Indigenous People's Plan forRural Water Supply and Sanitation

(RWSS-II)

Volume 11of RWSS-11 Social Assessment

Submitted to:

UTHE WORLD BANK

by:

Yogendra Bahadur Gurung

SAMANATAInstitute for Social and Gender Equality

P.O. Box # 13205, KathmanduPhone: 535597, 547250, Fax: 549755E:mail - samanataci)wlink.com.np

Jawalakhel, Ekantakuna, Patan

27.12.2002

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

On behalf of Samanata - Institute for Social and Gender Equality, I would like to thank theWorld Bank for commissioning this study to us. I would like to thank Yogendra BahadurGurung for his valuable work in preparing the Indigenous People's Plan for Rural WaterSupply and Sanitation (RWSS) II report. This report was prepared and analyzed based onthe findings of the Social Assessment of the Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project(RWSS) II First Phase Report. I would also like to thank Dr. Lynn Bennett, SDV Advisorand Tashi Tenzing, Senior Sanitary/Environmental Engineer of the World Bank for theirvaluable contribution and comments during the different stages of the production of thereport.

Finally, I would like to thank Shobha Basnet for providing full support and assistancethrough out the study period and James Shrestha for production of the report.

Ava Darshan Shrestha, PhDTeam LeaderSocial Development/Gender ConsultantSamanata - Institute for Social and Gender Equality

ACRONYMS

AYCM Arunodaya Youth Club MahuwanBWUG Bajrabarahi Women's User GroupCAP Community Action PlanDDCs District Development CommitteesDEPROSC Development Project Service CentreDFO District Forest OfficerDO Development ObjectiveEVREC Everest Research CentreFGD Focus Group DiscussionHDI Human Development IndexHHs HouseholdsHMG/N His Majesty's Government of NepalHSE Health and Sanitation EducationICCR Implementation Phase Contract Completion ReportIDA International Development AssociationIEC Information, Education, and CommunicationIP Indigenous PeopleIP Plan Indigenous People's PlanIPDP Indigenous People's Development PlanIRDS Integrated Rural Development SocietyKAP Knowledge Attitude PracticeKll Key Informant InterviewM&E Monitoring and EvaluationMIS Management Information SystemMOF Ministry of FinanceMOLD Ministry of Local DevelopmentMOPPW/ MPPW Ministry of Physical Planning and WorksMRMG Mountain Resources Management GroupNEFEN Nepal Federation of NationalitiesNESAC Nepal South Asia CentreNFE Non-Formal EducationNGOs Non-Governmental OrganizationsNIWF National Indigenous Women's FederationNPC National Planning CommissionNPC National Planning CommissionOD World Bank's Operational DirectivePRA Participatory Rural AppraisalPRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy PaperRDS Rural Development SocietyRWSS-I Rural Water Supply and Sanitation, First PhaseRWSS-II Rural Water Supply and Sanitation, Second PhaseRWSS-FB Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Fund Development BoardSARAR Self-esteem, Associated Strengths, Resourcefulness, Action Planning, and

Responsibility (A Participatory Tool)SAs Support AgenciesSAPPROS Support Activities for Poor Producers of NepalSDC Swedish Development CooperationSOs Support OrganizationsSOLVE Society for Local VolunteersTAC Technical Appraisal CommitteeTOR Terms of ReferenceTOT Training of TrainersVDCs Village Development CommitteesWUG Water Users GroupBYC Bhimepokhara Youth ClubVHP Village Health Promoter

Table of Contents

1. BACKGROUND ................................................................................1

2. LEGAL AND SOCIO-CULTURAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................................ 2

3. STATUS OF IPS IN RWSS-1 ................................................................................ 6

4. POSSIBLE NEGATIVE IMPACTS, INDIGENOUS PEOPLE'S CONCERNS AND EXPECTATIONS ............... 104.1 Adverse Impacts on IPs ........................................... 10

Land acquisition .......................................... 11Social .........................................

12Cultural and Religious ......................................... 12Cultural Heritage ......................................... 12Language ......................................... 12Economic .........................................

134.2 IPs' Expectations ........................................... 13Drinki ng Water Supply and Sanitation Schemes ......................................... 13Associated Process and Activities ......................................... 13

4.3 IP Concerns and Issues ........................................... 14"Demtiatnd-driven " or "Road-head centre driven "? ......................................... 14Other Forms of Selection Bias ......................................... 15Shortcomings in NGO Selection ......................................... 15IP 's Less Aggressive Service Seeking Behaviour ......................................... 15Lack of IP (and Dalit) Voice and Influence in WUGs ......................................... 15

5. POLICY ISSUES TO BE INCLUDED IN REVISED FB POLICIES AND PROCEDURES .................................. 165.1 Involve Qualified IP Organizations in RWSS-II and set IP-Responsive Criteria for the Selection of SOs and

SAs .............................................16

5.2 Formulate IP Sensitive Fund Board Policies and Procedures ............................................ 16General ...........................................

17Community C.ontribution ............................................ 17Partnership ........................................... 17Training and Awareness Progratmime ........................................... 17Land Acquisition anid Resettlement ........................................... 18

5.3 Modify Pre-Feasibility Intake Survey and Pre-Feasibility Site Appraisal Formats to Focus on Issues of IP andDalit Inclusion ............................................ 18

6. SUMMARY OF CORE ELEMENTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE'S DEVELOPMENT PLAN ............................ 19Strategic Guidelines ...................................................................... 19

ANNEX 1: PRINCIPLE OF LAND ACQUISITION AND RESETTLEMENT . .22

Rules of taking possession of land 22Procedure.22Sample Formats.23

ANNEX 2: INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY OF FUND BOARD .25

ANNEX 3: MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) OF IP PLAN .26

(a) Compliance monitoring ........................................... 26(b) Community monitoring ........................................... 26(c) Development monitoring ........................................... 26(d) Impact Monitoring ........................................... 26(e) Strategic Monitoring ........................................... 27

ANNEX 4: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE MODIFICATION OF PRE-FEASIBILITY INTAKE SURVEY ANDPRE-FEASIBILITY SITE APPRAISAL FORMS .28

(a) Pre-feasibility Intake Survey .28(b) Social Mapping.29(c) Pre-feasibility Site Appraisal .29(d) Identification of Community Contribution to the RWSS-11 ........................................... 29

ANNEX 5: PEOPLE CONSULTED IN THE DISCUSSION .................................................................. 31

Fund Board .................................................................. 31SOs and SAs ............................................................... 31Makwanpur District ............................................................... 31Bajrabarahi VDC .................................................................. 31VDC ................................................................ 32Nawalparasi District ............................................................... 32

ANNEX 6: CHECK LISTS FOR DISCUSSION IN SOCIAL ASSESSMENT STUDY ................................................... 33Resettlement ............................................................... 33Indigenous Peoples .................................................................. 33Gender .................................................................. 33Income Generation/micro-credit ................................................................ 33Linkages to VDCs/DDCs and the Decentralization Process ............................................................... 34

REFERENCE CITED .................................................................. 35

Indigenous People's PlanRural Water Supply and Sanitation (RWSS-II)

1. Background

1. Drinking water and sanitary facilities are among the basic needs for humandevelopment. They are also important indicators of the well being of a population interms of health and quality of life. However, especially in rural Nepal, theavailability of drinking water and sanitation, the way that these facilities providedby the state and awareness of people themselves about the health related aspects ofthese services, are all extremely poor. Even if the facilities exist, the quality ofdrinking water as well as the related health and sanitation services is very poor. Thishas been one of the main reasons why water born diseases remain at the top of thelist as causes of morbidity and mortality. For instance, diarrhoea is reported to bethe cause of almost half of the child deaths in Nepal.

2. To address this problem, the Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Fund DevelopmentBoard (RWSS-FB), was established in 1996 under the Ministry of Physical Planningand Works (MPPW) and has been implementing a demand-led, community-basedrural water supply and sanitation (RWSS-1) project funded mainly by theInternational Development Association (IDA). The main aim of this project is toassist His Majesty's Government of Nepal (HMG/N) in delivering sustainable healthand hygiene benefits to the rural population through improvements in the quality ofrural water supply and sanitation services. The specific development objectives ofRWSS-J are to raise the living standards in rural areas of Nepal by: (i) deliveringsustainable health and hygiene benefits to the rural population throughimprovements in water supply and sanitation; (ii) improving rural real incomes byassisting women to identify ways to earn income from time saved in carrying water;and (iii) improving governmental and non-governmental capabilities to undertakeand sustain these efforts.

3. RWSS-I is scheduled to close in March 2003 and HMGN has requested a follow-onproject (RWSS-IJ) which is currently in preparation. The social assessment study forRWSS-IJ began with a review of the social development outcomes of the firstproject to learn from it's successes and failures in order to improve the positivesocial impact of RWSS-II. The Social Assessment exercise showed that, while thefirst project had considerable success in involving women community members, ithad some weaknesses in terms of other dimensions of social inclusion - namely,caste and ethnicity.

4. Nepal is a highly diverse country with more that 65 distinct ethnic groups who havehistorically been organized by the incoming Indo-Aryan conquerors (who arrivedover many centuries but consolidated their hold in 1768 with the conquest ofKathmandu Valley by Prithivi Narayan Shah) on the basis of the Hindu castehierarchy. In the broadest sense, the incoming high caste Hindus took the topmostcategories of the classic four Varna Hindu caste system (the priestly Brahmans andthe Kshatriya warrior/rulers) and gave the middle rung (Vaisya-merchants andShudra-peasants and labourers) to the indigenous, mostly Tibeto-burman groups inNepal. These groups where classified in Nepal's version of the caste system as"Matwalis" or liquor drinkers in contrast to the Brahman's and Chetris/Kshatriyawho were not permitted to drink alcohol. While in India similar indigenous groups

1

(called "Tribals" by the British colonials) were given untouchable status (fromwhom water cannot be taken), in Nepal, due perhaps to their numerical dominanceand ability to fight, the indigenous groups were given middle level status and waterwas accepted from them. At the very bottom of the Nepali system were the Indo-Aryan service castes (Sarki cobblers, Damai tailor/musicians and Kami/blacksmiths)who also migrated in from India along with the high castes. They (and a few of theindigenous Newar castes) were designated at the "untouchables" (achute) fromwhom not even water could be taken (pani na chalne).

5. In Nepal's diverse but hierarchical society, past experience suggests that people'saccess to public goods (such as water and sanitation) differs significantly dependingon their social identity (in terms of caste, ethnicity and gender) and on theireconomic status and location (urban/rural/remote rural). Because policies have oftenbeen insensitive to the social realities of Nepal, certain groups have been excludedfrom the mainstream health, education and water and sanitation services. The socialassessment of RWSS-I revealed some degree of social exclusion based on caste andethnicity and recommended that serious attention should be given to the poorIndigenous People (IP), Dalits, as well as women, to ensure their effectiveparticipation in RWSS-I1. For this purpose, RWSS-I1 restated the first developmentobjective of RWSS-I to include a specific focus on social inclusion. This DO nowreads: to deliver sustainable health and hygiene benefits to the rural populationthrough providing more inclusive and sustainable access to improved water supplyand sanitation facilities.

6. Because Indigenous Peoples (or Janajatis or "indigenous nationalities" as theyprefer to call themselves) are found in high numbers in almost all of the districtscovered by the project, RWSS-I1 has prepared a separate Indigenous People's Plan(IP Plan) in order to achieve its stated objective of social inclusion.

2. Legal and Socio-Cultural Framework

7. Nepal is a country of diverse culture, races and religions. There are two major racialgroups found in Nepal: "Caucasoid" and "Mongoloid". Although there has beencultural and religious cross influence between these two groups, both cultural andreligious systems of the two racial groups retain varying degrees of distinctness.Mongoloid groups (such as the Magar, Tamang, Kiranti, Gurung, etc.) tend tofollow mostly Buddhism and animism, while most of the Caucasoid groupsgenerally follow Hinduism and a few follow Jainism and Islam. Also, some smallproportions of both Caucasoid and Mongoloid populations have adoptedChristianity, plus some of the Kiranti peoples follow their own religion.

8. As noted above, Hindus have "vertical" (hierarchical) social structure based on theidea of ritual purity. At the apex of the system are the Brahmins or Bahuns and atthe bottom are the Dalits1 l whose ritual impurity rendered them "untouchable" to thehigh caste. So all Hindus are members of some Jat or caste group, whether low orhigh. In contrast, Mongoloid groups tend to have more horizontal social structuresand are recognized as Indigenous Nationalities or Indigenous People (IP).

Formerly these castes were collectively called the doms or sanojat (small castes), but currently those who havecome into contact with critiques of the caste system and the caste politics of India, call themselves Dalits,literally "the oppressed". The term implicitly rejects the validity of the caste system and focuses on its inherentlack of social justice.

2

9. Considering Nepal's diversity of cultures, races, languages and religions, the 1990constitution has recognized the existence of "tribes", even though the country hasbeen still designated as a Hindu Religious Kingdom. The constitution hascommitted to the protection, preservation and promotion of language, religion andculture, affirmative action for IPs and vulnerable groups. It also makes the provisionof education in mother tongues up to grade five. However, even after democracy,the elected governments have failed to pay much attention to the priorities andconcerns of IPs in their policies, plans and programs.

10. Due to continuous political pressure from the IPs, the government set up theNational Committee for Development of Nationalities in 1996. The committeerecognized the existence of 61 Indigenous Nationalities in Nepal. Consequently, forthe first time, the Ninth Plan (1997-2002) explicitly made policies and programstargeting IPs. The Parliament has passed a bill forming a Foundation forDevelopment of Indigenous Nationalities, which has recognized 59 IPs in Nepal. In1999, the Local Self-Governance Act was amended, giving more power andauthority to local government bodies such as District Development Committees(DDCs), Municipalities and Village Development Committees (VDCs) - includingthe authority to protect, preserve and promote IPs' language, religion and culture.The National Planning Commission (NPC) has also included programs andstrategies for IPs in the Tenth Plan/PRSP (2003-2008).

11. However, in practice, IPs have had limited ability to obtain access to and effectivelyuse the legal system to defend their rights. This is because on the one hand, themachinery of the government is controlled primarily by "high caste" groups whohave held power for the last 250 years and who do not necessarily want to changetheir behaviors, and on the other hand because many IP groups have had poor accessto education, and are not aware of their legal rights. This situation can be seen fromthe data and discussion presented below.

12. Dominance in power structure on the basis of caste hierarchy was first codified inthe Muluki Ain of 1853 and although discrimination on the basis of caste andethnicity has been outlawed in the legal system, "high caste" dominance itsaccompanying ideology, continues in Nepal (Table 1). It is perhaps not surprisingthat all but 5 percent of the political elite who endorsed the original Muluki Ain were"high caste" Hindus. But it is somewhat surprising that nearly one and half centurylater that the pattern has changed so little. As Table I indicates, all but 8.8 per centof the individuals occupying the top political, bureaucratic and executive positionsin Nepal in the very modern era of 1999 are from among the same "high caste"Hindu group. IPs and Dalits have been continuously excluded from the governancearena.

Table 1: Composition of Governance Elites

Social Group 1853" ________b

N %N __ _

High Caste (Hill) 166 78.3 _763 __66.2

High Caste (Newar) 32 15.9 152 13.1High Caste (Tarai) 2 0.9 138 11.9Ethnics (IPs) 6 2.8 97 8.4Dalit Caste I .82 0.3Others (Caste unidentifiable) 6__ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _2 _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ 8_ _ _ _ _ _

Total 212 100.0 1,158 100.0Source: Adapted from Gurung (2002), Table 2. p. 3.Note: (a) Signatories of the Muluki Ain, Dec 22, 1853.

(b) Neupane, 2000, Nepairna Jatiya Prasnia, p.82 (in Nepali,).

13. Political marginalization of JPs and Dalits based on social discrimination is the mainreason why they are deprived of economic, educational, and the overall social well-being. The 1991 Census recorded that more than two-thirds of the total educated(with BA and above) are from "high caste" Hill Hindu population (Table 2) - withinwhich Chhetris are relatively less educated compared to Brahman and Newar. Then,another 19 per cent of educated are also from the various Hindu castes groupincluding those from the Tarai, but excluding Dalits. The share of IPs and Dalits isdesperately low.

Table 2: Graduate and Above, 1991

Caste/Ethnic Group- No. of Caste! ethnic Group Poyulation Graduated "High Caste" 3 68,024 70.2

Bahun 33,040 34.1Newar 23,000 23.7Chhetri 11,984 12.4

Other Hill Caste 2 2,400 2.5Tarai Higher Caste 1 7 15,722 16.2Ethnic (IPs) 6,057 6.2

Hill Ethnics 13 4,957 5.1Tarai Ethnics 11I 1,100 1.1

Low Caste (Dalit) 3,034 3.1Hill Dalits 5 2,790 2.9Tarai Dalits 5 244 0.3

Others 1,744 1.8Nepal 96,981 100.0

Source: Adapted fram Gurung (2002), Table 5, p. 6.Note: Based on 1991 census.

14. As with the distribution of collage educated population in the above table, so adultliteracy and income are also associated positively with one's position on the socialladder (Table 3). The human development index (HDI), a composite index ofeducation, health (life expectancy at birth), and income, is an indicator of overallwell-being of the population. The HDI ranking in Nepal shows a similar closeassociation with the caste hierarchy. On the basis of all three indices (adult literacyratio, income index, and HDI), Brahmans, Newars, and Chhetris are well above thenational average while IPs (excluding Newars), Dalits, and Muslims are below.Tarai castes have lower literacy and income than the national average; however,their HDI rank is higher than that of the IPs.

4

Table 3: Human Development Index, 1996

Social Group Adult Literacy Per Capita Income Index HDI HDI Rank________________________ Rate (%) Income (Rs.)______

Caste GroupHill Bahun 58.0 9,921 0.237 0.441 1IHill Chhetri 42.0 7,744 0.181 0.348 IIITarai Castes 27.5 6,911 0.160 0.313 IVArtisan Castes (Dalits) 23.8 4,940 _ 0.110 0.239 VII

Language GroupNewar 54.8 11!,953 0.289 0.457 1

Hill Ethnics (11Ps)Gurung, Limbu, 35.2 6,603 0.152 0.299 VM4agar, Rai, Sherpak

Religious GroupMuslim 22.1 6,336 0.145 0.239 VII

Others 27.6 7,312 0.170 _0.295 VIINepal 1 36.7 [ 7,673 1 0.179 10.325 -

Source: Adapted from Gurunig (2002), Table 6. p. 7 . Note: Based on NESAC (1998).

15. Table 4 shows the poverty incidence for selected caste/ethnic groups giving theproportion of each population group falling below poverty line. The pattern ofpoverty incidence is similar to the pattern for income and HDI with few exceptions(Table 4). IPs and Dalits have higher proportions and Newar, Brahmans and Yadavhave smaller proportions below the poverty line compared to the national average.The exceptions are that, in terms of incidence of poverty, Muslims are relativelybetter off compared to national average, whereas Chhetris are worse off and theLimbus have nearly three fourths of their community below the poverty line.

Table 4: Incidence of Poverty, 1996

Social Group Proportion below Poverty Line ()RankCaste Group

Bahun 34 IYadav 40 IVChhetri 50 VIISark] (Dalit) 65 xiDamai (Dalit) 67 XIIKami (Dalit) 68 XIII

Language GroupNewar __25 1

Religious GroupMuslim __38 Ill

Ethnics (IPs)Gurung 45 VTharu 48 VIRai 56 ViIlMagar 58 IXTamang 59 NLimbu 71 XIV

Others 3 7Nepal 43 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Source. A dapted from Gurung (2002), Table 7, p. 8 .Note: Based on NrESA C (1 998).

16. It is clear that IPs and Dalits have been historically marginalized both legally andpolitically on the basis the social and religious ideology which was codified in the

5

Muluki Ain of 1853. Despite its abolition in the legal code, this discrimination hascontinued even after the restoration of democracy with the introduction of the newconstitution in 1991. Although overt public forms of discrimination may be lessvisible in interactions of the urban elite, IPs and Dalits continue to face economic,educational and social disadvantages at all levels of society - but especially amongthe poor in rural areas.

17. Looking at the intra-group situation, Chhetris and Tarai castes are relatively moremarginalized within the "high caste" group and Limbus, Tamangs, and Magars aremore marginalized within IPs. Moreover, it is likely that there are many IPs whowere not identified as such by the census 1991 and so not included in the analysis.They are no doubt, among the more marginalized and vulnerable IPs - mainly theChepang, Hayu, Jirel, and Lepcha of hill origin and almost all Tarai IPs.

3. Status of IPs in RWSS-I

18. RWSS-I was not designed to explicitly provide benefits to IPs and vulnerablegroups such as Dalits. However, many IP groups and Dalits inhabit most of thedistricts covered by the program and the program covered many of the IP groupsautomatically. RWSS-IJ is making a number of design modifications to insure thatIPs and Dalits as well as women in the communities where the project works areincluded in the design and management of the water supply and sanitation schemesand in other project benefits. To achieve the goal of equality of outreach in RWSS-II, it is necessary to understand the record of RWSS-I with respect to its outreach toexcluded IPs and other excluded groups. Fortunately, the RWSS-I M&E systemcollected excellent data on the caste and ethnic composition of the population itcovered. This section presents the outreach situation in districts covered by the firstfour batches of the RWSS program, based on the information available from FundBoard, and compares it with district and national level data on caste/ethnic groupsprovided by the 1991 census.

19. Data generated by Fund Board during RWSS-I period clearly shows that, of the total59 IP groups identified by HMG/N, only 27 IP groups benefited from RWSS-I in the49 districts where it operated (Table 5). There are 32 IP groups - generally groupswith very small populations who may not have been present in the communitiescovered by the RWSS schemes - which have not been reached by the program.Speaking broadly, most of the IPs covered by the program in mountains and hills arethose such as the Gurung, Magar, Tamang, etc. who (as groups) are much larger andrelatively better off in terms of their average economic status, literacy, etc. thansmaller groups such as Chepang, Hayu, Jirel, and Lepcha.

6

Table 5: Inclusion of IPs in RWSS-I

IPs reached by RWSS-I IPs not reached by RWSS-1MOUNTAIN_

1. Bhote 1. Barha Gaunle 9. Mugali2. Sherpa 2. Byansi 10. Tangbe3. Thakali 3. Chairotan I11. Thudum

4. Dolpo 12. Tin Gaunle Thakali5. Larke 13. Topkegola6. Lhopa 14. Siyar7. Lhomi (Singsawa) 15. Walung8. M4arphali Thakali

HILL1. Bhu'el 8. Limbu 1. Bankaria 6. Kushbadia2. Chepang (Praj'a) 9. Magar 2. Baramo 7. Kusunda3. Dura 1 0. Newar 3. Chhantyal 8. Pahari4. Gurung I11. Sunuwar 4. Fri 9. Surel5. Hayu 12. Tamang (Lama) 5. Hyolmo 10. Yakkha6. Jirel 13. Thami7. Lepcha 14. Rai

INNER TARAII. Danuwar 3. Kumal 1. Bote 3. Raute2. Darai 4. Majhi j 2. Raute

TARAI _

I. Jhangad (Urau) 4. Raj'banshi (Koche) 1. Dhanuk (Raj'banshi) 3. Gangai2. Kisan 5. Sattar (Santhal) 2. Dhimal 4. Tajpuriya3. Meche_(Bodo) 6._Tharu ________________________

20. Looking at the IPs coverage of the RWSS-1 by ecological regions is moremeaningful because different IP groups are generally clustered in certain areas andecological zones. As the majority of the IPs are of hill origin, the number of IPsreached by the project is also highest in the hill region.

21. The most revealing data are presented in Table 6. These data show the proportion ofhouseholds by caste and ethnic group who were covered in the successive batchesof RWSS I in relation to their proportional presence in 1) the districts where theproject was active and 2) the national population. It should be noted that, sinceRWSS-1 is a demand-driven project, it does not "cover" any particular geographicarea such as a VDC or District. Rather, it responds to requests from communitieswho have been organized and prepared to manage the water scheme by the SupportOrganizations (SOs) contracted by the board. It is very possible that the somewhatskewed coverage of different groups simply reflects the fact that some groups aremuch more able to "demand" services (and pay their share of the required matchingcosts) than others. Even with this caveat, the data do give an a true picture of whichcaste/ethnic groups 1) were chosen more frequently by the SOs to work with and 2)were more able to "voice" to their demand for water and sanitation services.

22. Some of the over and under-representation of certain ethnic, religious and castegroups may also be due to the fact that the concentration of a particular ethnic orcaste group might be high in some districts and less or entirely absent in otherdistricts (see map 1). For example, the program has covered only 43 out of 75districts. Due the presence of other donors, RWSS-I did not engage at all in 1 the Farwestern Zone and only in a few Mid western hill districts, where the concentrationof Dalits is high. Similarly, the concentration of Chhetris is also considerably higher

7

in those hill districts which were only partially covered, so the representation ofChhetri households served by the project in 43 districts is less by about 5 percentagepoints than the proportion of Chhetri's in the national population.

Table 6: Percentage of Beneficiary Households (HHs) and Population and TotalPopulation in 43 Program Districts by Caste/ethnicity

Population' % of HIH by Batch b _ ____ RatioCaste/Ethnic Group Nepal 43 dists. 11 III IV Average Col 9=

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~1(8) +- (3) ](1) (2) (3) (5) -(6) (7) __(8) (9)

Hill "High Caste"Brahmin 12.9 13.6 28.3 23.2 23.1 24.2 1.78Chhetri 18.7 13.9 19.9 19.2 18.4 19.1 1.37

Sub-total 31.6 27.5 48.2 42.4 41.8 43.3 1.57 _

Madhesi 'High Caste" 11.0 1290.4 2.2 4.1 2.4 ___ 0.19Indigenous Peoples

Hills 27.2 29.7 34.7 35.4 33.2 34.6 1.16Newars 5.6 6.7 4.5 7.4 4.5 5.9 0.88Other IPs 21.6 23.0 30.2 28.0 28.7 28.7 1.25Tarai 5.8 5.4 3.4 5.1 4.8 4.6 0.85Mountains 0.8 0.8 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.50

Sub-total 33.8 35.9 38.2 41.0 38.4 39.6 __ 1.10Dalits

Hill Dalits 9.1 7.9 11.6 8.8 9.9 9.7 1.23Madhesi Dalits 5.9 7.0 0.0 2.0 2.3 1.7 0.24

Sub-total 15.0 14.9 11.6 10.8 12.2 11.4 0.77Muslims 3.5 3.8 0.3 0.7 1.2 _ 0.7 0.18Others 5.1 5.2 1.3 3.0 2.6 2.5 0.48Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 100.0 100.0-

N 3,292,266 2,608,710 28,822 ! 69,497 40,527 138,806 Source: Social Assessment Report, 2002.Note: (a) Distribution is based on 1991 Census,- and

(b)Fund Board Data and caste/ethnic data not available for batch I.

8

Man 1: Man of Nepal Accordin2 to Different Langua2es

LINGUISTIC MAP

B. TnSEfO- URUMAN

[3] Btw,t*tr [ii] Syans [J9J Ne wteri

P - [%] t- ^ - rSSherpC3 ELIC-h4arsrFw [E?i atc-.Klrcnl

+. -S us<ung i> I TnrsncJ Pnrl

tN. EL] Jiref >iYj31rl l Thakall 1X Sunwow

r}- _ _C

r k ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ridbu CT42 Tharri F 7flJ LaepclnNE PALl r MQ 1271 Y4rO F( Macho

rt'--,. y-- j2j RoAKjAi9~~~~~~~~~- I + .. sO fgvx.eeT

- M-v-s - \ hQAGAR GURUN- - -

r> - An t ,,- >, ".- f^X\ -- : TAFPAAN ., uiicr'' I.Ott ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sf-WPPA'

Am IND(S- AkYAN -l AWAD HI THARU

J § ] ~=p§ lim 11ino ss Xti -. s _ KIRANI 'LIMBlUt

FiD MojhI K4rrihot _

, 5|AWadIl I Ik2 J *| HIElNO ^-~ Y' L$ *MArrnui&9z 4 -'.. -J >' -- 9~

T&] Bang-nIl h2 31 Mn ML; M INVIA 1 r -_ -;; -t mAAnh -

[F!] >ruoppuri I,'] 2RnItx^tz&si [L< S cilor/Snrl j 3oj Dha 0 D gf3 Jhang-car IAAI

Souce Gurung,r [2002 Thnra

Source: Gurung, 2002

23. According to the data generated by Fund Board, the RWSS-I has not been fullysuccessful in reaching the most vulnerable groups. Rather households from themore privileged caste and ethnic groups seem to be "over-represented" amongthose covered by the program. Perfectly proportionate coverage of a caste orethnic group would mean that the final column in Table 6 would be 1.00. Anythingover that means the particular group got more than their share of water systems.Anything less that 1.00 means they were under-represented. For instance, theproportion of the hill "high caste" households reached by the program is 1.57 timeshigher than their representation in working districts. The coverage of Brahmanhouseholds is even higher (1.78 times). The aggregate proportion of IP householdsreached by the program is also higher than their proportion in the program districts,but the over representation is less compared to that of hill "high caste". However,Newar as well as Tarai, and mountain IP households are under represented in the

24. Bv&raThough the hill Dalits are well covered, Dalits in aggregate are underrepresented in the program compared to their proportion in the total population.Tarai origin, Madhesi (both "high caste" and Dalits) and Muslim households aresignificantly under-represented among those covered by the RWSS-1. Therefore,RWSS-JI should give special attention to reaching out to these groups.

25. Examining the pattern by successive batches, shows a somewhat more hopefulpicture. The proportion of vulnerable households reached by the program has beenincreasing in the later batches, especially among IPs, Dalits, and other vulnerablegroups such as Madhesis, Dalits, and Muslims. And, the dominance of the hill "highcaste" households is decreasing.

26. This indicates that, even though, as shown in Table 1, the program has yet to reach32 of the 59 recognized IP groups, the results for IPs seems to improving. However,more efforts have to be made for the Madhesi origin, "high caste"2'/, Dalits andMuslims.

4. Possible Negative Impacts, Indigenous People's Concerns and Expectations

4.1 Adverse Impacts on IPs

27. In line with the World Bank's Operational Directive (OD 4.20) that instructs Bank-supported operations to avoid or mitigate potentially adverse effects on IPs, theSocial Assessment Study team met with a number of IP groups and focus groups ofIP project beneficiaries at selected sites to document any adverse impactsexperienced during RWSS-I and consult with these groups on their concerns aboutpossible adverse impacts that might occur in RWSS-II (see Annex 5 & 6 for thedetails of groups consulted and the topics discussed).

28. During these consultations, focus group discussions and individual interviews werecarried out by the Social Assessment team. Based on these discussions, the studyteam learned that the adverse impacts experienced in connection with RWSS-I weremainly indirect and had mostly to do with lack of cultural sensitivity and alsoconcerns that IP groups might have had less access to project benefits than the more

2J The "under-representation" of Madhesi high caste may also be because many of them may be well-off enough tohave already put in private tube wells or other sources of water for their homes. This could also be true ofMuslims if they are well-off. Hence it is important to consider economic status as well as social identity indetermining the actual degree of "exclusion" from project benefits.

10

vocal dominant caste groups. Likewise, many of the concerns about RWSS-I1 wererelated to the fear that the follow-on project might inadvertently accelerate theongoing processes of Hinduization by reinforcing the dominant Hindu culture andlanguage. Partly this is because most of the project personnel - and the NGOs theycontract - are Hindus from the politically dominant hill "high caste" groups. Whilefor the most part the Fund Board staff and NGO personnel intend only the best forthe project beneficiaries, they are largely unaware of their own cultural biases andthe unintended consequences these could have on IPs. What follows is a report onthe indirect adverse impacts related to cultural insensitivity or lack of access toproject benefits which were experienced by some IP beneficiaries in RWSS-I andtheir concerns about possible similar adverse impacts in the future - all of whichneed to be prevented by the RSSW-IJ.

Land acquisition

* The review of RWSS-I carried out by the Social Assessment team found that due tothe small amounts of land involved, there had been no specific problems related toland acquisition - either in terms of involuntary resettlement or loss of livelihoods.Nevertheless, partly because of the insurgency situation which limited field visits,the SA findings can not be considered as conclusive because the sites that the studyteam were able to visit are not statistically representative even for the programdistricts. To insure that there is no possibility that IPs or any other communitymembers are pressured to give up even a small part of their land when they do notwish to or when they might suffer loss of income, the Fund Board is includingspecific guidance and procedures for the Support Agencies (SAs)21 and PortfolioManagers to cross check the SO's work whenever land acquisition is involved toinsure that the land transfer is made to the Water Users Committee (rather than anyindividual) and that it is entirely voluntary and does not reduce the livelihood of thefamily donating the land.

* As mentioned in the main Social Assessment document, many hill and mountain IPsstill tend to live in higher elevation where many water resources originate. In suchsituations, the non-IPs are often able to persuade the IP community to yield to theirdemands using the argument that drinking water is linked with life and that "toprovide drinking water is to earn Punya" or religious merit in the Hindu system. Notonly are the non-IPs relatively smart and persuasive; they are also able to organizepowerful influence from the decision making positions such as VDC villagemembers, and even police, where most of these personnel are themselves non-IPs.Yet, while the people who live in lower elevation often have to rely on such watersources in IP areas, these IPs do not always share in the benefit from RWSS-Ibecause of technical problems and high costs involved in putting in systems in thehigher and often more sparsely populated elevations.

* In some places, IP communities face difficulties in getting access to water sourcesowned by non-IPs, because there are few or no IPs in the decision making positions

3/ The Fund Board maintains a relatively small staff and does most of its work through contracting out to SupportOrganizations (SOs - NGOs who mobilize and prepare communities to undertake and manage drinking waterschemes) and Support Agencies or SAs who supervise the SOs and carry out other tasks such as special studies,etc.

11

(such as VDC chair, social workers and local politicians, etc.) who could help themto persuade non-IPs to act in the IPs' interest. Another thing is that, even if there areIPs in decision making positions, there is a tendency for them not to be outspoken insupport of justice for the IP's, due to fear of being labelled as "communal".

Social

* After the restoration of democracy in 1991, there are many indigenous peoples'organizations working at both national and local level for IPs rights. However,RWSS-I has not worked in partnership with any of these IP's organizations. Thisagain may be due to the fact that most of the staff of the Fund Board and its SOs andSAs are non-IPs who have tended to be unaware of IP organizations and have notsought them out to work with. In turn, because most of implementing organizations,including NGOs, are run by the dominant caste groups, this has reinforced the IP'sfeeling of being dependant and subordinate to them and the sense that IP languages,religions, culture, and organizations are of lesser value in the modern world.

Cultural and Religious

* The Social Assessment study documented that activities such as communitymobilization, NFE, Health and Sanitation Education (HSE), and training in thedevelopment phase of RWSS-I may in some cases have had adverse impacts in twoways. First is the possibility of loss of tangible and intangible cultural heritageand the second is that IPs, especially those (often the women) who speakprimarily or exclusively their mother tongue instead of Nepali language, mighthave received less advantage from the project.

Cultural Heritage

* A few of the IPs interviewed felt that the introduction of HSE into the IPscommunity has an adverse impact on IP's traditional healing practices andindigenous knowledge systems related to medicinal plants. They felt that thepractice of modern health care with its new technologies was causing loss oftraditional and indigenous practices and reducing the significance of traditional faithhealers among IPs. However, most of the IPs interviewed were quite eager to getaccess to modern medicine and their main concern was lack of access.

* Another IP interviewed noted that worshipping nature and seeing the sacredness ofsources of water, hills, cliffs, rivers, etc. is an important part of IP's cultural andspiritual life. Since modern drinking water projects are not seen as natural, IPs tendto leave off worshipping water taps and other water sources. Consequently, thisspiritual dimension of IP culture has been disappearing. But again, the largemajority of IPs welcomed the idea of convenient and reliable water sources.

Language

* As in other community development activities, RWSS-I uses the Nepali language asthe medium for transfer of knowledge through NFE, HSE, and training. While someIP informants felt that this helped improve the IPs ability to communicate in thedominate Nepali language, others felt that this indirectly compelled IPs to speak andfollow the Nepali language in order to receive development advantage at the cost oftheir own mother tongue. IPs who cannot speak Nepali feel they need to learn it and

12

once they learn, they tend to leave off speaking their mother tongue. There is acommon feeling that Nepali language is superior to their own language because ithelps to connect them to markets and to the development and governmentmachinery. As a result, they see little scope for their mother tongue. Related to thelanguage issue, is that fact that IPs who are not familiar with Nepali, gained littlefrom instructions in training manuals, posters, booklets and pamphlets used by theSOs since these materials are all in Nepali. It appears that because of this, IPcommunities have sometimes had difficulties in learning about the services offeredby RWSS-J and thus have been less able to organize and demand a water scheme fortheir community.

Economic

* Due to lower income and literacy levels, many rural IP groups, (except the hillNewars, and some groups such as the Gurungs who have returned from Armyservice with secure pensions), are unable to make cash contributions required bythe project. This inability to pay prevents many IPs from getting benefits and somewho manage to pay by any means (such as taking out personal loans with better offmembers of the community) may suffer from high debt burdens or have to reducetheir traditional contributions to cultural activities of the community.

4.2 IPs' Expectations

29. There are a number of expectations that IPs consulted during the Social Assessmentexpressed regarding the RWSS-II project. Most of the IPs expect the Fund Board todeliver drinking water and sanitation services as well as NFE and HSE in aculturally appropriate way, so that the project does not hamper their culture.

Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Schemes

* Establishment of new water taps has been causing traditional ones to becomeobsolete. People tend to use new water taps instead of older ones because they arewell maintained. People do not maintain the older water sources and many of thetraditional sources - which sometimes have spiritual significance - have beenallowed to deteriorate. Related to the issues of maintaining tradition, someinformants suggested that choices for system design could be expanded to includetraditional designs. As some respondents suggested, connection of new water pipesto already existing traditional Newari stone waterspouts would save costs and helpto preserve their culture. Also, they expected that the Fund Board and its partnerNGOs would respect the Newar's traditional ways of building and maintaining watersources and allow water user groups to build water taps in the traditional way. Thus,informants in some project areas where the traditional water taps exist suggest that itwould be better if people could use their own traditional designs to maintain theirtraditional culture related to water.

Associated Process and Activities

* Associated process and activities related to the implementation of RWSS-II alsohave important social dimensions which concerned IP informants. In particular, theysuggested that community organization and mobilization, Non-formal Education(NFE) and Health and Sanitation Education (HSE) activities should bedelivered in IP's mother tongues where significant numbers of the communitywere not comfortable in Nepali. In the case of NFE, the course offered would still

13

be literacy in the Nepali language; however, the SOs would be expected to ensurethat those teaching the course were able to do so in the IP mother tongue. For theSanitation Education, again the SOs would be expected to be able to offer it in theIP mother tongue and the major course materials and posters would also betranslated into the mother tongue.

* As mentioned earlier, the Fund Board as well as other NGOs which were used byFund Board to form water user groups, are mostly run by non-IPs and many areKathmandu-based. Some of them did not have in-depth knowledge of conditions inremote, rural communities where the RWSS-I was to run, nor did they consult localIP individuals or IP organizations while forming WUGs. So, IPs expect that RWSS-II will make an effort to work in partnership with IPs' and their organizations. Thiswill be especially critical in implementing NFE and HSE activities. IPs expect thatRWSS-II will make arrangements to use mother tongues in Information,Education, and Communication (IEC) materials, WUG meetings and minutes(where there are IP members who wish to do so), in HSE programs (wheremembers of the community are interested in attending but do not understandor feel comfortable in Nepali). And as mentioned above, they expect that whilethe NFE course will teach Nepali literacy, it will be taught by people who speak theappropriate local language and can explain concepts and vocabulary to students inthat language to facilitate learning.

* In order to protect traditional and indigenous knowledge, IPs do not want to displacethe role of traditional faith healers, which is also the part of their cultural life. So,IPs would like RWSS-JI to give traditional healers access to TOT training inhealth and sanitation and be encouraged them to be involved in the process.

4.3 IP Concerns and Issues

30. As the RWSS-I was not designed explicitly to focus on the IP's issues, a number ofconcerns and issues emerged during the implementation which may have reducedthe ability of RWSS-I to reach IPs and other vulnerable groups such as Dalits. Inorder to reach IPs and other vulnerable groups to improve equity of access, theseissues are to be appropriately addressed in RWSS-II.

"Demand-driven " or "Road-head centre driven "?

* RWSS-I was designed specifically to be "demand-driven". Drinking water schemeswere to be provided on the basis of community demand. However, many consultedduring the Social Assessment study stated that Fund Board schemes are "road-headcentred" rather than "demand-driven". Fund Board data clearly show that anoverwhelming percentage of schemes (86%) were located within 10 kms. distancefrom the road-head and many were much closer than 10 kms. Since the dominantcastes tend to be located nearer the road heads (and in the lower lying irrigated ricegrowing areas where roads are often built), schemes located near the roads will tendto primarily serve these dominant castes. Only as the project targets communities ata greater distance from the roads, do IPs begin to get a larger share of its benefits.As reported by some Focus Group participants, the schemes begin to move to theremote areas in a given area only after the communities near the road head havebeen saturated. For instance, a group of SAs interviewed reported that some 40percent of the schemes within a range of 5 kms from the road, served primarily

14

Brahman, Chhetri and Newar households with IP households representing only 19per cent of the total served in these close-in schemes. In contrast for schemes withina range of 5-10 kms, some 19 per cent serve Bahun, Chhetri and Newar householdswhile IP households account for 33 per cent of those served. This clearlydemonstrates that close-in schemes have disproportionately gone to Brahmansand Chhetris. It is also clear that the NGOs used by the Fund Board (who aremostly Kathmandu or urban-based) tend to prefer working in the close-inareas which are more easily accessible and where facilities are available.

Other Forms of Selection Bias

* Many IPs tend to live at higher elevations, which are often more technicallychallenging and less cost effective than gravity flow schemes located lower down.So, according to SAs and SOs and IPs interviewed, the focus of RWSS-I has beentowards communities at lower elevations.

* The drinking water supply projects involve community contributions (20% of thetotal) that must be paid by the clients. While community contributions have provedessential to getting genuine community buy-in that is essential for systemsustainability, it also creates a bias towards the selection of better offcommunities who can more easily afford to make their contribution. Too often itis the communities where Brahman, Chhetris and Newars predominate who canafford this cost while many IPs and most of the Dalits and landless people can notmake such contributions.

Shortcomings in NGO Selection

* The Criteria for eligibility of NGOs contracted by the Fund Board to implement theproject do not require any expertise in IP issues or knowledge of locallanguages.

IP 's Less Aggressive Service Seekintg Behaviour

* Due to their low literacy rates and in some cases their lack of familiarity withgovernment administrative bureaucracy, IPs are very poor at "service seekingbehaviour". They do not have access to information and tend to think thatdevelopment program and activities are for local educated elite, rather than forthem. So, often they do not actively seek out the services of development projectssuch as RWSS. Some participants pointed out that NGOs based in Kathmandu canhardly understand the problems and need of rural and remote people. Consequently,many of these NGOs believe that only the more active communities who come andask for services have a genuine "demand" for the project.

Lack of IP (and Dalit) Voice and Influence in WUGs

* As SAs and SOs estimated that 80 per cent of the WUGs were heterogeneous,formed of people from both genders and from different castes and ethnic groups.This is a positive trend and should eventually lead to WUGs in which all segmentsof the community have voice and influence. However, in the short term, it poses therisk that the concerns and issues of IP and other vulnerable groups may not getfull hearing in the WUG because traditionally dominant castes will tend to beplaced in leadership positions and have more influence on group decisionmaking. In such groups IPs, Dalits and other marginal groups are less likely to be inleadership and decision making positions. Many of the SOs and Portfolio Managers

15

are aware of this risk. But they may need additional training and support in suchsituations to find creative ways to reduce the dominance of the elite and encouragemore democratic behaviour in WUG management. Evidence from RWSS-I (whereclear incentives were created to involve and empower women) suggest that ifsimilar incentives are given to involve and empower IPs - and Dalits - RWSS-II canmake progress in the caste and ethnic dimensions of social inclusion as well.

5. Policy Issues to be included in revised FB policies and procedures

31. According to the World Bank Operational Directive (OD) 4.20, Indigenous Peoplesare identified on the basis of the fact that they have close attachment to ancestralterritories, speak their own mother tongues, produce primarily for subsistence andhave their own social and cultural institutions (e.g. Guthi, Dhikuri, Rodhin, Bheja,Posang, etc). Bank-assisted projects are obligated to recognize indigenous peoplesin their design and thus avoid the risk that such projects may have adverse socialand cultural impacts on IPs. Although the adverse impacts of RWSS-I appear to beminor and indirect, the project did not have an explicit policy to ensure that IPs gotequal access to project benefits.

32. The Fund Board should follow the guidelines of World Bank's Operational Directive4.20 on Indigenous Peoples in its implementation of RWSS-II. This report providesthe core of the Fund Board's Indigenous Peoples Development Plan spelling out thepolicies and procedures that the Board will implement to ensure that the localindigenous people do not suffer adverse effects from the project s and that theyreceive culturally compatible social and economic benefits from it. The steps whichthe Fund Board should take to ensure that IPs (and other socially excluded groups)have equitable access to the benefits of RWSS-II are discussed below in thefollowing specific sections.

5.1 Involve Qualified IP Organizations in RWSS-II and set IP-Responsive Criteriafor the Selection of SOs and SAs

33. As drinking water supply and sanitation and community development activitiesincluding NFE and HSE are very much localized and community based, it isrecommended that where qualified local IP organizations exist, they should beinvolved to the extent possible in the implementation of the project. Involvement ofsuch organizations would help to generate demand, identify needs and problems,create effective participation and co-operation from IPs, as well as to generate asense of ownership of the community drinking water and sanitation systemssupported by the project among IP members of the community. IP organizationsmay also be helpful, in mediating disputes over land and water sources. In addition,the overall criteria for SO selection should include the presence of staff qualified towork in the major non-Nepali languages current in the project area. This wouldensure that where qualified IP organizations do not exist, at least the staff of the SOworking in a given area will be able to understand and communicate with allmembers of the IP communities.

5.2 Formulate IP Sensitive Fund Board Policies and Procedures

34. In order to ensure that RWSS-II is sensitive to the issue of IPs and other vulnerablegroups, the following policies should be incorporated into the Fund BoardOperational procedures:

16

General

* All the documents about RWSS-IJ should make explicit reference to IPs;

* The Fund Board should incorporate provisions in TOR of SOs requiring them toreach out to IPs and outlining minimal steps to be taken to do so;

* The Fund Board should hire a Rural Sociologist/ Development Anthropologist withspecialization on the issues on IPs, Dalits, women and other vulnerable groups orrequire that the Third Party M&E Firm to be hired has such staff and that they arefully devoted to working on these issues in the RWSS-11 M&E contract; and

35. RWSS-11 needs to be flexible in accepting Newar's own traditional design for waterspouts where the community is willing to bear the addition cost that may beassociated with these.

Community Contribution

* Schemes beyond 10 kms of road-head should be given first priority and theseschemes should be provided subsidies for material transport;

* Community contribution should be minimum of 10 to a maximum of 20 per cent ofscheme capital cost in cash and kind of which minimum 1 per cent should be incash. However, for equity consideration and as a pro-poor strategy, poor IPs andvulnerable groups identified should be allowed to contribute minimum of 10 percent of scheme capital cost and cash contribution from very poor households shouldnot be mandatory;

36. Overhead cost for the SOs/SAs should be adjusted on the basis of distance from theroad-head and well-being/income level of the communities they mobilize. SOsserving more remote and poorer communities would be entitled to higher overheads.

Partnership

* Priority should be given to qualified local NGOs;

* NGOs hired as SOs by the Fund Board should have IP staff who speak the mothertongue prevalent in the area of work and who are qualified and interested inaddressing IP concerns in the project; and

* To the extent feasible the Fund Board should work in partnership with qualifiedlocal and national IP organizations.

Training and Awareness Programme

* Awareness training on IP (as well as caste-related) issues should be required for allFund Board staff in executive or implementation roles as well as for the SOs andSAs working for the FB. This should also include orientation on the World Bank'sIP policies;

* Training in health and sanitation should be made available to interested IP faithhealers and where possible, they should be involved in the health and sanitationpromotion activities such as the healthy home surveys etc.;

* Information about RWSS-11 should be disseminated through IPs' organizations andleaders, local government representatives. This information should be madeavailable in the major IP mother tongues through Radio (especially in the Khaskos

17

program) and also through printed materials in mother tongues. However, the scriptused can be Devanagri;

37. NFE teachers for IPs should be bilingual, able to speak and teach in both Nepali andIP mother tongue, and the priority should be given teacher who are actually IPthemselves.

Land Acquisition and Resettlement

38. The Fund Board should develop clear procedures for land acquisition (when land isneeded for a water supply project). The procedures should ensure that the donationof land is completely voluntary and unless the household giving the land is clearlywell off, that the donation of land does not cause any significant loss of income. Theprocedures should also ensure that the land is turned over to the WUG and not to anindividual and that a mechanism for redressal of grievances is established in theFund Board (See Annex 1 for a draft of possible Fund Board policy on landacquisition).

5.3 Modify Pre-Feasibility Intake Survey and Pre-Feasibility Site AppraisalFormats to Focus on Issues of IP and Dalit Inclusion

39. Targeting communities at a farther distance from the road head should increase theproportion of IP communities or mixed communities with a high proportion of IPsincluded in RWSS-IJ. However, there is still need to insure that in every communitywhich RWSS-1J works with, IP and Dalit settlements and households areencouraged to be part of the scheme wherever it is technically possible. To facilitatethis:

The Pre-feasibility Intake Survey carried out by the SO should be modifiedto include a Social Map of the area potentially served by the water sourcesbeing considered for the scheme. The draft format and instructions for thishave been prepared by the consultant and are included in Annex 4. Thesocial map identifies all the households in the potential scheme area andidentifies them by their caste and ethnicity. This will provide the baselineagainst which the social inclusiveness of the Fund Board's coverage will bejudged. The Fund Board will aim to have an overall coverage profile whichis in line with the aggregate ethnic and caste breakdown of the households inall the Social Maps submitted by the SOs.

* The Pre-Feasibility Intake Survey will also include information on theoverall inter-caste and inter-ethnic relations in the community (as far as theSO staff are able to detect) and their assessment, based on their ownjudgement and a community wealth ranking exercise, of which householdsor settlements may have difficulty in meeting the requirements forcommunity cash contributions. The SOs will be encouraged (and trained intechniques to help them) to work with the community to find a way toovercome the problem of some households' genuine inability to pay.Examples of communities who voluntarily adopted a multi-tiered or slabpayment scale would be shared with the community and discussed alongwith other solutions suggested by the community.

* The Pre-feasibility Site Appraisal conducted by the SA will verify thesocial map and the reported inter-caste and inter-ethnic relations in thecommunity reported by the SO as well as the ability to pay of various sub-

18

groups or individual households in the community. Where there aresignificant wealth disparities and groups for whom payment would be ahardship, the SA will alert the PM for extra follow up.

40. It is expected that the social mapping exercise should help ensure that RWSS-IIdoes not miss any households from the remaining 32 IP groups who have not yetbeen included in Fund Board operations. The social mapping exercise will alsoprovide a means of drawing SO attention to the mountain, Tarai, and Newar IPs aswell as the Madhesi Dalits and Muslims who were under represented in RWSS-Iand who should be given priority in the RWSS-II.

6. Summary of Core Elements of Indigenous People's Development Plan

Strategic Guidelines

41. Involvement of IPs in each stage of the programme implementation should beconfirmed. From community at the bottom to implementing and policy making levelat the top, high priority should be given to involving IP individuals and/or IPorganizations in RWSS-II in both service receiving and responsibility bearing. Inline with this priority, the following strategic guidelines should be adopted:

FB Staff: Considering the lack of IP staff in FB to work in RWSS-II, persons whoare highly motivated as well as sensitive to IP issues should be deputed to this job.His/her motivation and sensitiveness can be examined during the one-day trainingprogramme in World Bank's IP policy and through their interest and perceptiontowards IPs and IP issues from among the six sociologist currently working in FB.

The firm selected for Third Party Monitoring and Evaluation of RWSS-II includingthe mid-term evaluation and impact assessment should have a senior social scientist(preferably from the IP community) who is familiar with IP issues in Nepal.

Selection of SOs: The criteria for selecting SOs should include staff who speak themajor IP mother tongues current in the Project area where the SO will work andwho understand IP issues. Special priority should be given to IP organizations whomeet the criteria given below:

(i) Evidence of legal registration of the SO.(ii) Updated, audited, and Certified accounts.(iii) Constitutional provision to engage in rural water supply and sanitation or

rural development activities.(iv) Proven track record of at least two years in participatory rural water supply

and sanitation, and/or related community development activities.(v) If the SO is not IP organization, SOs must have IP human resource for

dealing with the issue, at least for the scheme areas where IPs are involved.(vi) Each new SO is evaluated by the Technical Appraisal Committee (TAC) of

the Board and assessed in the field, particularly concerning its track recordand staffing capacity, the SOs are selected using a ranking system providedin the implementation manual.

Mobilization of IP organizations: As discussed in policy issues, participation of IPorganizations in the project will greatly contribute to project success by generating

19

demand, managing disputes or conflicts, creating awareness among IP community,and a feeling of ownership in a culturally appropriate way.

NFE Teachers/Facilitators: In communities with a high proportion of IPs who arenot fluent in Nepali, NFE teachers and facilitators must be able to speak both Nepaliand IP mother tongue. The preference is to hire someone from the IP community.For instance, if the scheme area has a high proportion of members from the Magarcommunity, both NFE teacher and facilitator should be able to speak fluent Magar.In cases where an NFE teacher with these qualifications cannot be found in thecommunity, s/he can be hired from the neighbouring village.

IEC and Training Materials: The most important IEC materials should betranslated into at least the seven main IP mother tongues as per requirement by thecommunities covered in the scheme. For training materials, NFE curriculum, thegovernment or other organizations such as World Education, etc. should beencouraged to produce these materials in several mother tongues.

RWSS-IJ will make use of such materials as they become available. SOs shouldwork in close partnership with local government, IP organizations (from national tolocal), and IP community heads. NEFEN and NIWF are among the national level IPorganizations that can also be used to mobilize its sister organizations at district andlocal level for disseminating information about RWSS-IJ. Local level IPorganizations or/and IP community heads and local government will be mosteffective in reaching out to the IP community. Where there are no local IPorganizations or leaders, the SOs should use their IP professional to deal with theissues.

RWSS-JI should ensure that production and dissemination of information about theprogram through radio should also be in major mother tongues. The programmeshould be broadcast in Nepali language from the national radio program and in othermother tongues in regional radio program. For instance, the program should be inmother tongue of Limbu and Rai in Eastern districts, Newari, Tamang, and Maithiliin Central, Gurung, Magar, Bhojpuri, and Tharu in Western and Mid-western, andTharu in Far-western Tarai region.

20

Table 7: IP Development Plan - BudgetActivities for Single Batch Duration Impli Unit Cost No. per Total Cost

authority ($) Batch (US$)I. Activities under single BatchA. Preparatory PhaseSelection of IP and other vulnerable groups friendly SOsOrientation of World Bank's IP policies to FB executive staff, including SAs 1 day FB 1,000.0 1,000.0Selection of a sociologist among the FB professionals as focal point on IPissuesB. Project Cyc~le ___

QJPr-Devlopment!Phase.. ldeniifx IP~ org,anisation, for partnership For imiplementing proiectIP training to_SOs 1.5 days FB 200.0 200.0

Tfeam leader and supervisors 1.5 days FB 200.0 200.0Community Mobilisers 1F as P 0. 0 Basic Community Health Workers 1. 5 days FB 200.0 200.0

CmuiyTechnicians 1.5 days FB 200.0200Overs eers 1.5 days FB 200.0 . 200.0Prdcinand dissemination of IEC materials in Nepali and differen Onon B . 1000 7 7,000.0 Maximum

mother tonguesProduction and dissemination of information on RWSS-11 through weekly Ongoing FB 4,000.0 2 8,000.0 Could havi"Khaskos' and weekly radio programme

(i)Development PhaseCommunity action planningSelection and mobilisation of community organisations (priority to lPs)A'%arenes- training for comumuri people I di) S( )0 101)111 4iii.i 40,000.0 US$100~NFE Programme

Hire NFE teachers from IPs who know mother tongueTOT training for NFE teachers 9 days SOS 1100 0O 1,100.0Facilitator's training for NFE 9 days SOS 1,100-0 1,100.0NFE in mother tongues with Key Word Approach 24 week SOS 760 0 760.0

HSE ProgrammeVillage Health Promoters training to IP faith healers 15 days FB As part

JR IplemIentation Phase___

Mionitorn and Eauto M EiOngoin FB 10,000.0 10,000.0 4

Total 70,160.01C. Continjencies( _of he total of all activities) 3,500.0

Total Budget for single Batch 47,6.II. Total cost for 3 Batches 221,000.0

21

Annex 1: Principle of Land Acquisition and Resettlement

Based on the findings of the Social Assessment Team's review of RWSS-I, resettlement and or landacquisition problems are not anticipated in RWSS-I1. However, there is always risk of exploitation,and marginalization of low income IPs and other vulnerable groups by dominant groups. Nepalesesociety remains semi-feudal in character and the caste hierarchy, though officially illegal, remainsvery much in play in the rural areas. In order to ensure that poor IPs and other vulnerable groupsare not further marginalized in the course of development, it is recommended that an approachbased on the successful experienced of a similar Rural Water Supply project in Kerala, India (andsuggested by Warren Waters from SASEN HQ on his initial review of the Social Assessment) beincorporated into the official regulations and procedures of the Fund Board. Draft language ispresented below for the Fund Board's consideration:

Rules of taking possession of land

The Fund Board will not resort to any involuntary land acquisition. All donations and purchaseswill be voluntary. Mechanisms will be developed not only to ensure that any land donations arefully voluntary, but also that such donations do not involve physical displacement or anysignificant adverse impacts upon incomes of the donor household . All voluntary land transactionswill meet the following criteria:

(i) The land in question will be free of squatters, encroachers or other claims of(ii) Earh*illihb=osen by the community after ensuring that water indeed will be available in

that particular piece of land;(iii) Verification of the voluntary nature of land donations in each case;(iv) Land transfers will be completed through registration, with land title vested in the Water

User Group; and(v) Provision will be made in Fund Board procedures for redressal of any grievances related to

the land acquisition.

Procedure

Lands will not be accepted from such land owners whose holding will be less than the minimumeconomical viable stipulated size. This size of land might vary from one locality to another. In thiscase, an agreement of minimum stipulation size will be determined by the SAs in the local context.

Land to be used may also not be registered with government (Ailani) and the possibility that suchland may have been occupied by landless (Sukumbasi) is high. If Ailani land is occupied, it willnot be accepted for the project.

All land transactions will be subject to registration (as per market transactions) under the ownershipof community Water User Group that is involved in the project and will be done only after ensuringthat water will indeed be available in that particular piece of land.

Essentially, RWSS-II will arrange for field verification of all cases of land purchases in such a wayas to ensure that land has not been taken under any psychological, social, and economic dominationand that the above obligations and criteria have been fulfilled. Where such land donation involvesan IP household, the Fund Board may wish to seek assistance from local IP Organizations for fieldverification. The Fund Board Portfolio Manager should visit the field and consult with hecommunity for final verification. Information obtained from the community can be used to verifythat the correct procedures for the land acquisition have been carried out by the SO and thecommunity.

22

Sample Formats

I. Land Acquisition Assessment Data Sheet(to be used to record information on all land to be acquired)

1. Quantities of land/structures/other assets required:2. Date to be acquired:3. Locations:4. Owners:5. Current uses:6. Users:

* Number of Customary claimants:* Number of Squatters:* Number of Encroacher:* Number of Owners:* Number of Tenants:* Others (specify): Number:

7. How land/structures/other assets will be acquired (identify one):

* Donation* Purchase

8. Transfer of title:

* Ensure these lands/structures/other assets free of claims or encumbrances.* Written proof must be obtained (notarized or witnessed statements) of voluntary

donation, or acceptance of the prices paid, from those affected, together with proof oftitle being vested in the community, or guarantee of public access, by title-holder.

* Describe grievance mechanisms available:

2. Schedule of Compensation of Asset Recquisition

Summary of Units to be Compensated Agreed Compensationaffected unit/item

a. Urban/agricultural land (m2):

b. Houses/structures to bedemolished (units/m2):

c. Type of structure to bedemolished (e.g. mud, brick, etc.): Not Applicable

d. Trees or crops affected:

e. Water sources affected:

Signatures of local community representatives, Grama Seva:Include record of any complaints raised by affected persons:Map attached (showing affected areas and replacement areas):

23

3. Format to Document Contribution of Assets

The following agreement has been made on ................ day of .. between . (theOwner) resident of ............ and .(the Recipient).

1. That the Owner holds the transferable right of ........... (unit of land) of land/structure/assetin.

2. That the Owner testifies that the land/structure is free of squatters or encroachers and notsubject to any other claims.

3. That the Owner hereby grants to the Recipient this asset for the construction anddevelopment of ......... for the benefit of the villagers and the public at large.

(Either, in case of donation)

4. That the Owner will not claim any compensation against this grant of asset.

(Or in case of compensation)

5. That the Owner will receive compensation against the grant of this asset as per attachedSchedule.

6. That the Recipient agrees to accept this grant of asset for the purposes mentioned.

7. That the Recipient shall construct and develop the ......... and take all possible precautionsto avoid damage to adjacent land/structure/other assets.

8. That both the parties agree that the ................ so constructed/developed shall be publicpremises.

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

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... . .. .. ... .. .. .. .. ... .. ... ..............................

Signature of the Owner Signature of the Recipient

Witnesses:

1..........................................

2..........................................

(Signature, name and address)

24

Annex 2: Institutional Capacity of Fund Board

Fund Board has been established under the Ministry of Physical Planning and Works(MOPPW), HMG/Nepal. It is supervised and managed by a Board of seven membersconsisting of a Chairperson from MPPW, 3 members from Ministry of Finance (MoF),National Planning Commission (NPC), and Ministry of Local Development (MoLD), 2from NGOs, 1 from private sector and the member secretary from Fund Board.

The Fund Board is well equipped with sufficient infrastructure. It is staffed by 44 personnelcomprising 6 executives, 19 professional and 19 support staff. Out of 19 professionals, there are 6sociologists so the FB is rich in professional staff who are well experienced in social issues.Another institutional positive factor of FB is that, in cases when the program needs expertise inspecific areas, it uses third party consultants to perform the given job. This system shows that FundBoard does not suffer from the lack of expertise in implementing programs.

As the FB has a long experience of partnership with a number of donor agencies as well as manyNGOs while working in 49 districts in relation to rural water supply and sanitation over the years,there is no problem in finding out capable and qualified SOs and SAs for the implementation ofRWSS-II. However, FB will be addressing additional issues related to the inclusion of IPs andDalits, which was not mandatory for the previous project phase. In order to strengthen its capacityin IP issues, FB, SOs, and SAs should be provided orientation training on IPs issues in Nepal andon the World Bank's IP policies. And, FB will need to make some additional efforts to ensureadequate capacity, sensitivity and experience in dealing with IP (and caste) issues while selectingSOs for the implementation and consultants for the evaluation of project.

The selected SOs should be either IP organizations or should be highly motivated towards IP issuesand have staff qualified to deal with IP issues - preferably from the IP community. The FB andSOs should work in close partnership with the Nepal Federation of Nationalities (NEFEN), theNational Indigenous Women's Federation (NIWF) and affiliated IP organizations. The affiliated IPorganizations can be found at the local level. The FB will also need to follow selection criteria forSOs to ensure that program such as NFE have teachers who are fluent in the relevant IP languages.

In addition, the FB and SOs should also work in close partnership with VDCs and DDCs, whichare the key stakeholders for the implementation of the RWSS-II.

25

Annex 3: Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) of IP PlanStrong monitoring and evaluation is critical in order for the Fund Board to assess how well itsprogram is going, to learn lessons from the past, and to improve the project performance. The FundBoard has a comprehensive M&E system to be carried out at different phases: pre-development;development; and implementation phase (see Annex of "M&E of Service Delivery" in the ProjectAppraisal Document for RWSS II for details). It has five elements of monitoring, which are anappropriate and well organized way of monitoring for RWSS-II. They are discussed briefly in thefollowing sub-headings.

(a) Compliance monitoring

This is the backbone of the Fund's program, forming a system of proposals, contracts, terms ofreference and corresponding site appraisals and visits to follow up on compliance in the contractedworks of the SOs in the development phase and the contractual works of the SOs and the WUG inthe implementation phase. This ensures the cost effectiveness, performance, and quality control ofoutputs of the project.

Selected SAs are given a one day course "Field Monitoring and Evaluation Orientation" before the"site appraisal". Financial monitoring of the SOs will be done by an independent qualified auditorby verifying the financial statement made by SOs.

(b) Community monitoring

This is compliance monitoring done by the community itself to give feedback on the quality andservices of the program. The community is also actively involved in making the plans and settingthe standards, so that they have a suitable 'yardstick' for their monitoring. SO staff will facilitate thepreparation of the Community Action Plan (CAP) and provide leadership and management trainingto enhance community's capability to act as the client and undertake some of the monitoringactivities.

Another part of this is self-monitoring that ensures the participation of all the community membersin necessary meetings, training sessions and discussions and ensure that they are well informedabout the project and its requirements and consequences to the community. Using participatoryself-monitoring tools, community will monitor the progress of different activities initiated in thecommunity and hence keep up the motivational work.

The basic tools of this monitoring system is: i) mass agreement; ii) annual meeting; iii) communitymapping; iv) SARAR tools; and v) time sheets.

(c) Development monitoring

This is a follow-up monitoring system focussing on how the quality and thrust of the servicesprovided progress over time. This is major source of feedback to the program implementers.Program procedures are assessed and modified according to the findings of the developmentmonitoring.

Under this system, one of the methods is technical audits that use and review the compliancemonitoring documents and the scheme completion reports prepared by the Portfolio Manager.Another is annual review meeting between Fund Board, SOs, and SAs.

(d) Impact Monitoring

The impact monitoring attempts to assess the changes generated by the activities/ inputs/ services interms of the long term objectives of the Fund Board as for the first project, the impact of RWSS-IIwill be assessed on the basis KAP study, time saving and water consumption, and economic impacton the community covered by the program.

26

KAP study will be carried out "before and after" development phase using household survey.Implementation Phase Contract Completion Report (ICCR) will be used for examining impact ontime saving and water consumption. And, the other indicators to be used are:

- average number of trips per day per household to carry water;- average size of the vessel used;- weighted average length of time needed for round trip to the source, including going,

waiting time and returning, information from a sketch map; and- health impact through incidence of diseases.

In addition, the project is aimed at improving equity of access through the inclusion of poor IPs andother vulnerable groups such as women and Dalits in the process. In order to assess whether theproject has been implemented in "more inclusionery" way, some additional indicators have beendeveloped, which are as follows:

- % of schemes 10 kms or more from road head- % of Dalit and IP households in relation to their % in the scheme settlement area covered

by the program (based on the original Pre-Feasibility Intake Survey Social Map describedabove)

- % of women in WUC- % of Dalits and IPs in WUC (if the scheme site includes these groups)- % of women/IPs/Dalits serving WUC as O&M technicians, fee collectors, office bearers.(e) Strategic Monitoring

Strategic monitoring is concentrated on the long term impact of the program to document,disseminate and use 'lessons learnt' within the Fund Board and outside - for further policy revisionsand formulations as well as for incorporating lesson from elsewhere.

This will prepare long-term sustainable impact reports by reviewing all the documents related toscheme, KAP studies, and some special studies. One aspect which could be reviewed would be theethnic and caste diversity in the staffs of the various SOs and SAs involved in supporting RWSS IIand/or the % of staff with fluency in one or more IP mother tongues.

27

Annex 4: Recommendations for the Modification of Pre-feasibility Intake Survey andPre-feasibility Site Appraisal Forms

RWSS-1 was not designed explicitly to increase access for Indigenous People, whereas RWSS-IIhas explicit plans to reach out to the IP community and to ensure increased inclusion of IPs in theprogram in order to achieve equality and j'ustice in the World Bank supported program. So, there isan urgent need for modification of Pre-feasibility Intake Survey and Pre-feasibility Site AppraisalForms to assess the objective of the program.

The methodology adopted for completing the form is Key Informnant Interview (KII). However,informnation obtained from a single key informant interview may not be reliable on some sensitivetopics (such as those related to caste, class and ethnic inclusion) - especially if that chosen keyinformant is a member of the dominant caste in the community. Therefore, it is recomrmended thatthe data be collected in KII with several different Key Informants making sure that men and womenand different caste/ethnic groups are covered so that accuracy of thle data can be verified through"triangulation". Also for issues such as ranking of well-being, community concerns, needsidentification, PRAI FGD would be a more appropriate tool. So, it is recommended that both KuI(with several key informants from different stakeholder groups) and PRAIFGD should be adoptedwhile completing these forms.

(a) Pre-feasibility Intake Survey

As this form is to provide baseline information and to ensure inclusion of IPs, Dalits, and women,some basic revisions are recommended to include in RWSS-II. They are:

SN Old_ (to be replaced by New) New (change indicated by underline)Desciptn _Section Pa4ge

I Location A: I I Location(Discussion with key informants i.e. (Discussion with key informants i.e.community leader, school teacher, community leader such as IP, Dalit, etc.,women, etc.) school teacher, women, etc.)

2 Demographic Information AJILl 2 Demographic Information(Discussion with Key Informants, i.e., (Discussion with Key Informants, i.e.,community leader, school teacher, community leader such as I,Dlt t.women, etc.) school teacher, women, etc.)

3 Ethnic composition, settlements and A:1l1: I11 2 Ethnic composition, settlements and no.no. of HH: (please write ethnicity of HH: (please write ethnicity from thefrom the highest to lowest) highlest to lo%% est SiZe Of )Op)Ulationl)

4 Table AJIII: I 1 2 Add one column of mother tonguebetween column of Ethnic group and no.of HH

5 Socio-economic Information A: IV: 12 2 Socio-economic Information(Discussion with Key Informants, i.e., (Discussion with Key Informants, i.e.,community leader, school teacher, community leader such as IP, Dalit, etc.,women, etc.) school teacher, women, etc.)

6 i. Maj'or source of income A: IV: 13 3 Ranking of well-being (income, labour,ii. Secondary source of income land, production, consumption, HH

property, pension,. remittance, loan, etc.)by PRA method.

7 Health and Sanitation C 9 Adopt PRA (FGD) method instead of19. Shortcomings and problems 19 & 20 Key informant Interview (Focus on20. Health situation and problems water born disease)

8 List in order of priority 3 felt needs C:24 10 Adopt PRA.(FGD.) method instead ofidentified by the communi'ty Key informant Interview

9 Social M.apping__________________________

28

(b) Social Mapping

The Sketch Map included in Pre-feasibility Form for RWSS-1 was mainly technical and did not map the casteand ethnic identity of households in the community. As the program is explicitly designed to increase equalitythrough more inclusion of IPs and other vulnerable groups such as women, Dalits and poor, the Sketch map hasto be modified to be a Social Map. In addition to components covered in RWSS-1, the social map will giveinformation on the caste/ethnic identity of each household in the area that the scheme could cover from atechnical point of view. And, there should be clear indication of the general nature of the relationships(including any open or covert conflicts) between the households from different caste and ethnic groups in thecommunity, so that any possible tensions and conflict issues to be faced during the implementation of RWSS-11could be managed.

Often the type of house occupied by IP, Dalits, Newars, and other non-IPs are distinctive, so that they can beidentified easily. But, this is not always the case. Even within a group, the type of house (e.g., straw roof, tileroof, tin or slate roof) is more likely to be determinant by wealth than by ethnicity. So, it is important that theSO speaks with each household individual to determine their caste/ethnic identity.

In order to understand the relationship and detect possible tensions between different caste and ethnic groups orbetween rich and poor households, two different types of line should be drawn - identifying good relationshipby one and conflict by another. This may clearly identify the situation of the community in terms of harmonyand/or conflict. The SO can also simply give written notes of inter-ethnic, inter-case relations in the communityif this is easier.

(c) Pre-feasibility Site Appraisal

The following revisions are recommended to include:

SN Old,(to' be replaced ,byNw New (change indicated by underline)Description - Section Page,

I Location map 2 Add ethnic/caste households in locationmapping

2 Households, Population, Ethnicity and B: 1 Add one column of mother tongue betweensettlement pattern column of Ethnic group and No. of HH

3 Felt needs of the community E:2 Adopt PRA (FGD) method in addition toKey informant Interview

4 Non-Formal Education F:2 Add one column of mother tongue

(d) Identification of Community Contribution to the RWSS-11

For both forms (i.e. the Pre-feasibility Intake Survey (Section E) and Pre-feasibility Site Appraisal (Section G))in the section which identifies the Community Contribution,, the SO should asses not only willingness to paybut ability to pay for different segments of the community. This will require the SO to discuss the issuebroadly in the community and perhaps using wealth ranking or other participatory approaches, arrive at anagreed system where the level of contribution required of the poor is feasible for them"1 . One approach tosystematizing this is the Double Slab System of Community Contribution, (see table below). One slab (based onlocation) will be determined by the Fund Board and another slab (based on economic status) by the SOs basedon community consensus using a well-being ranking exercise.

This is a progressive system for determining community contribution to the RWSS-11. It is sensitive to poor andvulnerable groups and oriented more towards social j'ustice on the basis of a number of differences acrosshouseholds as well as across communities in terms of social, economic, and geographic factors.

There is a general consensus in the RWSS sector that more remote communities should be expected to pay asmall proportion of System costs. One idea is that transport costs to more distance villages would get a subsidy

4/ It should also be noted that in the 10Oth Plan, the MPPW has declared that the very poor would not be required topay cash contributions. Furthermore, since for the very poor, daily food often depends on money eamned fromlabor that day, the new RWSS sector strategy document now under preparation is considering incorporating atleast partial payments of wages to the very poor when they make their voluntary labor contributions to projects.

29

to cover portage costs. It is also widely felt that poor households within a community should be exempted fromcash contributions and should be paid some subsistence amount for the days they contribute to building thesystem. This report offers the following suggestions for one way that community and individuation household

cotrbution levels could be worked out in an equitable manner. In this system, all communities and allhouseholds pay something and will thus have a sense of ownerships; but the burden will be less on remotecommunities and poor households.

The Fund Board could determine proportion of system cost to be paid by the community based on threecategories of distance from road-head and/or elevation (see table below). Within the community, there is alsolikely to be variation from one household to another in terms of their social and economic well-being. On thebasis of their well-being, households can be classified into 3 categories. Then, the households can be requestedto contribute in cash from 15 to 50 per cent based on where they fall on the welfare scale (see table below).Contribution of households in kind/labor should be the same for all categories - except that the ultra-poor maybe given at least partial compensation for their labor as stated above.

Double Slab System of Community Contribution for RWSS-11I Scaling Category

High MediumLoFund Bor Ra kn..........

Rate (both cash and kind) -20% - - -- 15Basis for community contribution < 5km - Close to road- > 5km -<10 km -Medium >10Okm -Remote!

-J head/Low land distance/Mid land High landCommunityRankn

Ranking of well-being Rich! Middle Poor! Rich! Middle Poor! Rich! Middle Poor!

Poor- class! Poorest Poor class! Poorest Poor class! Poorest

Cotribution in cash _50% 35%.IJ A½1 5%_ 15% 50%5 15%Contribution in kind/labour Equal Equal IEqual

For the ranking of well-being, PRA technique is necessary with participation of all community members in thediscussion group. The components for this well-being will be income, land, household property, pension,remittance, production and consumption, etc. to the extent the surveyor. However, questions on thesecomponents should be raised very much indirectly using various PRA techniques because when discussingincome and property everybody tends to hide the information. The best method here may be a wealth rankingexercise.

30

Annex 5: People Consulted in the Discussion

Fund Board1. Raj Babu Shrestha - Executive Director2. Kishore Bimb - Deputy Executive Director3. Subhas Acharya - Human Resource Development Officer4. Romi Tuladhhar - MIS5. Raghu Thapa - Operation, M&E Chief6. Ramesh Sharma - Portfolio Manager7. Vijaya Laxmi Shrestha8. Kiran Shrestha9. Harish Chandra Neupane10. Dev Rajbhandari"I1. Ramendra Shah12. Alka Shrestha13. Mana Dahal14. Rajya Laxmi Maskey

SOs and SAsI1. Chandramani Upadhaya - Bhimapokhara Youth Club (BYC), Baglung2. Yogeswor K Parajuli - TAEC Consult P. Ltd.

3. Rita Koirala - DEPROSC/Nepal4. Shisir Gautam - D.E. Consultancy5. Praveen Baidya - SYSTEC6. Binay Kumar Sharma - EVREC7. Padam Shah - MRMG Kathmandu8. Rajendra B. Pradhan - SOLVE-Nepal9. Pramita Bista - SAPPROS-Nepal10. Shyam Ghimire - GROS11. Sumeena Baidya - Didi Bahini12. Rabin Dhakal - OMNI Development Society13. Nirmala Acharya - R.D.S. (Rural Development14. Pramod K. Jaiswal - AYCM, Parsa

Makwanpur District1. Mr. Rajbhai Goplai - Advisor2. Mr. Chitra Singh Goplai - Advisor3. Mr. Krishna Bahadur Gopali - Chairperson4. Mr. Bharipurna Gopali - Ward Cahirperson, Ward Number 6,

Bajrabarahi VDC1. Ms. Laxmi Gopali - Chairperson, WTS and Member of WUG2. Mr. Yam Bahadur Goplai - WUG member3. Mr. Buddhi Raj Goplai - WUG member4. Mr. Dharma Raj Goplai - VHP5. Ms. Bijaya Laxmi Shrestha - Portfolio Manager6. Mr. Krishna Bahadur Gopali - WUG member7. Mr. Hari Krishna Gopali - WUG member8. Ms. Suntali Gopali - WUG member9. Ms. Punam Gopali - WUG member10. Ms. Phulmaya Gopali - WUG member11. Ms. Shanti Gopali - WUG member12. Ms. Gun Maya - WUG member13. Ms. Januna Gopali - WUG member14. Ms. Nirmaya Gopali - WUG member15. Ms. Sun maya Gopali - WUG member

31

VDCI. Mr. Damodar Dhungel Field Coordinator, SOLVE2. Ram Saran Dhakal3. Bishnu Prasad Dhakal4. Ganesh Man Shrestha5. Rajan Napit6. Kumar Bishwokarma7. Krishna Raimajhi8. Sarswoti Karki9. Madan Lal Karki10. Udaya Narayan Misra

Nawalparasi District1. Mr. Kuti Tharu - Advisor, Badhera WUG2. Mr. Narayan Tiwari (Bahun) - Advisor, BWUG3. Mr. Man Bahadur Rana Magar - Chairperson, BWUG4. Mr. Krishna Bahadur Gurung - Vice-Chairperson, BWUG5. Mr. Padma Lal Panta (Bahun) - Secretary, BWUG6. Ms. Namita Thapa Magar - Treasurer, BWUG and NFE Teacher7. Ms. Gau Maya Gurung - WTC Chairperson, BWUG8. Ms. Indira Thapa Magar - VHP, BWUG9. Ms. Mira Sunar (Hill Dalit) - VHP, BWUG10. Ms. Gau Maya Gurung - WTC Chairperson, BWUG11. Ms. Ambika Tiwari (Bahun) - WTC Member, BWUG12. Mr. Ram Singh Shrestha (Newar) - Member, BWUG13. Ms. Manju Ale Magar - Member, BWUG14. Ms. Bishnu Lamichane (Bahun) - Member, BWUG15. Mr. Devendra Sapkota (Bahun) - Member, BWUG16. Ms. Khima Tiwari (Bahun) - Member, BWUG17. Mr. Krishna Chapagain (Bahun) - Member, BWUG18. Ramesh Sharma - Portfolio Manager19. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Acharya - District Forest Officer, Nawalparasi District20. Ms. Devariya Biswakarma (Hill Dal it) - DDC Member, Nawalparasi DDC21. Mr. Top Bahadur Singh (Chetri) - DDC Member, Nawalparasi DDC22. Mr. Yagya Prasad Panthi (Bahun) - Program Officer, Nawalparasi DDC23. Mr. Shuva Lal Kandel (Bahun) - DDC Member, Nawalparasi DDC24. Ms. Chnadra Pun Magar - DDC Member, Nawalparasi DDC25. Mr. Bhuvan Raj Basyal - DDC Member, Nawalparasi DDC26. Ms. Namita Thapa - Treasurer27. Ms. Govari Rai - Chairperson28. Ms. Parvati Goure - WUG member29. Ms. Nina Badale -30. Ms. Meena Tiwari -31. Ms. AmbikaTiwari -32. Ms. Tika Devi Pathak -33. Ms. Bhesh Kumari Shrestha -34. Mr. Ramesh K. Acharya - DFO

32

Annex 6: Check Lists for Discussion in Social Assessment Study

Resettlement

* What were the policies and procedures for land acquisition in RWSS-I?* Were there stipulated policies and procedures or was land acquisition to follow or was the issue

handled on case by case situation?* Can we be assured that these policies adequately insured that there was no displacement (involuntary

resettlement) or losses of land or livelihood for local people due to the project?* Please could you share the processes that were followed in your working area/scheme? Successful and

unsuccessful.* In your view what were reasons for successful and unsuccessful land acquisition and resettlement?

Do you think that RWSS-II could face problems regarding land acquisition and resettlement? Why andhow?

* What do you think could be done to avoid or amicably come to a compromise if problems arose?

Indigenous Peoples

* Did the project insure that project benefits are accessible to members of indigenous groups andprovided in a culturally appropriate way?

* What efforts have been done by NGOs to benefit IPs?* What efforts have been done by NGOs to benefit IPs?* What should be done to benefit IPs from FB schemes?* Did the project (water schemes; NFE classes; health & sanitation education etc.) cause any adverse

impacts on members of indigenous groups? (If the mention any adverse impact, please ask them whatand how should it be done)* Social impact* Cultural impact* Religious impact* Economic impact* Psychological impact* ecological impact

* How was the risk of exclusion of vulnerable groups, particularly ethnic minorities and low castegroups reduced by the project?

* What are the key expectations of IPs?* What are the issues of [Ps* What are the concerns of IPs?* If financial support should be provided, could organizations such as Lyamha Pucha implement NFE

classes in mother tongues?* If financial support should be provided, could Dalit's organization implement NFE classes?

Gender

* How did RWSS-I address gender issues and build on the central role that women play in water supplyand sanitation in rural Nepal?Were regional variations in gender roles taken into account?

* Did different SOs perform differentially in terms of their gender responsiveness and was performancein this dimension taken into account in the awarding of follow-on contracts?

* What about women's voice on the Water Users Committee?* Was the requirement that two of the seven members be women effective in insuring that women's

views were taken into account or were women members generally silent proxies for male householdmembers?

Income Generation/micro-credit

* How did the various SOs handle this part of the project?* How did the income generation schemes actually operate - especially the mechanisms used for

33

providing seed capital to women?* Describe some of the more successful and less successful approaches.* Was there an effort to build strong savings and credit groups and create on-going capacity for small

scale financial service delivery?* Did all sections of the village participate, or only women from dominant castes/ethnic groups and

better off households?* If certain groups of women did not participate, what do you think were the reasons for not doing so?* Does the RWSS income generation program build strong linkages to other programs in the project

area?* How sustainable have the income gains been?* How do the practices followed in RWSS-I relate to best practice in Nepal and world wide in terms of

access and sustainability of micro-finance service provision?* Should this component be continued in RWSS-11?* If so, what recommendations for improvement can be made for RWSS-II?Linkages to VDCs/DDCs and the Decentralization Process* What are the pros and cons of seeking to forge a closer link between the Water User Groups and the

Local Elected Bodies?Characterize the typical relationships between VDCs/DDCs and the Board Fund Staff, SO staff,WUGs and WUCs respectively.

* Was there much variation across project sites or SOs?

34

Reference Cited

Gurung, Harka, 2002. "Janajati and Dalit: The Subjugated in Governance", A Seminar Paper Presented atPolicy Inputs For SDC's Governance Concept, January 18, 2002 (Kathmandu: SDC).

NPC, 1996. Ninth National Plan 1997-2002 (Kathmandu: National Planning Commission, HMG).

NPC, 2002. Tenth National Plan 2003-2008 (Kathmandu: National Planning Commission, HMG).

NPC, 2002. Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) (Kathmandu: National Planning Commission, HMG).

35