The entire M4 highway is a 240 km road which  will construct:

• 15 interchanges

• 23 flyovers/underpasses,

• 11 bridges

• 19 underpasses

• 191 pipe culverts

• 55 WCC boxes and gas culverts 

 

M4 Shorkot-Khanewal (Section 3 of M4)

• Two bridges will be constructed across 2  main surface water bodies which irrigate  agri-lands: River Ravi and Sadhnai Canal

• Displacement of 3,429 households from  the use of 1,616.7 acres of land of which  86 % is privately-owned agricultural land

• Will require the cutting of 91,661 trees

 

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE AND “MISSING  PEOPLE”

• Covers 35 villages, no roads

• 31 villages completed acquisitions / 4 villages are being processed under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894

• Displacing 3,429 households

• Shorkot: Average household size is 6.9

• Khanewal: Average household size is 7

• The nuclear family (49%), Joint (51%)

• Women: men population ratio is at 108:100

• 70.2 percent uses wood, agri-wastes for fuel source

• Presence of castes (Sayyed, Naul, Supra, Sheikh, Haraj, Gill, Sanghara, Bandash, Mughal, Jatt, Arain, Malik, Rajput,  Sheikh )

• Presence of ethnic minorities such as Sialkot, Amratsar, Gurdaspur, Gujranwala, Gujra which should have triggered  IPSP

• No children counted under vulnerable groups

• Displaced person – any person whose land, asset/infrastructure, the source of income, or access to resources/workplace is likely to be affected by the project’s operations. In the COI, these are  mostly landowners, business operators and owners of assets

 

However, there is a huge gap in headcount.

• ADB says 3,429 households or 6,036 displaced persons losing part of their land as a result of M4-highway. Sec. 3.

• How many families in each household? Survey says 51% are living  jointly with brothers etc

• Survey also says average size is 6.7 in Shorkot and 7 in Khanewal

• AIIB in its website says 3,429 households or 23, 186 displaced  persons

 

RESETTLEMENT PLAN VS IR  REQUIREMENTS

(Click here to see the document)

 

SCREENING OF THE PROJECT

• Accomplished but with data gaps on displaced households vis a vis vs displaced persons & # of families in a  displaced household

• No adequate discussion on women’s access to water and forest resources property rights, and views on  resettlement functions

• No recognition of the existence of nomadic and ethnic minorities.

• The absence of legal definition of IPs in Pakistan  could have paved the way for violations of IP rights

• No  recognition of children in vulnerable groups

 

CARRY OUT MEANINGFUL CONSULTATIONS

• Low participation of women in consultations, 80 women vs 500 men

• No documentation if vulnerable groups were consulted those who were accessing agri-lands like

• Grievance mechanism station is inaccessible: Faisalabad, 3.5 hours from Khanewal and 2.5 hours from Shorkot

 

IMPROVE, OR AT LEAST RESTORE, THE LIVELIHOODS OF ALL DISPLACED PERSONS AND PROVIDE ADEQUATE  ASSISTANCE

1. DP will be given the market value of land and livelihood allowance for 3 months only. No other proposed interventions other than the potential priority for employment in nearby factories.

2. Transitionary allowance was only given for 3 months, not enough to restore income and given the length of the interruption period.

3. Business owners were not provided with the costs of reestablishing commercial activities  elsewhere; the costs of reinstalling plant, machinery, or other equipment at full replacement  cost only a transitionary allowance for 6 months

4. Vulnerability allowance beneficiaries includes employees, female-headed household,  disabled and residents but no children and ethnic minorities

5. Develop a grievance mechanism

6. Inappropriate disbursement method. The team announces a day before the actual disbursement which may leave AH unavailable in such a short period of time. Only 39% of payments in  Khanewal district

7. Make a resettlement plan

8. Self-relocation was the option chosen by DPs.

 

(see pages 72-79, Rese]lement Plan PAK: National Motorway M-4 Gojra–Shorkot– Khanewal Section Project –Additional Financing ADB Project Document. December 2015)

 

POLICY ENVIRONMENT

​

CAVEATS ON COUNTRY SYSTEMS FOR VULNERABLE POPULATIONS

• Women have rights to land granted to them by constitutional, statutory, and religious law but are under pressure of customary law and traditional practice (Sharia law). In tribal areas, local Jirgas decide on land disputes and often discriminate against women and their right to land ownership.

• The absence of a law on IP. Constitution speaks only of ethnic groups in reference to religion

• Land Administration Act 1894 is old, institutions on land disputes are marred with corruption and feudal relations. Both at the local government (tehsil) level and federal level, courts dealing with land disputes suffer from a backlog of cases, are poorly trained and subject to corruption.

​

INFORMATION AND GRIEVANCE

• Heavily militarized, freedom of speech is limited with shrinking space for CSOs

• In other M4 sections, due diligence report on resettlement says grievance mechanism was present  but not documented for follow-through or further negotiation

 

COUNTRY SYSTEM VIS A VIS SPS AND OTHER CAVEATS IN SAFEGUARD PROCESSES: M4 HIGHWAY (SHORKOT-KHANEWAL, SEC 3) (Click here to see the document)

1. The environment was seen as separate components and not having interrelated impacts in the ecosystem ex.  soil pollution on agricultural productivity, road debris, and its impacts on surface and groundwater,  aquatic life, irrigation, etc.

2. No evaluation of the impacts of cutting down of 91,000 trees on agricultural productivity, climate health,  flaura, and fauna

3. No adequate assessment of continuous or intergenerational impacts on ecosystems and agricultural  productivity, health, and is basically limited to the impacts on the construction phase itself

4. No evaluation of the impact of urbanization with the introduction of roads, tourists, businesses, etc.

5. The continuous impacts on fauna have not been evaluated properly

6. Roads are the number one killer in animals especially of migratory species like amphibians

7. Pollution from road debris can also alter the lifecycle of animals nearby, noise pollution can affect the  behavior of birds

8. The environment was seen as separate components and not having interrelated impacts in the ecosystem example soil pollution on agricultural productivity, road debris, and its impacts on surface and groundwater,  aquatic life, irrigation, etc.

9. No evaluation of the impacts of cutting down of 91,000 trees on agricultural productivity, climate health,  flaura, and fauna

10. No adequate assessment of continuous or intergenerational impacts on ecosystems and agricultural  productivity, health, and is basically limited to the impacts on the construction phase itself

11. No evaluation of the impact of urbanization with the introduction of roads, tourists, businesses, etc.

12. The continuous impacts on fauna have not been evaluated properly

13. Roads are the number one killer in animals especially of migratory species like amphibians

14. Pollution from road debris can also alter the lifecycle of animals nearby, noise pollution can affect the  behavior of birds

 

WEAK GENDER LENS:

• Lack of study on low the project will affect economic activities, water, and forest access, and so forth.

• Gender participation is weak especially in low-income groups

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS AND GRIEVANCE MECHANISMS

1. Most of the documented consultations were with government officials and some affected establishments, low women’s participation, no mention of participation from castes, lower-income groups.

2. Mechanisms exist, but documentation of grievances is very poor.

3. The final arbiter is lodged in problematic institutions