RP273

ROYAL GOVERNMENT OF BHUTAN

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

DECENTRALIZED RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

SOCIAL ASSESSMENT

November 2004

Acronyms & Abbreviations

AFDARAPBASBSRCBODAODEDECDFODLODOADSLRDRDPDYTEAEIAEFRCFGDFYPGDPGYTIDAmaslMOANECORCRAPRGOBRNRRoWRPFSATORUNCDFVCDP

Administration & Finance DivisionAbbreviated Resettlement Action PlanBudget and Accounting SystemBhutan Schedule of RatesCommunity Based OrganizationsDistrict Agriculture OfficerDistrict EngineerDistrict Environmental CommitteeDistrict Forestry OfficerDistrict Livestock OfficerDepartment of AgricultureDepartment of Survey & Land RecordsDecentralized Rural Development Project Dzongkhag Yargye TshogdueExtension AgentEnvironmental Impact AssessmentEnvironment Friendly Road ConstructionFocus Group DiscussionsFive Year PlanGross Domestic ProductGeog Yargye TshogchungInternational Development AssociationMeters above sea levelMinistry of AgricultureNational Environmental CommissionOut-reach ClinicResettlement Action PlanRoyal Government of BhutanRenewable Natural ResourcesRight of WayResettlement Planning FrameworkSocial AssessmentTerms of ReferenceUnited Nations Capital Development FundVulnerable Communities Development Plan

i

Glossary of Bhutanese words

ChatrimChazag ThramChhuszhingChiogChortenDzongdagDzongkhagDzongrabDungpaGeogGenjaGupKamszhingLhakhangSatshabSokszhingThramTsamdrogTseriTshogchungTsogpaYargye

LegislationMain Land RecordWet landVillageStupaDistrict AdministratorDistrictDeputy District AdministratorAdministrator of Sub-divisionAdministrative unit, BlockAgreementChief Geog AdministratorDry landTempleSubstitute LandWoodlot from which litter and dead branches can be collectedLand recordPastureShifting cultivationCommitteeCommittee memberDevelopment

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS......................................................................................I

GLOSSARY OF BHUTANESE WORDS............................................................................II

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.....................................................................................................V

1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................1

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...................................................................................................21.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS..................................................................................................21.3 INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING..................................................................................3

2. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY.........................................................................5

2.1 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE SOCIAL ASSESSMENT...............................................52.2 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY...................................................................................5

3. SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE....................................................................................9

3.1. COUNTRY OVERVIEW....................................................................................................93.2 OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT AREA.............................................................................11

3.2.1 Dzongkhag Profiles................................................................................................11

4. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND ANALYSIS OF PARTICIPATORY GEOG PLANNING & IMPLEMENTATION...........................................................14

4.1 RATIONALE....................................................................................................................144.2 METHODOLOGY AND CONSULTATION STRATEGY......................................................154.3 KEY FINDINGS...............................................................................................................15

5. POLICIES, REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES...................................................21

5.1 RGOB’S LAND ACT & REGULATIONS........................................................................215.2 LAND OWNERSHIP AND TENURE...................................................................................245.3 THE WORLD BANK’S POLICY ON INVOLUNTARY RESETTLEMENT POLICY.............245.4 COMPARISON OF RGOB AND WORLD BANK POLICIES.............................................255.5 RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................................................28

6. RESETTLEMENT POLICY FRAMEWORK...........................................................29

6.1 DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVES...................................................................................296.2 SOCIAL SCREENING.......................................................................................................296.3 VOLUNTARY LAND DONATION.....................................................................................306.4 INVOLUNTARY RESETTLEMENT AND LAND ACQUISITION.........................................306.5 ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA.................................................................................................326.6 ENTITLEMENT POLICY.................................................................................................326.7 SUBPROJECT RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLANS...........................................................356.8 IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS........................................................................................356.9 GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISMS...........................................................................356.10 FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS.........................................................................................366.11 CONSULTATION/PARTICIPATION................................................................................366.12 MONITORING AND EVALUATION...............................................................................36

7. IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS................................................................38

7.1 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.................................................................................38

iii

7.2 CAPACITY BUILDING.....................................................................................................39

8. ANNEXES.......................................................................................................................40

ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST FOR A SECTOR WIDE (SWAP) APPROACH..................................................................40

ANNEX 2: CONSULTATIONS WITH COMMUNITIES ON GEOG PARTICIPATORY PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION......................................................................................43

ANNEX 3: PARTICIPANTS TO FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS & INTERVIEWS IN THE CONSULTATIONS................................................................................................62

ANNEX 4: SOCIAL SCREENING FORMAT FOR DRDP SUB-PROJECTS..............................67ANNEX 5: SOCIO-ECONOMIC SURVEY FORMAT FOR DRDP SUB-PROJECTS...................69ANNEX 6: SUGGESTED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR VOLUNTARY LAND

DONATIONS.........................................................................................................73Annex 7: Monitoring Indicators..........................................................................................74

List of Tables

Table 1: Vulnerable geogs by district in project areaTable 2: Sub-projects visited by Dzongkhag and geogTable 3: No of participants/respondents in consultations in selected DRDP Year 1 sub-

projectsTable 4: Compensation rates (in Nu.) by farmland typeTable 5: Compensation rates (in Nu.) for fruit by type and age in number of yearsTable 6: Comparison of RGOB and World Bank Policies on Entitlements for Land

Acquisition, Gaps and RecommendationsTable 7: Entitlement MatrixTable 8: Suggested indicators per project element and levelTable 9: Sub-projects visited by Dzongkhag & geogTable 10: No of participants/respondents in consultations in selected DRDP Year 1 sub-

projects

List of Figures

Figure 1: Process for land acquisition

iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Poverty in Bhutan is primarily a rural phenomenon, with 29 percent of the rural population and 2.4 percent of the urban population living below the absolute poverty line. In this mountainous and landlocked country, the majority of Bhutan’s population lives in remote villages, often several days walk from the nearest road. In this context, rural communities face enormous challenges in accessing public services and market opportunities for their farm products. The RNR sector strategy under the 9th Five Year Plan (FYP) (2002-2007) aims at reducing rural poverty by achieving higher rural incomes and employment, improved food security, and sustainable natural resource management. In contrast with past, top-down planning, the strategy is derived largely from demands expressed by rural communities through their newly elected local governments (geogs).

The RNR sector strategy will be implemented within the context of, and in support of, decentralization and empowerment of local communities. The 9th FYP focuses on improving social services, good governance, promotion of private sector growth, employment generation, and preservation of cultural and natural heritage, and serves as Bhutan’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP). In a marked departure from previous Plans, the 9 th FYP focuses on the needs of geogs and dzongkhags (districts). Devolution of resources and decision-making powers to the local level is a thus a key feature of the 9 th FYP, and this principle is supported with political commitment at the highest level. As spelled out in the relevant chathrims (legislation), Dzongkhag Development Committees (DYTs) and Geog Development Committees (GYTs) now have autonomy for planning, regulations, and raising taxes. Approximately one-quarter of the 9th FYP is earmarked for programs implemented by dzongkhags and geogs.

To support the 9th FYP the Decentralized Rural Development Project (DRDP) will finance rural access subprojects (i.e. farm roads, and power tiller roads), irrigation, marketing and processing infrastructure, agricultural productivity-enhancing activities, and capacity building for sustainable natural resource management. This will be combined with institutional strengthening to ensure efficient financial flows, reporting, and environmental and social impact management. The project will support the above programs in six dzongkhags: Trongsa, Zhemgang, Dagana, Tsirang, Wangdue Phodrang and Chhukha, which cover an area about 11,801 km2 and 62 geogs (approximately one third of the country). The project will mainly concentrate on gap financing of the plans and programs of the 9 th FYP that are not covered under either RGoB or other donor agencies.

To facilitate the assessment and management of potential adverse social impacts arising from the project, the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) has carried out a Social Assessment (SA) based on RGOB’s relevant legislation and guidelines including the Land Act (1979) and associated Land Compensation Rates (1996) as well as the World Bank’s Operational Policy (OP) 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement and Operational Directive (OD) 4.20 on Indigenous Peoples.

The SA details the guiding principles, policies and processes for assessing the project’s potential social impacts and defining opportunities to enhance benefits and mitigate adverse social impacts. It contains modalities for profiling socio-economic conditions, identifying stakeholder groups and analyzing their interests and concerns, conducting social screening to assess potential impacts and linking these findings to project design. The institutional

v

structure to support social impact management, including capacity building requirements and monitoring and evaluation mechanisms are also detailed in the SA. In accordance with relevant RGOB policies and procedures and World Bank’s OP 4.12, the SA also includes a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) to address potential impacts from loss of land, structures and assets, livelihoods and community resources.

This assessment has been prepared on the basis of consultations with key stakeholders and project affected people, and the proposed project design for the first year of subprojects. Although developed on an analysis of impacts of first year subprojects, it is a “project” framework applicable to the entire project period and to all subprojects funded under DRDP.

Key objectives of the SA are to:

Review RGOB’s existing policies, operational procedures and practices, and institutional arrangements at the national, dzongkhag and geog levels to address and mitigate social impacts.

Assess the compatibility of the core principles of RGOB’s policies and World Bank policies; identify any gaps, and present recommendations for addressing these gaps.

Develop guidelines for identifying and assessing the nature and magnitude of social impacts and options for managing these impacts.

To facilitate the identification and assessment of social impacts, consultations with primary stakeholders (beneficiaries, poor and vulnerable groups, people who may potentially be impacted adversely by the project) were carried out in selected geogs and villages in all six districts where first year project interventions are planned. The objective of these focus group discussions was to disseminate information about the project, determine the extent of community participation in the preparation of the 9th FYP, seek the perceptions and concerns of community members about the positive and negative social impacts of the project, and their experience with voluntary land donation. Consultations were also carried out with secondary stakeholders, local community based organizations (CBOs) and community representatives as well as MOA and other RGOB departments, including the Department of Planning, Department of Land Survey, Department of Roads and the National Environment Commission (NEC).

Key findings from these consultations indicate that all households in these communities had participated in the preparation of the 9th FYP and expect to be involved in implementation of these plans. The needs and priorities of these communities (i.e. farm roads, power tiller roads and irrigation canals) had been adequately reflected through local geog plans in the 9th FYP. Community members identified enhanced livelihoods through sale of farm produce, increase in crop yields and easier access to agriculture technology as positive social impacts of the project. The most negative social impact identified by community members was the potential for loss of small parcels of land to project interventions. However, according to a majority of stakeholders, the benefits of the project out weigh impacts from minor losses of land. There was broad consensus in all these communities that land acquired by the project would be voluntarily donated. The informal and formal procedures for voluntary land donation were viewed by these community members as satisfactory and working well. No major negative impacts were anticipated through loss of large parcels of land, assets, livelihoods and relocation during project implementation.

vi

Separate consultations were carried out in these communities with vulnerable people, including women and women headed households, the most poor, farmers with marginal land holdings and the landless to determine the extent of their participation in the preparation of the 9th FYP geog plans, and to ascertain their views and perceptions about the project. From these consultations it appears that all households irrespective of their social and economic status were represented in the preparation of 9th FYP geog plans. The practice to have one adult representative from each household participate in determining development activities for the next five years was generally confirmed. Site visits also concluded that there were no social groups present in these communities with a social and cultural identity distinct from the dominant society that makes them vulnerable to being disadvantaged in the development process. The policy requirements of the World Bank’s Operational Directive 4.20 on Indigenous Peoples to ensure the participation of indigenous and vulnerable groups in decision making throughout the planning and implementation phases of the subprojects, and that these groups are provided assistance in accordance to their priorities are addressed by the design of the project.

To assess the precise nature and magnitude of social impacts, social screening will be carried out as part of the feasibility studies for each subproject. To ensure consistency in the application of social screening criteria across different sectors (irrigation channels, farm roads) a standard social screening format has been prepared which builds upon the current NEC and the Department of Agriculture (DOA) environmental screening guidelines. To the extent possible, social and environment screening will be carried out together with technical and economic screening.

Social screening will identify the potential for loss of land, assets/structures, livelihoods, willingness of the community to donate land to the project, and other significant social impacts. Social screening will also enable the categorization of subprojects based on their level of social impacts. Where the extent of adverse social impacts is minor and no displacement or loss of assets or livelihoods is expected, no further action is required. However, where the social screening indicates that land acquisition and/or loss of assets is unavoidable, appropriate resettlement plans will be prepared.

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

The RPF defines the legal, institutional and implementation framework to guide the compensation for land loss and for loss of assets, livelihoods, community property, as well as resettlement and rehabilitation of project affected people in accordance with the World Bank’s Operational Policy 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement and RGOB guidelines and legislation. Key provisions of RGOB’s Land Act (1979) and the World Bank’s policy were compared, policy gaps identified and recommendations made to address these gaps. This review formed the underlying basis of developing the RPF, especially the policy matrix for entitlements for losses suffered under the project. The RPF will be applicable to all subprojects funded under DRDP.

vii

To the extent possible, the project will consider alternative engineering designs to minimize adverse social impacts and land acquisition. Where the social screening indicates that land acquisition and/or loss of assets is unavoidable, appropriate resettlement plans will be prepared for which the RPF provides overarching guidance on principles and procedures.

Implementation arrangements to support social impact management will largely follow normal practices, policies, and procedures. There will be no new project management unit, instead relying on existing institutions. A social development officer in MOA, selected from existing staff and working closely with a Project Coordinator, will be responsible for overseeing the social aspects of the project and coordinating the implementation resettlement plans. Oversight of the social aspects of the project will be done in close collaboration with geog and dzongkhag administrations and the National Environment Commission. Implementing agencies will be decentralized and essentially comprise the 62 geogs and six dzonkhags in the project area.

Many of the decentralized implementation arrangements are new and capacity-building is needed at geog, dzongkhag and MOA levels to effectively implement social impact management activities and if necessary resettlement action plans. The institutional strengthening component of the project will include training to build capacity on social screening, assessment and mitigation. A training needs assessment is planned to identify capacity gaps and develop training programs accordingly.

viii

1. INTRODUCTION

Poverty in Bhutan is primarily a rural phenomenon, with 29 percent of the rural population and 2.4 percent of the urban population living below the absolute poverty line. In this mountainous and landlocked country, the majority of Bhutan’s population lives in remote villages, often several days walk from the nearest road. In this context, rural communities face enormous challenges in accessing public services and market opportunities for their farm products. The RNR sector strategy under the 9th Five Year Plan (FYP) (2002-2007) aims at reducing rural poverty by achieving higher rural incomes and employment, improved food security, and sustainable natural resource management. In contrast with past, top-down planning, the strategy is derived largely from demands expressed by rural communities through their newly elected local governments (geogs).

The absence of roads is a major contributing factor to poverty. Less than half of Bhutan’s population lives within a half-day’s walk from a road. In rural areas, access to education and health services is limited. Efforts to diversification into cash crops cannot hope to reduce poverty if markets are beyond reach. Indeed, demand for rural roads features as a high priority for most geogs in their local development plans. The 9th FYP calls for 782 km of new roads: comprising 134 km of national highways, 148 km of feeder roads, and about 500 km of basic farm roads. Upgrading of mule tracks to permit passage of power tillers, as well as simple bridges, are other means of reaching rural communities. Road construction and maintenance in Bhutan’s mountainous terrain is a particularly challenging endeavor, and complicated by monsoon floods, landslides, and icy conditions.

Bhutan is not overpopulated. It has many scattered areas of fertile soil (agricultural land covers 7.8 percent of the country) and generally a good water supply. Land holdings are fragmented and small (two-thirds of farmers have holdings under two hectares), and farm mechanization is very limited. Almost two-thirds of women are employed in agriculture and 70 percent of them own land, making them the primary producers in the sector. The role of MoA is to support farmers to make optimal use of available resources by promoting new technologies through research and extension, organization of inputs, creating access to markets, and development of support infrastructure. MoA boasts a highly trained cadre of staff. The agricultural extension service, which has agents in each geog, is seen as playing a key role in stimulating agricultural growth. However, living conditions and resources of these front-line staff can be quite poor and MoA aims to support them further and provide incentives to live in remote areas. The solution to this “professionalization” of the extension system is seen as construction and operation of so-called “RNR centers”. These are seen as focal points for the community to observe demonstrations of new technologies and seek advice. They will also serve as living quarters for staff and their families.

The RNR sector strategy will be implemented within the context of, and in support of, decentralization and empowerment of local communities. The 9th FYP focuses on improving social services, good governance, promotion of private sector growth, employment generation, and preservation of cultural and natural heritage, and serves as Bhutan’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP). In a marked departure from previous Plans, the 9 th FYP focuses on the needs of geogs and dzongkhags (districts). Devolution of resources and decision-making powers to the local level is a thus a key feature of the 9 th FYP, and this principle is supported with political commitment at the highest level. As spelled out in the relevant chathrims, Dzongkhag Development Committees (DYTs) and Geog Development

1

Committees (GYTs) now have autonomy for planning, regulations, and raising taxes. Approximately one-quarter of the 9th FYP is earmarked for programs implemented by dzongkhags and geogs. In summary, as a result of a carefully managed process over two decades, policies and procedures for decentralization are largely in place, although there is a need for fine-tuning budgetary systems, improving local revenue collection, imposing a hard budget constraint at the geog level, and major capacity building efforts.

A remarkable feature of the 9th FYP is the process by which it was prepared. RGoB undertook an extensive planning exercise that involved close consultation with all 201 geogs using a participatory and inclusive process. As a result of an iterative review and appraisal process, the priority needs of rural communities in Bhutan are well known (even available on the internet1), and RGoB is highly committed to financing them. This also means that RNR targets for local-level investment (which include those used for this project) can be made with reasonable assurance that they are based on local demands. Consistent with the empowerment approach of the 9th FYP, dzongkhags and geogs themselves are expected to be responsible for implementation of their respective programs.

1.1 Project Description

The Project will finance rural access sub-projects (i.e. farm roads, and power tiller tracks2), irrigation, agricultural productivity-enhancing activities, and capacity building for sustainable natural resource management. This will be combined with institutional strengthening to ensure efficient financial flows, reporting, and environmental assessment. The proposed project will support the above programs in six dzongkhags: Trongsa, Zhemgang, Dagana, Tsirang, Wangdue Phodrang and Chhukha, which cover about 11,801 km2 of the geographical area with 62 geogs (approximately one third of the country). The project will mainly concentrate on gap financing of the plans and programs of the 9th FYP that are not covered under either RGoB or other donor agencies. The reason for limiting the geographical scope of the project is to give sharper focus to the priority programs of the 9th FYP for clearer results and impacts on beneficiaries.

1.2 Project Components

Rural Infrastructure

The output of this component will be local public goods, i.e. farm roads, power tiller roads, irrigation channels, and other economic infrastructure like suspension bridges. The majority of these have already been identified at the local level as priorities for rural communities as part of the 9th FYP. There are four sub-components.

Rural access: This subcomponent will focus on farm roads (both new construction and rehabilitation) and will upgrade mule tracks to permit passage of power tillers. An estimated target of 89 kilometers of farm roads and 114 km of power tiller roads are proposed, to be screened and implemented in accordance with MoA’s Farm Road Guidelines, and according to rules for “environment friendly road construction” (EFRC) practices which already apply

1 http://www.pcs.gov.bt/9th_five_year_plan_for_dzongkhag.htm2 Rural roads supported by this project should be distinguished from those implemented under the current IDA-financed “Rural Access Project” (P059481). The latter focuses on feeder roads, which fall under the mandate of the Ministry of Works and Human Settlement. “Farm roads” proposed for the new project are smaller, less costly, serve smaller populations, and fall under the mandate of the Ministry of Agriculture.

2

to the larger feeder roads. The roads/tracks will be selected from 162 km of farm roads and 229 km of power tiller tracks initially proposed by MoA. Six small suspension bridges would also be constructed. Dzongkhags would contract out construction to private service providers to expedite completion and ensure consistent quality. Community members are expected to benefit as hired laborers. In accordance with the guidelines, GYTs will be expected to own the asset upon completion and will be in charge of covering maintenance with tax revenue, possibly tolls and product and labor contributions.3

Irrigation: Approximately 45 km of new irrigation channels and 231 km of rehabilitated channels are proposed for financing under this project. These will be implemented in accordance with the National Irrigation Policy and the existing procedural manuals. Water users’ associations at the Geog level would be expected to be the key implementing agency, as these are farmer-managed schemes with simple infrastructure needs.

RNR Centers

The output of this component is ability among farmers to take advantage of productivity and income gains through demonstration, knowledge sharing, and capacity building. Geog-based extension staff, backstopped from the dzongkhag level, will play the central role. MoA proposes RNR centers as the front-line institution in its efforts to improve productivity and sustainability of crop, livestock, and forest production. In addition to providing training and demonstration of new technologies, these Centers can provide a meeting place for communities and limited office space for GYTs. These Centers will also improve living and working conditions to the extension staff that are already located in Geogs. This component will finance both hardware and software in two sub-components.

a) RNR construction: This subcomponent will finance approximately 6 RNR centers in as many geogs. Prototype designs already exist. Many, if not most, of these geogs are also demanding Geog offices as working space for the “Gup” and clerk, and where needed RNR centers can accommodate this office space at a low marginal cost. Although this strictly falls outside of the mandate of MoA, they see this as a way to promote the Centers as the focal point of communities, and to strengthen ties between local government and MoA at the grass-roots level. The Engineering Division of MoA will implement this sub-component.

b) RNR capacity-building: This subcomponent will finance applied training, demonstrations, and farmer-to-farmer field visits, corresponding to demand expressed by geogs and consistent with the Field Programs and National Programs of the MoA. There will be special emphasis on high-value crops and livestock products. The Extension Division of MoA will implement this sub-component.

1.3 Institutional Strengthening

The output of this small but important component is timely submission of accurate financial and physical reporting of project implementation performance to ensure a smooth transfer of funds to the local level for implementation. To implement geog priorities, there is a critical need for capacity-building at several levels, and there is concern (and evidence from other

3 GYTs are vested with these powers from the new decentralization legislation and are already collecting tax revenues.

3

projects) that current capacity may be exceeded as plans are implemented. Institutional strengthening involves training of finance personnel from the selected geogs, dzongkhags and the Administration and Finance Division (AFD) of the MOA on the Budget and Accounting System (BAS) and provision of training to geog administrators on planning, administration, community mobilization, and reporting. A training needs assessment will be needed early in project implementation. A secondary output of this component is improved capacity in MoA and at the dzongkhag level for environmental and social assessment of sub-projects, particularly for farm roads, irrigation works, and RNR centers. A small number of vehicles (one per dzongkhag and one for DOA) will be procured under the project to increase mobility of staff to supervise subprojects and consult with communities.

4

2. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

2.1 Objectives and Scope of the Social Assessment

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

This assessment has been prepared on the basis of consultations with key stakeholders and project affected people, and the proposed project design for the first year of subprojects. Although developed on an analysis of impacts of first year subprojects, it is a “project” framework applicable to the entire project period and to all sub-projects funded under DRDP.

Key objectives of the SA are:

.Review RGOB’s existing policies, operational procedures and practices, and institutional arrangements at the national, dzongkhag and geog levels to address and mitigate social impacts.

Assess the compatibility of the core principles of RGOB’s policies and World Bank policies; identify any gaps, and present recommendations for addressing these gaps.

Develop guidelines for identifying and assessing the nature and magnitude of social impacts and options for managing these impacts.

2.2 Approach and Methodology

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

(i) Socio-economic Profile and Baseline A socio-economic profile for the project areas has been prepared based on secondary sources and provides an overview of the dzongkhags where the project will be implemented and their levels of socio-economic development. A baseline survey based on a 10% sample of households has been proposed as a follow-up and initial task of project implementation. The objective of this baseline survey is to evaluate the broad socio-economic conditions (both positive and negative) of the project affected people prior to the implementation of project

5

interventions, which will provide a baseline against which project impacts can be measured at the completion of the project. The sample baseline survey is to be undertaken prior to the commencement of first year subprojects and will supplement the larger baseline study planned for the project.

(ii) Stakeholder Consultations

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

Consultations with beneficiaries of subprojects (farm roads, irrigation channels, power-tiller tracks and RNR centers) to be constructed in the first year of the project were held in selected geogs and villages in all six districts were the project is to be implemented. A total sample of eleven geogs and twelve villages were visited. A detailed summary of consultations in each geog is presented in Annex 2, and a table, listing participants in focus group and key informant interviews is presented in Annex 3.

Focus group discussions were conducted with a cross-section of men and women in the community. The objective of these discussions was to gain and in-depth understanding of project issues and concerns from a broad group of discussants, including people who may be affected from loss of land. The consultations focused on: inclusiveness in participation of community members in the preparation of the 9th FYP, perceptions and concerns about the positive and negative social impacts of the project, and experience of community members in voluntarily donating land. Separate individual interviews were held with vulnerable members of the community to disseminate information about the project and to understand their views about the project, whether they had participated in the preparation of the 9th FYP and would continue to be involved in its implementation.

Three teams of social development professionals carried out these consultations. Prior to the commencement of consultations extensive training of the field teams by a social scientist on the approach, methodology and tools was carried out.

(iii) Social Screening and Identification of Social Impacts

Social screening will be carried out as part of the feasibility studies for each subproject and social screening criteria will be fully integrated into RGOB guidelines. Social screening will identify the potential for loss of land, assets/structures, livelihoods, willingness of the community to donate land to the project, and other significant social impacts. Social screening will also enable the categorization of subprojects based on their level of social impacts. Where the extent of adverse social impacts is minor and no displacement or loss of assets or livelihoods is expected, no further action is required. However, where the social

6

screening indicates that land acquisition and/or loss of assets is unavoidable, appropriate resettlement plans will be prepared.

(iv) Resettlement Policy Framework

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

The RPF defines the legal, institutional and implementation framework to guide the compensation for lost assets, livelihoods, community property, and resettlement and rehabilitation of project affected people in accordance with the World Bank’s Operational Policy 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement and RGOB guidelines and legislation. Key provisions of RGOB’s Land Act (1979) and associated Land Compensation Rates (1996) and the World Bank’s policy were compared, policy gaps identified and recommendations made to address these gaps. This review formed the underlying basis of developing the RPF, especially the policy matrix for entitlements for losses suffered under the project. The RPF will be applicable to all sub-projects funded under DRDP.

To the extent possible, the project will consider alternative engineering designs to minimize adverse social impacts and land acquisition. Where the social screening indicates that land acquisition and/or loss of assets is unavoidable, a subproject Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) will be prepared for which the RPF provides overarching guidance on principles and procedures. Subproject RAPs will include the following:

Project and subproject description. Description of subproject losses and impacts. Baseline survey and census data. Policy entitlements related to impacts identified through the survey or census and

presented in a subproject specific entitlement matrix. Time-bound implementation plan. Costs and budgets.

Subproject RAPs will be prepared at the planning and design stage and submitted to the World Bank for review three months before the data of initiation of any land acquisition.

(v) Indigenous/Vulnerable Communities

RNR activities in the 9th FYP are based on local demands and were identified through a highly participative and inclusive process, which will continue into the implementation phase. Separate stakeholder consultations were carried out in selected geogs and villages with vulnerable community members to identify their participation in the preparation of the 9 th

FYP geog plans, and ascertain their views and perceptions about the project. From these consultations it appears that all households irrespective of their social and economic status were represented in the preparation of 9th FYP geog plans. The practice to have one adult

7

representative from each household participate in determining development activities for the next five years was generally confirmed.

Site visits also concluded that there were no social groups present in these communities with a social and cultural identity distinct from the dominant society that makes them vulnerable to being disadvantaged in the development process. The policy requirements of the World Bank’s Operational Directive 4.20 on Indigenous Peoples to ensure the participation of indigenous and vulnerable groups in decision making throughout the planning and implementation phases of the subprojects, and that these groups are provided assistance in accordance to their priorities are addressed by the design of the project. Therefore, there is no need to prepare separate Vulnerable Communities Development Plans.

To effectively monitor project impacts on the vulnerable, the socio-economic baseline established for the project will include data on representative vulnerable households. Monitoring indicators will include gender and vulnerability specific indicators, and monitoring reports will present data disaggregated by gender and vulnerability (i.e. women headed households). Indicators that can be monitored for this purpose can include how many women/vulnerable people attended geog meetings, how many participated actively in these meetings, documentation of their opinions on project impacts and if any of their specific concerns were addressed during implementation.

8

3. SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE

3.1. Country Overview

The Kingdom of Bhutan – 38,394 km2 in area and 734,340 in population – is a small, landlocked, mountainous country in the Eastern Himalayan region. It is bordered by India to its east, west and south and by the Tibetan Autonomous Region of China to its north. Almost all of the country is mountainous with altitudes ranging from about 200 meters above sea level (masl) in the south to over 7,500 masl in the north. It can be divided into three distinct physiographic zones: one, the southern foothills consisting of the Siwalik hills adjacent to a narrow belt of flatland along the Indian border with altitudes ranging from about 200 masl to 2,000 masl; two, the inner Himalayas made up of the main river valleys and steep mountains with altitudes ranging from 2,000 masl to 4,000 masl; and, three, the great Himalayas in the north along the Tibetan border consisting of snow-capped peaks and alpine meadows above 4,000 masl.

Administratively, the country is divided into 20 dzongkhags. The dzongkhags are further divided into several geogs. At present, there are altogether 201 geogs in the country. Some of the dzongkhags such as Chhukha, Samdrup Jongkhar, Samtse, Sarpang, Trashigang, and Zhemgang, have sub-districts, known as dungkhags. A dzongkhag is headed by a dzongdag, a dungkhag by a dungpa, and a geog by a gup (administrative head of a geog). Dzongdags and dungpas are civil service officials whereas a gup is a locally elected community leader of a geog. At the central level, there are ten ministries and a number of non-ministerial bodies such as the National Commission for Cultural Affairs, National Environment Commission, and Royal Civil Service Commission. The ministries are the Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Home and Cultural Affairs, Ministry of Information and Communications, Ministry of Labor and Human Resources, Ministry of Trade and Industry, and Ministry of Works and Human Settlement.

Bhutan’s development has been rapid and broadly shared. Up until the 1950s Bhutan was isolated from the rest of the world, and its dispersed rural population was entirely dependent upon subsistence agriculture. Once it opened up to the outside world in the 1960s, Bhutan embarked upon a far reaching development strategy that has been articulated in successive five year plans, the latest being the 9th FYP Plan (2002-2007). On the basis of the development strategy presented in these five-year plans, Bhutan has developed a physical infrastructure of roads, power supply, telecommunications, and water supply that now serves a growing share of the population. At the same time the Government has developed social infrastructure of education and health services, which have, despite the difficult terrain and scattered population, greatly improved access to education and health services. The Government’s strategy in every sector is guided by its Vision Statement “Bhutan 2020: A Vision for Peace, Prosperity and Happiness” which seeks a “cautious interpretation of modernization”. The Vision Statement puts human happiness, not economic growth, at the center of the nation’s vision and values, and calibrates the ambitions of development policy to Bhutan’s ability to absorb change without creating alienation and excessive inequality:

“Our guiding principles for future development of our nation and for the safeguarding of our sovereignty as a nation-state must be complemented by a single unifying concept of

9

development, the distinctively Bhutanese concept of Gross National Happiness…The concept places the individual at the center of all development efforts and it recognizes that the individual has material, spiritual and emotional needs. It asserts that development cannot and should not be defined exclusively in material terms. The concept of Gross National Happiness must be translated into objectives that are able to give direction to the Kingdom’s long-term development…These objectives are: human development; culture and heritage; balance and equitable development; governance and environmental conservation.”

Bhutan is predominately an agrarian country. Seventy-nine percent of the population lives in rural area and subsist on an integrated livelihood system based on crop agriculture, livestock and use of forest products. The RNR sector is the largest contributor to the GDP, in 2002, it accounted for nearly one-third of the GDP. Bhutan has many scattered areas of fertile soil (agriculture covers 7.8 percent of the country) and water supply is good. Land holdings are fragmented and small (two-thirds of farmers have land holdings under two hectares), and farm mechanization is very limited. The role of the MOA is to support farmers to make optimal use of their available resources by promoting new technologies through research and extension, organization of inputs, creating access to markets, and development of support infrastructure. The attainment of these objectives is guided by MOA’s “Triple Gems of Development”: enhancing productivity, promoting accessibility, and improving marketing.

About 29 percent of the rural population and 2.4 percent of the urban population live below the absolute poverty line. In this mountainous and landlocked country, the majority of Bhutan’s population lives in remote villages; often several days walk from the nearest road. In this context, rural communities face enormous challenges in accessing public services and market opportunities for their farm products. Agriculture contributes one third of GDP, but the sector constitutes the majority of income, employment, and food security to most Bhutanese, particularly the poorest.

Less than half of Bhutan’s population lives within a half-day walk from the nearest road and roads are widely viewed as a catalyst for development in rural areas. The Poverty Assessment found that the absence of roads was a major contributing factor to poverty. In rural areas, diversification into cash crops cannot reduce poverty if markets are beyond reach. Demand for rural roads was one of the highest priorities identified in geog plans.

Bhutan has many scattered areas of fertile soil (agricultural land covers 7.8 per cent of the country) and a good supply of water. Food production is generally sufficient to support a per capita food consumption level (2500 kcal) above the South Asian regional average. RGOB has opted for a policy of food self-reliance, whereby export earning generated from sale of cash crops pay for whatever imports (typically rice) are required.

According to the Poverty Assessment Report (2000) in the districts where the project will operate, Zhemgang has the most geogs classified as vulnerable, followed by Chhukha, Wangdue and Trongsa. There are no geogs classified as vulnerable in Tsirang and Dagana. Table 1 provides and overview of vulnerable geogs by district in the project.

10

Table 1: Vulnerable geogs by district in project areaNo. District Vulnerable

GeogsNo. District Vulnerable Geogs

1 Chhukha Getena, Metap 4 Tsirang2 Dagana 5 Wangduephodrang Athang, Daga3 Trongsa Nubi, Korphu 6 Zhemgang Phangkhar, Bardoh,

Bjoka, Goshing, Shingkhar

Source: Poverty Assessment & Analysis Report (2000), Planning Commission, RGOB

3.2 Overview of the Project Area The six dzongkhags proposed for the project have a total area of approximately 11,801 km2, covering most of the central part of the country. There are altogether 62 geogs in these dzongkhags, with a total population of 15,065 rural households. Wangduephodrang is the largest dzongkhag (4,038 km2) and Tsirang is the smallest (639 km2) while Chhukha is the most populated dzongkhag (3,291 rural households) and Trongsa the least populated (1,073 rural households). Area under arable agriculture land ranges from a low of 2.3 per cent in Wangduephodrang to a high of 21.7 per cent in Tsirang. The total livestock population is approximately 130,800 with cattle being the most predominant. Chhukha has the highest number of livestock (32,720) while Trongsa has the lowest (13,126). Livestock population density is highest at 34.5 heads/ km2 in Tsirang and lowest at 6.6 heads/ km2 in Zhemgang.

3.2.1 Dzongkhag Profiles

a. Chhukha Dzongkhag

Chhukha is made up of one dungkhag and 11 geogs. The dungkhag is Phuentsholing and the geogs are Bhalujhora, Jabcho, Bongo, Chapchha, Dala, Dungna, Geling, Getena, Logchina, Metekha, and Phuenstholing. There are 3,291 rural households, with an estimated total population of 23,000.

The dzongkhag covers an area of about 1,802 km2 with elevations ranging from 200 to over 3,500 masl, with nearly 85 per cent of the area being below 3,000 masl Chhukha is also one of the highly industrialized dzongkhags, with industrial estates in Gedu, Tala, Pasakha and Phuentsholing. The last mentioned is the commercial hub and the second largest town of the country. The dzongkhag is also to home to Bhutan Board Private Limited, perhaps the biggest wood-based industry in the country.

According to the Poverty Assessment & Analysis Report (2000) all the geogs except Chapcha Geog have incomes near the national average. Chapcha’s income is above the national average. Primary school enrolment rates are near the national average in most of the Geogs with Getena and Jabcho having primary school enrolment rates below average and Darla Geog above the national average. Similarly adult literacy rates are near the national average in most of the Geogs except for Jabcho and Phuntsholing geogs where the adult literacy rates are above the national average. The only Geog in this dzongkhag that does not have a health facility is Bhalujora since it is located close to Phuntsholing. Except for Jabcho, Chapcha, Bhalujora and Darla Geogs all the other Geogs are situated more than 8 hours walk from the nearest hospital.

b. Dagana Dzongkhag11

To the east of Chhukha is Dagana. It is one of the remotest dzongkhags in the country and is made up of 11 geogs. These geogs are Dorona, Drujegang, Gesarling, Goshi, Kana, Khebisa, Lajab, Trashiding, Tsangkha, Tsendagang, and Tseza, There are 2,448 rural households, with an estimated total population of 17,100.

The total area of the dzongkhag is approximately 1,389 km2, with elevation ranging from 600 to over 3,800 masl. The dzongkhag is one of the least developed in the country as a result of rugged terrain and poor access conditions.

All Geogs have incomes near the national average. Primary school enrolment rates are near the national average in all the Geogs. Similarly adult literacy rates are near the national average in all the Geogs. All Geogs in this dzongkhag have health facilities. While Tseza and Laja Geogs are situated between 3 to 8 hours walk from the nearest hospital, the other Geogs are located up to 3 hours walk from the nearest hospital.

c. Trongsa Dzongkhag

In the center of the country is Trongsa with an area of 1,807 km2. It consists of five geogs: Dragteng, Korphu, Langthi, Nubi, and Tangsibji. There are total of 1,073 rural households with an estimated population of about 7,500 living in the dzongkhag.

With the exception of Tangsibji geog all the other geogs have incomes below the national average. Primary school enrolment rates are near the national average in other geogs except for Nubi and Korphu geogs where the primary school enrolment rates are below average. Adult literacy rates are below the national average in all the Geogs. All Geogs in this dzongkhag have health facilities. Korphu and Drakteng are the only Geogs located between 3 to 8 hours walk from the nearest hospital. While, the other Geogs are located up to 3 hours walk from the nearest hospital.

d. Tsirang Dzongkhag

In terms of area, Tsirang is the second smallest dzongkhag in the country and the smallest in the project area. With an area of about 639 km2, the dzongkhag has 12 geogs: Beteni, Chanaute, Dunglegang, Gairigaun, Goseling, Kikhorthang, Mendrelgang, Patale, Phutenchhu, Semjong, Tshokhana, and Tsirangdangra, There are 2,844 rural households in this geog, with an estimated total population of about 19,900.

All geogs have incomes near the national average. Primary school enrolment rates above the national average in all Geogs. Adult literacy rates are below the national average in Patale, Phuntenchu, Tsirangdara, Semjong, Dunglagang and Goseling Geogs. All Geogs in this dzongkhag have health facilities. Patale and Phuntenchu are located between 3 to 8 hours walk from the nearest hospital. The other Geogs are located up to 3 hours walk from the nearest hospital.

e. Wangduephodrang Dzongkhag

The second largest dzongkhag in the country in terms of area, Wangduephodrang has a total area of approximately 4,038 km2. It has 15 geogs: Athang, Bjena, Daga, Dangchu, Gangte, Gasetsho-gom, Gasetsho-om, Kazhi, Nahi, Nyisho, Phangyuel, Phobji, Ruepaisa, Sephu, and Thedtsho. There are 3,264 rural households, making up an estimated total population of 22,800.

12

All geogs have incomes near the national average except for Athang, Daga and Sephu, which have incomes below the national average. Primary school enrolment rates are near the national average in all geogs except for Athang, Bjena and Kazhi geogs where the primary school enrolment rates are below the national average. Adult literacy rates are below the national average in all geogs except for Dangchu geog where they are near the national average. All geogs in this dzongkhag have health facilities. Dangchu, Sephu and Gangtey are located between 3 to 8 hours walk from the nearest hospital. The other geogs are located up to 3 hours walk from the nearest hospital.

f. Zhemgang Dzongkhag

Zhemgang has a total area of about 2,126 km2. The dzongkhag is made up of one dungkhag (municipal area) and seven geogs. The dungkhag is Panbang and the geogs are Bardo, Bjoka, Ngangla, Nangkor, Phangkhar, Shingkhar, and Trong. There are 2,145 rural households, making up a population of about 15,000.

All geogs have incomes below the national average. Primary school enrolment rates are near the national average in all geogs. Adult literacy rates are below the national average and all geogs in this dzongkhag have health facilities. Except for Nangkor and Trong geogs all the other geogs are located more than 8 hours walk from the nearest hospital.

13

4. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND Analysis of Participatory Geog Planning & Implementation

4.1 Rationale

Stakeholders include the various groups who have an interest or stake in the project. They include those who are likely to be affected by the project, as well as those who may have influence over the project. Stakeholders have been identified through answering the following questions:

Who are the potential beneficiaries? Who may be adversely impacted? Have vulnerable groups been identified? Have supporters and opponents to the project been identified?

To answer these questions, key stakeholders have been categorized as primary and secondary. Primary stakeholders include: beneficiaries, poor and vulnerable groups, adversely impacted people (people losing land, homes, assets or livelihoods), and MOA. Secondary stakeholders include: interest groups such as local NGOs, CBOs and community representatives, as well as other RGOB departments, including the departments of planning, land survey, roads and the National Environment Commission.

To identify social impacts and any issues arising out of the current practices adopted for geog planning and implementation detailed consultations were carried out in all six districts where first year subprojects are planned with both primary and secondary stakeholders. The main objectives of these consultations was to: (i) identify social impacts and issues; (ii) discuss the project with beneficiary communities and seek their views and perceptions; (iii) review the extent to which geog members participated in the preparation of geog plans and continue to be involved in their implementation; (iv) review the extent of which vulnerable groups in these communities participated in the preparation of the geog plans and will be involved in their implementation; and (iv) review current procedures and mechanisms for voluntary land donations. Table 2 identifies the districts, geogs and villages where stakeholder consultations were carried out.

Table 2: Sub-projects visited by Dzongkhag and geogDistrict Geog Village Sub-projectChukha Chapcha Komo Farm road

Chapcha Paga Farm roadDagana Drujegang Pangserbu Power-tiller track

Khebisa Gibsa Farm roadTrongsa Drakten Tashidingkha Farm road

Nubi Bjee Farm roadTsirang Kikorthang Kikorthang RNR Center

Beteni Bhulkey RNR CenterWangdue Ruipisa Palukha Farm road

Nahi Tashitsawa Farm roadZhemgang Trong Tama Irrigation canal

Nangkor Tali Irrigation canal

14

4.2 Methodology and Consultation Strategy

Three teams of two qualified professionals and a facilitator carried out geog/village consultations. Focus group discussions were conducted with a cross-section of men and women in the community, including people who may be affected by loss of land and those who had previous experience with voluntarily donating land. Separate consultations were carried out with vulnerable community members including, women heading households, the most poor, farmers with marginal land and the landless. The key aim of these interviews was to specifically understand the views and concerns of vulnerable community members and ascertain whether they had participated in the preparation of the 9th FYP, and would continue to be involved in its implementation. For individual interviews the respondents were identified in consultation with the tshogpa (community representative). Vulnerable community members were chosen based on the size of their landholding, food security, livelihoods and women whose husbands had expired or who had been divorced and were responsible for the management of the household. People who had contributed land to previous projects or whose lands might be affected by DRDP were identified during consultations. A detailed summary of community consultations is presented in Annex 2 and a list/description of consultation participants in Annex 3. Table 3 lists the types of people who participated in the focus group discussions. Out of the total participants in the focus group discussions, 41% were women. Table 3: No of participants in consultations in selected DRDP Year 1 sub-projectsVillage Participants in Focus

Group discussionsRespondents in Individual interviews

Men Women Women headed

Land affected Poor householdsMen Women Men Women

Komo 5 5 2 0 4 2 0Paga 4 2 2 2 0 1 2Pangserbu 2 9 0 0 0 0 2Gibsa 3 8 3 0 0 0 2Tashidingkha 4 3 1 2 1 0 3Bjee 4 3 2 1 1 0 3Kikorthang 8 3 3 3 0 2 0Beteni 6 1 3 0 0 3 0Palukha 5 3 3 0 0 2 0Tashitsawa 7 3 3 0 0 1 2Tama 4 4 3 0 2 0 3Tali 5 4 1 1 2 3 0Total 57 48 26 9 10 14 17

4.3 Summary of Key Findings and Conclusions

From the geogs and villages visited during the consultations, it is evident that in preparation of the 9 FYP, planning of village activities by the villagers themselves for their own benefit at the local level had occurred. Only in the case of Dagana and Tsirang were meetings convened in the manner of a geog-level meeting during which farmers had to submit and prioritize their development needs under the chairpersonship of the Dzongda. In the rest of the communities, village-centered local discussions organized by the tshogpa, had been carried out mostly at his residence, or in a common facility like a ORC or the temple, to determine development activities for the next five years prioritized locally and then submitted to the geog administration for further prioritization. The existing practice is to have one adult

15

representative from each household to any meeting conducted by village members or by visiting government officials. Therefore, depending upon their availability, men and women could participate on behalf of their household. In this way, all households irrespective of their social and economic status in rural society are represented. Women generally tended to be more passive participants in planning or any other meetings. Even during the consultations women tended not to express their views and only with some patience and cajoling did they articulate their views.

The 9 FYP has been prepared from the grass roots upwards. The main facilitator of development, the government, is also a learner and the challenge appears to be capacity building and attitudinal changes in not only staff working at the grass-roots level but also farmers alike. Allocation of adequate time and resources for consultative activities and use of more participatory approaches could improve planning, implementation and monitoring and evaluation of activities in rural areas. Another limitation noted is the sharing and communication of information by GYT and even tshogpas to villagers. People hardly recall the activities proposed by their villages but they also seemed unaware of activities approved and rejected even two years into the 9 FYP. Information is critical for enhancing the quality of participation.

For the activities planned and due to be implemented in the course of the 9 FYP, in inquiring about the mode of participation of the villagers, the overwhelming response is that they could participate by contributing labor. This has been the conventional way people involve themselves in rural development in Bhutan. In the DRDP, concerted efforts will be made to institute participatory planning and implementation. This process is already structured in the manuals for irrigation scheme development. Efforts have to be expended for facilitating participation in farm roads and power tiller roads. In the planning meetings facilitators should be attentive to ensure the participation of poorer households and women.

Impacts of the Development activity

For farmers due to receive assistance from farm roads and power-tiller roads, the benefits are obvious. As villages slowly move from subsistence to market economies, this process can be hastened by rural access. Farmers already foresee immense impact on their cash income sources with bright prospects to market their vegetables, fruits and livestock products to local and regional markets. The farm roads could also improve access to social services – namely health and education - and facilitate the transportation of materials for other rural infrastructure development. Irrigation channels if effectively managed and used could enhance crop production and food security for farmers who currently manage food shortages by purchases of rice in the leaner months of the year. RNR Centers bring the knowledge base and inputs on improved crop, animal and forest husbandry practices nearer to farmers and farms contributing to more effective and efficient implementation of agricultural activities.

Farmers too expect that benefits will be encompassing in that both well off and poorer farmers would benefit.

Land is the most important asset for farmers. From the consultations it is evident that the land of some farmers, depending on the chosen alignment of farm roads and power-tiller tracks, would be impacted where surveys have taken place. For linear development projects like farm roads and power-tiller tracks farmers view the amount of land potentially impacted as

16

minimal. With progressing fragmentation of land holdings owing to inheritance compounded by possible land-take by developmental activities, the limited landholdings of farmers are under pressure. Most farmers, in anticipation of future benefit to themselves and the community at large, even though their land would be affected, are not averse to voluntarily contributing land.

Some of the farmers consulted are aware of present practices and procedures, including obligation of communities to assure voluntary contribution of affected land to developmental activities they themselves had initiated by submitting requests in the 9 FYP. Others seem less informed simply because they had not been confronted with such an eventuality in earlier development projects. Those who had faced such a situation, and where the process had been mismanaged, appear dissatisfied with the lack of consultations and compensation as well as differential application of compensation.

In the villages visited for consultations, very few farmers expect any impacts to property and livelihoods. In villages where a survey had been carried out, the most negative social impact appeared to be loss of small parcels of orchard land and land used for the productions of cash corps. Land being a precious resource for poorer farmers, the loss of even a small plot could potentially have repercussions for household food security and cash income.

Voluntary land contribution

Developmental activities locally initiated for e.g. irrigation channels, farm roads, drinking water systems, electricity, ORCs, and community schools, villagers whose land and property would be affected are informed through the geog and community leaders. The issue is discussed in a village meeting and the affected person’s consent to voluntarily contribute land for the activity is solicited. On agreement, the decision is delivered to the Dzongkhag Administration in the form of a genja, which spells out, that the affected person would not seek compensation for land lost to the activity. People usually agree to voluntarily donate land for the following reasons:

(a) The benefits of the development activity, outweigh impacts from minor land loss, as well as familiarity with previous situations where fellow farmers had voluntarily contributed land for the benefits that positively impacted the entire village;

(b) In the absence of compensation from the government and if the community realizes that the affected person has very little land and if poor, they come up with compensatory measures like land or cash compensation or exemption of labor contribution for the construction of the development facility.

The process of voluntary land contribution followed in various dzongkhags and communities appears consistent with minor variations. In the survey, the land for the facility is identified. The owner is then identified. If land is government owned there is no issue. If private land is to be acquired, the owner is notified by the sector through the geog administration and the community leader. In a village meeting, the requirement for land is announced and the owner requested to contribute the land. If the owner agrees, all the community members sign a genja and the document is forwarded to the Dzongkhag.

It was learned during the consultations that the record of land contribution for past projects of other sectors shows that in some projects land loss was documented by the dzongkhag. Most villagers knew who lost land either because it was discussed in a community meeting or they

17

recognized who lost land once the facility came up. Contrastingly, some government sectors in some cases had not consulted with affected persons. Nor had they given notice or compensation for the land to those affected. Compensation for persons losing land for the same facility also appears not to be consistent. Such actions lead to disillusionment.

Vulnerable groupsSeparate consultations were carried out in these communities with vulnerable people, including women and women headed households, the most poor, farmers with marginal land holdings and the landless to determine the extent of their participation in the preparation of the 9th FYP geog plans, and to ascertain their views and perceptions about the project. A total of 76 vulnerable people were consulted. Out of these, 53 (70%) were women. From these consultations it appears that all households irrespective of their social and economic status were represented in the preparation of 9th FYP geog plans. The practice to have one adult representative from each household participate in determining development activities for the next five years was generally confirmed. Site visits also concluded that there were no social groups present in these communities with a social and cultural identity distinct from the dominant society that makes them vulnerable to being disadvantaged in the development process. The policy requirements of the World Bank’s Operational Directive 4.20 on Indigenous Peoples to ensure the participation of indigenous and vulnerable groups in decision making throughout the planning and implementation phases of the subprojects, and that these groups are provided assistance in accordance to their priorities are addressed by the design of the project.

Conclusions

The needs and priorities of these communities (i.e. farm roads, power tiller roads and irrigation canals) have been adequately reflected through local geog plans in the 9th FYP. Community members identified enhanced livelihoods through sale of farm produce, increase in crop yields, improved access to social services and easier access to agriculture technology as positive social impacts of the project. The most negative social impact identified by community members was the potential for loss of small parcels of land to project interventions. However, according to a majority of stakeholders consulted, the benefits of the project out weigh impacts from minor losses of land. There was broad consensus in all these communities that land acquired by the project would be voluntarily donated. The informal and formal procedures for voluntary land donation were viewed by these community members as generally satisfactory and working well, expect in a few instances where people affected by the land acquisition were not consulted nor compensated. No major negative impacts were anticipated through loss of large parcels of land, assets, livelihoods and relocation during project implementation.

Based on the outcomes of these consultations it is clear that further action needs to be taken to: (i) develop clear procedures for the voluntary donation of land and ensure that any voluntary land donation transactions are carried out in transparent manner and satisfactorily documented; (ii) define the policy, institutional and implementation framework to guide the compensation for loss of land and assets and ensure that no person’s land is acquired without proper consultation and compensation; (iii) develop mechanisms to foster greater participation of more passive members of the community, including women and vulnerable groups; (iii) develop clear procedures for disseminating information about the project to all affected communities and provide a feedback mechanism for these communities to voice their concerns and address these concerns during project implementation. The Resettlement

18

Policy Framework (RPF) presents mechanisms to address these issues, monitor the effectiveness of these approaches and make modifications to strengthen them as and when required during project implementation. More specifically, to facilitate community outreach and project information dissemination, as well as to enhance the knowledge of communities about entitlements to mitigate adverse social impacts, an information pamphlet in the local language summarizing the key principles of voluntary land donations and entitlements presented in the RPF, will be distributed to each village impacted by project interventions . Furthermore, a simple operational manual in dzongka will be prepared and made available to district and geog administrators to clearly detail the process steps that need to be followed to ensure the effective implementation of the RPF. Social impact management training modules are being prepared and will be delivered early in project implementation to build capacity at the geog and dzongkhag levels.

19

20

5. POLICIES, REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES

5.1 RGOB’s Land Act & Regulations

The policies and regulations for land acquisition in the Kingdom of Bhutan, are defined in the Land Act (1979) in conjunction with the Land Compensation Rates (1996). Key provisions of the Land Act include:

Land must be registered in the Thram (Chazag Thram). Changes in the thram must be carried out in accordance with the Act.

The Government can requisition any land if its is deemed to be in the national interest of the country (Ka.6.9b)

As far as possible the Government shall give substitute land instead of cash compensation. (Ka6(9B)

In the event of acquisition of land in rural areas, in case developed land is acquired by the government and is substituted by an undeveloped land, in addition to substitute land, the owner concerned shall be compensated with half the cost of developed land acquired. (Ka6.9C)

Allotment of substitute land shall be from the same Dzongkhag (Ka6.9E).

If a person becomes landless due to the acquisition of land, the government allots, free of cost substitute land.

People whose land is affected are consulted through a Committee formed for the land acquisition.

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

RNR Centers and other facilities requested by people of a certain geog are location specific and would have to be located in that geog. So, if government land is not available in the geog, private land will have to be acquired. However, if a person’s land is acquired, the person can identify land anywhere (even in another geog) in the dzongkhag not necessarily in the geog the person resides in.

Cash compensation, is paid according to current rates stipulated in the Land Compensation Rate (1996) for farm land namely and outlined in Table 4.

Table 4: Compensation rates (in Nu.) by farmland typeType of land COMPENSATION

RATE PER ACRE (IN NGU.)

Dzongkha English

Chhuzhing Wet land Nu. 35,00021

Kamzhing Dry land Nu. 20,000Tseri/Pangzhing Shifting cultivation plots Nu. 5,000Tsamdo Pasture land Nu. 200

Source: Pg.4, Land Compensation Rates, 1996

Fruit trees growing on acquired land are compensated at rates calculated by including the cost of land preparation, pit digging, seedling, fertilizer, planting and weeding. Compensation rates for fruit trees if damaged are listed in Table 5.

Table 5: Compensation rates (in Nu.) for fruit by type and age in number of years

YearsAge of trees (in number of years)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Apple 121 196 346 421 496 821 1021 1221 1221Orange 130 233 336 439 542 589 639 739 839Walnut 177 278 379 480 581 682 781 881 981Arecanut 43 81 109 161 241 281 321 321 321Peach 124 217 310 373 416 423 523 623 623Pear 98 178 258 338 418 498 578 618 718Plum 105 194 283 372 461 550 611 711 761Apricot 124 213 302 391 480 569 630 780 780Cardamom 7.40 8.40 9.40 10.40 11.40 15.40 16.40 17.40 18.40Lemon 89 189 289 339 364 364 414 464 464Jackfruit 162 274 386 498 610 722 834 896 934Avocado 106 186 266 336 426 456 476 476 526Lime 73 113 153 193 203 213 233 253 303Litchi 155 267 379 491 603 665 677 715 765Guava 93 144 195 246 297 298 321 396 396Mango 121 256 391 526 661 796 931 946 1596Banana 57 87 117 187 187 187 187 187 187Papaya 60 75 90 95 95 95 105 105 115P/granate 72 134 196 258 290 312 328 352 352Olive 114 234 354 474 594 714 834 914 1114

In accordance with the provisions of the Land Act, privately owned land is acquired through the following process:

A Dzongkhag Land Acquisition Committee is established to review the land acquisition application. The Committee consists of the following members:

1. Ministry of Home Affairs represented by the Dzongdag who is also the Chairman of the Land Acquisition Committee Meeting.

2. Ministry of Finance represented by the Dzongkhag Finance Officer.3. Ministry of Agriculture represented by the

Dzongkhag Agriculture Officer Divisional Forest Officer Dzongkhag Land Record Officer.

4. Department of Urban Housing & Development represented by Dzongkhag Engineer.5. The concerned Municipality (representative is required only in the event of acquisitions

within the Municipalities)6. Gup (chief geog administrator).

22

In considering the application the Dzongkhag Land Acquisition Committee examines the following:

Identification of substitute land. Clearance from the Department of Forest if the land is in the Government Reserved

Forest. Consultations with people in the area where the land is to be acquired. Cash compensation amount proposed in accordance with prescribed compensation rates. Exploration of alternate land agriculture land if it is to be acquired. Consultation with the individual owner on the size of his land holding and land to be

acquired and how such a proposal would affect him in terms of his livelihood. Efforts to conserve the arable land in line with the government’s policy of food self-

sufficiency.

The Dzongkhag Land Acquisition Committee’s review and recommendations are forwarded to the Department of Survey and Land Records (DSLR). The DSLR verifies the findings and recommendations of the Dzongkhag Committee, consolidates the documents, which are then presented to the Satshab Allotment Committee.

The Satshab Allotment Committee constituting of the following members approves or rejects the land acquisition application.

1. The Honorable Minister, Ministry of Agriculture (Chairperson).2. The Secretary, Ministry of Home and Cultural Affairs (member)3. The Secretary, Ministry of Works and Human Settlement (member)4. The Director, Department of Legal Affairs (member)5. The Surveyor General, Department of Survey and Land Records (member)

The Satshab Allotment Committee’s approval or rejection of the land acquisition is based on the following:

Proposed acquisition is for the development purposes. Acquisition of private registered lands approved only under unavoidable circumstances. Land Acquisition raising any doubt or suspicion of conflict of interest either by an

individual or group shall not be approved. Acquisitions of large areas beyond the actual requirement (except for expansion of

schools) or without proper justification shall not be approved. Land acquisition will take place only after fulfilling the Satshab (substitute land)

allotment procedures.

23

The DSLR conveys the decision of the Satshab Allotment Committee to the Dzongkhags. An overview of the land acquisition procedure is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Process for land acquisition

5.2 Land ownership and tenure

The Land Act outlines land legislation provisions for land acquisition, ownership, exchange, and sale. In villages farmers can own various types of land. Typically, they own chhuszing, kamszhing, tseri, orchards and plantations, sokshing, tsamdrog. Any transaction involving land is processed through a court of law. The maximum landholding an individual can own is 25 acres. An individual owning less than 5 acres of land is allowed to sell land.

Different forms of land tenure prevail in villages. While owner-operated systems are most common, villagers with large parcels of land may lease out land to sharecroppers if they are unable to cultivate their lands due to manpower shortage or if they reside outside the village in other Geogs or even dzongkhags. Sharecropping arrangements are entered into every year or an agreement made for several years on the mutual understanding of the landowner and the sharecropper. Produce is divided equally between tenant and landlord. Alternative sharecropping arrangement entails the tenant taking two-thirds of the produce if inputs, plough oxen and labor for irrigation canal maintenance is mobilized entirely by the tenant. There is also an arrangement wherein the sharecropper, irrespective of the produce from the land, is required to submit a pre-fixed quantity of grain at harvest time.

5.3 The World Bank’s Policy on Involuntary Resettlement PolicyKey objectives of the World Bank’s policy on involuntary land acquisition are:

Avoid or minimize involuntary resettlement where feasible, exploring all viable alternative project designs.

Assist displaced persons in improving their former living standards, income earning capacity, and production level, or at least in restoring them.

Encourage community participation in planning and implementing resettlement. Provide assistance to affected people regardless of the legality of land tenure.

The policy covers not only physical relocation, but also any loss of land or other assets

24

Applicant: AnyGovernment Agency

Local Community Dzongkhag Land Acquisition Committee

DzongkhagAdministration

Department of Survey & Land Records

Satshab (Substitute Land)Allotment Committee

resulting in: Relocation or loss of shelter. Loss of assets or access to assets. Loss of income sources or means of livelihood whether or not the affected people

must move to another location.

When the policy is triggered, a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) must be prepared. An abbreviated plan may be developed when less than 200 people are affected by the project. In situations, where all the precise impacts are not known at project preparation, as is the case for DRDP, a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) is prepared. The RAP/RPF must ensure that all the Bank’s policy provisions detailed in OP 4.12 are addressed particularly the payment of compensation for affected assets at their replacement cost.

5.4 Comparison of RGOB and World Bank Policies

Table 6 presents a comparison of the core principles of RGOB and World Bank policies and presents recommendations to bridge identified policy gaps.

25

Table 6: Comparison of RGOB and World Bank Policies on Entitles for Land Acquisition, Gaps and RecommendationsType of Impact Entitlement Unit RGOB Policy World Bank Policy Recommendations to Bridge GapsA. LAND

Loss of private Land

Families, households If landowner has other land holdings in Bhutan cash compensation at government established Land Compensation Rates (1996); or replacement land within the same Dzongkhag identified by the affected landholder.

If land acquired by government is substituted with undeveloped land , landowner compensated with half the cost of land.

Families who become landless as a result of land acquisition allotted land as per provisions of the Land Act of 1979, KA-6(9A).

Compensation at full replacement cost.

For agriculture land pre-project or pre-displacement, which ever is higher, market value of land of equal productive potential within the same vicinity.

For urban land, pre-displacement market value of land of equal size and use, with similar facilities and sources within the same vicinity.

Replacement land of equivalent productive potential.

Cash compensation equivalent to the amount as per Land Acquisition Act; andResettlement allowance in cash equivalent to the difference between compensation as per the Land Act and full replacement value as per current values in the same vicinity, plus value of all land transaction fees and charges.

Families who become landless allotted land as per provisions of the Land Act.

Non-title holder (squatters and encroachers)

No compensation or assistance. Resettlement assistance in lieu of compensation for land occupied (land, cash, other assets, employment) to at least restore their livelihoods and standards of living to pre-displacement levels.

Resettlement assistance to those most vulnerable to restore pre-displacement level livelihoods. Vulnerable groups may include but not be limited to: poor or landless, women headed households, disabled and elderly.

Encroachers will not be entitled to any compensation for their affected unauthorized/illegal extensions over public land. Vulnerable encroachers with economic losses may be entitled to assistance as a vulnerable group.

B. HOMES/STRUCTURES

26

Families, households, structure owners

Compensation in accordance with BSR (Bhutan Schedule of Rates), including depreciation. BSR rates are usually updated every 3 years by Department of Roads. The last update was in 2001. BSR rates are slightly higher (by approximately 5%) than market rates because they include cost of material, labor.

Compensation at full replacement cost. For houses and structures the market cost of the materials and labor to build a replacement structure of a similar quality or better than the affected structure.

Cash compensation equivalent to the amount as per BSR rates. To ensure compensation is at replacement cost, additional resettlement assistance in cash equivalent to cover depreciation over and above compensation amounts determined based on the BSR.

C. ECONOMICASSETS

Families, households Compensation at full replacement cost.

Compensate and replace lost assets at the their replacement cost.Compensation for perennial crops and trees calculated as annual net product value multiplied by number of years for new crop to start producing.Compensation in cash for lost standing crop.

D. INCOME

Affected person, families, households

Allot landless families who suffer partial or total loss of livelihood land free of cost.

Measure to assist affected people in improving their former living standards, income earning capacity, and production levels, or at least restoring them.

Rehabilitation assistance for lost or diminished livelihoods.

In the case of landless families who suffer partial or total loss of livelihood, allotment of land free of cost.

E. Community Resources

Affected communities/families

Measures to assist impacted communities to re-establish or re-develop lost community resources.

Compensation for re-establishing or re-constructing lost community resources such as religious and cultural structures.

27

5.5 Recommendations

The results of this policy review and agreement between the World Bank and RGOB on recommendations to bridge identified policy gaps, as presented in Table 6, formed the underlying basis for developing a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) including a policy matrix to compensate/mitigate losses resulting from project interventions. Specifically, the RPF defines these guidelines and mitigation strategies, including modalities for voluntary and involuntary land acquisition and resettlement that will be applicable to DRDP.

28

6. Resettlement policy framework

6.1 Description and Objectives

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

The RPF defines the legal, institutional and implementation framework to guide the compensation for lost assets, livelihoods, community property, and resettlement and rehabilitation of project affected people in accordance with the World Bank’s Operational Policy 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement and RGOB guidelines and legislation. Key provisions of RGOB’s Land Act (1979) and the World Bank’s policy were compared, policy gaps identified and recommendations made to address these gaps. This review formed the underlying basis of developing the RPF, especially the policy matrix for entitlements for losses suffered under the project. The RPF will be applicable to all subprojects funded under DRDP.

Stakeholder consultations and social screening during the feasibility stage of each subproject will identify and categorize the level of impacts and what modalities need to be followed, including those for voluntary land donations and compensation/entitlements for involuntary land acquisition and other defined losses to the project.

6.2 Social Screening

To assess the precise nature and magnitude of social impacts, social screening will be carried out as part of the feasibility studies for each subproject. To ensure consistency in the application of social screening criteria across different sectors (irrigation channels, farm roads) a standard social screening format, presented in Annex 4 has been prepared which builds upon the current NEC and the Department of Agriculture (DOA) environmental screening guidelines and includes:

Loss of land. Loss of structures. Loss of livelihoods. Impacts on vulnerable groups. Impacts on common community resources. Willingness of communities to volunteer land.

To the extent possible, social and environment screening will be carried out together with technical and economic screening.

Social screening will identify the potential for loss of land, assets/structures, livelihoods, willingness of the community to donate land to the project, and other significant social

29

impacts. Social screening will also enable the categorization of subprojects based on their level of social impacts. Where the extent of adverse social impacts is minor and no displacement or loss of assets or livelihoods is expected, no further action is required. However, where the social screening indicates that land acquisition and/or loss of assets is unavoidable, appropriate resettlement plans will be prepared in accordance with the provisions of the RPF.

6.3 Voluntary Land Donation

DRDP is expected to cause only marginal impacts without major economic or physical loss and displacement. Obtaining land for small rural roads and infrastructure has typically been based on voluntary donations. DRDP envisages the acquisition of almost all lands by voluntary donation where:

The impacts are marginal (based on a loss of up to 10% of productive assets.) Impacts do not result in displacement of households or cause loss of household’s incomes

and livelihoods. The households making voluntary donations are direct beneficiaries of the project. Land donated is free from any dispute on ownership or any other encumbrances. Consultations with the affected households are conducted in a free and transparent

manner. Transfer of titles or Memorandum of Agreement supports land transactions. Proper documentation of consultations, grievances and actions taken to address such

grievances. Remaining assets are not rendered economically unviable. Project affected people are fully aware of required procedures and entitlements defined in

the RPF.

In the event that some households are displaced, vulnerable groups are affected, or where affected households do not wish to donate land, the concerned GYT in consultation with those affected families and communities, will agree upon compensation and suitable assistance to affected households, in accordance with the RPF.

A memorandum of agreement will be established as a means of recording the location and size of land being donated as well as the written consent and names of local witnesses for those community members donating lands voluntarily. It will contain specific provisions to record that the land being donated is free of squatters, encroachers or other claims or encumbrances. These will be recorded in a Memorandum of Agreement, a suggested format for which, is presented in Annex 5.

Different impacts will affect these groups differently, depending on the reason for their vulnerability under the project. The project will pay special attention to these vulnerable groups who will receive targeted support and be provided with more options and support mechanisms as appropriate.

6.4 Involuntary Resettlement and Land Acquisition

If subproject social screening indicates that the acquisition of privately owned land, displacement, and/or loss of livelihoods and assets due to project interventions is

30

unavoidable, mitigation/compensation for these impacts will be guided by the following policy principles and objectives:

Avoid or minimize involuntary resettlement and land acquisition where feasible, exploring all viable alternative project designs.

Assist displaced persons in improving their former living standards, income earning capacity, and production levels, or at least in improving them.

Provide full information and carry out consultations with affected people on resettlement and compensation so that resettlement becomes a participatory process.

Provide assistance to affected people regardless of legality of land tenure.

Applies not only to physical relocation, but loss of any land or other assets resulting in: (i) relocation or loss of shelter; (ii) loss income sources or means of livelihood, whether or not the affected people must move to another location; and (iii) loss of community resources.

Take special measures to protect socially and economic vulnerable groups, such as female headed households, people living in extreme poverty, marginal landowners and the landless.

Provide compensation for acquired land and assets at replacement values.

Compensation for loss of perennial crops and trees calculated as annual net product value multiplied by number of years for new crop to start producing.

Provide replacement residential and agriculture land as close as possible to the land that was acquired by the project and which is acceptable to the affected person.

Synchronize construction schedules with land acquisition to ensure that all land acquisition activities are completed prior to commencement of construction at that site.

Implement subproject resettlement plans after consultations with the affected people.

Ensure that the entire cost of resettlement or other social development programs are included in the subproject and budgeted in the annual and overall implementation plans of the project.

Establish adequate institutional arrangements to ensure the effective and timely monitoring of all social impacts.

Establish effective mechanisms for hearing, recording and resolving grievances.

31

6.5 Eligibility Criteria

The following groups of people are entitled to compensation and assistance under the project:

Project Affected People includes any person or persons or households who because of project activities would have their: (i) standard of living adversely affected; (ii) legally recognized title, or interest in any house, land (including residential, agricultural and grazing land) or any other moveable or fixed assets acquired or possessed, in full or in part, permanently or temporarily, and; iii)place of work or residence or habitat adversely affected, with or without displacement.

Project Affected Families. All members of a project affected household residing under one roof and operating as a single economic unit, who are adversely affected by the project or any of its components. For resettlement purposes, affected persons will be considered as members of affected households.

Squatters. People who are occupying land in violation of the laws of Bhutan are not entitled to compensation for loss of land under this policy. However, if such people have uninterrupted possession of land for at least one year prior to the census, they are entitled to resettlement assistance if displaced. All displaced persons are entitled to compensation for loss of assets other than land, in particular, structures and crops.

Encroachers. People who have trespassed into RGOB/private/community land to which they are not authorized.

Marginal farmer. A farmer whose land holding is less than .5 hectare.

Landless/Agricultural Laborer. A person who hold not agricultural land himself or jointly with any family member. Persons who work as agricultural laborers will be also be placed under this category.

Vulnerable Groups. Distinct groups of people who are socially distressed or economically backward and who might suffer disproportionately from resettlement effects. These include, but are not limited to the following: women headed households, people living below the poverty line, marginal land owners, landless, agricultural laborers, and the disabled and elderly.

For adverse impacts on community facilities (i.e. places of worship) no financial compensation will be paid directly to individual persons or groups. MOA will rebuild the affected facilities or provide alternatives in consultation with user communities.

6.6 Entitlement Policy

The project will provide entitlements to eligible people to mitigate the following impacts: (i) loss of land; (ii) loss of homes/structures; (iii) loss of economic assets including perennial crops and trees; loss of income; (iv) loss of community resources; and (v) temporary losses. The specific entitlements provided to mitigate these losses are presented in the following Entitlement Matrix (Table 7). This entitlement policy is applicable to each DRDP subproject and accommodates the provisions of the RPF and the laws of Bhutan.

32

Table 7: Entitlement Policy MatrixType of Impact Entitlement Unit Entitlement ResponsibilityA. LAND

Loss of private Land Affected person/families Cash compensation equivalent to the amount as per Land Acquisition Act; and Resettlement allowance in cash equivalent to the difference between compensation as per the Land Act and full replacement value as per current values in the same vicinity, plus value of all land transaction fees and charges.

Families who become landless allotted land as per provisions of the Land Act.

Dzongkhag in collaboration with the MOA.

Dzongkhag in collaboration with the MOA and Land Satshab Committee

Vulnerable groups and non-title holder (squatters and encroachers)

Resettlement assistance to those most vulnerable to restore pre-displacement level livelihoods. Vulnerable groups may include but not be limited to: poor or landless, women headed households, disabled and elderly.

Encroachers will not be entitled to any compensation for their affected unauthorized/illegal extensions over public land. Vulnerable encroachers with economic losses may be entitled to assistance as a vulnerable group.

Dzongkhag in collaboration with the MOA.

B. HOMES/STRUCTURES

Affected person/families Cash compensation equivalent to the amount as per BSR rates. To ensure compensation at replacement value, resettlement assistance in cash equivalent to cover depreciation over and above compensation determined on the basis of BSR rates.

Dzongkhag in collaboration with the MOA.

33

C. ECONOMIC ASSETSAffected person/families Compensate and replace lost assets at the their

replacement cost.Compensation for perennial crops and trees calculated as annual net product value multiplied by number of years for new crop to start producing.Compensation in cash for lost standing crop.

Dzongkhag in collaboration with the MOA.

D. INCOMEAffected person/ families Rehabilitation assistance for lost or diminished

livelihoods.

In the case of landless families who suffer partial or total loss of livelihood, allotment of land free of cost.

Dzongkhag in collaboration with the MOA.

E. Community ResourcesAffected institution/community Compensation for re-establishing or re-

constructing lost community resources such as religious and cultural structures or providing alternatives in consultation with affected communities.

Dzonghkag in collaboration with MOA.

F. Temporary LossesAffected person/families Cash compensation/transition allowance. Dzongkhag in collaboration with MOA

34

6.7 Subproject Resettlement Action Plans

To the extent possible, the project will consider alternative engineering designs to minimize adverse social impacts and land acquisition. Where the social screening indicates that land acquisition and/or loss of assets is unavoidable, a subproject Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) will be prepared for which the RPF provides overarching guidance on principles and procedures. Subproject RAPs will include the following:

Project and subproject description. Description of subproject losses and impacts. Baseline survey and census data. Policy entitlements related to impacts identified through the survey or census and

presented in a subproject specific entitlement matrix. Time-bound implementation plan. Costs and budgets.

Subproject RAPs will be prepared at the planning and design stage and submitted to the World Bank for review three months before the data of initiation of any land acquisition.

6.8 Implementation Process

During project implementation, resettlement will be coordinated with the timing of the civil works. The project will provide adequate notification and assistance to affected people so they are able to move without undue hardship before the commencement of civil works.

In the case of land acquisition, the procedures will follow the provisions of the Land Act, and the RPF. The subproject RAP after its approval by RGOB and the World Bank, will be translated into the local language and made available in a public place accessible to affected people and other stakeholders. The project will ensure that civil works are not started on any subproject sites before compensation and assistance to the affected population have been provided in accordance with the RPF.

6.9 Grievance Redress Mechanisms

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

35

6.10 Funding Arrangements

All resettlement funding will be through the main project and under the oversight of MOA. Subproject RAP’s shall be prepared during the planning and design phase and include detailed cost estimates based on proposed project interventions. The budget will be approved by GYTs, DYTs, and MOA.

6.11 Consultation/Participation

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

Pre-Planning – disseminate information about proposed project interventions and consultations to identify impacts and issues.

Planning and Design – joint walk through (as is the current practice) and consultations for mitigation and design enhancement measures.

Implementation – regular monitoring for impacts.

Post Implementation – monitoring of post implementation benefits and lessons.

Project affected people/communities will be made fully aware of the principles and guidelines used for project impact mitigation. Involvement of affected communities is crucial in planning and implementing subproject RAPs, when these are required. Preparation of subproject RAPs will be based on detailed consultations with affected people and other stakeholders. Details of these consultations including dates, names of participants, issues raised and how these have been addressed will need to be documented in the subproject RAPs. Grievance redress and community monitoring will also enhance stakeholder participation.

6.12 Monitoring and Evaluation

The monitoring process will examine procedural issues, progress in land acquisition and resettlement, as well as, any critical factors that may have long term impacts on the project. Monitoring will place a specific focus on transparency, participation of project-affected people, especially women and vulnerable groups, effectiveness of the grievance redress process, and income restoration initiatives.

The project will systematically monitor land acquisition based on: (i) process monitoring (e.g. project inputs, expenditures, staff deployment); (ii) output monitoring (e.g. results in terms of number of affected people compensated and resettled); and (iii) impact evaluation (i.e. longer term effect of the project on people’s lives). The broader social monitoring program will also follow these processes. Monitoring of the social aspects of the project will be fully integrated

36

into the broader monitoring program of the project and summarized in quarterly project progress reports for each stage including: baseline and pre-construction monitoring, compliance and impact monitoring and operational monitoring.

With some orientation on the monitoring procedures and indicators, monitoring will be conducted by the geog extension staff, the DAO at the dzongkhag level and the DOA and if necessary with the assistance of skilled social assessment consultant(s) who will be appointed for this purpose. This information will serve to inform MOA about progress and results, and to adjust the work program where necessary if delays or problems arise. The results of this monitoring summarized in reports will be submitted to MOA and IDA on a quarterly basis.

Provisions will be made for participatory monitoring involving project affected people and beneficiaries communities in assessing results and impacts. A detailed description of process, output, and impact indicators is provided in Annex 7.

A Social Development Officer/focal person in MOA, will be responsible for oversight and coordination of land acquisition and resettlement implementation. The Social Development Officer and District Superintendent Engineer will be also responsible for monitoring resettlement activities. These officials will undertake this task quarterly.

37

7. Implementation Arrangements

7.1 Institutional Arrangements

The project is aimed at relying as much as possible on existing RGOB existing policies and procedures. As such, it will be implemented within existing institutional arrangements within MOA and dzongkhag administrations for project preparation and implementation activities.

Implementation arrangements to support social impact management will largely follow normal practices, policies, and procedures. There will be no new project management unit, instead relying on existing institutions. A social development officer in MOA, selected from existing staff and working closely with a Project Coordinator, will be responsible for overseeing the implementation of SA activities. Oversight of the social aspects of the project will be done in close collaboration with geog and dzongkhag administrations and the National Environment Commission. Implementing agencies will be decentralized and essentially comprise the 62 geogs and six dzonkhags in the project area.

Data collection and reporting procedures will follow the existing guidelines as described in the MOA’s Manual for Monitoring and Evaluation. Reporting and will take place at three levels. At the geog level M& E activities will be the responsibility of the GYT and extension agents and summarized in quarterly progress reports, which will also track progress on the social aspects of the subprojects. At the dzongkhag level, the District Planning Officer will be the key individual for collection M & E data, including data relevant for monitoring social impacts. Tracking overall progress of the program will be the responsibility of the MOA/PPD (Policy & Planning Division), which will provide biannual M & E reports, including a section on social impact management to the World Bank.

Many of the decentralized implementation arrangements are new and capacity-building is needed at geog, dzongkhag and MOA levels to effectively implement social impact management activities and if necessary resettlement action plans. The institutional strengthening component of the project will include training to build capacity on social screening, assessment and mitigation. A training needs assessment is planned to identify capacity gaps and accordingly develop training programs. A number of vehicles (one per dzongkhag and one for the DOA) will be procured under the project to increase the mobility of district staff to supervise projects and enable ongoing consultations with communities.

Project implementation will require coordination between different agencies and departments. In line the Environment Act and following the practice of other ministries, MOA will appoint internal suitably qualified staff to provide coordination and oversight on the social aspects of the project. Specifically, the role of Social Development Officer will be to work with geog EAs, DOA and DEC to facilitate and build local capacity on social screening, awareness of social impacts and provide outreach and disseminate information to the EAs and communities. The Terms of Reference for a Social Development Officer are currently being prepared by MOA and will be reviewed by the World Bank and contain the following roles and responsibilities:

Coordinate planning and implementation of DRDP social aspects, including if necessary ARAP’s in accordance the provisions of the SA.

38

Monitor subprojects to ensure the effective implementation of social impact mitigation.

Regularly carry out site visits and consultations with affected communities to assess social impacts, adequacy of mitigation actions, voluntary land donations, participation of community members, especially the most vulnerable in project activities, and transparency in voluntary land donations.

Report progress (in quarterly progress reports) highlighting any new issues and recommendations for addressing these issues and strengthening existing practices in subsequent subprojects.

7.2 Capacity Building

Agricultural extension staff at the geog level, DOA, DEC and MOA staff need to be sensitized and trained to identify, mitigate and monitor social impacts. The institutional strengthening component of the project will include training to build capacity in MOA and at the dzongkhag levels on social impact management. A training needs assessment is planned to identify capacity gaps and develop training programs accordingly. Capacity building training will be delivered early in project implementation.

39

8. ANNEXES

Annex 1: Terms of Reference for Social Development Specialist for a Sector Wide (SWAP) Approach

Introduction

Towards its vision of Gross National Happiness, the Royal Government of Bhutan (RGOB) initiated its 9th 5-year Plan in July 2002 and is seeking IDA support for financing local development plans developed at the geog level. Geogs are rural communities that constitute the lowest level of elected government in Bhutan. A remarkable feature of the 9th plan is the process by which it was prepared. RGOB undertook an extensive planning exercise that involved close consultation with 201 geogs (and their constituent village development committees) using a highly participatory and inclusive process. As a result, the priority needs of rural communities are well known (even on the internet), and RGOB is highly committed to meeting them. Consistent with the empowerment approach of the 9th plan, geogs themselves are expected to be responsible for the implementation of their programs.

The objective of the proposed Project is to meet the needs of rural communities in Bhutan through financial and capacity-building support of geog plans. Achievement of this objective is expected to require financing of rural access sub-projects (i.e. farm roads), basic infrastructure, income generation, agricultural productivity, agricultural marketing, and sustainable natural resource management. A secondary objective is to “prime the pump” of fiscal decentralization through efficient resource transfer and capacity-building in local governance at the dzongkhag and geog levels.

Objectives

The objective of the services that form the subject of these TOR are to: (i) review RGOB’s current policies, operational procedures and practices to address and mitigate social issues; (ii) review the World Bank’s social safeguard policies and guidelines and assess the compatibility of the core principles of RGOB’s policies with World Bank policies and identify any gaps; (iii) recommend measures for policy enhancements at the geog, dzongkhag and national levels where necessary; (iv) identify and assess the nature and magnitude of potential social impacts and risks directly associated with the proposed Project; (v) based on a sample review of selected geog plans assess whether they reflect relevant concerns of vulnerable communities, particularly ethnic minorities; and (vi) prepare a project specific Social Assessment Report including options for managing social impacts and risks.

Scope of Work

Review of Bhutan’s Land Acquisition and Social Assessment Policies and Practices. A review of current RGOB policies, procedures and practices relating to land acquisition and social issues and the World’s Bank’s social safeguard policies OP 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement and OD 4.20 on Indigenous Peoples will be carried out to assess the compatibility of the core principles of both sets of policies and identify how to harmonize and address any gaps. The review will identify areas that need modification and strengthening and recommend measures for policy enhancements at the geog, dzongkhag and national levels.

40

Recommendations for policy enhancements where ever possible will be made within the context of the current legal framework in Bhutan and existing procedures and processes.

Review of UNDP/UNCDFs Decentralization Support Program (DSP). The proposed Project builds upon the successful piloting of direct financing to geogs under the UNDP/UNCDF Geog Development Activity Project (GDFA) and follow-on DSP. DSP aims to finance exiting geogs plans based on the model piloted in 5 of the 20 dzongkhags. It will provide gap financing for those areas not covered by other funding sources. In view of this, a review will be carried out of the DSP, particularly of the Geog Participatory Planning component to identify strengths and weakness as well as any lessons learned. Specific emphasis will be placed on the following: (i) effectiveness of the consultative process; (ii) participation of women and vulnerable groups in sub-project selection and implementation; (iii) modalities to address socio-economic, ethnic and linguistic variations between geogs; (iv) adequate capacity at the geog level for community mobilization and conflict resolution; (v) identification of any community contributions based on the voluntary donation of land; (vi) acquisition of any privately owned land for sub-projects; and (vii) adequacy of the institutional arrangements, monitoring and evaluation as well as operation and maintenance mechanisms.

Assessment of Social Impacts and Risks. To facilitate the assessment and management of potential social impacts and risks arising from the proposed Project, a project specific Social Assessment Report will be prepared. The objective of this report is twofold. First, the report will draw upon the lessons learned from DSP and previous pilot and define principles and processes for assessing potential social impacts and risks, including impacts on, benefits to, and the role of local communities in sub-project selection and implementation. It will define implementation, institutional, participatory monitoring and evaluation and community mobilization modalities, as well as special measures to protect and ensure the inclusion of socially and economically vulnerable groups such as female headed families, ethnic and tribal groups, and people living in extreme poverty. Second, the report will specifically identify the extent and types of sub-project social risks and impacts (i.e. elite capture), define appropriate mitigation measures, and if any social safeguard instruments based the guiding principles of RGOB’s and the World Bank’s social safeguard policies will need to be prepared (i.e. the development of a Vulnerable Communities Development Plan).

Voluntary Land Donation. The Final Evaluation Report for the UNCDF’s pilot project indicated that voluntary donation of land was used as one form of community contribution. Although no acquisition of privately owned land is anticipated under the proposed Project, the Social Assessment Report will contain specific criteria for acquisition of land donated voluntarily by each participating community or community household. This will include provisions that any impacts from voluntary land donation do not result in displacement of households, cause any loss to household incomes and livelihoods, and that household making the voluntary donations is direct beneficiaries of the project. The proposed Project should also ensure that the process of voluntary land donation is transparent and appropriately documented.

Impacts on Indigenous and Vulnerable Communities. The results of the social assessment process will identify the presence of ethnic minorities or tribal populations in the project affected area and whether the World Bank’s OD 4.20 on Indigenous Peoples is applicable. If the policy is applicable, rather than prepare separate Vulnerable Communities Development Plans for each geog, the Social Assessment Report will include specific provisions and

41

processes to ensure that issues associated the indigenous peoples and vulnerable groups are adequately addressed and define modalities to ensure their participation in decision making throughout the planning and implementation phases of the Project. Methodology

The consultant will carry out a desk review of relevant RGOB and World Bank policies and guidelines to address social issues, procedures and processes as well as to harmonize these set of policies as discussed above. A desk review will also be carried out of relevant UNCDF GDFA project documentation, including the Final Evaluation Report.

The desk review will be supplemented by a field survey of sample geogs to: (i) determine the extent to which the DSP guidelines, procedures and processes are being applied in practice; (ii) based on small focus group discussions with women, ethnic, tribal and other vulnerable groups to determine the level of their participation in sub-project planning and implementation; (iii) identify the extent to which voluntary land donations are used as a form of community contribution; (iv) identify and assess potential social impacts arising from the proposed Project; and (v) identify all other relevant issues including those described in the scope of work.

The consultant will report to Daniel Sellen (Task Team Leader) and work in close consultation with the World Bank’s Social Development Specialist, Afshan Khawaja.

Output

The consultant will prepare a Social Assessment Report as detailed above.

Time Frame

The consultant will work for approximately 30 days, including participation during the March 25 to April 7 IDA project preparation mission. A Draft Social Assessment Report will be submitted to Daniel Sellen (Task Team Leader) by April 30, 2004.

42

Annex 2: Consultations with Communities on Geog Participatory Planning and

Implementation

Consultations with beneficiaries of sub-projects namely farm roads, irrigation channels, power-tiller tracks and RNR Centers to be constructed in the first year of DRDP were held in selected geogs and villages in all the six districts due to receive assistance between 14 and 21 September 2004. In total eleven geogs and twelve villages were visited. In the table below the districts, geogs and villages visited per sub-project for consultations are listed.

Table 9: Sub-projects visited by Dzongkhag and geogDistrict Geog Village Sub-projectChukha Chapcha Komo Farm road

Chapcha Paga Farm roadDagana Drujegang Pangserbu Power-tiller track

Khebisa Gibsa Farm roadTrongsa Drakten Tashidingkha Farm road

Nubi Bjee Farm roadTsirang Kikorthang Kikorthang RNR Center

Beteni Bhulkey RNR CenterWangdue Ruipisa Palukha Farm road

Nahi Tashitsawa Farm roadZhemgang Trong Tama Irrigation canal

Nangkor Tali Irrigation canal Methodology

Three teams comprising of a facilitator visited two districts each. The communities were pre-informed with notice delivered through the Ministry of Agriculture, Dzongkhag Administrations and the Gups. The teams approached the communities where the sub-projects are planned directly. For the consultations focus group discussions with men and women and individual interviews with poor men/women and women-headed households and those affected by DRDP financed sub-projects or those affected by past development projects were conducted.

Focus group discussions were conducted with a mixed group of men and women farmers that the tshogpa was asked to invite keeping in mind that there was a mix of men and women and well-off and poorer farmers. The objective of the focus group discussions was to get in-depth understanding of issues from a range of discussants namely: inclusiveness in participation of villagers in preparation of the 9 FYP, perceived impacts of sub-projects to be taken up under DRDP in the community and on experiences with voluntary land contribution.

Individual interviews were also held with poor, women heading households and individuals who expected to lose land and other property for surveyed sub-projects or with persons who had experienced such losses in past developmental projects. For the individual interviews the respondents were identified in consultation with the tshogpa. Similar to the group discussions, the individual interview content with the poor and women-headed household revolved around participation in the 9 FYP preparation and impacts of the development activity proposed in their villages as well as their views and perceptions on the activity proposed. The objective of the individual interviews was to acquire an understanding from individuals – representing poor and women-headed households and with persons that expect

43

to be affected adversely by the development activity or those who had been affected by past development projects and to get their views on the project.

While the interviews for Nahi, Wangdue dzongkhag and Komo, Chukha were held outside the village, all the other interviews were all held in the tshogpa’s residence in the village itself.

The table below lists the breakdown of participants to the focus group discussions by gender and number of respondents for individual interviews by profile and gender. From the total participants in the focus group discussions, some 41% of them were females.

For the individual interviews respondents classified as poor were chosen based on their landholding, food security and availability of labor in the house. The women-headed households were chosen with the criteria that their husbands had expired or they had been divorced and that they were responsible for the management of the household. The persons who had contributed land to previous projects or whose lands have been affected by the DRDP projects if surveyed were identified. Table 10: No of participants/respondents in consultations in selected DRDP Year 1 sub-projectsVillage No. of Participants

in FGD*No. of Respondents in Individual interviews

Men Women Women headed

Land affected Poor householdsMen Women Men Women

Komo 5 5 2 0 4 2 0Paga 4 2 2 2 0 1 2Pangserbu 2 9 0 0 0 0 2Gibsa 3 8 3 0 0 0 2Tashidingkha 4 3 1 2 1 0 3Bjee 4 3 2 1 1 0 3Kikorthang 8 3 3 3 0 2 0Beteni 6 1 3 0 0 3 0Palukha 5 3 3 0 0 2 0Tashitsawa 7 3 3 0 0 1 2Tama 4 4 3 0 2 0 3Tali 5 4 1 1 2 3 0Total 57 48 26 9 10 14 17*Focus Group Discussions

Study area

In Chukha dzongkhag, the villages visited were Paga and Komo villages under Chapcha geog. Both these villages expect to receive assistance for farm road construction in the first year of the project. While five men and five men participated in the discussions in Komo, four men and two women participated in Paga. The consultations were conducted on 18 and 19 September 2004. All participants are ethnic Ngalops

In total, from those who expected to lose land - two women in Komo village and two men in Paga village were interviewed. Two poor men in Komo and one poor man in Paga were interviewed. Seven women from women-headed households in Komo and two such women from Paga were also interviewed individually.

44

In Wangdue, representatives from the villages/hamlets of Yesakha, Nabisa, Tongsithangkha, Tashitsawa under Nahi geog were interviewed and from Palukha and Nyalukha villages under Ruipisa geog were visited. Farm roads to be built under DRDP will connect these villages. Seven men and two women participated in the focus group discussions held for the farmers of Nahi while four men and four women participated in the meeting conducted with farmers from Nyalukha and Palukha.

The meeting for Nahi was conducted at the Dzong precincts on 16 September 2004 as representatives of all households of the geog had been summoned to the Dzong for some official work. The focus group discussion for Palukha and Nyalukha villages was conducted at Nyalukha at the chipon’s house on 17 September 2004. Farm households of Palukha and Nyalukha villages are divided between Ruipisa and Bjena geogs. Participants in the two meetings are ethnic Ngalops

Among the Nahi farmers, five women and one man was interviewed individually. In Palukha and Nyalukha, four women and one man were interviewed individually.

In Zhemgang two villages namely Tali under Nangkor geog and Tama under Trong geog were visited respectively. Both these villages are due to receive assistance for irrigation canal construction in the 9 FYP under DRDP. Five men and four women participated in the focus group discussions held for the farmers of Tali conducted at the tshogpa’s house on 16 September 2004 while four men and four women participated in the meeting conducted with farmers from Tama conducted at the Village Health Worker’s residence on 17 September 2004. Participants in the two meetings are ethnic Khengpas.

From Tali, three men from poor households, one woman heading a household and two women and one man whose land had been affected by past projects were interviewed individually. Similarly, in Tama, one woman heading a household, three poor women and two women whose land had been affected were interviewed.

In Trongsa two villages namely Tashidingka under Drakten geog and Bjee under Nubi geog were visited. Both these villages are due to receive assistance for farm roads construction in the 9 FYP under DRDP. Four men and three women participated in the focus group discussions held for the farmers of Tashidingkha conducted at the tshogpa’s house on 19 September 2004 while four men and three women participated in the meeting conducted with farmers in Bjee conducted at the tshogpa’s residence on 20 September 2004. All participants in the two meetings are ethnic Mangdips.

From Tashidingkha, one woman from a woman-headed household and three women from poor households were interviewed individually. In Tashidingkha, three persons whose land was affected by previous development projects were also interviewed. In Bjee village representatives of three poor households – two women and one man and two women heading households were interviewed. Also, a man and a woman who had previously contributed land were interviewed.

Gibsa village under Khebisa geog and Pangserbu village under Drujegang geog were visited for consultations on 20 and 21 September 2004. These villages expect to receive assistance from the DRDP for a farm road and power tiller track respectively in the first year of the project. In Gibsa three men and eight women partook in the group discussions held at the tshogpa’s house. In Pangserbu nine women and two men participated at the tshogpa’s house.

45

All participants in the meetings in Pangserbu are ethnic Khengpas while those in Gibsa are Ngalops.

Under Gibsa village, five persons were interviewed individually. Three were women representing women-headed households and two women from poor households. From Pangserbu village under Drujeygang geog, only two women from poor households were interviewed.

In Bhulkey village of Beteni geog in Tsirang, six men and one woman took part in the focus group discussions held at the RNR construction site on 16 September 2004, while in Kikorthang there were eight men and three women in the discussions that was held in a villager’s house on 17 September 2004. All excepting one participant in the meetings in Kikorthang are ethnic Lhotsampas. The sole woman was a Sharchokpa while the participants in the meeting at Bhulkey are of Tamang sub-ethnicity of the larger Lhotsampa ethnic group.

Under Kikorthang geog, from those interviewed individually, there were two women heading households and two poor men. Three farmers whose lands were affected by the Tsirang-Dunglagang road were also interviewed in Kikorthang. In Bhulkey village of Beteni geog, six people were interviewed. Three of them were women from women-headed households and three were poor men.

Output of Focus Group Discussions

Chukha

Geog Participatory Planning & Analysis

In Komo village under Chukha dzongkhag, the participants to the focus group discussion mentioned that they had participated in the planning meetings held at chiog level when the list of development activities required for the village was drawn up by them. Both men and women attended depending on who was available in the household at the time the meeting participated.

For this village the main needs that emerged from the meeting prior to these being submitted to the GYT were: renovation of temple; drinking water system renovation; electricity and farm road. These were the prioritized activities and according to them these are in the process of being fulfilled as already they have received electricity and assistance for renovation of the drinking water system.

Paga village under Chukha dzongkhag also expects to benefit from a farm road in the first year of the project. The village comprises of five households from Mewang geog of Thimphu dzongkhag as well but largely of households from Chapcha geog of Chukha dzongkhag. The needs expressed by the community in meetings organized by the tshogpa during the 9 FYP were drinking water, electricity and farm road. These are the priority development activities agreed to by the community. Concurrently, the people of Mewang geog of Thimphu dzongkhag also requested for farm road. A representative attended the meetings from each household consisting of men and women depending upon their availability for the meeting.

Impacts of the development activity

46

In Komo, the benefits of the farm road were widely extolled. Potatoes are the main cash crop and all household expenses are met from the money earned from the sale of potatoes. The farm road is expected to induce mechanical carriage of potatoes and replace back load transportation of potatoes from the village to the feeder road termination point about half an hour walk below the village. Expenses incurred on manual carriage will be substantially reduced. Presently, porters charge Nu. 40 for carrying a 50 kg sack of potatoes. The women also expect to benefit by being able to market vegetables and earn extra cash income. The main positive benefits of the project were noted as reduction in transport cost of products, and greater accessibility to markets.

The main adverse impact of the farm road foreseen is that farmers may lose some strips of land to the road. According to the group, the road will affect marginal strips of land of some persons. It was reported that the issue of land loss was discussed in the village in a meeting coordinated by the tshogpa. According to the group it had been agreed that the community would compensate persons losing substantial amount of land with substitute land. Besides impact on land the farmers do not expect other adverse impacts of the farm road. When the survey team approached the village, an agreement to this effect was submitted to the team as local commitment to commence the road survey.

For the beneficiaries of Paga village, the farm road will be beneficial in that they can market their main cash crops namely chili and potatoes.

Voluntary land contribution

Komo village has some prior experience of land loss to projects in the village namely for the feeder road and school. There had not been problems during the construction of these facilities as there was prior consent for right of way for the road. The farmers expect the benefits of the farm road to far outweigh the costs of loss of land. They also cite the example of land loss during the construction of the feeder road, initiated and financed by the community when villagers’. Though land was impacted farmers contributed land for the road willingly forsaking any claim for land or monetary compensation.

The villagers have no problems in assuming the responsibility of maintenance of the farm road with the chipon/tshogpa responsible to coordinate the maintenance. They are already well experienced in maintaining the feeder road and in organizing work schedules for the Community Forestry Plan that they manage as a group.

For the Paga farm road, engineering staff of Thimphu dzongkhag carried out a survey during which the alignment was fixed. Based on that survey, it was reported that the farm road would affect only one person’s land. This person mentioned in the group meeting that the road is to benefit the community at large and that they have no complaints or claims for compensation. The survey by Chukha dzongkhag is due this month.

The villagers have no problems in assuming the responsibility of maintenance of the farm road with the chipon/tshogpa responsible to coordinate the maintenance.

Wangdue

Geog Participatory Planning & Analysis

47

The participants to the focus group discussion under Nahi geog mentioned meetings were held at the chiog level while planning activities to be implemented in the course of the 9 FYP. It was reported that activities proposed in the villages included irrigation, drinking water and farm roads for Nabisa and Tongsithang village and farm machinery for Yesakha. Both men and women attended depending on who was available in the household at the time the meeting was conducted in the village.

They indicated drinking water as their preferred development activity in the 9 FYP. It was only during a subsequent meeting organized by the dzongkhag agriculture sector that thirty-five households from the two villages with households falling under the two geogs, as a group, stressed the need for a farm road. As it was inconvenient to place requests to two geog administrations, the group organized themselves and put up a joint request to the agriculture sector.

Impacts of the development activity

Similar to other villages receiving assistance for farm roads, the benefits of the farm road mentioned by the people of Nahi geog are marketing of farm produce mainly vegetables as well as facilitating carriage and transportation. Some adverse effects of the road are anticipated namely impacts on small acreage of land. It was mentioned that about two persons land could be affected but this would be confirmed once the survey of the farm road alignment is carried out. These persons gave their commitment that since the amount of land-take is possibly minimal; they had no problems in voluntarily contributing land for the farm road construction.

The procedure described by the group for land acquisition is that during the survey, persons whose land is affected will be identified and owners informed by the Gup and tshogpa. People then come forward before the project starts with an agreement that no claims for compensation will be made. The land is therefore considered as voluntarily contributed and the project implemented.

The villagers have experience in maintaining the feeder road that benefits five villages of Nahi geog. They contend that those villages that benefit from the road will maintain the farm road. The farmers report that there will not be any problems in assuming responsibility of maintenance of the farm road with the chipon or the tshogpa responsible to coordinate the maintenance.

The villagers of Palukha and Nyalukha mention that the farm road would be a boon for them as they would be able to market more quantities of even perishable vegetables to markets. Also, they expect that the farm road will encourage them to invest in farm machinery.

Voluntary land contribution

As far as the adverse effects are concerned the villagers expect some persons’ land to be affected by the alignment. The villagers feel that if substantial land is impacted they would seek compensation for exchange land from the government but if only small strips of land are affected, they would contribute this land for the road. They mentioned that over time land has become progressively fragmented when shared among sisters. Most people therefore have very small land holdings and any loss could potentially result in loss of income from reduced

48

production. So far, owing to a lack of infrastructural development activity in villages, they do not have experience in land contribution to development activities.

Zhemgang

Geog Participatory Planning & Analysis

The Tali villagers attending the focus group discussion mentioned that they had been involved in the planning of development activities for their village. They inform that three meetings were conducted by the tshogpa to discuss and prioritize their needs. All households were represented by a member therefore poorer households and women headed households also were represented. According to the group, even the poorer farmers and women who attended participated actively. It was reported that decision-making was based on group consensus. The members appeared to be generally aware of activities due to be implemented in their village in the 9 FYP and reported that activities proposed in the village were electricity, ORC, irrigation channel, funeral site and a power tiller track. These are the prioritized activities of villagers. They however seemed to be less aware of activities to be implemented in their geog.

The Tama villagers reported to have met about five times to selected developmental activities while preparing for the 9 FYP in village meetings organized by the tshogpa either in the village temple or the ORC. Women are said to have participated actively as they own land and take much of the household decisions.

Activities were selected on a needs basis. Proposals may come from a few persons and these are discussed and agreed upon on consensus. The group mentioned that they did not have access to information on approval or rejection of activities. One of the activities prioritized by the villagers of Tama was a bridge between Tagabi and Tingtibi. They also seemed well aware of activities to be implemented in their geog.

Impacts of the development activity

The irrigation canal is expected to benefit the whole community. Those with existing wetland would receive more water and those without wetland could convert their barren land or dry land to wetland. According to the discussants, the canal is expected to benefit both well-off and poorer farmers equitably. An adverse effect of the canal is that some land could be affected when the canal is being built. However, they feel that the amount of land that will be affected will be small. In addition, the land in question is barren and therefore no land under current productive use will be impacted. The people therefore commit to voluntarily contribute land for the project. The canal will not affect any property or orchards of villagers.

The villagers of Tama mention that the irrigation channel will benefit them in that it will enhance their food security and reduce the need to purchase rice from the market. Many households’ with uncultivated and barren land could now convert this to wetland. Farmers with no land and less land are reported to have less opportunity to enhance crop production and food security.

About 25% of the households’ land could be affected as the channel alignment could pass through their land. However, like the Tali farmers, such lands are barren currently and therefore they would not mind contributing such land voluntarily to the project. No orchard

49

and property is reported affected. Also, no person’s livelihood is expected to be adversely impacted. The key positive impact identified by these households would be enhanced crop productivity and livelihoods.

Voluntary land contribution

In the past, in Tali four households contributed at total of 7.29 acres of land while constructing the community school. They were compensated double the land lost by the community. Apparently the land contribution was documented but the document could not be traced in the village.

The procedure described by the group for land acquisition is that the concerned sector informs the geog representatives about requirement of land for the project. The land and the owners are identified after which the geog authorities inform the persons whose lands are affected. On the consent of the landowner, an agreement is signed by the owner, the geog authority, the sector concerned and the Dzongkhags officials. Compensation in the form of cash or exchange land, as desired by the person losing land is made according to government rules.

Previously, few Tama villagers had lost orchard land to urban development in Tingtibi for which they had received compensation. No documentation exits to record whether the compensation paid was in accordance with local laws, however, these villagers indicated that the compensation received was fair. In addition, a Tama three villagers reported losing land when during the construction of power transmission towers. While some farmers reported being compensated by the government, one said that he was not compensated but was exempted from labor contribution by the village. No documentation exists to record land contribution.

Trongsa

Geog Participatory Planning & Analysis

In preparation of the 9 FYP, the Tashidingkha group mentioned that they had met about six times to discuss activities for their village. A member represented each household. If the meetings are conducted late in the evenings then men participate otherwise also women attend. Women usually listened and observed the meetings. Poor households if represented by males usually participate actively otherwise not. The meetings were organized at the tshogpa’s residence and in his absence also the chipon assisted. Some of the activities proposed by the village are irrigation, electricity, farm road and drinking water. These are priority activities for the farmers. However, owing to a lack of communication of information they are unaware of approved or rejected proposals. Most seemed unaware of activities beyond their village.

The Bjee group reports that they had met about three times at the tshogpa’s residence to discuss activities for their village to be implemented in the 9 FYP. All heads of households had attended. Women were said not to have participated actively and only give their views when asked. The meetings were organized by the tshogpa. All proposals are discussed, prioritized and then forwarded to the GYT. They stated that they are not aware of activities approved for their village and are less informed about those activities to be implemented for their geog. The activities they proposed and that approved reflect their needs.

50

51

Perceived impacts of the development activity

The Tashidingkha participants are confident that the farm road will equitably benefit all villagers. They are optimistic that their income would be enhanced through the marketing of farm produce. However, since the survey had been done, the group is aware that dry land of six households will be affected. One woman also would lose about 0.10 acres of productive orchard from which she earned about Nu. 3000 per year from the sale of fruits. The discussants feel it justified for the person whose orchard is affected to seek compensation from the government.

The Bjee group acknowledged that the road will benefit the all the villagers at large and assist them in boosting their income through the marketing of farm produce. They also are interested in exploring new economic ventures and feel confident to invest in mechanized farming.

Around 13 households in Bjee are likely to be affected by the road. However, no orchards or other property would be affected. The group felt that farmers would request for compensation for their land if affected. No livelihoods would be affected.

Maintenance of the farm road is not seen as difficult as the farmers under the coordination of the tshogpa would manage labor and funds collected from among the farmers.

Voluntary land contribution

In Tashidingkha, in the past some of the developmental activities implemented were drinking water, irrigation channel, school, ORC etc. For the school a household lost some land for which she was paid Nu. 5000 by other villagers. Some villagers have also contributed land for the Rigszhung. The dzongkhag has noted their names to process compensation. It was reported that there is no documentation to this effect.

In Bjee, previously three households had contributed to up to an acre of land for the construction of the Gup’s office, ORC and school. Although the government compensated one household, the other two were reported exempted from labor, in lieu of compensation, during the construction of the facility. The contribution and compensation has been documented.

The process for land acquisition described by the groups is that the affected person is informed by the dzongkhag through the geog about the land requirement for the development activity. The matter is discussed in a village meeting with the aim to get the person’s consent to contribute land. If the person agrees, an agreement is signed between the government and the affected person in the presence of the Gup.

Tsirang

Geog Participatory Planning & Analysis

For Tsirang dzongkhag it appears that there were no village level planning of activities. The villagers of Kikorthang report participating in the planning meeting held at the Dzong at the GYT hall. According to them all heads of the household including rich, poor, men as well as

52

women were called. The Dzongda chaired the meeting. Similarly, the planning meeting for Bhulkey and Beteni geog was conducted at the Geog Centre. The meetings lasted for two days chaired by the Dzongdag in attendance by all sector heads of the dzongkhag. The sectoral plans proposed from each village of the geog was discussed with the sector heads in separate groups and adopted.

For Beteni geog the activities proposed in the 9 FYP were geog office construction, RNR Centre Construction, bridge at Kalikhola, Dara Chu – Beteni Road and up gradation of Beteni Primary School. The activities proposed for Kikorthang geog are geog office renovation, electricity, feeder road, reduction on sawn timber cost, subsidy on the livestock – like piglets, pullets, jersey cows etc.

The requirement for a RNR Center was reflected in Beteni’s plans but not in Kikorthang’s list of activities. The priorities for Kikorthang reported are electricity and approach road to Majua.

Impacts of the development activity

The Kikorthang community expects to be benefited from the RNR center as they could receive timely help to control pests in orchard and vegetables. Similarly in livestock disease control and forestry sector’s control of degrading forest can be carried out. It will benefit the poor and rich equally as poor also will cultivate vegetable and crops even as tenants and keep livestock.

Till now it is not known where the RNR Centre in Kikorthang will be located but if some land has to be acquired they strongly feel that the government should compensate the affected person. Moreover, if activity affects the property then he or she should seek compensation from the government at the current market value. They feel it reasonable to seek such compensation in order that there are equitable costs and benefits.

In Bhulkey village, the farmers state that the village will benefit from RNR. Though their priority was for school up gradation and a Geog Office, still the RNR Center will be highly beneficial as all advice and inputs can be accessed form the Center itself and reducing travel and inconvenience to Damphu to get the same. Also the proposal to construct the geog office and RNR center in the same spot will be most convenient for all villagers. The proposed location is centrally located for all villages of the geog and will benefit poor and rich households equally.

Beteni geog has selected government land to locate the RNR and geog center. Therefore, no privately owned land will be affected. However, once surveyed they are not sure if at all the structure could be constructed on private land. In such an event, they feel its justified for the affected person to request substitute land or compensation, if the land affected is substantial because the facility is for all and it is unfair for only a few to bear costs of land loss.

Voluntary land contribution

For Bhulkey village, the only developmental activities received in the past are the Tsirang-Gelephu National High way constructed long time ago and the drinking water constructed in 1980 and renovated in 1995. During the national highway construction land was affected but they cannot recall the extent of land loss. They have little knowledge about procedures for

53

voluntary land contribution. They surmise that in such a situation the Gup informs affected persons and a genja has to be made between the affected person and the village committee. The genja would then be forwarded to Dzongkhag for provision of alternate land as compensation.

With regard to past experiences with affect on land by development activities in Kikorthang village, when the Dunglagang feeder road was being constructed it was reported that many people’s land was affected. On an average about 0.20 acres of land was affected from each household falling on the alignment. They report that neither were people informed nor compensated. Since there was no agreement and no established procedure they have no idea what procedural formalities have to be fulfilled. During project implementation, the level of information dissemination will be significantly increased.

Dagana

Geog Participatory Planning & Analysis

While preparing the 9 FYP activities for their village, the Gibsa and Pangserbu groups informed that a GYT meeting was called at the Geog Center, which lasted for two days under the chairpersonship of the Dzongda and attended by sector heads. Heads of each household attended the meeting. There were male as well as female participants. There were rich and poor. The Gibsa group mentioned that some women even suggested and also took part actively in the discussion. The group asserted that all villagers are poor so there was ample participation of the poor. The sector heads brief villagers on sectoral activities after which proposals are discussed and finalized. However, final decisions are taken by the DYT attended by only Tshogpa and Gup.

While the Gibsa villagers reported proposing activities like farm road, lhakhang renovation, construction of Non Formal Education (NFE) Centre, construction of bridge, electricity and telephone for their village, the Pangserbu group remembered requesting for farm road, school and construction of bridge.

Impacts of the development activity

In terms of impacts of the activities, the Gibsa farmers feel that all households will be benefited immensely in addition to villagers of neighboring Patala village by the farm road. The road is expected to benefit both better off as well as the poor farmers in that the road will help them to carry out other developmental activities as well; there will be no need to carry loads from Dujeygang; Thimphu can be accessed within one day; they can sell farm produce like orange, cardamom, pears and vegetables. The road will also attract government staff that could opt for posting in the village and also they will have access to medical facilities.

In terms of adverse impacts, since the survey is not carried out they cannot say definitely but feel that it will not affects anyone’s land or property as the road alignment will pass just above the village. If at all it passes through the village still they would not have any objection. So long as they get the road they are ready to sacrifice minor damages. They feel that if persons lose land or property they would come together and compensate the person. They suspect that since they have requested several times for the road and if the facility is being provided on the request of the villagers then they feel that compensation will not be

54

paid. However, they state that if the impact is substantial then it may be correct to seek compensation though in their case they would willingly could forego the compensation.

In the case of the Pangserbu farmers, the benefits of the power-tiller track they foresee are that they would not need to carry loads from Drujeygang; they could market their oranges; easy access to health facilities; transportation of the seriously ill and the transportation of the dead for cremation would also be easier.

Though they do not know positively, they generally feel it will not affect anyone’s land or property, as the track will pass just above the village. If it does pass through the village it might affect two persons’ land. So long as they get the track they would not mind such minor damages. They feel that as they have initiated the request for the power tiller track, they will not be compensated for loss of any land. They opine that the affected person has to be satisfied with the facility close to his door.

Voluntary land contribution

In Gibsa they do not have prior experience of land loss for developmental activities. For the construction of NFE Center completed recently it was located on government land so no private land or property was affected. They therefore have no idea about the procedure for voluntary contribution or compensation.

The Pangserbu group had little idea about the procedure for voluntary contribution and compensation. A woman mentioned that there was no consultation of any type with the person being affected. There was no compensation and no agreement in the past when the approach road to Drujeygang was constructed.

Output of the Individual Interviews

Chukha

Geog Participatory Planning & Analysis

In Komo village, all respondents informed that either they or one of their family members had participated in the geog planning exercise initiated at the chiwog level when the community proposed the activities to be taken up in the 9 FYP. For those who had attended themselves, while the men asserted that they actively discussed issues and some even proposed or partook in decision-making, women reported to have largely listened or only discussed. For those who participated in the planning meeting they were satisfied with the decisions taken and the meetings’ outcome as they felt that the activities that were needed in the village had been finalized for submission to the GYT.

All respondents had heard that a farm road had been sanctioned for their village. Those who had participated in the chiwog-planning meeting had come to know about the road at that forum while others had heard it from their parents, the tshogpa or the chhimi. Villagers generally felt that they would be able to involve themselves in the implementation of the development activities in the conventional mode of labor contribution during implementation and operation and maintenance of the facilities once completed.

55

The respondents mention that one adult family member attends the meeting. For the village activities selected for the 9 FYP, out of the three respondents only one mentioned having participated in the chiog development-planning meeting. The other two respondents indicated that their family members attended. The person who participated mentions that he discussed and expressed his views in the meeting and was satisfied with the outcome of the meeting namely selection of activities like a school, drinking water and a farm road to be submitted to the GYT. None of those interviewed expect to lose land or have their livelihoods affected by the farm road.

Impact of the development activity

In Komo village, most villagers felt that the farm road would facilitate the marketing of potatoes, their main cash crop. Many articulated plans to expand their potato cultivated area as they were encouraged to be able to market larger quantities and maximize profits by enhancing the volume and reducing the need to pay for carriage of potatoes by horse or people that with the farm road in place.

In Paga village, one person expects to lose some land. This became evident after the survey of the alignment was done by Thimphu dzongkhag. This however may change after the survey is done by Chukha dzongkhag. The person losing land – Mr. Dophu – was interviewed. According to him, about 0.17 acres of dry land may be affected. Presently this land is left fallow for want of labor to cultivate the land. So far, the land contribution and loss has not been documented but there is wide knowledge of affect on his land as it became evident once the survey team fixed the alignment.

Voluntary land contribution

The Paga community even had a meeting during which Mr. Dophu requested for compensation from the villagers but it seems there was no favorable response from the villagers. This person requests that he be compensated with land from the government. However, if there is no compensation, still he would voluntarily contribute land as he believes that disagreement may deprive the village from receiving assistance for the farm road.

The village has prior experience of voluntary contribution. A villager (Mr. Jochu) also lost land for the community school built on his land in the past. District education staff came and identified his land (approximately half an acre) to locate the school, as it was the most centrally positioned. He mentioned that since the school was for the community and since the land was not in use at that time he voluntarily contributed the land. He claimed to have voluntarily contributed the land as he felt that the whole community shares the benefits of a school.

According to the five women who would lose land in Komo, they would not process for compensation agreeing to contribute land voluntarily since land involved is minimal. They feel that the loss is manageable in anticipation of more benefits to them and the community in general. From those losing land, one of the women who expects to lose land (Ms. Nimchu) requested that the alignment be changed to avoid passage through her land because she owns a very small plot (0.13 acres) of dry land on which she depends for producing potatoes – the main cash crop.

56

Wangdue

Geog Participatory Planning & Analysis

From the villages that expect to benefit from the farm road under Nahi geog, all respondents informed that mostly they had participated in the geog planning exercise initiated at the chiog level when the community proposed activities to be taken up in the 9 FYP. Those who attended, both men and women informed that they were involved in discussions and were happy with the outcome of the meeting as mostly those activities that they needed were selected mainly assistance for drinking water, irrigation and farm road. Women reported to have listened to discussions.

All respondents had heard that a farm road had been sanctioned for their village. Most knew about this from the chiog-planning meeting, which they attended. Others knew about the road from other villagers and the Gup. Villagers generally felt that they would be able to involve themselves in the implementation of the development activities by contributing labor during implementation. Others mentioned that they could participate if trained in tasks that they were supposed to carry out. One of the women mentioned that she might not be able to participate, as her capacity to discuss in meetings was weak.

Impact of the development activity

From Nahi geog, most villagers felt that the farm road would facilitate the marketing of farm produce. They still have to carry loads to the feeder road termination point from their villages. The farm road would also assure carriage by trucks of other bulky materials needed by other village development projects.

Two persons whose lands are likely to be affected by the farm road alignment were interviewed. Although they were not definite, depending on the actual road survey, they expect to lose small amount of land. According to them, they would be willing to donate land since the benefits to the community would be substantially more than the loss of their plots of land.

One person whom the team could not meet had to give up his land in 1995 when the RNR Center was being built. According to the other villagers who attended the meeting, no compensation was processed and there was also no documentation on the contribution.

Maintenance of the farm road was reported not to be problematic as already they have experience of organizing maintenance of the feeder road assistance received from the government some two years ago.

In Palukha, all individual interviewees had heard that they were due to receive assistance for construction of a farm road. While two of them who had attended the village-planning meeting while preparing the 9 FYP, others knew from their family members and from the tshogpa. For those who participated in the village meeting they discussed issues with the rest and were satisfied with the activities that were selected at the end of the meeting.

They expect to also be involved in the implementation of the activities, as they would have to contribute labor for the construction and later also for the maintenance of the facilities.

57

All the persons interviewed foresee benefits from the farm road mainly in terms of facilitating access to markets for their produce, namely vegetables. They also feel that persons who wanted to buy vegetables in bulk at the farm gate could also come right to the village. Transportation and carriage of other goods would also be made easy.

Voluntary land contribution

Although the farm road survey has not yet been done, from those interviewed only one woman expected her land to be affected by the farm road. However, she mentioned that she views the amount of land affected to be minimal and states that she will voluntarily contribute the land. None of those interviewed expected their incomes and thereby livelihoods to be affected.

Zhemgang

Geog Participatory Planning & Analysis

The respondents from poor households of Tali village informed that they had participated in the geog planning exercise initiated at the chiog level when the community proposed the activities to be taken up in the 9 FYP. Some of the activities selected by the village are construction of irrigation channel and ORC. Most women informed that they were involved in discussions and even expressed their views while a few listened to discussions. They were happy with the outcome of the meeting as they could agree on developmental activities required by the community. They had heard about the village receiving assistance for irrigation from the village tshogpa. All respondents felt that they would participate in the 9 FYP activities by contributing labor.

In Tama all those interviewed had heard of assistance for the irrigation channel from the tshogpa. Only two of them had participated in the chiog-planning meeting while for the others one of their family members had attended. The tshogpa who attended, coordinated the meeting while the other a woman said that she listened to discussions. In the 9 FYP the tshogpa expects to be able to monitor activities besides contributing labor with the other fellow villagers.

Impacts of the development activity

All those interviewed in Tama and Tali reported that they would personally benefit from the canal. They would be able to convert more dry land to wetland, increase their crop production. Consequently, they would have sufficient food thereby reducing the need to buy rice from shops. None expected their lands or their livelihoods to be affected adversely by the canal.

Voluntary land contribution

In the past two respondents in Tali had contributed 0.25 acres of land each both for the Dakpai-Buli feeder road. The contribution was recorded but the document is kept at the dzong they said. The entire village knew about the contribution as it was discussed in a meeting. They had fully agreed to contribute the land. They received compensation for the land. Both mentioned that the land-take resulted in less crop production for their families. They also reported to be satisfied with the process of land contribution as they had been

58

compensated and felt that in future too persons whose land is affected should be compensated.

In Tama, two persons lost 0.15 acre of land each for construction of a power transmission tower while one lost 0.10 acre of land for ORC construction. The land loss was recorded by the dzongkhag. They report that most of the villagers knew about their loss either because it was discussed in a meeting or they recognized their land once the transmission tower was erected. Two of these persons seemed to willingly give up their land while one felt that there were not sufficient consultations. Two persons reported that crop production was affected with the loss of the land. However none were deprived of their livelihoods, as the crops grown on those plots were not cash crops. One of the persons was not satisfied with the land contribution process as he says that he was not compensated while the other person losing land for a transmission tower was.

Trongsa

Geog Participatory Planning & Analysis

In Tashidingkha, all respondents were aware that a farm road was being built for their benefit. They had heard this from neighbors and the tshogpa. Three of the respondents had participated in the chiog planning meetings. From these only one reported being asked for views otherwise all of them reported to have only listened to discussions. For those who participated and could recall the outcomes, they indicated that developmental activities that were needed were agreed upon and were therefore happy with outcome of the meetings. All felt that they could participate in the implementation of the activities by contributing labor and would be willing to donate land if necessary.

In Bjee, all respondents had heard of the farm road construction from the tshogpa. They also had participated in the chiog planning meeting but all reported to have listened to discussions. They feel that they could participate in future projects by contributing labor.

Impacts of the development activity

In Tashidingkha, all respondents felt that they would benefit from the farm road planned as they could market their produce to the Trongsa market and earn cash income. They feel that this is their priority and this would pave the way for further development in their village. While two respondents felt that their land would not be affected, one as yet did not know if her land would be impacted. One of the respondents is landless and sharecrops. None of them felt that their livelihoods would be affected, as the land in question was not used for production of cash crops.

Since Bjee village is near Trongsa they are aware that the farm road will benefit them as they expect to be able to market their vegetables to Trongsa. Vegetables sale is their main source of cash income.

While two respondents did not know whether or not their land would be affected, two expected their land to be affected while two did not know if their lands would be affected. For those who expected impacts on land were unsure as to what they would do.

Voluntary land contribution

59

In Tashidingkha, three persons’ land was affected by previous development projects. One farmer lost 0.33 acre dry land to the High School built nearby while two farmers lost 1.98 acres and 3.96 acres dry land to the School for Cultural Studies construction. There was no documentation in the case of the High School land-take but he was compensated with cash amounting to Nu. 5000 by villagers. In the case of farmers losing land to the School for Cultural Studies construction, the contribution was documented by the dzongkhag. They report that they have proposed for compensation in replacement land from the government. The proposal is still under consideration by the government.

Villagers know about their contribution as this was discussed in a public meeting. The persons interviewed accept to contribute land in realization of future opportunities and benefit for their school-going children. Only one of those losing land indicated that there was a decrease in crop production but none felt it a challenge to their income earning capacity owing from land loss.

In Bjee, two persons lost land to the school and police quarters (0.14 acres) and ORC and Gup’s office (0.50 acres) respectively. While one of them was compensated and the contribution documented, the other claims that she not compensated. There is no documentation to substantiate this. One of them appeared content in that the contribution assured the construction of the facilities, which benefited the people of the entire geog although he even cultivated some cash crops on that plot. The other person appeared less happy as she was not compensated. Both feel that persons whose lands are affected should be compensated.

Tsirang

Geog Participatory Planning & Analysis

In Kikorthang, two respondents had not heard of the assistance for the RNR Center. Those who had, they got the information from the geog planning meeting and from other villagers. Four of them had attended the geog-planning meeting but they reported to have only listened while only one expressed some views. For future activities they are ready to contribute labor for the work.

Though the respondents were happy with the activities that were being implemented in their geog, one felt that her need for drinking water was not fulfilled. Two others felt that plans and activities should be shared with farmers so that they are more aware and called on for transparency.

All respondents in Bhulkey, Beteni geog of Tsirang had heard about the assistance due for the RNR Center from the geog planning meeting and one from the tshogpa. Four out of the six had attended the geog-planning meeting. From those that attended all but one only listened to discussions. They were satisfied with the outcome of the discussions as activities required in the village were discussed. Four of the six interviewed mentioned that they could participate in the implementation of the activities by contributing labor while two were unsure how they would participate.

60

Impacts of the development activity

In Kikorthang, all respondents felt that they would benefit from the RNR Centre that is planned. Now they feel that agricultural inputs like seeds, fertilizers, plant protection chemicals as well as livestock medicines and inputs would be more accessible.

The Beteni respondents see the benefit of the RNR Center as they would receive advice, training and inputs for RNR activities from the village itself and would not have to travel far.

In Kikorthang, four of them did not know whether their land and property would be affected or not. One said that her land would not be affected. Of those who did not know if their land would be affected, three said that if their land and other property were affected, they would seek compensation from the government.

Voluntary land contribution

According to persons whose land was affected by the Tsirang-Dunglagang road, they lost about 0.33 acres of dry land each. There was no documentation and also report that neither were they consulted. The other villagers were aware as when the road construction started their land was affected. Although their food security was not challenged it led to less crop production with the loss of land. None of them were happy with the process of land-take and felt that they should have been consulted and they should have been given the choice to request for compensation.

In Bhulkey village of Beteni geog, none expect their land or livelihoods to be affected, as the Center is located on government land.

Dagana

Geog Participatory Planning & Analysis

All of them excepting two had heard about the farm road that would be constructed to their village. They had heard of it from the geog-planning meeting or from the tshogpa. Two had participated in the geog-planning meeting but they only listened to discussions. For future activities that will be implemented in the 9 FYP, they say that they could participate by contributing labor.

In Pangserbu, none of them attended the geog-planning meeting. Only one knew from a neighbor that a power-tiller track was being built. They would contribute labor for developmental works.

Impact of the development activity

The Gibsa respondents felt that the farm road will benefit them all as they feel that they could sell their farm produce and access health and school facilities easily.

The Pangserbu respondents do not expect their land or livelihoods to be adversely affected by the power-tiller track and assert that it would benefits them in terms of marketing of farm produce and carriage.

61

Voluntary land contribution

In Gibsa village, none of them at the moment know if their land and property will be affected by the farm road.

62

Annex 3: Participants to Focus Group Discussions & Interviews in the Consultations

Tsirang Beteni Gopal Tamang Man Bhulkey(o

n 16

.9.0

4at

the

RNR

Cen

ter

cons

truc

tion

Site

)

Tshering Dorji Man BhulkeyPurna Bdr. Tamang Man BhulkeyTshering Tamang Man Poor BhulkeyLal Bdr. Tamang Man BhulkeyPemba Tamang Man Poor BhulkeyChandra Maya Tamang Woman Bhulkey

Total 7 (6 Men, 1 Woman)Kikorthang Dasarath Acharya Man Bokray

(on

17.9

.04

at a

vill

ager

’s h

ome)

Prem Lal Adhikari Man BokrayGaurikant Koirala Man BokrayLok Nath Kafley Man MajuaMan Bdr. Rai Man Poor Upper SalamiL.B. Basnet Man Lower BokrayKoman Singh Subba Man Upper BokrayGyan Bdr. Pouar Man Lower BokrayTshering Peldon Woman Poor/Ethnic

groupLower Bokray

Sitalu Maya Golay Woman Poor MajuaDhan Maya Tamang Woman Lower Bokray

Total 11 (8 Men, 3 Women)Dagana Khebisa Peldon Woman Gibsa

(on

20.9

.04

at T

shog

pa’s

hous

e)

Ri Zam Woman GibsaLyenkomo Woman GibsaThunkimo Woman GibsaPhembo Lham Woman GibsaManjamo Woman Poor GibsaThinley Zangmo Woman Poor GibsaUgen Dema Woman GibsaDangsho Man GibsaDaku Man Poor GibsaSonam Penjore Man Gibsa

Total 11 (3 Men, 8 Women)

(on

20.9

.04

at T

shog

pa’s

hous

e)

Kado Woman PangserbuNamsay Woman Poor PangserbuUgen Ongmo Woman PangserbuDechen Woman Poor PangserbuLhemo Woman Poor PangserbuUlemo Woman PangserbuZangmo Woman Poor PangserbuKukurmo Woman PangserbuJaou Man PangserbuKesang Man Pangserbu

Total 10 (2 Men, 8 Women)

Chukha

(on

19.9

.04

at T

shog

pa’s

hous

e)

Ugen Dorji Man KomoGuma Man Poor KomoChubu Dorji Man KomoGyaltshen Man KomoDorji Penjor Man KomoMongo Man Komo

63

Chimmi Woman KomoTsetu Woman Poor KomoNidu Woman KomoJakum Woman KomoBokhum Woman Poor KomoMatham Woman Poor Komo

Total 12 (6 Men, 6 Women)Chapcha Tandin Om Woman Poor Paga

(on

18.9

.04

at th

e ch

ipon

’s h

ouse

Choden Woman PagaDophu Man PagaTandin Pema Man PagaDorji Man PagaJochu Man PagaPenjor Man Poor Paga

Total 7 (5 Men, 2 Women)Wangdue Nahi Yeshey Woman Sogom

(on

16

.9.0

4

at

the

Wan

gdue

Dzo

ng p

reci

ncts

Pem Woman TongsithangPhub Zam Woman Poor YesakhaDraba Man TongsithangPema Man NabesaPhub Dorji Man NabesaKinley Dorji Man GangkhaKunzangla Man Poor NabesaKunzang Namgay Man Poor NabesaTandin Wangchuk Man Nabesa

Total 10 (7 Men, 3 Women)Ruipisa Sonam Zam Woman Nyalukha

(on

17.

9.04

at

the

chip

on’s

hou

se

Kinley Pem Woman PalukhaUgen Dem Woman NyalukhaYeshey Tenzin Man Poor NyalukhaTshering Man Poor PalukhaLhamo Man PalukhaSangay Dorji Man NyalukhaSangay Dorji Man Poor Nyalukha

Total 8 (5 Men, 3 Women)Zhemgang Nangkor Dechen Woman Tali

(on

16.9

.04

at T

shog

pa’s

hous

e)

Yeshey Zangmo Woman TaliThinley Pema Woman TaliDorji Lhamo Woman Poor TaliJungney Man TaliTsutrim Man TaliTashila Man Poor TaliTashi Chophel Man Tali

Total 8 (4 Men, 4 Women)Trong Tshomo Woman Tama

(on

17.9

.04

at V

HW

’sho

use)

Tshering Deki Woman TamaTshewang Choden Woman TamaKarma Dema Woman Poor TamaNamgay Wangdi Man TamaUgyen Lhendup Man TamaSamdrup Man Poor TamaUgenla Man TamaSangay Man Tama

64

Total 9 (5 Men, 4 Women)Trongsa Drakten Sonam Tshomo Woman Tashidingkha

(on

19.9

.04

at T

shog

pa’s

hous

e)

Tashi Dem Woman Poor TashidingkhaChoeki Woman TashidingkhaTshagay Man TashidingkhaRinchen Man TashidingkhaPem Gyaltshen Man Poor TashidingkhaPhurpa Man Poor Tashidingkha

Total 7 (4 Men, 3 Women)Nubi Kinzang Om Woman Bjee

(on

20.9

.04

at T

shog

pa’s

hous

e)

Lem Woman Poor BjeePem Zam Woman BjeeUgenla Man BjeeWangchuk Man BjeePema Man Poor BjeeKinleyla Man Bjee

Total 7 (4 Men, 3 Women)

65

LIST OF RESPONDENTS IN INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWSDzongkhag Geog Village Name Gender ProfileChukha Chapcha Komo Sonam Woman Woman-headed

Tata Man PoorWangyel Man PoorKhandu Man PoorJechum Woman PoorLunchu Woman PoorNimchu Woman Land affectedSonam Woman Land affectedTotal 8 (3 Men, 5 women)

Paga Choden Woman Woman-headedTandin Om Woman Woman-headedPhuba Man PoorDophu Man Land affectedJochu Man Land affectedTotal 5 (3 Men, 2 women)

Wangdue Nahi Tongsithangka Sarem Woman PoorNabisa Dhendup Man PoorYesakha Om Woman PoorNabisa Tandin Penjor Man PoorNabisa Kinley Woman Woman-headedTongsithangka Dorji Om Man Woman-headed

Total 6 (3 Men, 3 women)Ruipisa Palukha Yeshey Namgay Man Poor

Nyalukha Kinley Man PoorPalukha Thuji Woman Woman-headedNyalukha Phuba Woman Woman-headedNyalukha Pem Zam Woman Woman-headed

Total 5 (2 Men, 3 women)Dagana Drujegang Pangserbu Pichy Woman Poor

Mickchey Woman PoorTotal 2 (2 women)

Gibsa Manjamo Woman PoorLyenkomo Woman PoorKukurmo Woman Woman-headedUgen Dem Woman Woman-headedThinley Zam Woman Woman-headedTotal 5 (5 women)

Tsirang Beteni Bhulkey Bir Maya Tamang Woman Woman-headedSuk Maya Tamang Woman Woman-headedSuk Maya Tamang Woman Woman-headedNima Tamang Man PoorBir Bahadur Man PoorLal Bahadur Tamang Man PoorTotal 6 (3 Men, 3 Women)

Kikorthang Kikorthang Gyan Bahadur Powar Man PoorTshering Peldon Woman Woman-headedSitala Maya Golay Woman Woman-headedDhan Maya Tamang Woman Woman-headedMan Bahadur Rai Man PoorPrem Lal Adhikari Man Land affected

66

L.B. Basnet Man Land affectedDasrath Acharya Man Land affectedTotal 8 (5 Men, 3 Women)

Trongsa Nubi Bjee Ugyen Lhamo Woman Woman headedLhamola Woman Woman headedLhatue Woman PoorLhatoe Man PoorLhamola Woman PoorNagey Man Land affectedKinzang Wangmo Woman Land affectedTotal 7 (5 Men, 2 Women)

Drakten Tashidingkha Yueltey Woman PoorKezang Woman PoorPeydey Woman Woman headedCheten Dema Woman PoorYuesen Woman Land affectedTashi Tshering Man Land affectedPhurba Man Land affectedTotal 7 (2 Men, 5 Women)

67

Annex 4: Social Screening Format for DRDP sub-projects

1. Background Information

Name of farm road/irrigation channel/power tiller track …………………

Total length ………… km

Alignment of road for proposed work: From ……………..…… to ……………….……

Date of survey …………………………..

Names of surveyors:

2. Potential Social Impacts

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

Does the subproject impact houses/assets or other private properties.

Is the acquisition of land based on voluntary donation? Yes……… No…………..

Will any of the affected households lose 25% or more of their owned land or income due to project interventions.

Will any affected family who lose a residential house as a consequence of the project ? Yes…….. No………..

Will the subproject adversely impact livelihoods.

Are there any impacts on common property resources (religious or cultural structures).

Are there any adverse impacts on vulnerable groups in the community?

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

Record entitlements to compensation/assistance if the answers to bullets 4, 5, and 6 detailed above is yes.

5. Names of respondents (Please attach list)

68

Annex 5: Socio-economic Survey Format for DRDP sub-projects

A. Background Information1. Name of farm road/irrigation channel/power tiller track ………………………………

Total length ………… km2. Alignment of road for proposed work: From ……………..…… to ……………….……3. Date of survey …………………………..4. Names of surveyors:5. Names of respondents (Please attach list)

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

B. Socio-Economic Information

7. Does the road pass through village settlements? Yes …… No. ……….

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

No Name of village Geog Total No.Of hhin village

No. of women headed hh

123

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

If yes, fill in the following tables:-

9.1 Impacts on land

(1) Total Households losing land (No.)

Ethnicity*(No. of h/h by ethnicity losing land)

No. of women headed households losing land

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

9.2 Impacts on structures

(1) Total Hhs losing structures (No.)

Ethnicity*(No. of h/h by ethnicity losing structures)

No. of women headed losing structures

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

69

9.3 Impacts on livelihoods

(1) Total Hhs losing livelihoods (No.)

Ethnicity*(No. of h/h by ethnicity losing livelihoods)

No. of women headed losing livelihoods

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

9.4 Is the acquisition of land based on voluntary donation? Yes……… No…………… How many people affected by voluntary land donation……………..? How many people have agreed to voluntarily donate land?

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

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

If yes, list down the affected families by impact category

No. Village No. of families losing residential house

No. of families losing >25% land holding

No. of families losing business establishment

No. of women headed households

10. In case of such affected households what could be the mitigation measures

(resettlement/rehabilitation) to be adopted by the Dzongkhag? Please specify

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

No. Community Resources/Properties Unit Quantity Remarks (Specify)1. Community forests (including sokshing) No.

2. Community irrigation No.

3. Drinking water source and system No.

4. Schools No.

5. Public buildings No.

6. Temple No.

7. Others (specify)

12 Does the road provide better access to health facilities? Yes……….. No …………..If yes, how and in what way? Please specify.

70

13. Does the road provide better access to schools, education and communication?Yes………. No…………….If yes, how and in what way? Please specify.

14. How would the poor and disadvantaged people benefit from the farm road and to what extent?

15. What are the potential income generating activities in the area following construction of the farm road? Please list them in detail.

16. Would the farm road promote marketing opportunities of local produce? Yes………. No …………….

If yes, how that would happen? Please elaborate.

17. Are people ready to cooperate in the project? Yes……….. No…………

18. If yes or no – why? Please elaborate.19. How would the project benefit women, children and vulnerable groups? Please specify in

detail.

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

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

C. Local Community Mobilization

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

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

71

2. If no, would people like to form RUC? Yes………. No …………..

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

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

D. Public Consultations

It is foreseen that public consultations of the following forms should, at a minimum occur during the appraisal/survey exercise of the sub-projects: -

1. Public consultations in the form of a community meeting to solicit their assistance for the survey and to explain the purpose of the survey etc., are required. Reference can be made to the relevant irrigation and farm road modules. Before the survey- explain to the people the expected impacts of the development, where they could occur and how they will be mitigated. Provide a record of the meeting/s and attach a list of the names of the affected people together with the date of consultation/s, details of their Geog and village, issues raised by the people and the agreement/s arrived at between the Applicant and the people to resolve these issues. In addition to the issues described in the irrigation and farm road modules for pre-construction meeting 2.

2. Conduct a group meeting with the persons – with those impacted by the facility. These persons may lose land, property and livelihoods. Provide details of public consultation held with affected people (names) whose land or property is affected by the irrigation channel/farm road/power-tiller track/RNR Centre etc. Some of the guiding questions for the discussions would be as below: -

(i) What benefits will the facility bring you?(ii) How will the loss of your land/property impact you?(iii) How would you manage that impact?(iv) What has the community decided in the meeting to discuss the impacts and what

mode of settlement has been agreed?(v) If you cannot manage the impact, and if you are not satisfied with the

community’s management plan, what support would you require? From whom? (vi) Have the procedures for voluntary land donations been explained to community

members?(vii) Have the principles of the RPF, including entitlements to compensation been

explained to community members?(viii) Provide signatures or other proof of consultation/s with the affected people.

Describe issues that remain unresolved.

3. Conduct community-meeting 2. Reference can be made to the relevant irrigation and farm road modules.

72

Annex 6: Suggested Memorandum of Understanding for Voluntary Land Donations

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

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

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

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

4. That the owner hereby grants to the......................................this asset for the construction and development of ....................in.....................................geog, .............................. dzongkhag supported by the Decentralized Rural Development Project for the benefit of the community.

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

6. That the GYT/DYT agrees to accept this grant of asset for the purposes mentioned.7. That the GYT/DYT of...........……......shall construct and develop the DRDP sub-project

and take all possible precautions to avoid damage to adjacent land/structure/other assets.8. That both the parties agree that the DRDP sub-project so constructed shall be community

premises.9. That the provisions of this agreement will come into force from the date of signing of this deed.

Signature of the Owner Signature of GYT

Signature of the Tshogpa

Witness:

73

Annex 7: Monitoring Indicators

Process Monitoring and Evaluation IndicatorsType of Monitoring and Evaluation BASIS FOR INDICATORS

Sub-project Area Information

Location of sub-project area Population composition, structures, education and skills Access to health, education, utilities and other social services Housing type and amenities (toilets, drinking water, electricity) Land and other resources ownership and use patterns Occupations and employment patterns of households - Participation in neighborhood or community groups / development

- Access to cultural sites and events - Value of all assets for entitlements and resettlement needs

Budget and Time Frame

Have all land acquisition and resettlement provisions been made and staff mobilized in the field and offices as per the schedule?

Are funds for compensation/resettlement sought to deal with involuntary land acquisition?

Have funds been allocated to titleholders according to SAP? Has the social preparation phase taken place as scheduled? How effectively have grievances been addressed?

Land Acquisition

Have all land acquisition process been finalized officially? Are land acquisition activities being achieved according to agreed principles? Are there any resettlement related outstanding disputes? Has all land been acquired in time for project implementation? How many MOUs have been signed for voluntary land donation?

Output Monitoring and Evaluation IndicatorsType of Monitoring and Evaluation Basis for Indicators

Delivery of Entitlements

Number of families providing lands voluntarily for DRDP sub-projects and those who have been provided with compensation for lands? How much money has been disbursed as compensation under different headings?

Number of households due to be compensated for their properties i.e. land, house, business displacement, crop damage etc.

Number of households/PAPs to be resettled because of displacement. Do people have access to schools, health services, cultural sites? Are restoration plans for social infrastructure and services adequately

addressed? Are incomes and livelihood restoration activities being implemented as set out

in the income restoration plan, for example number of PAPs trained and provided with jobs, micro-credit disbursed, number of income generating activities assisted?

Restoration of Living Standards

Were compensation payments made free of depreciation fees of costs? Have perceptions??? of "community" been restored?

Consultation, Grievance, and Special Issues

Have consultations taken place as scheduled including meetings, groups, community activities?

How many PAPs know their entitlements? How many of them have received entitlements?

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

74

Impact Monitoring and Evaluation IndicatorsType of Monitoring and Evaluation Basis for Indicators

Restoration of Livelihoods

Were compensation payments sufficient to replace lost assets? Did transfer and relocation payments cover these costs? Have vulnerable groups been provided income-earning opportunities? Are

these effective and sustainable? Are jobs provided to PAPs to restore pre-project income levels and maintain

their original living standards?

Levels of Satisfaction

How much the PAPs/SPAPs are aware of the resettlement procedures and entitlements? Do PAPs/SPAPs know their entitlements?

Do they know if these have been met? How to assess the extent to which PAPs/SPAPs own living standards and

livelihoods have been restored? How much do PAPs/SPAPs know about grievance procedures and conflict

resolution procedures?

Effectiveness of Resettlement Planning

Were the PAPs/SPAPs and their assets correctly enumerated? Was the time frame and budget sufficient to meet objectives? Were entitlements too generous? Were vulnerable groups identified and assisted? How did resettlement implementers deal with unforeseen problems?

Other Impacts Were there unintended environmental impacts? Were there unintended impacts on employment or incomes?

Some further indicators are suggested that could be monitored after the project is completed. These have been segregated at different levels namely at the process or activity level, the output or result level and at the outcome or objective level. Monitoring indicators are suggested in the table below.

Table 8: Suggested indicators per project element and level Project element Level & Suggested indicator ResponsiblePDO

Increased agricultural output and improved market access for rural communities in selected dzongkhags

Outcome

3 years after completion of the project, 35% of farmers in rural communities increase their income from RNR related activities.

DOA

Intermediate Results

Component One:Rural Infrastructurea. Rural Access

b. Irrigation

Output

A year after completion of the project, frequency of visits to district head offices double for half the population

2 years after completion of the project, food security of farmers enhanced with 25% increase in paddy yields.

DOA

Component TwoRNR CentersCenter Construction

Capacity-Building

After construction of the RNR Centers, farmers in those 16 Geogs in the project area, owing to proximity of the facility, save 10% of their time for productive work.

At least 10% of farmers in villages learn better practices and technology from trained farmers.

DOA

75