Difference in the number of affected assets identified at appraisal and the actual count during implementation can lead to delays in safeguards implementation, which can be worsened by the executing agency's lack of capacity and reliance on short-term, limited consulting inputs. There was a 24% increase in the number of affected structures and households during implementation compared to the estimate at appraisal. The increase was mainly due to the footprint approach used for land acquisition, where the scope of work of the design consultant was limited to design only, and the Department of Roads' (DOR) lack of a dedicated social safeguards specialist to review documents submitted by the consultant. This caused a delay in (i) preparing the updated resettlement plans, (ii) the decision on compensation, and (iii) the design of a compensation package for affected persons. The situation would have been improved if DOR had the in-house capacity to deal with the safeguard issues. The consultant's scope of work should have extended to include a detailed social impact assessment along with designing the mitigation measures. The construction supervision consultant (CSC) was meant to fill this gap. However, this did not work out because of a delay in mobilizing the safeguard consultant. Experience shows that a team of social safeguard consultants with continuous inputs from project concept to completion is required to oversee all projects under the Project Directorate Office—instead of recruiting safeguard consultants on a project-by-project basis.
South Asia Subregional Economic Cooperation Road Connectivity Project