Social Safeguards Due Diligence Report

November 2017

IND: Madhya Pradesh District Roads II Sector Project

Prepared by Madhya Pradesh Roads Development Corporation, Government of India for the Asian Development Bank.

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (As of 17 October 2017)

Currency unit – Indian Rupee (Rs) INR 1.00 = $ 0.01545

$ 1.00 = 64.71

ABBREVIATION

ADB Asian Development Bank

AP Project Affected Persons CSC Construction Supervision Consultant

DPR Detailed project report

EA Executing agency

FGD Focus Group Discussion GOI Government of India

GoMP Government of Madhya Pradesh

GRC Grievance redress committee

GRM Grievance redress mechanism IA Implementing Agency

IP Indigenous People

IPPF Indigenous People’s Planning Framework

IR Involuntary Resettlement MDR Major District Road

MPRDC Madhya Pradesh Roads Development Corporation

PIU Project Implementation Unit

PWD Public Works Departments

R&R Resettlement and Rehabilitation

RF Resettlement Framework RoW Right of Way

SDDR Social Safeguard Due Diligence Report

SPS Safeguard Policy Statement 2009

TCS Typical Cross Section This social safeguards due diligence report is a document of the borrower. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of ADB's Board of Directors, Management, or staff and may be preliminary in nature. Your attention is directed to the “terms of use” section of this website. In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.

TABLE OF CONTENTS A. PROJECT BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. 1

B. SUBPROJECT COMPONENTS AND DESIGN CRITERIA ................................................. 2

C. SUBPROJECT SCREENING AND CATEGORIZATION ..................................................... 2

D. CONSULTATION AND PARTICIPATION ........................................................................... 5

E. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT ..................................................................................... 6

F. GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISM .............................................................................. 7

G. GENDER ISSUE UNDER THE PROJECT .......................................................................... 8

H. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................... 9

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: List of Proposed Road Sections and Packages .....................................................10

Appendix 2: Involuntary Resettlement Impact Categorization Checklist ....................................12

Appendix 3: Indigenous Peoples Impact Categorization Checklist ............................................13

Appendix 4: Record of Public Consultations ..............................................................................14

Appendix 5: GRM Document Shared with DPS during consultation ..........................................19

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Selected New Road Subproject under Phase -V .......................................................... 1 Table 2: Summary of Issues Discussed during Consultations and Measures Taken to address these Issues ............................................................................................................................... 5 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Typical Cross Section ................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2: Grievance Redress Mechanism .................................................................................. 8

1

A. PROJECT BACKGROUND

1. The Government of Madhya Pradesh (GOMP) has been using a combination of budgetary, PPP, and ADB financing, to improve road network in Madhya Pradesh. ADB has supported numerous state highways and rural roads. However, the intermediate tiers, major district roads (MDRs), have not been specifically targeted for improvement resulting in overall poor road network connectivity. MDRs form the key linkage between rural, peri-urban and urban areas, and have to be essentially developed to complete state road connectivity. GoMP has now proposed to improve the MDRs through the Madhya Pradesh District Connectivity Sector Project (the Project) financed by ADB1. The Project will improve transport connectivity in the state by rehabilitating and upgrading major district roads (MDRs). The Project constitutes (i) rehabilitating and upgrading about 1720 km of MDRs; (ii) improving road maintenance and asset management; and (iii) developing an efficient accident response system. MPRDC specifically, targeting MDRs to form key linkage between rural, semi-urban and urban areas and complete state road connectivity. The Executing Agency (EA) will be the GoMP acting through the Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation (MPRDC) and the IAs will be the 10 Project Implementation Units (PIUs). 2. Since the project will follow a sector loan modality, thirty nine non- sample MDRs totalling about 1040.47 km road length were initially selected to screen significance of potential social safeguard issues and determine the scope of mitigation measures to address these issues. A DDR has already submitted for these 39 roads. Now, this DDR deals with 8 more new road subprojects totalling about 189.06 km road length (Table 1) identified and selected under phase- V. The construction period for all roads under the project will include a 12 – 24 month construction period and a 5 years performance based maintenance period.

Table 1: Selected New Road Subproject under Phase -V

S.N. Road Name District Division MPRDC

Length (Kms)

1 Jigna-New Ramnagar- Gorsari Road Satna Rewa 24.2

2 Govindgarh -Tikar-laxmanpur Road Rewa Rewa 17.71

3 Beohari-Manpur Road Umaria Rewa 16.83

4 Deotalab to Garh Road Rewa Rewa 14.79

5 Sohagi -Teothar-Panwar-Daboura Road Rewa Rewa 9.52

6 Chakghat-Sonari Road Rewa Rewa 27.76

7 Latiyar-Hanumana Road Rewa Rewa 26.04

8 Rajendragram-Kotma Road Anuppur Rewa 52.21 Source: Detailed Project Report (DPR), MPRDC

3. As a part of project preparation, detailed social impact assessment has been carried out for all eight non-sample subprojects. This Social Due Diligence Report (SDDR) is based on the review of final detailed design report and social assessment of individual subprojects carried out during the project preparation. A Resettlement Framework (RF) and an Indigenous People’s Planning Framework (IPPF) is already prepared for the entire project under Madhya Pradesh District Roads I Sector Project to guide the preparation of non-sample subprojects. The RF and IPPF are prepared in compliance with relevant policies and regulations of the Government of India, GoMP, and the ADB Safeguard Policy Statement 2009 (SPS). 1 The loan is 3189-IND: Madhya Pradesh District Connectivity Sector Project.

2

B. SUBPROJECT COMPONENTS AND DESIGN CRITERIA

4. The subproject activities involve improvement of existing major district roads within available RoW. The road widening activities primarily will comprise of raising the embankment at certain locations and its stabilization including construction of retaining wall if required, especially near water bodies overlay on the existing carriageway, junction improvement, and construction of minor bridges, culvert and RCC drain in built-up section. 5. The existing Right of Way (RoW) of the subproject roads varies from 12 to 20 meters, which is not properly demarcated on ground. Keeping in view the unavailability of the uniform RoW and existing ribbon development along the subproject roads, multiple design criteria are adopted to ensure avoidance of any adverse impacts to the roadside settlers. It is confirmed that no additional land will be acquired under any of the subproject and therefore the standard design criteria adopted for the subproject roads are the following:

Proposed carriageway for the open area will be from 5.5 meter to 7.0 meter depending on the availability of the land.

Proposed carriageway for the built-up area will be from 3.75 meter to 5.5 meter depending on the availability of land.

Proposed pavements will be concrete one and width of shoulders and provision of drains will be accommodated within the existing RoW.

6. The typical cross sections (TCS) in built-up area, rural areas, and overlay locations are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Typical Cross Section

C. SUBPROJECT SCREENING AND CATEGORIZATION

7. Based on the review of detailed design report and social assessment report for individual subprojects, summary findings of these eight subprojects are presented below:

3

8. Jigna-New Ramnagar- Gorsari Road: The subproject road is an MDR falls under Satna district of Madhya Pradesh and connects old SH-9 with SH-13. It starts at Km. 36/4 of Govindgarh- Beohari-Shahdol Road (Old SH-9) in Jigna village and terminates at Km 15/6 of Amarpatan-Badera Road (SH-13) by making a Y intersection in Dhodh village. 9. The project road in the entire stretch traverses through plain terrain. The proposed length of the road for improvement is 24.200 kms. . Land use pattern is predominantly agricultural and habitation. The existing road is a single-lane road having carriageway width 3.50 m to 3.75 m along 1.00m to 1.50 m earthen shoulder on either side. The formation width varies from 5 to 7.30 and available ROW is 10-45m. Proposed subproject widening proposal is limited within the existing formation width in the settlement area and available RoW in open area. The subproject will not have any negative impacts on its roadside properties. The project road provides vital connectivity to local public and farmers to other villages, towns and market places. 10. Govindgarh -Tikar-laxmanpur Road: The subproject road takes off from T- junction (LHS- Rewa and RHS-Shahdol) of SH-9 in Govindgarh town of Madhya Pradesh and terminates at T-junction of Rewa road (LHS-Rewa and RHS-Bihariya) in Kanauja village. The total design length of the road under improvement is 17.710 km. The existing alignment is single lane having carriageway width of 3.0 m to 3.75 m 11. The project road provides connectivity to Bansa, Tola Bansa, Madwa, Gahira, Bansi, Tikar, Chua, Chharehata, Dhurehati and Lakshmanpur village. The pavement condition of the project road is poor to very poor. The existing carriageway is single lane having flexible BT/GR pavement. Carriageway widths are varying between 3.0m to 3.75m along the entire length of project road. The earthen shoulder varies from 1.00m to 1.50m on either side of the project road. The existing road is mostly passes through agriculture/Built-up lands with rural settlements scattered along the project road. The project road alignment traverses through plain and rolling terrain. The existing RoW varies from 10m to 15m. The subproject will not have any negative impacts on its roadside properties. 12. Beohari-Manpur Road: The subproject road in Umaria district of Madhya Pradesh starts at Km 25+450 of Beohari-Manpur Road after the newly constructed bridge over Sone river & terminates at Tala – Tetka Mod Road (SH-10) in Manpur Town.The total length of existing road is 16.825 km and the alignment is single lane having carriageway width 3.00 m, except in Manpur town where it is found 7.00 m. Existing ROW is found varying between 10m to 14m. Hence no extra land will be required except at build-up sections or residential areas where sufficient ROW may not be available. In these stretches development will be restricted beyond the available land. 13. The road is an important connection between settlement along the project road like Balhaud, Semra villages, settlements and Manpur town. Land use pattern is predominantly agricultural and habitation. The subproject will not have any negative impacts on its roadside properties. 14. Deotalab to Garh Road: The subproject road is located in Rewa district of Madhya Pradesh and starts near NH-135 at Deotalab. The road ends after traversing a length of 14.79 Km in Garh village. The alignment is single lane having carriageway width of 3.75 – 4.5 m only with fair to poor stretches in most of the lengths. The project road provides vital connectivity to local public and farmers to other villages, towns and market places.The existing road passes through predominantly agriculture / barren lands and scattered urban and village settlements.

4

15. The existing RoW available for the entire project road varies from 12 to 20m. No land acquistion is envisaged and also the subproject will not have any negative impacts on its roadside properties. 16. Sohagi -Teothar-Panwar-Daboura Road: The subproject, road section falls under Rewa district of Madhya Pradesh. The total design length of the road is 9.52 Km. The alignment is single lane having carriageway width of 3.75 – 4.5 m only with fair to poor stretches in most of the lengths. The project road provides vital connectivity to local public and farmers to other villages, towns and market places.The existing road passes through predominantly agriculture / barren lands and scattered urban and village settlements. 17. The existing RoW available for the entire project road varies from 12 to 20m. No land acquistion is envisaged and also the subproject will not have any negative impacts on its roadside properties. 18. Chakghat-Sonari Road: The subproject road is located in Rewa district of Madhya Pradesh and starts from NH-27 near Chakghat. The road ends after traversing a length of 27.76 Km in Bari Khurd village. The alignment is single lane having carriageway width of 3.75 – 4.5 m only with fair to poor stretches in most of the lengths. The project road provides vital connectivity to local public and farmers to other villages, towns and market places.The existing road passes through predominantly agriculture / barren lands and scattered urban and village settlements like Tonki, Matiyari, Amanw, Parwa, Atraila, Deeh, Sonwarsha, Sonari, Bari Khurd etc. 19. The existing RoW available for the entire project road varies from 15 to 20m. No land acquistion is envisaged and also the subproject will not have any negative impacts on its roadside properties. 20. Latiyar-Hanumana Road: The subproject road is located in Rewa district of Madhya Pradesh and starts near NH-135 at Hanumana. The road ends after traversing a length of 26.04 Km in Latiyar village. The alignment is single lane having carriageway width of 3.75 – 4.5 m only with fair to poor stretches in most of the lengths. The project road provides vital connectivity to local public and farmers to other villages, towns and market places.The existing road passes through predominantly agriculture / barren lands and scattered urban and village settlements. 21. The existing RoW available for the entire project road varies from 12 to 20m. No land acquistion is envisaged and also the subproject will not have any negative impacts on its roadside properties. 22. Rajendragram-Kotma Road: The subproject, road section falls under Anuppur district of Madhya Pradesh. The Project Road consists of 2 parts. Part-1 starts from a 3-legged junction near Bhalumada village & terminates at Km 24/10 of Anuppur – Venkatnagar Road (MP-MDR-47-04) in Khuntatola. Part-2 starts from Anuppur - Venkatnagar Road in Jaitpur Town & terminates at Anuppur – Amarkantak Road (SH-9) near Rajendragram. Total length of the project road is 52.205 Km. The alignment is single lane having carriageway width of 3.75 – 4.5 m only with fair to poor stretches in most of the lengths. 23. The project road provides vital connectivity to local public and farmers to other villages, towns and market places.The existing road passes through predominantly agriculture / barren lands and scattered urban and village settlements like Bhalumada, Gabhikha, Bharatola, Chowndi, Pattatola, Barbaspur, Cholna, Chatapatar, Khuntatola, Jaithari, Gobri Village, Gorela Village, Girwi Village, Bhagra Village, Karodhai Village, Rajendragram etc. The existing RoW

5

available for the entire project road varies from 15 to 20m. No land acquistion is envisaged and also the subproject will not have any negative impacts on its roadside properties. 24. The subproject roads have been evaluated and categorized using the prescribed ADB Involuntary Resettlement (IR) Checklist (Appendix 2) and Indigenous People (IP) Checklist (Appendix 3). The thirty nine non-sample subprojects evaluated are classified as category ‘C’ from IR and IP point of view. This categorization was primarily based on the following considerations:

Proposed subproject roads are existing roads and upgrading activities are limited to the available RoW.

Proposed subproject road improvement works will not involve any land acquisition or cause any adverse impacts on the roadside communities.

Proposed subproject road does not have any negative impacts on indigenous people in terms of loss of land, livelihood, and other assets.

D. CONSULTATION AND PARTICIPATION

25. Public consultations were held early and throughout the subproject preparation stages to allow the incorporation of relevant views of the stakeholders in the final project design, mitigation measures, implementation issues, and enhance the distribution of benefits. During the project preparation stage, focus group discussions (FGDs) were organized within these eight non-sample subprojects involving both men and women. 26. The local communities’ responses to the subproject are summarized below and details are provided in Table 2.

(i) Project Awareness: The majority of the beneficiary, especially men communities

were found aware of the Project activities. (ii) Effects on business and living conditions: Almost all of the community expect

a positive impact of the sub-project in terms of improved living standards. (iii) Job Opportunities: The communities requested to be hired for unskilled to semi-

skilled jobs during the construction and operation of the project activities. In such case, priority will be given to women headed households identified during socioeconomic survey.

(iv) Provision of Drainage: almost all the villagers reside along the road has made request of appropriate and effective drainage system.

(v) Road Safety: traffic on the existing road is low but after improvement, traffic will increase and will be a major issue of road safety; therefore, road safety measures are necessary.

(vi) Road Quality: villagers are not sure about the quality because of past experience; local people should be involved in quality check and monitoring. Road must be up to the standards and road should be constructed within given time.

Table 2: Summary of Issues Discussed during Consultations and Measures Taken to

address these Issues Date and Location

Issues Discussed/ Suggestion given

Measures to be taken Participant

30 villages along the subproject roads during field

Local transportation and accessibilities.

Control of speed if road is

Proposed widening and strengthening of the road will provide better level of

Participants included local villages,

6

Date and Location

Issues Discussed/ Suggestion given

Measures to be taken Participant

surveys between August 2014 and Jan 2017

improved. Positive and negative

impacts of the road improvement

Suggestion design shall take

hydrological aspects into consideration

Adequate measures shall be taken to avoid water logging near habitations during normal rainfall.

Suggestion viz., Minimal loss of structures, Adequate rehabilitation and resettlement measures

The local community stressed on adequate safety provisions to be provided along the road.

services in terms of improved riding quality and smooth traffic flow

There will be considerable reduction in the number of accident and level of pollution

Accessibility to social health and educational infrastructure will increase through all-weather road.

Generation of employment during construction phase of the road.

The discussion generate considerable awareness of the project

As the proposed road shall be widened one, it shall provide an efficient public transportation system besides ensuring reduction in congestion level

The non-title holders shall also be compensated as per ADB guidelines.

Drainage system is proposed in built-up area and earthen drainage for rural area.

Road safety features like traffic signs, Overhead Sign Boards, Road Illumination, Delineators, pavement marking, pedestrian path and rumble strips has been included in the design.

affected people, school teachers, farmers, shop owners, women groups etc.

27. The sample of Participants list and Public Consultation photographs are attached in Appendix 4. In addition information on the GRM procedures and formats in local language (Hindi), which was shared with the local people during consultation are provided in Appendix-5. E. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT 28. The Executing Agency for the project is GoMP through MPRDC. MPRDC is wholly owned by GoMP and has been equipped with adequate capacity to implement the project. A General Manager (GM) at MPRDC headquarter has been designated as person in charge for project implementation. The Environmental and Social Cell at MPRDC headquarters, reporting to the General Manager, will be responsible for ensuring compliance with environmental and social safeguards of project roads. MPRDC has seven division offices (Bhopal, Jabalpur, Sagar,

7

Gwalior, Ujjain, Indoor, Seoni, and Rewa) acting as Project Implementation Units (PIUs), each headed by a Divisional Manager (Tech.) will be responsible for project road implementation in the field. MPRDC will engage Construction Supervision Consultants (CSC) to act as the engineer for the construction contracts. The Social and R&R Expert from CSC will assist the PIUs for managing social and R&R activities under the project. F. GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISM 29. The grievances related to the implementation of the subprojects, particularly regarding the social issues will be acknowledged, evaluated, and responded to the complainant with corrective action proposed. Grievance Redress Cell (GRC) will be established at the MPRDC state level and at the PIU level to assure accessibility for Affected Persons. The GRCs are expected to resolve grievances of the eligible persons within a stipulated time. The decision of the GRCs will be binding, unless vacated by the court of law. The grievance redress mechanism is given in Figure 2. 30. Complaints may be lodged directly to the contractor or CSC or PIU at the site level. To the extent possible efforts will be made by the contractor, CSC or PIU to address these complaints immediately on site. Only those complaints that cannot be addressed immediately at the site level will be submitted to the Grievance Redress Committee (GRC). The respective receiver of the complaint will make necessary assistance for completing the complaint form or lodging a written complaint to illiterate complainants. 31. The GRC will continue to function, for the benefit of the DPs, during the entire life of the project including the five year maintenance period. The composition of this two-tire GRC will be as per the following:

The State level GRC will comprise of the:

i) General Manager, MPRDC, Bhopal ii) Superintended Engineer, PWD, Bhopal iii) DGM, MPRDC, Bhopal iv) Manager (Environment & Social), MPRDC, Bhopal

The PIU level GRC will comprise of the:

i) Divisional Manager from MPRDC ii) Executive Engineer, local PWD office iii) A representative from local NGOs or a local person of repute and standing

in the society, elected representative from respective Zila Parisad. iv) Two representative from affected people including vulnerable groups and

women from a relevant agency which could be from the government, or NGO or local community

8

Figure 2: Grievance Redress Mechanism

G. GENDER ISSUE UNDER THE PROJECT 32. During the FGD, the women members expressed the view, that construction of road will definitely ease the trouble, especially during the monsoon. Better quality road will help students, especially girls to attend schools. The bicycle journey to school will become comfortable for them. Improved road will increase women’s mobility, especially those who go for distance unskilled jobs, local markets, and health centres etc. Due to better road, visit of health staff, especially ANM and school teacher will increase. 33. Women’s contribution to the project area economy is very low because of under estimation of the role of women in various sectors of economy. There are differences in men’s and women’s pay, unequal access to stable employment. Women are engaged in “hidden work” unpaid but economically necessary in the domestic, agriculture and informal sectors.

Complaints by individuals, Groups, or institutions

Complaints by People’s representatives: political, religious,

community

Step 1 GRC Secretary at divisional Level

(Complaints to GRC in written form

Step 1 GRC meeting

Step 2 GRC meeting

at State l Level

Decision of Step 2 GRC – Convey the decision to Public / Chairman and other members of Step

1GRC

Decision to be taken within 3

week of receipt of complaint

Decision to be taken within 3

week of receipt of complaint

GRC process ends

Simple issues

Complex issues

6 Weeks

9

34. Information on Access to and Control over certain important aspects; such as Resources, Markets and Socio Cultural, were obtained from the respondents. It is revealed that while women have access to almost all resources and services, the controls are primarily in the hands of men only. 35. Women use the road for transport of water, fuel, farm inputs and products, animal fodder, and building materials as well as their participation in rural production are significant. Improved road will provide them ease in movement and time saving. H. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 36. The assessment of non-sample subprojects reveals that the improvement work will be limited to the existing RoW and will not involve any additional land acquisition. The design options considered for the subprojects have fully avoided any negative impacts on road site settlers and property owners. To avoid impacts, the road design and improvement work is further limited to existing formation width in settlement areas. These 8 non-sample subprojects assessed under the project are classified as Category C projects with regards to involuntary resettlement and indigenous people according to ADB SPS-2009. 37. The Resettlement Framework (RF) and Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) prepared under the project will further guide the management of social safeguard issues during subproject implementation. The following specific actions are proposed to be implemented during the subproject construction period.

During the implementation any impacts identified under the subprojects will be addressed and mitigated as per the entitlement matrix provided under the project RF.

The EA will ensure that contractor engaged undder the subprojects will finalise the construction camps in consultation with the local community and execute formal lease for the land under utilization.

Equal wages will be paid for men and women workers engaged under the subproject construction work.

The contractor will take all necessary safety measures during costruction for commuters and workers.

To ensure easy access to the registration of grievance by the DPs, PIU should include arrangement of receiving it at contractor camp.

A semi-annaual progress report will be submitted by the EA to ADB on management of social safeguard issues under the project.

The Project RF has provision of assistance for temporary livelihood loss and in case during the implementation, any such impacts are identified and the DPs will offer to forgo these small assistance amount against the positive impacts resulted from the improved road, an memorandum of understanding (MoU) will be signed by both the parties and the details of such process will be documented in the semi-annual monitoring report and submitted to ADB.

Appendix 1 10

APPENDIX 1: LIST OF PROPOSED ROAD SECTIONS AND PACKAGES

S.No. Package District Name of Road Length (in Km)

Length of Package (in Km)

1 1 Guan Khatakia to Suthaliya via NH-3, Kumbhraj, Barod, Mragwas, Batawda, Chanchoda, Binaganj, Teligaon

87 87

2 2

Shivpuri Sirsod– Pichhore 33 59

3 Shivpuri Narwar– Chitori to Amola 26

4

3

Ashok Nagar Mungawali– Malahargarh 17

64 5 Ashok Nagar Piprod– Thubon 8

6 Ashok Nagar Belai– Kareela Mata Mandir 18

7 Vidisha Bhounrasa– Malhargarh 21

8

4

Indore Sanwer– Chandravatiganj– Gautampura 35

55 9 Indore

Kshipradwa– Budhi– Barlai– Solsindi– Khandakhedi– Jamodi– Maharajganj– Baloda– Rajod– Panod– Sanwer

20

10

5

Narsinghpur Gadarwara– Gotetoria 20

74 11 Narsinghpur Babai– Barha-Sukhakhairi 24

12 Narsinghpur Kareli– Singhpur– Dangidhana 30

13

6

Sagar Maharajpur– Sahajpur 25

84 14 Sagar Samnapur– Bilehra– Nanhi Deori– Narayanpur

45

15 Sagar Kesali– Sahajpur 14

16

7

Sagar Gadpera– Dhamoni 35

90 17 Sagar Barodiya– Dhamoni 20

18 Sagar Nauniya– Madanpura 3

19 Sagar Khurai– Rajwas 32

20 8 Panna Shahnagar– Hardua via Thepa Bori 40 40

21

9

Chhatrpur Bariya Choki– Lugasi 16

101

22 Chhatrpur Rajnagar to Dumra (Part of Bamitha– Dumra)

26

23 Chhatrpur Rajnagar– Bachhon 24

24 Chhatrpur Khaparia Banspahari 24

25 Chhatrpur Chhatarpur– Rajnagar– Vikrampur 11

26

10

Seoni Barghat– Kanhiwada 21

77 27 Seoni Dharna– Aata– Dondiwada– Dharmakua 26

28 Balaghat Waraseoni– Katangi 30

29

11

Balaghat Rampayali– Garra Choki 26

78 30 Balaghat Khairlanji– Agasi 25

31 Balaghat Laalbarra– Samnapur 9

32 Balaghat Seetapathor– Mahkepaar– Goreghat 18

33 12 Mandla Barela– Niwas 46 46

34

13

Chhindwara Chourai– Panjara– Chand 19

68 35 Chhindwara Chand– Bichhua– Khamarpani 37

36 Chhindwara Reymond chowk (Teenkheda) to Saikheda 12

11 Appendix 1

S.No. Package District Name of Road Length (in Km)

Length of Package (in Km)

37

14

Rewa Tyonthar– Shankargarh 23

111 38 Rewa Bahera– Dabar– Piparahi– Jadkud 15

39 Rewa Naigarhi– Gurh 14

40 Rewa Chakghat– Hanumana 59

41

15

Satna Kharamseda– Kirhai– Ramgarh 39

76 42 Satna Jharkua– Raigaon– Karsara 24

43 Satna Bhatura– Bhadpur– Barakhurd 12

44 16

Sidhi, Singroli Chitrangi to Sinhawal 84 113

45 Singroli Chitrangi– Garhwa 29

46

17

Singroli Parsona– Mada 24

109 47 Singroli Ramgarh– Mada 23

48 Singroli Jhurai– Sarai 35

49 Singroli Harfari Khaira– Misirgawan via Shivpurva 27

50 18 Umaria Sohagpur– Manpur 59 59

51

19

Shahdol Anooppur– Jaitpur 26

84 52 Shahdol Gohparu– Rasmohni– Budhar (via Bathiya) 33

53 Shahdol Pasgarhi– Deori– Janakpur 25

54 20 Dewas Bijawar– Kataphod– Satwaas– Khategaon 56 56 Sub Total 1530 1531

55

21

Satna Jigna-New Ramnagar- Gorsari Road 24.2

58.74 56 Rewa Govindgarh -Tikar-laxmanpur Road 17.71

57 Umaria Beohari-Manpur Road 16.83

58

22

Rewa Deotalab to Garh Road 14.79

78.11 59 Rewa Sohagi -Teothar-Panwar-Daboura Road 9.52

60 Rewa Chakghat-Sonari Road 27.76

61 Rewa Latiyar-Hanumana Road 26.04

62 23 Anuppur Rajendragram-Kotma Road 52.21 52.21

Sub Total 189.06 189.06

Total 1719.06 1720.06

Note: Totals may not exactly match because of rounding

Appendix 2 12

APPENDIX 2: INVOLUNTARY RESETTLEMENT IMPACT CATEGORIZATION CHECKLIST

Probable Involuntary Resettlement Effects Yes No Not Known Remarks

Involuntary Acquisition of Land

1. Will there be land acquisition? ✔

2. Is the site for land acquisition known? Not Required

3. Is the ownership status and current usage of land to be acquired known?

Not Required

4. Will easement be utilized within an existing Right of Way (ROW)?

✔

5. Will there be loss of shelter and residential land due to land acquisition?

✔

6. Will there be loss of agricultural and other productive assets due to land acquisition?

✔

7. Will there be losses of crops, trees, and fixed assets due to land acquisition?

✔

8. Will there be loss of businesses or enterprises due to land acquisition?

✔

9. Will there be loss of income sources and means of livelihoods due to land acquisition?

✔

Involuntary restrictions on land use or on access to legally designated parks and protected areas

10. Will people lose access to natural resources, communal facilities and services?

✔

11. If land use is changed, will it have an adverse impact on social and economic activities?

✔

12. Will access to land and resources owned communally or by the state be restricted?

✔

Information on Displaced Persons:

Any estimate of the likely number of persons that will be displaced by the Project? [✔ ] No [ ] Yes If yes, approximately how many? ______________________

Are any of them poor, female-headed households, or vulnerable to poverty risks? [✔ ] No [ ] Yes

Are any displaced persons from indigenous or ethnic minority groups? [✔ ] No [ ] Yes

13 Appendix 3

APPENDIX 3: INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IMPACT CATEGORIZATION CHECKLIST

KEY CONCERNS (Please provide elaborations on the Remarks column)

YES NO NOT

KNOWN REMARKS

A. Indigenous Peoples Identification

1. Are there socio-cultural groups present in or use the project area who may be considered as "tribes" (hill tribes, schedules tribes, tribal peoples), "minorities" (ethnic or national minorities), or "indigenous communities" in the project area?

✔

2. Are there national or local laws or policies as well as anthropological researches/studies that consider these groups present in or using the project area as belonging to "ethnic minorities", scheduled tribes, tribal peoples, national minorities, or cultural communities?

✔

3. Do such groups self-identify as being part of a distinct social and cultural group?

✔

4. Do such groups maintain collective attachments to distinct habitats or ancestral territories and/or to the natural resources in these habitats and territories?

✔

5. Do such groups maintain cultural, economic, social, and political institutions distinct from the dominant society and culture?

✔

6. Do such groups speak a distinct language or dialect? ✔

7. Has such groups been historically, socially and economically marginalized, disempowered, excluded, and/or discriminated against?

✔

8. Are such groups represented as "Indigenous Peoples" or as "ethnic minorities" or "scheduled tribes" or "tribal populations" in any formal decision-making bodies at the national or local levels?

✔

B. Identification of Potential Impacts

9. Will the project directly or indirectly benefit or target Indigenous Peoples?

✔

10. Will the project directly or indirectly affect Indigenous Peoples' traditional socio-cultural and belief practices? (e.g. child-rearing, health, education, arts, and governance)

✔

11. Will the project affect the livelihood systems of Indigenous Peoples? (e.g., food production system, natural resource management, crafts and trade, employment status)

✔

12. Will the project be in an area (land or territory) occupied, owned, or used by Indigenous Peoples, and/or claimed as ancestral domain?

✔

C. Identification of Special Requirements Will the project activities include:

13. Commercial development of the cultural resources and knowledge of Indigenous Peoples?

✔

14. Physical displacement from traditional or customary lands? ✔

15. Commercial development of natural resources (such as minerals, hydrocarbons, forests, water, hunting or fishing grounds) within customary lands under use that would impact the livelihoods or the cultural, ceremonial, spiritual uses that define the identity and community of Indigenous Peoples?

✔

16. Establishing legal recognition of rights to lands and territories that are traditionally owned or customarily used, occupied or claimed by indigenous peoples?

✔

17. Acquisition of lands that are traditionally owned or customarily used, occupied or claimed by indigenous peoples?

✔

Appendix 4 14

APPENDIX 4: RECORD OF PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

A. PHOTOS

Public Consultation in Hatwa Village on Jigna – New Ramnagar – Gorsari Road Raod

Public Consultation at Chaundi Village on Rajendragram Jethari Kothma Road

Group Discussion during review visit at Jigna Road- New Ramnagar Road

Review visit with officials MPRDC and Design Consultant

Discussion with villagers in Latiyar Village on Latiyar –Hanumana Road

Review visit and Discussion during preparation of DDR

15 Appendix 4

B. ATTENDANCE SHEET

Appendix 4 16

17 Appendix 4

Appendix 4 18

19 Appendix 5

APPENDIX 5: GRM DOCUMENT SHARED WITH DPS DURING CONSULTATION

Appendix 5 20

21 Appendix 5