts in places accessible to the public such as village panchayats, municipalities, district libraries, project offices, and other places. Implementation: During implementation of the safeguard instruments, the borrower will conduct workshops to build further consensus on disbursement mechanisms of assistance, relocation of displaced, common property resources, restoration of livelihood and on other issues. The mechanisms to carry out these consultations are detailed in the instruments. F. Disclosure Requirements Date Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other: Date of receipt by the Bank 02/24/2004 Date of “in-country” disclosure 03/15/2004 Date of submission to InfoShop 02/26/2004 For category A projects, Date of distributing the Executive Summary of the EA to the Executive Directors 02/28/2004 Resettlement Action Plan/Framework/Policy Process: Date of receipt by the Bank 02/24/2004 Date of “in-country” disclosure 03/15/2004 Date of submission to InfoShop 02/26/2004 Indigenous Peoples Development Plan/Framework: Date of receipt by the Bank Not Applicable Date of “in-country” disclosure Not Applicable Date of submission to InfoShop Not Applicable Pest Management Plan: Date of receipt by the Bank Not Applicable Date of “in-country” disclosure Not Applicable Date of submission to InfoShop Not Applicable Dam Safety Management Plan: Date of receipt by the Bank Not Applicable Date of “in-country” disclosure Not Applicable Date of submission to InfoShop Not Applicable If in-country disclosure of any of the above documents is not expected, please explain why. N/a Section III - Compliance Monitoring Indicators at the Corporate Level (To be filled in when the ISDS is finalized by the project decision meeting) OP/BP 4.01 - Environment Assessment: Yes No Does the project require a stand-alone EA (including EMP) report? If yes, then did the Regional Environment Unit review and approve the EA report? Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated in the credit/loan? OP/BP 4.04 - Natural Habitats: Yes No Would the project result in any significant conversion or degradation of critical natural habitats? If the project would result in significant conversion or degradation of other (non-critical) natural habitats, does the project include mitigation measures acceptable to the Bank? OP 4.09 - Pest Management: Yes No Does the EA adequately address the pest management issues? Is a separate PMP required? If yes, are PMP requirements included in project design? Draft OP 4.11 (OPN 11.03) - Cultural Property: Yes No Does the EA include adequate measures? Does the credit/loan incorporate mechanisms to mitigate the potential adverse impacts on physical cultural resources? OD 4.20 - Indigenous Peoples: Yes No Has a separate indigenous people development plan been prepared in consultation with the Indigenous People? If yes, then did the Regional Social Development Unit review and approve the plan? If the whole project is designed to benefit IP, has the design been reviewed and approved by the Regional Social Development Unit? OP/BP 4.12 - Involuntary Resettlement: Yes No Has a resettlement action plan, policy framework or policy process been prepared? If yes, then did the Regional Social Development Unit review and approve the plan / policy framework / policy process? OP/BP 4.36 – Forests: Yes No Has the sector-wide analysis of policy and institutional issues and constraints been carried out? Does the project design include satisfactory measures to overcome these constraints? Does the project finance commercial harvesting, and if so, does it include provisions for certification system? OP/BP 4.37 - Safety of Dams: Yes No Have dam safety plans been prepared? Have the TORs as well as composition for the independent Panel of Experts (POE) been reviewed and approved by the Bank? Has an Emergency Preparedness Plan (EPP) been prepared and arrangements been made for public awareness and training? OP 7.50 - Projects on International Waterways: Yes No Have the other riparians been notified of the project? If the project falls under one of the exceptions to the notification requirement, then has this been cleared with the Legal Department, and the memo to the RVP prepared and sent? What are the reasons for the exception? Please explain: Has the RVP approved such an exception? OP 7.60 - Projects in Disputed Areas: Yes No Has the memo conveying all pertinent information on the international aspects of the project, including the procedures to be followed, and the recommendations for dealing with the issue, been prepared, cleared with the Legal Department and sent to the RVP? Does the PAD/MOP include the standard disclaimer referred to in the OP? BP 17.50 - Public Disclosure: Yes No Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to the World Bank’s Infoshop? Have relevant documents been disclosed in-country in a public place in a form and language that are understandable and accessible to project-affected groups and local NGOs? All Safeguard Policies: Yes No Have satisfactory calendar, budget and clear institutional responsibilities been prepared for the implementation of the safeguard measures? Have safeguard measures costs been included in project cost? Will the safeguard measures costs be funded as part of project implementation? Does the Monitoring and Evaluation system of the project include the monitoring of safeguard impacts and measures? Have satisfactory implementation arrangements been agreed with the borrower and the same been adequately reflected in the project legal documents? Signed and submitted by: Task Team Leader: Project Safeguards Specialist 1: Project Safeguards Specialist 2: Project Safeguards Specialist 3: Approved by: Regional Safeguards Coordinator: Comments: Sector Manager: Comments: