Photo Project No.: TF 051125 2 7980 - The World Bank · 2016-07-17 · and Mr Byambaa, PMU, Ms...

Municipality of UloanbaatarMongoliaWorld Bank

Photo Project No.: TF 051125

Feasibility Study of the Second Ulaanbaatar 2 7980Services Improvement Project andPreliminary Design of Water Supply Facilities

Social Impact Assessment

Photo

FILE C PYDecember 2003

Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd.A-8, Green Park, New Delhi - 110016, INDIA (www.ictonline.com)

In association with

Pacific Consultants Halcrow China Ltd. Khot Services Co. Ltd.International CHINA MONGOLIA

JAPAN

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

C

Second Ulaanbaatar Services Improvement Project

Table of Contents

List of Tables iiiList of Acronyms ivAcknowledgement vExecutive Summary A

Introduction ALessons Leamt from the SIA AConstraints in the SIA Findings DTranslating the SIA Findings into Socially Responsible Project Design DConclusion and Recommendations H

1 Introduction .......................................... . .11.1 Mongolia - the Country ........................................... 11.2 Social Development Objective of the Project ........................................... 11.3 Why Social Impact Assessment? ........................................... 11.4 The Scope of Social Impact Assessment ........................................... 11.5 Social Impact Assessment Objectives of the Project ........................................... 21.6 Method and Tools Used for the SIA ...........................................2

2 Description of the Proposed Project and Study Groups . . 62.1 General Description of the Project .................................. 62.1.1 Location ... 6................................62.1.2 Selected Ger Areas for Development .................................. 62.1.3 General Layout .... 7..............................72.1.4 Present and Projected Population ................................... 72.1.5 Types of Local Industries .................................. 102.2 Existing Facilities and Services .................................. 102.2.1 Water Supply .................................. 102.2.2 Sanitation .................................. 112.2.3 Roads and Drainage .................................. 142.2.4 Solid Waste Management .................................. 152.3 Project Area Baseline Information .................................. 152.3.1 Households and the Family .................................. 162.3.2 Literacy and Education .................................. 162.3.3 Religion of the Mongolian People .................................. 162.3.4 House Structure Types and Plots .................................. 162.3.5 Water Availability .................................. 182.3.6 Sanitation .................................. 202.3.7 Bathhouses ....... 212.3.8 Solid Waste ....... 222.3.9 Operation and Maintenance of the Services ................................ 222.3.10 Livelihoods ................................ 222.3.11 Migration ................................ 232.3.12 Household Income ................................ 232.3.13 Household Expenditure ................................ 24

Social Impact Assessment Report i


2.4 Land Management Issues for the Social Impact Assessment .................................. 252.5 Identification of Study Groups and Their Priorities .............................................. 262.6 Social Diversity: Ethnicity, Gender and Children .............................................. 292.6.1 Ethnicity .............................................. 292.6.2 Gender Issues .............................................. 302.6.3 Children .............................................. 342.7 Key Poverty Issues .............................................. 342.7.1 Poverty Definition .............................................. 342.7.2 Poverty Indicators .............................................. 352.7.3 Urban Poverty .............................................. 352.7.4 Gender and Poverty .............................................. 382.7.5 Environment and Poverty .............................................. 39

3 Stakeholder and Institutional Analysis .. 413.1 Classification of Stakeholders ................................. 413.2 Social Institutions ................................. 423.3 Civil Society Participation ................................. 423.4 Stakeholder Concerns ................................. 423.5 Community Participation ................................. 463.5.1 Community Consultations on Water Kiosks ................................. 463.5.2 Rationale for Including Community Involvement and Public Awareness ................ 473.5.3 Existing Community Activities in Ulaanbaatar ..................................................... 483.5.4 Recommended Community Development and Awareness Strategy ...................... 51

4 Assessment of Social Benefits and Risks .. 534.1 Introduction .534.2 Social Development Benefits .534.3 Social Development Risks .55

5 Social Development Monitoring and Evaluation .. 575.1 Introduction .575.2 Monitoring Project Outcome/Impact Indicators .575.3 Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation .585.4 M&E Mechanisms .58

6 References .. 59

Annex 1: Maps of the Qualitative Survey Location Al-1 to Al -7Annex 2: Tabulation of the Qualitative Survey Output A2-1 to A2-8Annex 3: Qualitative Survey Instrument and Output A3-1 to A3-149Annex 4: Ethnic Group Distribution A4-1

Social Impact Assessment Report


List of Tables

Table 1.1: Household Survey Sample Size .............................................................. 3Table 1.2: Qualitative Survey Sample Size .............................................................. 4Table 1.3: Qualitative Survey Ger Area-wise .............................................................. 5Table 2.1: Ger Area Particulars .............................................................. 6Table 2.2: Population Estimates in the Ulaan Baatar Area, December 2002 ........................................ 7Table 2.3: Estimated Population of Ger Areas, December 2003 ........................................................... 8Table 2.4: Official Population Projection Parameters for UB Municipality .............................................. 8Table 2.5: Population Projections in the Project Ger Areas .............................................................. 9Table 2.6: Water Kiosks in Ger Areas ............................................................. 11Table 2.7: Six Approaches and Strategies ............................................................. 11Table 2.8: Literacy and Education ............................................................. 16Table 2.9: House Structure Types by Income Groups ............................................................. 17Table 2.10: Type of Housing by Income Groups ............................................................. 17Table 2.11 :Plot Ownership Pattern by Income Groups ............................................................. 17Table 2.12: Registration of Plots by Income Groups ............................................................. 18Table 2.13: Water Availability by Income Groups .............................................................. 18Table 2.14: Sufficiency Level of Water Availability by Income Groups ................................................ 19Table 2.15: Type of Use of Water by GerAreas .............................................................. 19Table 2.16: Water Use by Income Groups ............................................................. 20Table 2.17: Sanitation Issues by Income Groups .............................................................. 21Table 2.18: Livelihoods Pattern ............................................................. 22Table 2.19: Household Income Groups by GerAreas, % .............................................................. 23Table 2.20: Household Monthly Expenditure by Items ............................................................. 24Table 2.21: Household expenditure by items per month and by ger area ............................................ 25Table 3.1: Stakeholder Social Characteristics .............................................................. 41Table 3.2: Potential Partners for Community Participation and Public Awareness .............................. 50Table 5.1: Impact Monitoring Indicators .............................................................. 57

Social Impact Assessment Report iii

ii

I

I

I

i

1

4

I


List of Acronyms

ADB Asian Development BankCBO Community-Based OrganizationCDS City Development StrategyCIDA Canadian International Development AgencyGOM Government of MongoliaLpcd Litres per capita dailyMALA Mongolian Association for Local AuthoritiesMP Master PlanMPRP Mongolian People's Revolutionary PartyMTDSR Medium Term Development Strategy for RegionsMUB Municipality of UlaanbaatarMWF Mongolian Women's FederationNGO Non-Governmental OrganizationO&M Operation and MaintenanceOSNAAG UB Housing and Public Services CompanyPCDP Public Consultations and Disclosure ProgramPCDP Public Consultation and Disclosure ProgrammePMU Project Management UnitSCF-UK Save the Children Fund, United KingdomSIA Social Impact AssessmentSLP Sustainable Livelihoods ProjectTg Tugrig or TogrogUB UlaanbaatarUBSIP-1 Ulaanbaatar Services Improvement Project (Phase 1)UBSIP-2 Ulaanbaatar Services Improvement Project (Phase 2)UNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNICEF United Nations Children's Educational FundUPP Urban Poverty Program (of the UNDP)USAG Water Supply and Sanitation CompanyVIP Latrine Ventilated Improved Pit LatrineWB World BankWHO World Health OrganizationWV World Vision

Social Impact Assessment Report iv


Acknowledgement

The Study Team would like to express its appreciation for the help it received in preparing thisSocial Impact Assessment Report. In particular, we wish to thank the Project Administrator, Mr.Ch.Bat, Director, Economy and Strategic Policy Department of MUB, Mr. T Badamjunai,General Manager of Ulaanbaatar City, Mr. Erdenbaatar, USAG, Mr. Munkhbayar, OSNAAG,and Mr Byambaa, PMU, Ms Nilufar Egamberdi of the World Bank, and Ms Zou Youlan of theWorld Bank. The Team would also like to thank all the other people and organisations whohave provided information and assistance in our work, who are too numerous to mention hereindividually.

Social Impact Assessment Report v


Executive Summary

ES-1 INTRODUCTION

ES1.1 THE SIA

This report contains the results of the social impact assessment (SIA) for the SecondUlaanbaatar Services Improvement Project (UBSIP-2 or "the project"). A social impactassessment of the project was carried out in November 2003. The aim of the project is toimprove the quality of life of the urban poor in the informal settlement areas (ger areas) ofUlaanbaatar by providing basic urban services including water supply, sanitation, drainage,laundry and bathhouses, access roads and pathways in a sustainable manner.

The key social development objective of the project includes two elements: (a) raising the livingstandards in the informal communities (ger areas) of Ulaanbaatar City by delivering sustainablehealth and hygiene benefits to the population of the project area, especially targeting the poorand the vulnerable groups through improvements in water supply and sanitation, and (b)improving the capacity of the local community, the municipality of Ulaanbaatar andnongovernmental organisations to undertake and sustain these efforts.

ES1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE SIA

The social impact assessment objectives are to:

* Identify social groups and stakeholders in the community that will potentially benefit orare likely to be affected by the project. Although the people of the project area aregenerally poor, the social assessment will, nevertheless, aim *to identify the mostvulnerable groups among them, such as, single-woman headed households.

* Establish baseline socio-economic conditions, including sources of income, consumptionlevels, household size and structure, land use pattern, decision making at the householdlevel, use of water, etc.

* Establish an appropriate framework for the participation of the various categories ofstakeholders in the project ger areas in the project implementation.

* Inform the feasibility study and the project design for socially responsible effects; and

* Make recommendations for sustainability of the project social development benefits.

The second bullet refers to the baseline socio-economic conditions largely for the resettlementaction plan that will follow the SIA, but it also provides benchmark information for the monitoringand evaluation of the social development objective of the project.

ES1.3 THE SIA STRATEGY

The SIA incorporated both quantitative and qualitative methodologies, bringing together existinginformation about the project area with primary data generated through household survey,community consultations, in-depth interviews and focus group discussions. The in-depthinterviews and focus group discussions constituted the qualitative survey, which identified eight"study groups" or stakeholders for the social impact assessment.

ES-2 LESSONS LEARNT FROM THE SIA

Social Impact Assessment Report A

*


The lessons learnt from the SIA included the project area population's perceptions regarding thebenefits and disadvantages accruing from the implementation of the project that have a bearingon the project design in a socially acceptable manner. These are summarized in the followingsub-sections.

ES2.1 PERCEPTION OF PROJECT BENEFITS

The perceived project benefits are categorized as social benefits, economic benefits,environmental benefits, and health benefits, both for the community and the individual families.These category-wise perceptions are not strictly mutually exclusive and are often cross-cutting,as summarized below in bullet form from data obtained from the surveys:

1. Social Benefits

a) For the Community

1. Improvement in water supply would save time of the people and make a peacefulsocial environment;

2. With new kiosks and bathhouse closer home, the ger area people's waterconsumption will increase;

3. Everybody will make an effort to maintain the facilities that they own;

4. Comfortable, clean, neat neighbourhood to live in.

a) For the family.

1. Families will be happier with more water at home;2. Water fetching time will be saved and children and students will be able to devote

more time to study;3. Will be able to get water everyday and use water whenever needed;4. Clean surroundings;5. Better-designed toilets will improve the living standards by one step.

2. Economic Benefits

a) For the Community.

1. The improved water supply would save money and time that could be utilised inother meaningful activities;

2. Will help the general economic situation.

b) For the family.

1. To some extend it will positively impact the household's finance;

2. The cost of living will decrease if water is available closer at hand;

3. Save time and do other things in the gained time.

3. Environmental Benefits


1. Improved water supply and sanitation will effect a cleaner environment;

2, The terrible smell emanating from the toilets will be gone and pollution in the area willbe reduced.

Social Impact Assessment Report B


b) For the family:

1. Improved water supply and sanitation will reduce pollution in the surrounding area;

2. Saving the environment by not having to dig a latrine hole again and again.

4. Health Benefits


1. Drinking water quality will be ensured because of less contamination;

2. Use more quality secured water;

3. The streets and public spaces will be cleaner;

4. Water related infections will disappear or will be reduced;

5. Flu infections will be reduced, because people will not have to wait in queue for longtime anymore.

b) For the Family.

1. There will be enough water for cleaning and laundry;

2. Clean environment and improved water quality;

3. No infectious diseases related to water;

4. Other illnesses caused by cold weather will be reduced.

ES2.2 PERCEPTION OF PROJECT DISADVANTAGES

The potential disadvantages are associated with the project intervention. However, these risksare within control, given the community participation plan outlined for the project in this report.One risk that cannot be totally controlled is the involuntary resettlement of the ger area residentsdue to the project intervention, especially with regard to the improvement of roads and drainage.The project has already prepared a resettlement policy framework in line with the World Bank'ssafeguard policy OP 4.12 (Involuntary Resettlement), which includes appropriate mitigatingmeasures for the people who may be displaced or otherwise negatively impacted by the projectintervention.

Other risks or disadvantages revolve around the water supply itself. The stakeholders wereunanimous in their concern regarding the water supply and other components of the project.Generally, the following are the major stakeholder concerns on the disadvantages.

* Long queue and time at water kiosks;

* Difficult location of kiosks;

* Water is costly, people do not have money to buy enough water;

* Water supply is inadequate, which gets sold out quickly and reorder is not placed;

* Irregular water supply and kiosk operation;

* Injuries to children who fetch water due to icy slippery roads;

* Too much chlorine in water;

* Children have little time for study due to water fetching;

* There are no bathhouses or affordable bathhouses;

Social Impact Assessment Report c


* Poor sanitation condition and no waste disposal, leading to health and environmentalhazards.

These are issues that are to be translated into socially responsible engineering design to fulfilthe project's social development goal. The risks are many, such as poor management of thewater kiosks and the ever-increasing population in the ger areas that defeat any effort onimproved services.

It is believed that there has been tremendous pressure on the services due to increasingpopulation in the ger areas in the last five years. This explains the long queues for the waterfetching. Moreover, many newcomers to the city are unregistered citizens, as a result of whichthey live far away, sometimes even on hilltops. According to city norms, services are notprovided in an area where the household density is less than 250 (according to some thisnumber is 500). Therefore, people in the far away area do not get adequate services.

Most kiosks do not have adequate water storage facilities. Hence, when water is available, itgets finished very quickly, leading to much inconvenience and unhappiness among the people.The situation becomes worse in winter, when water trucks cannot access the kiosks in thedifficult areas due to icy roads.

Regarding sanitation, it is said that when a public toilet is erected, whether wooden or brickmade, the people are so poor that they tend to remove the structure and only the hole remains.The community participation component of the project should be able to make people aware ofthe importance of sanitation, so that stealing of public toilet parts stops.

ES-3 CONSTRAINTS IN THE SIA FINDINGS

The UBSIP-2 relates primarily to improvement in water supply; improvement in the ancillarycomponents of sanitation and roads is dependent on locating suitable funding. Therefore, manyof the needs and demands of the project area population, as reflected in the qualitative surveyas well as the household survey carried out for the project, are irrelevant for consideration atpresent. These are, nevertheless, presented in this report for linking the SIA findings with theproject feasibility study.

In addition, some of the constraints include poverty reduction measures suggested by thestakeholders, which are not directly related to the project. The following section, therefore,deals with the water supply component with regard to making a link between the findings of theSIA and the feasibility study of the project leading to engineering design.

ES-4 TRANSLATING THE SIA FINDINGS INTO SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE PROJECTDESIGN

Based on the lessons learnt from the social impact assessment, the project proposes to install anew water kiosk for every 200-250 households at a distance of 250-300 metres from each other.The location selection will be carried out through community consultations and participation,especially with women and children who are mostly responsible for household water collection.Moreover, addition of new kiosks will reduce the distance and time taken for fetching water,thereby saving children's time for study and adult's time for utilizing in other useful activities.The proposal in the feasibility study report for piped water connection in four of the six gerareaswill ensure regular, adequate and hygienic water supply - a demand made by all thestakeholders in the gerareas.

Social Impact Assessment Report D


Other project components, viz., roads and drainage, and sanitation and bathhousescomplement the social development benefits. The improved roads will facilitate the water trucksto travel to hitherto unreachable areas in the ger areas to deliver water. The issue of unsafe icyroads in winter is outside the scope of this project, but it is presumed that the municipality wouldlook into this matter.

The community consultations and the household survey have brought out that the ger arearesidents are willing to share a small fraction of the costs of installing VIP latrines for thecommunity use. This will go a long way in ensuring a healthy environment in the ger areas.

The following sub-sections present the engineering design parameters for improved watersupply in the ger areas of Ulaanbaatar, as proposed in the feasibility study report, based on theSIA findings.

ES4.1 SERVICE LEVEL TARGETS FOR WATER SUPPLY

Service level targets proposed are the same as those stipulated in the Master Plan of UB. It isassumed that in the ger areas water consumption of 25 Ipcd will be achieved by 2010. Thedesign of the water supply system will be based on the following principles:

* Rehabilitation and building of new kiosks to improve services;

* Extension of operating hours of kiosks to 12 hours, (8:00am - 8:00pm);

* Maximum walking distance is 250-300m, adjusted locally according to terrain;

* Average number of household per kiosk is 250;

* Schools, kindergartens, and hospitals will have a metered pipe connection.

ES4.2 WATER QUALITY

Water quality will meet the GOM standards with minimum treatment (chlorination).

ES4.3 STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION

Community consultations have been a critical factor in preparing the project and the SIAhighlights this issue. During the inception phase of the project an assessment was carried outof the design and outcomes of the UBSIP-1 and discussions held with members of communitiesinvolved. Many community residents said that they were not aware of the project untilconstruction teams arrived in their khoroo (sub-district, the lowest level of administration). Thiswas a major reason to involve the community from an early stage of project preparation toensure that community priorities were ascertained and included in the design whereengineering, geological and financial considerations permitted.

The proposed project design and implementation shall involve broad stakeholder participation toensure that their needs and demands are reasonably fulfilled. The SIA has included aframework for stakeholder participation. Special attention should be paid to the followingfactors:

* Building on experience and lessons learnt by other organizations working in-communitydriven development in the gerareas;

* Involvement of the community from the early stages of project design through to projectimplementation;

Social Impact Assessment Report E

V


Development of strategies together with existing community agencies for on-goingcommunity participation in the project.

ES4.4 RESETTLEMENT

Strategically it is important that the first year implementation involves no resettlement.Therefore, the first year of the program will focus on improvements to the water supply facilitiesin the core area and preparations for work in the ger areas. The following should be taken intoconsideration in project design:

* The Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) will provide appropriate mitigating measures foradverse impacts due to the project implementation;

* Proper consultation with the affected households will be undertaken during the designphase;

* The need for land acquisition should be minimized and all designs shall aim to avoidunnecessary resettlement;

* Water supply mains should follow main roads, wherever possible, to minimizeresettlement;

* Measures should be taken to prevent reoccupation of land by the affected peoplevacated for the installation of utilities. (This was an issue raised by some stakeholdersduring the qualitative survey with regard to the UBSIP- 1 land acquisition.)

ES4.5 INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS

It is essential, in order to the improve service levels, that the private sector participation in watersupply services is encouraged. This could include:

* Operation of kiosks by the private sector or by CBOs; and

* Privatisation of the water truck services.

ES4.6 DESIGN CRITERIA

Piping Systems

* Ger area piping systems will be designed for 25 litres per person per day for theprojected 2010 population, with 15% of residents and some institutions directlyconnected. Design flows will be calculated on this basis with a demand factor of 1.9 anda peaking factor of 2. Pumping systems will be designed for this maximum but withpresent demands as a minimum.

* All ger areas will have looped piping for circulation.

* Ger area pipes systems will be PE100 HDPE with 50mm polyurethane insulation asdescribed by UBSIP-1 pipe specification.

* HDPE core pipe pressure capacity will be a maximum of DR1 1 with a rated workingpressure of 11 bar. If pressures are higher then ductile iron pipes will be used.

* Pipes will be buried at a minimum depth of 3 meters measured to the top of the pipe.

* Branch pipes will have heating cable. Cable will be self-limiting type, 1OW per meter,cable according to UBSIP1 Specification. Detailed design will study the concept ofreplacing some or all of the heat traced pipe with the mains looped closer to the kiosks.

Social Impact Assessment Report F


* City Core piping systems designated for replacement should first be considered forrehabilitation by lining or other appropriate technology, to be determined in detaileddesign.

* Replacement pipe will consider available materials technology that can offer extendedservice life and lower maintenance costs over the existing materials.

Kiosks

* Kiosk designs will consider user requirements and integration with their surroundingenvironment;

* Minimum static pressure at kiosks is 20m. Minimum pressure under operations is 10m.Branch pipes will be sized for minimum flow rate of 1 litre per second.

* Kiosk piping will include a batching water meter, pressure gauge, shut-off valves, andpressure reduction where needed.

ES4.7 OTHER ISSUES OF CONCERN IN THE GER AREAS REFLECTED IN THE FEASIBILITY STUDY

Insufficient Sanitation and Bathhouses, Poor Hygiene, Health Hazards: The UBSIP-2household survey revealed that approximately 99% of households have a pit latrine of somesort. This compares to a survey carried out by the WHO in 2001 in which the figure was 94%.The present sanitation facilities are very poor in many of the households. The importance ofsanitation, personal hygiene and safe water management does not appear to receive theattention it deserves.

According to discussions and interviews with stakeholders almost all the families living by therivers in the urban area use polluted river water for their daily use. This renders themsusceptible to various health hazards. This was also confirmed by statistical data before andafter the 2003 flood. Although the visual evidence of health risk through poor sanitationdiminishes during the dry season, the health hazards remain. This situation poses anincreasingly severe health risk for people in areas of flat terrain near the rivers. Diarrhoea andother diseases caused by dirty water and poor sanitation hygiene are the main health problemsin these areas.

Risks of Ger Area Poor Sanitation: The feasibility study has identified risks of large-scaleground and surface pollution in the ger areas. Almost all springs and boreholes have somedegree of pollution. Moreover, ground water resources downstream of UB also showcontamination. It is assumed that the Selbe River geological formation could transfer pollutioninto the Tuul River. The Quaternary alluvial deposits of River Tuul and its tributaries, such as theSelbe river and Tolgoit river basins are in connection with the groundwater of the Tuul River.The general direction of groundwater flow in UB is from North to South or from high to low lyingareas where water resources are located. In particular the Meat Complex and Industrial WaterSources are at risk area and threat by nitrate pollution, which can remain in the ground foryears.

There is an urgent need to improve current sanitation practices in the ger areas in order toprotect UB's water resources. Alongside improved sanitation there is a need for education,health, and hygiene awareness campaigns for the residents of the ger areas.

In connection with water supply it is essential that households and institutions with pipeconnections have their own sewage sump tank. Further sewerage should be transported byvacuum truck to the wastewater plant. It is proposed that such ordinance or rules will beestablished in MUB to stop extension of the groundwater pollution plume. It is assumed that

Social Impact Assessment Report G


most ger areas will eventually become formal housing areas, in which houses will be connectedto the city sewerage network.

Support Services and Sanitation Promotion

Support services comprise two main activities, technical support services and health andhygiene education. NGOs/CBOs will ensure that the users are involved in all stages of thesanitation scheme. A support service for technical advice and assistance during the constructionstage will be needed. A public awareness and health education campaign is important for thepromotion of the scheme implementation and for its proper use. A distinction is made betweentechnical support services and user education, the latter referring mainly to the health aspectsand sanitation promotion.

A latrine is part of its owner's property, largely built at the owner's expense and frequently withthe owner's labor. This means that households' real commitment will be needed for upgradingsanitation facilities. Considerable persuasion will therefore be required for a successfulsanitation program, whether it is called 'health education' or 'salesmanship'.

People will need to be convinced of the advantages of the improved toilet. Therefore thepromotion of sanitation will require well-trained people in the field. To train, establish andmanage such a group of community workers is a far greater challenge than the manufactureand selling of latrine components.

NGOs/CBOs and Khoroo Council members will be trained as promotion workers. Femalepromotion workers are more likely to convince other women of the advantages of sanitation;women as the guardians of health, cleanliness, and children's welfare in most households, aremost likely to be interested in sanitation and health aspects. The extension services shouldserve not only for marketing the improved sanitation facilities, but also for monitoring theprogress of the program and diagnosing problems.

To the extent that a sanitation program seeks to achieve health benefits, all promotion of it is aform of health and hygiene education. Health education through participatory techniques is amust. There is a particular advantage in demonstrating the health benefit to children, since theytend to carry the largest burden of worms and to suffer most frequently from diarrhoea.Therefore, kindergartens and schools will be focal points for public health campaigns. Thechildren will play an important role in introducing new habits to the family. More powerful thanpersuasion or exhortation is the strength of example. Promotion workers must be seen to ownand use the sanitation facilities they are promoting, if their words are to be taken seriously.

The community participation strategy, as outlined in this report, involves cooperation withUNICEF's Convergent Basic Social Services programme that operates with the Ministry ofHealth and Social Services and the National Board for Children. The UNICEF programmedevelops clusters of individual families that undergo awareness-raising training based oncommunity perceptions and this in turn creates demand for improved sanitation. The clustersthen identify priorities for health and sanitation in their khoroo and elect a representative whocan speak on their behalf at meetings with officials. The UBSIP-2 proposes to involve the samecluster groups in the consultation process for other components of the project includingmonitoring and evaluation.

Role of Women in Sanitation

Social Impact Assessment Report H


Participation of women in a sanitation program is of crucial importance. Not only becauseusually women are more motivated to have sanitation facilities for reasons of convenience andprivacy, but also because they are the ones who keep the facilities clean, who maintain them,and who train their children to use them. Women may also take part in the construction of alatrine. It is proposed that women's activities are treated as an integral component of localdevelopment rather than as a separate specialized activity.

ES-5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ES5.1 CONCLUSION

The UBSIP-2 does not envisage any negative impact except minor resettlement needs due toimprovement in the water supply component, and possible increase in road traffic due toimprovement in the ger area access roads.

Generally, as agreed by the stakeholders in the household survey, qualitative survey and thecommunity consultations, the project will bring them immense relief from a major botheration offetching water. Moreover, the improved water supply is expected to deliver safe water.

ES5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

As discussed in Section 3.5.4 of this report and referred to above, it is recommended that theUBSIP-2 works towards a community development and awareness strategy for better utilisationof the improved water supply as well as sanitation. The results of these, which would translateinto social development for the ger area residents, should be monitored and evaluated per themonitoring outline in Chapter 5 of the report. Especially, the range of activities and issues thatwill have to be recorded and monitored include:

* Reduction of time in fetching water as well as waiting time in line;

* Increase in water intake;

* Decrease in the number of water borne disease incidence;

* Increase in the number of public toilets;

* Increase in the number of baths taken by an individual per week;

* Adequate water for laundry;

* Land required for digging new pit latrines;

* Increase in the number of new toilets.

All these activities are to be carried out through public consultations and participations. Thebroad category of outcome/impact indicator shall be used to monitor the project implementationwith regard to the social development objective of the project. The outcome/impact indicatorsshould relate to overall project objectives, including changes in the status of women, youths andchildren as outlined in Chapter 5 of this report.

Social Impact Assessment Report I

t~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 MONGOLIA - THE COUNTRY

Mongolia is a huge country, sandwiched, as it were, between the Russian Federation in thenorth and China in the south. The total area of the country comprises 1.565 million km2. Thecountry includes 21 provinces (aimag) and the capital city of Ulaanbaatar as a municipality.While each province is divided into soum and bag, the City of Ulaanbaatar is divided intoduuregs (districts) and khoroos (sub-districts).

Mongolia is currently going through an economic transition, initiated in the early 1990s.Economic activity in Mongolia traditionally has been based on agriculture and breeding oflivestock. However, in the ger areas of Ulaanbaatar where people have arrived from thecountryside, many people depend on employment for their livelihoods. In the context of theeconomic transition, the major problem facing the people are unemployment, poverty, andaccess to infrastructure.

In this context, the Government of Mongolia (GOM) is preparing the Second UlaanbaatarServices Improvement Project (UBSIP-2). The aim of the project is to improve the quality of lifeof the urban poor in the informal settlement areas (ger areas) of Ulaanbaatar by providing basicurban services including water supply, sanitation, drainage, laundry and bathhouses, accessroads and pathways in a sustainable manner. The Municipality of Ulaanbaatar (MUB) is theexecuting agency for this project.

1.2 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE OF THE PROJECT

The key social development objective of the project includes two elements: (a) raising the livingstandards in the informal communities (ger areas) of Ulaanbaatar City by delivering sustainablehealth and hygiene benefits to the population of the project area, especially targeting the poorand the vulnerable groups through improvements in water supply and sanitation, and (b)improving the capacity of the local community, the municipality of Ulaanbaatar andnongovernmental organisations to undertake and sustain these efforts.

1.3 WHY SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT?

Social impact assessment (SIA) is an analytical tool that helps guide the World Bankinterventions to ensure their social responsiveness. It is, therefore, an important component ofthe project preparation. The World Bank has made it mandatory to conduct social impactassessment during the design stage to avoid, reduce or mitigate potential negative impacts ofproject action and enhance positive impacts, sustainability and development benefits.SIA, along with environmental impact assessment, are often called "due diligence" orsafeguards work, that is associated with non-environmental projects that may have negativeimpacts on the social and physical environment. Typically, this refers to infrastructure projects.Since the clear objective of all donor assisted projects is to "do no harm", social andenvironmental assessments are used to achieve that.

1.4 THE SCOPE OF SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

SIA is the process to assess the likely impacts of projects on key stakeholders. SIA includessocio-economic impacts and focuses on the distribution of direct economic benefits andeconomic costs, and on both beneficial and adverse social impacts. The socio-economicimpact assessment also covers critical factors, such as beneficiary/stakeholder participation

Social Impact Assessment Report 1


affecting these impacts. It examines impacts relevant to the objectives of poverty reduction,human development, and qualitative impacts not quantifiable.

1.5 SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT

The social impact assessment objectives are to:

* Identify social groups and stakeholders in the community that will potentially benefit orare likely to be affected by the project. Although the people of the project area aregenerally poor, the social assessment will, nevertheless, aim to identify the mostvulnerable groups among them, such as, single-woman headed households.

* Establish baseline socio-economic conditions, including sources of income, consumptionlevels, household size and structure, land use pattern, decision making at the householdlevel, use of water, etc.

* Establish an appropriate framework for the participation of the various categories ofstakeholders in the project gerareas in the project implementation.

1.6 METHOD AND TOOLS USED FOR THE SIA

The SIA incorporated both quantitative and qualitative methodologies, bringing together existinginformation about the project area with knowledge generated through household survey,community consultations, in-depth interviews and focus group discussions. The variousactivities carried out are summarized below.

* Background studies

* Household survey

* Community Consultations

* In-depth interviews and focus group discussions

5. Background studies:

The background study included research on secondary data and initial discussions with thestakeholders as part of the feasibility study. During the inception phase of the project in August-September 2003, the Consultants assessed the design and outcomes of UBSIP-1 and helddiscussions with members of the communities involved. Many community residents andrepresentatives said that they were not aware of the project until construction teams arrived intheir khoroo. Communities expressed a clear wish to be involved in the project and to be part ofdecisions made about their lives. Community involvement and participation from an early stageof project preparation was therefore considered by the Consultants to be vital to ensure thatcommunity priorities were ascertained and included in the design where engineering, geologicaland financial considerations permitted. In addition, the team considered that communityparticipation would be crucial for the Consultants to develop an understanding of the currentsocial and environmental imperatives for the UBSIP-2 as well as to facilitate communityawareness and acceptance of the project.

6. Household survey: This survey was carried out as part of the feasibility study for theUBSIP-2 in September 2003.

Survey obiectives: The main objectives of this survey were to obtain baseline information on thefollowing issues:

> Household structure, members, educational level, head of household characteristics;



> Land use issues of the households;

> Access to basic urban services for households, such a,s water supply, sanitation,drainage, bathhouses, solid waste;

> Environmental issues;

> Household expenditure structure and income level; and

> Household transport information.

Survey coverage: The survey covered the 7 project ger areas of Ulaanbaatar city which wereinitially prioritised for the UBSIP-2. Subsequently, one gerarea, Tolgoit, was dropped from theproject.

Survey unit: The sample unit is a household. A household is a single person or group of peopleresiding in one dwelling, accumulating their income together, having common food and clothingsources.

Questionnaire design: The questionnaire developed for this survey was largely similar to thatused in the household survey in 1995 which was conducted under the first phase of this project.Some changes were introduced and improved based on similar questionnaires used in otherprojects and countries. The questionnaire was organized as follows:

> Household description

> Land management issues

> Water supply

> Sanitation

> Drainage

> Bathhouses

> Solid waste

> Household expenditure

> Environmental issues

> Household transport information

Sampling design and size: The survey was based on a systematic random sampling approachusing population size. The larger sample size was 2000 as this is approximately 5% of the totalhouseholds of the 7 selected ger areas. The sample size was considered appropriate insustaining a variety of analyses at an acceptable level of sampling errors. Ultimately, 1994households were interviewed. It is noted, however, the ger area of Tolgoit was finally droppedfrom the list of project ger areas.

Table 1.1: Household Survey Sample Size

Sample Size by Selected Ger AreasGer areas Sample Size Households Percentage Share

1. Naran 301 15.1%2. Dari-Ekh 201 10.1%3. Uliastai 104 5.2%4. Chingeltei 184 9.2%5. Bayankhoshuu 704 35.3%



Sample Size by Selected Ger AreasGer areas Sample Size Households Percentage Share

6. Dambadarjaa 191 9.6%7. Tolgoit 309 15.5%Total number of households 1994 100.0%

7. Community Consultations:

Community consultations at different levels were an essential component of the project

preparation. In late September and early October 2003, meetings were held with khoroo leaders

to introduce the project and discuss issues related to existing conditions and problems in the ger

areas, as well as issues arising from UBSIP-1. In the third and fourth weeks of October, over

300 residents of ger areas were involved in consultation processes about the location of kiosks.

Approximately 51 % of those consulted were women.

8. In-depth interviews and focus group discussions:

In-depth interviews and focus group discussions were carried out with the following groups of

people or "study groups" as stakeholders in the project ger areas of Ulaanbaatar.

* Study Group 1: The Unemployed;

* Study Group 2: Woman-headed Households;

* Study Group 3: Single Male-headed Households;

* Study Group 4: The Elderly;

* Study Group 5: Young Couples with Children;

* Study Group 6: Single Youth/Students;

* Study Group 7: Vulnerable Groups, Disabled, Other Individuals at Health Risk, and

Street Children;

* Study Group 8: Officials and Community Leaders Responsible for the Implementation of

the Project.

The total sample size for this exercise consisted of 80 interviews, generally 10 interviews or

focus group discussions for each of the "study groups" mentioned above. The households of

the study groups were identified with the help of the respective khoroo leaders. All the

households selected for the exercise are poor or very poor and vulnerable. Therefore, the

findings of this exercise are more risk-oriented than the findings of the other surveys carried out.

The following table shows the composition of the sample size of the qualitative survey with

gender segregation and age group indication:

Table 1.2: Qualitative Survey Sample Size

SI. No. Study Group Sample Sample Size Respondent SurveyMale Female Age Group Population

1 The Unemployed 6 4 20 - 52 52

2 Woman Headed Households - 10 39 - 48 54

3 Single Male Headed Households 10 - 38 - 76 30

4 The Elderly 5 5 52-76 48

5 Young Couples with Children 5 5 21 - 32 71



Sample Size Respondent SurveySI. No. Study Group Sample Male Female Age Group Population

6 Single Youths/Students 7 3 19 - 37 177 Vulnerable Groups 6 6 12 - 74 568 Officials 3 7 36 - 57 10

Total 42 40 -338

This sample size of 42 male and 40 female respondents have been selected from all the sixproject ger areas, who have different ethnic and educational but common poverty backgrounds.In addition, a focus group discussion was carried out with a group of 13 street children in achildren's home. The following table shows the number of interviews and focus groupdiscussions carried out in all the ger areas according to the Study Groups.

Table 1.3: Qualitative Survey Ger Area-wise

SI. Study Group Naran Dari-Ekh Uliastei Chingeltei Bayankhoshu DambadarjaaNo.

1 SG-1 2 2 2 1 2 12 SG-2 1 1 2 1 0 53 SG-3 2 1 2 2 2 14 SG-4 2 1 2 1 2 25 SG-5 1 2 1 2 2 26 SG-6 1 2 2 1 3 17 SG-7 2 2 2 1 1 28 SG-8 1 3 1 2 2 1

Total 12 14 14 11 14 15

The interviewed officials included four khoroo leaders, one kheseg (community) leader, foursocial workers, and one specialist of the Department of Infrastructure and Environment,attached to a district governor's office. Seven of these officials were females and three of themhad a university degree.

Annex 1 shows in a number of maps the locations in the project ger areas where the in-depthinterviews and focus group discussions for the qualitative survey were carried out. Annex 2presents a tabulation of the results of the qualitative survey. Annex 3 presents the completetranslation of the data of the qualitative survey. Against each question asked in Annex 3,responses of the ten interviewed persons are presented.


V


2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND STUDY GROUPS

2.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

The Second Ulaanbaatar Services Improvemt Project (UBSIP-2) is a sequel to the UlaanbaatarServices Improvement Project (UBSIP), initiated in 1995. Provision of urban services is themain objective of UBSIP-2 and its goal is to improve the quality of life of the urban poor in theinformal settlement areas (gerareas) of Ulaanbaatar by providing basic urban services includingwater supply, sanitation, drainage, laundry and bathhouses, access roads and pathways in asustainable manner. The UBSIP-2 is limited to 16 khoroos (sub-districts) of 6 gerareas as wellas to the core areas of Ulaanbaatar City for water supply (to be financed by the World Bank)and non-World Bank financed components, such as sanitation, bathhouses, drainage, androads and pathways.

The urban residents expanded from 44% in 1969 to 57% of the total population in Mongolia in2000, out of which 56% of the national urban population is staying in the capital city of UlaanBaatar (UB). Approximately 47% or 364,000 of the city's population lives (2003) in fully servicedpublic housing estates, comprised of 4 to 12 storey apartment buildings. The housing estatesclustered near the city centre and along the city's main roads, are relatively well serviced bypublic transport. The apartments have hot and cold running water, toilets, bathrooms,conventional piped sewage, electricity, and solid waste collection. The remainder of thepopulation, approximately 53% or 408,000 live in 22 ger (tent like traditional Mongolian housing)areas that spread over the outlying hills and valleys to the north of the city. Population densitiesin these areas are low, primarily due to the large plot sizes and the sporadic distribution of theger settlements. Ger areas are largely unserviced housing areas on the fringe of the city,housing approximately 53% of UB's population in a mixture of traditional Mongolian settlements(ger), wooden structures and some masonry structures.

Informal settlement areas are normally those areas where people have established dwellingsillegally and in a completely unregulated manner. In the ger areas of Ulaanbaatar the situation ismixed. There are many households, which have settled with permission from the DistrictAuthorities and the Municipality of Ulaanbaatar has laid out several ger areas for the purpose.At the same time there are also some unofficial settlers and unregulated plots.

2.1.1 Location

Ulaanbaatar city is located in the foothills of the Khentil mountain range. It is situated in thevalley of the Tuul River, which flows from east to west in this location. Mountains and hill slopesdefine the northern (Chingeltei Uul) and southern (Bogd Uul) limits of the city.

2.1.2 Selected Ger Areas for Development

On the basis of the final observations jointly made by the Client and the Consultants, six areashave been selected for possible inclusion in UBSIP-2. The ger areas are located predominantlyalong the northern side of the urban area. The names of the ger areas with the location type,area, population and terrain types are presented below:

Table 2.1: Ger Area Particulars

District Ger Area Pop. (2002) Area (Ha) Terrain LocationBayangol Naran 28,593 546 Hilly UrbanBayanzurkh Dari-Ekh 16,451 547 Hilly UrbanBayanzurkh___________ Uliastai 10,000 600 Steppe Peri-urbanChingeltei Chingeltei 18,191 341 Hilly Peri-urban



District Ger Area Pop. (2002) Area (Ha) Terrain Location

Songino Khairkhan Bayankhoshu 66,870 1,521 Rolling Peri-urbanSukhbaatar Dambadariaa 18,002 484 Steppe Peri-urban

Total 158,107 4,039

The combined land area of the affected ger areas is approximately 4,000 hectares. The totalnumber of registered residents is 158,107 but, from a comparison of the published data withinformation obtained from khoru leaders, the Consultants estimate that the actual population ofger areas is approximately 8% higher than the registered population. The selection includesfive districts, three terrain types and both urban and peri-urban locations. A map of the gerareas showing their locations is presented overleaf in Figure 2.1.

2.1.3 General Layout

Some ger areas have developed following an organised layout. Others have grownhaphazardly. The organised ones generally present fewer problems from an upgrading point ofview. Where the right of way (ROW) is wide there are likely to be fewer resettlement andrelated social issues. By definition, however, the less formal layouts, and those with narrowROW, are in most need of improvement.

2.1.4 Present and Projected Population

The urban population of Mongolia has increased since the 1990s. Approximately 60% of thecountry's population is classified as urban and more than half of this urban population lives inthe capital city of Ulaanbaatar. The official population estimate at December 2002 for the sixurban districts in the city (excluding some outlying khoroos) is approximately 772,000, of which408,000 live in the ger areas.

The population of Mongolia, as enumerated in the 2000 population and household census,stands at 2,373,493. The gender ratio is roughly 50:50, althIough there are approximately25,000 more women than men. The population density in the country in general is 1.5 personsper square kilometre, which is one of the lowest in the world. The estimated population in thesix ger study area as of December 2002 is 158,107. The following table shows the populationscenario in the Ulaan Baatar area:

Table 2.2: Population Estimates in the Ulaan Baatar Area, December 2002

Area Population %1 Whole of Ulaan Baatar (9 districts) 821,796 100%2 Urban Area of UB City (6 districts excluding some outlying khoroos) 771,984 93.9%3 IAll ger areas in the urban area 408,006 49.6%4 Selected UBSIP-2 gerareas (6 gerareas) 158,107 19.3%

The above table shows that approximately 50% of the population of Ulaan Baatar capital citylive in the ger areas. Of the total population of the city, approximately 19% constitute the projectstudy population.

From a comparison of the published data with information obtained from the khoroo leaders, theConsultants estimate that the actual population of the ger areas is approximately 8% higherthan the registered population. Thus, the total ger area population is probably just over 440,000and the population of the urban area is approximately 804,000. It is deduced that this 8%additional population is unauthorised. Estimates of the population projection for the selectedger areas in December 2003 have been calculated and are shown in Table 2.3.



Table 2.3: Estimated Population of Ger Areas, December 2003

Si. District Ger Area Population Population Estimat d PopulationNo. 2000 2002 Dec 2003 Growth Rate %1 Bayangol Naran 22,251 28,593 32,216 9.74%

2 Bayanzurkh Dari-Ekh 12,190 16,451 20,640 16.17%Uliastai 8,529 10,000 10,794 8.28%

3 Chingeltei Chingeltei 16,754 18,191 20,754 4.20%

4 Songino Bayankhoshuu 59,867 66,870 73,355 5.69%

5 Sukhbaatar Dambadarjaa 14,804 18,002 21,457 10.27%134,395 158,107 179,216

These estimates assume that the ger area populations increase during 2003 at the same rateas they did between 2000 and 2002.

Population Density. An earlier study by the CIDA' pointed out that the population density figuresfor the ger areas are not reliable. This is partly because the gerareas are ill defined and partlybecause the khoroos, which are the census population units, extend well beyond the urbanarea. In fact, mapping available for the UBSIP-2 allows the Consultants to measure quiteaccurately the extent of the ger areas, but this does not overcome the problem of the khorooboundaries.

Population Growth Rates: The Statistical Department of the MUB undertakes annual populationcounts by collecting data from each khoroo administration. Comparison of the data for the lastthree years provides an indication of growth rates in these khoroos within the ger areas. Itshould be noted, however, that this process records only the registered population.Unregistered residents are not systematically counted by any organisation.

The Proiected Population:

The Mongolian National Statistical Office has prepared projections for the country as a whole,for each aimag (province) and for the UB Municipality. The projections are based on acombination of factors, including fertility rates, life expectancy, and migration. The keyparameters, using high, medium and low assumptions and the resultant projections are shownin the following Table.

Table 2.4: Official Population Projection Parameters for UB Municipality

Actual Projections

2002 Parameters | 2000- 2005- 2010- 2015-2002 Parameters 2005 2010 2015 2020Total fertility rate 2.2 (national) High 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.7

Medium 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.6Low 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.5

Life expectancy 62.0 (national) Male 67.0 69.0 70.5 72.066.3 (national) Female 71.3 73.4 75.0 76.6

Net migrants Male 23096 22839 22582 21423Female 32893 31492 30091 27734

CIDA, Draft Area Upgrading Plan, Ulaanbaatar, 2002.



Actual Projections

2002 Parameters 2005- 2005- 201- 2020

Annual growth rate High 3.02 2.68 2.38 1.98

(% per annum) Medium 2.94 2.62 2.26 1.88

Low 2.84 2.53 2.18 1.81

2005 2010 2015 2020

Population 0.772 High 0.898 1.03 1.16 1.28(million) l

Medium 0.894 1.02 1.14 1.25Low 0.890 1.01 1.13 1.23

Source: Mongolia National Statistical OfficeThe ger area population projections have been calculated for the selected ger areas. These

use a combination of the city growth rates published by the National Statistical Office and recent

growth rates calculated for the individual khoroos in the ger areas. The rates have been applied

varyingly, according to the amount of land available for expansion in the individual khoroos. The

scope for khoroos to continue to grow was assessed on the basis of site visits and aerial

photography. Several of the khoroos are fully developed with little or no space to expand. It is

assumed that the populations of these areas will increase through natural growth, and through

some intensification, e.g., by plot sub-divisions. In those khoroos with scope to grow it has been

assumed that they will continue to grow at their recent rates until 2010. For all ger areas it has

been assumed that growth will slow after 2010.

The results of the ger area projections are shown in Table 2.5. The overall result of the

projections shows a continued high growth rate to 2010 and a marked reduction thereafter. This

reflects the fact that the selected ger areas do not have unlimited potential to grow. Of course,

population projections are not an exact science and this may not be what actually happens.

Other scenarios are possible and factors such as changing planning policies can have a major

impact on population growth in certain areas. For this reason it will be important to monitor

growth rates and to adjust projections accordingly.

Table 2.5: Population Projections in the Project Ger Areas

Ger Kho EstimatedGeres r-oo Population Assumed Growth Rates and Population EstimatesAreas No. Dec. 2003

Rate 2005 Rate 2010 Rate 2015 Rate 2020

9 10384 2.94 11003 2.62 12522 1.3 13358 1.05 14074

Naran 10 9763 2.94 10346 2.62 11774 1.3 12559 1.05 13233

11 12069 2.94 12789 2.62 14555 1.3 15526 1.05 16358

Total 32216 34138 38851 41443 43665

Dari-Ekh 12 120640 12.94 121872 12.62 124891 1.3 126551 1.05 27975

Total 120640 | 121872 1 124891 | 126551 1 127975

Uliastai 110 110794 18.28 112656 18.28 118838 12.26 121065 11.88 123121

Total 10794 | 112656 | 118838 | 121065 | 123121

Chinge- 17 9185 3.72 9881 3.72 11861 2.26 13263 1.88 14558Itei |18 11569 2.94 12259 2.62 13951 1.3 14882 1.05 15680Total 20754 22140 25812 28145 30237



Kho EstimatedGeres r-oo Population Assumed Growth Rates and Population EstimatesAreas No. Dec. 2003

= ________ Rate 2005 Rate 2010 Rate 2015 Rate 20205 9566 2.94 10137 2.62 11536 1.3 12305 1.05 129656 11636 2.94 12330 2.62 14032 1.3 14968 1.05 157707 8344 2.94 8841 2.62 10062 1.3 10733 1.05 11309

khoshuu 8 6984 2.94 7401 2.62 8422 1.3 8984 1.05 94669 14559 9.5 17456 9.5 27480 2.26 30729 1.88 3372810 8090 2.94 8573 2.62 9756 1.3 10407 1.05 1096511 14178 2.94 15023 2.62 17097 1.3 18238 1.05 19216

Total 173355 79761 98386 106365 113419

Dambad 5 10674 7.82 12409 7.82 18081 2.26 20219 1.88 22192arjaa 16 10783 13.01 13771 13.01 25384 2.26 28385 1.88 31156Total 21457 26180 43465 48604 53348

Grand Total 179217 1(4.78)* 1196747 1(4.93)* 1250243 |(1.69)* 1272173 |(1.40)* 291765* Growth rates are implied rates, derived from the totals. Projection prepared by the Consultants.

2.1.5 Types of Local Industries

The local industries in the Ulaanbaatar area are few and mainly comprised of food processing,textile (especially cashmere and carpet), tanning and construction material. Statistics show thatwomen dominate the workforce in the food processing and textile industries. However, none ofthe surveys carried out showed any person in the project ger areas associated with these

industries. Some interviewed individuals have reported being engaged in shoe making work in

their own house.

2.2 EXISTING FACILITIES AND SERVICES

2.2.1 Water Supply

The core area of Ulaanbaatar City gets its water needs supplied by the Housing and PublicServices Company (OSNAAG), which is sourced by the Water Supply and Sewerage Company(USAG). About 400,000 people are within the pipe water supply area in the city. The watersupply system consists of water sources, booster pump stations, transmission pump stations,reserve and contra reservoirs, and water distribution and transmission networks. Statistics

show that in 2002, OSNAAG served 57,400 households (119,700) residents in 814 apartmentblocks, and 2400 state organisations and other establishments.

Most ger area residents, on the other hand, obtain water from water kiosks. There are alsosome private wells and some spring water sources but relatively few people use these. Currentwater supply to the ger area residents of Ulaanbaatar City can be divided into the followingthree categories:

* Kiosks connected to piped network;

* Kiosks supplied by tankers; and

* Private tube wells, river and spring water.

The kiosks function from 10:00 to 20:00, with a two-hour lunch break from 14:00 to 16:00. Onelitre of water is produced at a cost of 1.8 Togrog but is sold for 0.5 Togrog in the kiosks. Truckssupply water to the kiosks as well as areas in the city outskirts. In the household survey carriedout for this project, approximately 12% of the sample population in the project ger areasreported using water from private tube wells, springs and rivers, but quantification of their use is



not available. An indication of the current level of service by kiosks can be gained fromcomparing the number of kiosks with the population they serve. This is summarised in thefollowing table.

Table 2.6: Water Kiosks in Ger Areas

District Ger Area Population Water Kiosks2002 Existing/Proposed* Population per Kiosk

Bayangol Naran 28,593 23 1,243Bayanzurkh Dari-Ekh 16,451 8 2,056

Uliastai 10,000 2 5,000Chingeltei Chingeltei 18,191 22 827Songino Khairkhan Bayankhoshuu 66,870 30 2,229Sukhbaatar Dambadarjaa 18,002 11 1,637

Total 158,107 96

Sources: USAG Sub-DepartmentVMUB Statistics Department*Note: Includes kiosks built and proposed under UBSIP-1

Topographical conditions impact strongly on the options for infrastructure provision.Dambadarjaa and Uliastai have steppe terrain with relatively flat land above the river flood plainbut below the hill slopes. Bayankhoshu, Chingeltei, and Dari-Ekh have a rolling topography withundulating land at the foot of hillsides. Naran is characterised by hilly terrain.

2.2.2 Sanitation

Sanitation conditions are poor throughout all ger areas. The situation is possibly more acutewhere steeper slopes cause run-off contamination. The first wastewater treatment plant inMongolia was built more than 50 years ago. In the 1980's wastewater treatment plants wereconstructed and set in operation in most of the cities and aimag centres. Due to lack inmaintenance, many of these plants are now out of operation or functioning poorly.

Since the political transition in 1991, Mongolian authorities have prepared several laws,regulations and policy programs, which have been approved by the parliament and the relevantministries. Upgrading of legislation on wastewater management on several levels is ongoing.

StrateQy Obiectives and Actions

Six strategies have been formulated for achieving more sustainable wastewater management.These strategic approaches were identified by stakeholders and are now incorporated into theNational Wastewater Strategy. The GOM intends to prioritise its own and donor funding in thewastewater sector following these strategic priorities. The six strategies have been developedfrom six broad-based approaches adapted to Mongolia as shown in Table 2.7. All the strategiesare intended to achieve their objectives by 2014.

Table 2.7: Six Approaches and Strategies

Si. No. Approach Strategy

1 New construction of sewers Extension of the sewer network and constructionand WWTPs in urban area of new WWTPs in cities and aimag centres

Ensure environmentally sustainable waste2 Alternative solutions for management in ger areas and in nature protected

areas3 Efficiency improvement of Improve the efficiency of the municipal sewer



Si. No. Approach Strategyexisting infrastructure system and wastewater treatment plants

4 Industrial pollution abatement Reduction of pollution from industrial wastewater

5 Capacity . Upgrade legal, technological and management5 Capacity buliding capacity and impact on international obligations

6 Secure cost recovery Secure cost recovery for wastewater services

The City Sewerage System

Ulaanbaatar urban area has a 11 Okm pipeline network for discharging wastewater and sewage.This has been used since the 1950s and a mechanic-biological process treats the wastewater.The-Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) was designed to treat 230,000 m3 of sewage per day andthe system operation is based on a gravity system, leading to the STP located 11 km west ofthe city. At the present time the plant is treating 160,000 m3/day wastewater collected fromurban and industrial areas of the city. Treated water is discharged into the Tuul River.

USAG (the water supply and sewerage company) is responsible for Ulaanbaatar City seweragenetwork. OSNAAG (public housing utility company) is responsible for sewerage for apartmentareas in Ulaanbaatar City.

Most of the wastewater collectors have not been regularly maintained for many years. As aresult, the caulking in the joints and the pipes themselves are in poor condition. In places treeroots have penetrated pipelines, and other materials cause blockages that result in seriousoperational problems.

Sanitation in GerAreas

Virtually all ger area residents utilize on-plot, relatively poor quality, self-constructed pit latrines.Population densities are becoming too high for this approach to remain acceptable and healthy.Surface contamination is evident and groundwater contamination is likely. Combined withsignificant numbers of urban livestock, poor solid waste collection and lack of controlleddrainage, the situation is critical. Registration data in 2003 revealed that:

* There are 84,000 families in gerareas in 67,000 khashaa (wooden fences)

* There are 40,000-50,000 pit latrines

* There are 208 communal latrines. Only 49% of them meet standards.

* There are 40 communal soak-pits. Only 82% meet standards.

* There are 31,114 individual soak-pits in the ger areas (59% do not meet requirementnoted in TN-UB 89-19)

* 14% of the gets have no pit-latrines

* 34% of gers have no soak-pits.

* 50% of khashaa owners do not have space for new pit-latrines.

During the months of May to September, there is a problem with flies. Only 20% of families canafford to buy chemicals to kill flies. Many families put a layer of coal ash on the sewageoccasionally to discourage the flies and mask the odor.

There are 10,000 cases of diarrhoea every year in Mongolia and 60% to 70% of these occur inUB. Dysentery is the second most prevalent disease. Hepatitis in UB is seven times theinternational average. All these diseases originate from unsanitary conditions, caused by opensewage in the pit-latrines, coupled with unhygienic habits and shortage of water for washing.



The practice of adding lime to latrine pits, which was common in UB ten years ago, hasapparently died out due to households' inability to afford the lime. There are reports of salt beingused for the same purpose, but this should be actively discouraged, as the resulting increase inthe Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) can render the soil barren.

The disposal of waste to the soil via pit latrines and soak pits in the ger areas raises concerndue to the proximity to ground water and the presence of sandy or gravelly soils. There is ahigh risk of nitrates and phosphates entering the ground water. Although some of the testresults on the ground water show an acceptable level of nitrates (45 mg/I) as compared to theMaximum Acceptable Quantity (MAQ) of 245 mg/I, it would be prudent to monitor the groundwater in critical areas. This is especially important where the water table is near the surface,such as in ger areas that have developed in the flood plain of the Tuul.

The raising of livestock in the ger areas is potentially hazardous to the health of the residents.The excrement of livestock, when washed into the water supply by rain or leaching, can pose avery serious health hazard to the human population. W-coli can get into the human consumptionchain by being washed into wells, into streams that flow near springs, or it could be taken intothe home by shoes, or spread by flies.

Households with no soak-pits are reported to have problems with their pit-latrines filling up intwo years or less, as compared to the five to six years for people who have soak-pits. This maybe because these households are disposing of grey water into the pit-latrines which wouldimpede bacterial actions, increasing the bulk of the sludge and filling up the pit latrine rapidly.

Bathhouses

In the pre-1990 era, there were 21 bathhouses, out of which 17 are functioning on a privatebasis at the present time (2 in Sukhbaatar District, 2 in Bayangol District, 3 in Khan Uul District,4 in Chingeltei District, 2 in Sukhbaatar District and 4 in Bayanzurkh District). The charges of theuse of the bathhouse are 700-1000 Togrog per half hour, which very few people can afford.Even so, the charge of 1000 Togrog is only 1/3 of the actual cost, which works out to Togrogs2910 per shower. The bathhouse is made viable by having several other businesses on thesame premises, such as a hairdresser, beauty saloon, a small grocery store and a pharmacy.

Other issues of concern with regard to the aer area sanitation:

Insufficient sanitation and bathhouses, poor hygiene, health hazards: The -UBSIP-2 householdssurvey revealed that just fewer than 99% of the households have a pit latrine of some sort.This compares to a survey carried out by the WHO in 2001 in which the figure was 94%. Thepresent sanitation facilities are very poor in many of the households. The importance ofsanitation, personal hygiene, and safe water management are not recognized as key factors inhuman health in the gerareas.

According to discussions and interviews with stakeholders almost all the families living by therivers in the urban area use polluted river water for their daily use. This renders themsusceptible to various health hazards. This was also confirmed by statistical data before andafter the 2003 flood. Although the visual evidence of health risk through poor sanitationdiminishes during the dry season, the health hazards remain. This situation poses anincreasingly severe health risk for people in areas of flat terrain near the rivers. Diarrhoea andother diseases caused by dirty water and poor sanitation hygiene are the main health problemsin these areas.



2.2.3 Roads and Drainage

The selected six ger areas have few formal roads (approximately 30 km of surfaced roads). Allother open spaces between fence-lines are naturally formed earthen roads without anyprovision for drainage, which are used for vehicle and pedestrian movement. These earthenroads have the following problems:

* As there are no pavement and drainage facilities, the earthen roads are not serviceableduring rains.

* Utility vehicles, such as, water tankers and solid waste collection trucks, and emergencyvehicles, such as, ambulances and fire engines, cannot get access to the individual plotsdue to the poor condition and narrow widths and lack of proper alignment of the earthenroads.

* In many ger areas streams crisscross the pathways but are not bridged. This featurerestricts the traffic movement, including pedestrian movement.

* Absence of all-weather roads is one main reason for the inadequate public transport inthe ger areas. The roads enabling the bus-based public transport were built decadesago (except those few built under recent interventions) and need rehabilitation andcapacity augmentation.

There were no surfaced pathways in the ger areas prior to the UBSIP-1. Under the UBSIP1,15.6 km asphalt surfaced pathways were built in Gandan, Khailaast and Denjiin Myanga. Thesepathways facilitate the manual conveyance (using pull type trolley) of water from the waterkiosks.

The existing ger area road network has an average road/street density of 15 km per km2. Thussix ger areas spread over 40 km2 of area have a road network of 600 km. Of this, only 30 km(5%) of roads are surfaced. This 5% of network also needs to be rehabilitated. Thus the totalroad network needs to be developed.

Drainage Works

Drainage problems vary from area to area. In the ger areas on sloping land the problems ofstorm water drainage are acute. Absent or inadequate drainage systems result in excessiveerosion, damage to property and loss of life. In flat sites the problems are less acute, althoughponding can result in the spread of diseases.

Street Drainage in the Ger Areas

The streets in the ger areas have no drains. Even if they are present at some locations (suchas along asphalt roads), they are eroded and endanger the road itself instead of protecting it.Many of the streets act as road-cum-drains and are flooded during the heavy rains, therebybecome unserviceable and cause difficulties to the road users.

Storm Water Drainage

The existing ger area drainage network of naturally formed drains and ravines has a density of 5km per km2. Thus, the six ger areas spread over 40 km2 of area have a drain/ravine network of200 km. Of this, only a few km are lined, which require to be rehabilitated. Lined drains existonly in Naran and Chingeltei districts. The one in Naran needs capacity augmentation while theother in Chingeltei needs rehabilitation.

Flood Protection Works



Severe floods affected UB in 1967 and 1982, which resulted in loss of life and property on anunprecedented scale. The bunds built along the banks of Uliastai, Selbe, Belkh and Tolgoitrivers are in bad condition due to lack of proper planning, poor construction and maintenance.These need to be rehabilitated or reconstructed for safety reasons.

2.2.4 Solid Waste Management

Solid waste is an issue in all ger areas. Residents widely report that collection services aresporadic and collection operators report that they have problems collecting fees. Access is akey issue, as collection vehicles cannot penetrate some of the ger areas due to the narrow roadwidth; moreover, rocky ground in some access roads damages vehicles and the steep slopesmake access to some areas impossible in winter.

Mongolia generally lacks adequate solid waste management. The most serious problems occurin the capital city, Ulaanbaatar. Currently, waste is disposed of at two main sites, Ulaanchuluutand Morin Davaa. (There is a third site at Dari Ekh, but due to ecological and hygienerequirements the site was closed down by a resolution of the Mayor of UB.) The state company"Noots", which also registers the incoming waste, manages the operation of the dumping sites.This does not include the large amounts of coal ash that accumulate locally at the power plants.

There are no adequate arrangements for fee collection at the disposal sites, with consequentlow revenues for the companies involved. Generally, there is no control of the type and qualityof the wastes that are dumped, which together with poor management causes soil degradation,ground water pollution and surface contamination. There are no economic incentives to reducethe amounts of wastes or for recycling.

The civic authorities collect approximately 30% of the waste in Ulaanbaatar. There are anumber of unofficial disposal sites in the ger areas. These wastes are often dumped in stormditches and drains, posing a major health risk to the local community. The waste is sometimesburned, causing a local air pollution problem.

There is an urgent and growing need to develop a strategy for solid waste management tocontrol the disposal of waste and reduce pollution in the ger areas. The WHO carried out aHealthy City project in 2000 and 2002 in Khoroos 2, 5 and 7. According to a recent survey theresults are encouraging, with 92.5% of the households paying for waste management. Thecollection fee is 800-1000 Togrog per month. The qualitative survey carried out-for the socialimpact assessment has shown that the most vulnerable people say there are no solid wastedisposal bins and wastes are not collected although they pay the fee for it.

2.3 PROJECT AREA BASELINE INFORMATION

The following sub-sections describe the project area baseline information based on thehousehold survey and supplemented, where appropriate, with the qualitative survey carried outfor the project. The household survey analysed the income groups of the study population anddistributed the interviewed population into three income slabs: very poor (earning up to Tg44,000 a month), poor (earning between Tg 44,000 and 110,000 a month) and the non-poor(earning more than Tg 110,000-a month). With the exception of 4% no response, on averagethere are 18% very poor, 48% poor and 30% non-poor groups. The income matter has beendiscussed in an appropriate sub-section below. Here it is only indicated that this income groupdistribution information has been used in the following sub-sections to show the needs anddemands of these three income groups in respect of water supply and sanitation.



2.3.1 Households and the Family

The total number of households in the country stands at 541,100 (2000 Census). As ofDecember 2002, the total number of households in the whole of nine districts of Ulaanbaatarwas estimated to be 177,161 and that in the six project ger areas (project study area) wasestimated to be 33,709.

The concepts of family and household are used synonymously in Mongolia. A household isofficially defined as a single person or two or more persons who make common provision forfood and other essentials, such as pooling of income. Unlike a family, however, householdmembers may be unrelated. The Consultants' household survey showed an averagehousehold/family size of 4.4.

2.3.2 Literacy and Education

Literacy rate in Mongolia is very high. The 2000 census showed a national literacy rate of97.8% of the population aged 15 years and above and a total literacy rate of 88.2%. Both thesexes were equally distributed in this percentage. The Consultants' sample literacy survey ofindividuals in the six project ger areas showed there are only 100 persons (approximately 1.3%)who are uneducated. The following table illustrates the literacy and education scenario in thesix project gerareas:

Table 2.8: Literacy and Education

# Ger Area Name Non-Literate Just Schooling High chool University____ _____ ~~~~~~Literate Grade 1 -1 0 and College

M F M F M F M F M F1 Naran 6 6 17 26 130 158 291 292 61 812 Dari-Ekh 9 16 3 13 78 96 188 178 53 603 Uliastai 3 1 10 9 50 54 84 81 27 284 Chingeltei 4 6 7 10 70 83 153 155 47 475 Bayankhoshu 12 26 72 67 333 385 677 668 155 1866 Dambadarjaa 3 8 2 7 75 75 148 139 57 57

Total 37 63 111 132 736 851 1,541 1,513 400 459

This sample survey was based on a survey of 1,685 households in the six project ger areas(Table 1.1, total household number 1994 minus 309 for Tolgoit ger area, which was dropped).Bayankhoshu had the largest number of interviewed households, viz., 704, followed by Naran,301, and this is reflected in the above table. The male and female ratio is almost the same,especially in respect of the category "high school and college" although in other cases thefemales outnumber the males. This is also comparable to the results of the Mongolian nationalcensus of 2000 that showed females outnumbering the males in literacy and education.

2.3.3 Religion of the Mongolian People

The majority of the people of Mongolia follow Tibetan Buddhism as their religion, althoughreligion as a social category is conspicuous by its absence in the public domain. It is said that ageneration of the Mongolians have missed the essence of religion since the induction ofcommunism in the country in the 1920s. The Consultants found portraits of the Dalai Lama (thehead of Tibetan Buddhism, also known as the "Living Buddha") privately maintained by thepeople, even in an official environment.

2.3.4 House Structure Types and Plots

Ger is the Mongolian traditional housing structure. It consists of a tent-like wooden structurecovered with woollen felt. It usually has five walls. It is estimated that approximately 60% of the



total house structures in Mongolia consists of the gers. In the core areas of Ulaanbaatar city,however, residential areas consist of apartment buildings. The Consultants' household surveyshowed that each plot has different types of housing, such as, brick and wooden houses andtraditional gers. Approximately 1-2 households are living in one plot. There are 41% gerstructures, 41.3% brick structures and 17.7% wooden structures of housing. Thesepercentages are further broken down according to the three income groups as shown in thefollowing table. There is little difference of structure type ownership among the income groups.

Table 2.9: House Structure Types by Income Groups

Si. Income Group No. of Brick Structures Wooden Ger StructuresNo. Structures % Structures % %

1 Very Poor 618 41% 18% 41%

2 Poor 1666 41% 18% 41%

3 Non-Poor 1046 42% 17% 41%

Total and Average: 3330 Average 41.3% Average 17.7% Average 41%

The household survey further showed that 49.6% of the interviewed households live in brickhouses, 13.7% in wooden houses and 36.7% in gers. The following table shows thispercentage distribution according to the defined income groups.

Table 2.10: Type of Housing by Income Groups

Si. Income Group No. of Brick Structures Wooden Ger StructuresNo. Interviewed HH % Structures % %

1 Very Poor 353 49% 14% 37%

2 Poor 949 49% 14% 37%

3 Non-Poor 597 51% 13% 36%

Total and Average: 1899 Average 49.6% Average 13.7% Average 36.7%

There is a difference in the number of interviewed households in this table from the total samplesize of 1994 (Table 1.1) due to the non-response of some households to some of the questions.Nevertheless, this table too shows that there is little difference in the use of housing types bythe defined income groups.

The plots have different combinations of housing types. 47.1% of the plots have only-gers,19.9% of the plots have other housing types (bricks and wooden), and 33% of the plots have acombination of both houses and gers. The interviewed households have lived in the same plotfor an average of 8.5 years. The average size of a plot is 509.9 M2. The following table showsthe ownership pattern of the plots income group-wise.

Table 2.11:Plot Ownership Pattern by Income Groups

Si. Income Group No. of HH Plots Plots Plots from Plots from OtherNo. Interviewed owned % Rented % MUB % Sources %

1 Very Poor 290 46% 1% 23% 30%

2 Poor 775 46% 1% 23% 30%

3 Non-Poor 490 45% 1% 23% 31%

Total and Average: 1555 Average Average Average Average 30.3%45.7% 1 % 23%


q


Of the sample size of 1555 for house plot ownership pattern, 45.7% householders had boughttheir plots and there is an average 1 % households which rents its housing. Of the householdsinterviewed, 86% live in plots that are registered and have certificates and the remaining 14%have no registration and certificate for their plots. The following table shows the registerednumber of plots by the given income groups.

Table 2.12: Registration of Plots by Income Groups

Si. No. of HH RegisteredNo. Income Group Interviewed Yes (%) No (%)

1 Very Poor 288 85% 15%

2 Poor 770 86% 14%

3 Non-Poor 488 87% 13%

Total and Average: 1546 Average 86% Average 14%

Concerning the reason households have not applied for registration, 10.8% of households arenot registered as citizens of Ulaanbaatar, 25.1 % of households did not know how to apply for it,and 17.9% of households are settled in forbidden areas. The average cost for registration ofplots is 3.7 thousand tugrug. 59.1% of the households who registered their plot have applied forland ownership.

The survey revealed that the reason to apply for registration was that 23.8% of the householdsintended to sell their land, 55.4% of them felt secure for their land after it was privatized, 16.1%of households applied for ownership because the land was free, and 4.7% of them applied forother reasons.

Of the remaining 40.9% who have not applied for ownership, 78.6% of them did not intend toapply for ownership. The reasons for this is that, 53.0% of them did not see any advantage,33.9% of them did not know how to apply, 2.6% of them were about the property taxes, and10.4% had other reasons.

2.3.5 Water Availability

The Consultants' household survey showed that approximately 80% people in the ger areaswere satisfied with the available water supply. Of these, 86.9% obtained water from truckedkiosks, 10.9% from wells, 1.7% from reservoir/river, and less than 1 % from pipelines directly athome. The average quantity of water daily purchased for a household is 45 litres for all theidentified income groups. However, individual income group-wise, it is 42 Ipod for the very poorhouseholds, 44 lpcd for the poor households, and 49 Ipcd for the non-poor households. Thefollowing table shows the water availability satisfaction score by the given income groups:

Table 2.13: Water Availability by Income Groups

Si. No. of HH Good Satisfactory BadNo. Income Group Interviewed No. % No. % No. %

1 Very Poor 353 145 41% 139 39% 69 20%

2 Poor 948 378 40% 376 40% 194 20%3 Non-Poor 597 236 40% 237 40% 124 20%

Total and Average: 1898 759 40.3% 752 39.7% 387 20%



As the table above shows, 20% of the interviewed households from the all the identified incomegroups indicated that water availability was bad at the kiosks.

The household survey revealed that on average 24.7% of the interviewed households do notobtain sufficient amount of water for their consumption. There is little difference in this regardamong the different income groups. The following table shows the sufficiency level of theavailable water supply by income groups.

Table 2.14: Sufficiency Level of Water Availability by Income Groups

Si. No. of HH Sufficient InsufficientNo. Income Group Interviewed No. No.

1 Very Poor 353 269 76% 84 24%2 Poor 948 715 75% 233 25%

3 Non-Poor 597 446 75% 151 25%Total and Average: 1898 1430 75.3% 468 24.7%

Of these households, 48.1% are in Naran, 29.9% in Bayankhoshuu, 26.6% in Dari-Ekh, and15.4% are in Chingeltei ger area. 20% of the households indicated that water availability is badat the kiosks. Of these, 30.8% were in kiosks in Naran ger area, 29.6% in Dari-Ekh, 22.4% inBayankhoshuu, 18.1% in Chingeltei and 13.8% in Dambadarjaa.

Children and women predominantly carry water home.According to the household survey, in 50% of thehouseholds children under 18 years of age collectwater. On average, water is collected 5.1 times everyweek. The average distance to the nearest waterkiosk is 275 metres, and the average time spent pertrip is 39.4 minutes. The proposed parameter ofbuilding a new kiosk for every 200-250 households atan average distance of 250-300 metres will definitelyimprove this situation, which is welcomed by the gerarea residents. It is recognised, especially by the women, that time thus saved could be utilisedin the pursuit of other useful activities, as revealed in the qualitative survey.

Regarding the use of water, 96% of households answered their obtained water was used forcooking and drinking, 96% of households for washing and bathing, 10% households for laundryand garden, 5% households for livestock and 31 % households used water for other purpose.By the individual ger area, this information was different as following.

Table 2.15: Type of Use of Water by Ger Areas

Cooking and Washing and Laundry andDrinking Bathing Gardening

Naran 100% 100% 3% 0.7% 7%Dari-Ekh 100% 100% 5% 4% 41%Uliastai 94% 93% 9% 5% 11%Chin geltei 99% 98% 17% 4% 27%Bayan khoshuu 100% 99% 10% 7% 49%Damba darjaa 84% 83% 16% 8% 49%

Average 96% 96% 10% 5% 31%



The following table shows the water use percentage of households in the ger areas by theincome groups using water for different purposes:

Table 2.16: Water Use by Income Groups

Si. Income Group No. of HH Cooking, Washing, Laundry, Livestock OthersNo. interviewed drinking bathing gardening _____

1 Very Poor 356 98% 97% 9% 6% 35%

2 Poor 960 98% 97% 9% 5% 35%

3 Non-Poor 601 99% 98% 9% 6% 37%

Total and Average: 1917 97% 97% 9% 6% 36%

These data obtained from the household survey show little difference in the use of water by thedifferent income groups. Water use, whether by ger areas or by income groups, is maximum forcooking and drinking and washing and bathing.

The qualitative survey presented a slightly different picture with regard to water availability. Itwas mentioned in Chapter 1 that only poor and otherwise vulnerable people were selected forthe qualitative survey. Some people in Study Group 6, Single Youths and Students, mentionedthat their only sources of water are spring and borehole well. This has been so for the past threeyears. In some other cases, water trucks come very rarely. People have complained of limitedaccess to water for the following reasons:

* Not legal resident of UB, hence limited access to services;* Water kiosks are located at a distance and people spend up to three hours a day for

fetching water, leading to children's studies being affected;* The access road to the kiosks are slippery due to ice in winter and children who collect

water get injuries;* Available water gets sold very quickly and re-order is not placed; kiosk is shut down as

soon water is sold out;* Kiosks are operated not on schedules and closed down two days a week;* Due to poverty people have small pots, which limits their water intake;* Some people are too poor to buy water; they melt ice for water.

2.3.6 Sanitation

The household survey showed that 98.9% households had a pit latrine with a wooden platformand walls. On average, households use one pit latrine for up to five years. When latrines arefull, they dig a new one or move to a new place when digging becomes difficult due to soilconditions. Thus, 81.2% households dig a new one when the existing one is full, while 12.5%get their pit latrines emptied by vacuum trucks.

Approximately 85% of the households emptied their pit latrines in the last 3 years. 76.6% of theinterviewed households have reported having space for new latrines in their plots. 93.3%households have mentioned a preference for lined pit latrine as against 6.7% who preferredunlined pit latrines. 35% of the households that have a pit latrine have the same pit as a soakpit while 42.1% have a different pit for a soak pit. 22.9% households have no soak pit. 59.4%of the latrines have no ventilation. 61 % of the households chlorinate their pit latrines to preventflies, while 24.6% do salting. Approximately 11% households do nothing to prevent flies.Family members in 90.5% of the households wash their hands after using the pit latrines.51.9% of interviewed households would like to get a loan for 3-5 years for the construction of pitlatrines. The following figure shows household's interest to get loans for 3-5 years by ger area



(the dropped ger area of Tolgoit is part of this analysis).

Willingness to get loan for 3-5 years

70 as.?

60 , 51.5 68.5 53.3 51.1 5548.5 Ar,7__in1LARO __A7 C

50 41.8

40 K ii

30

20 -

100

Naran Dari-Ekh Uliastai Chin Bayan Damba Tolgoitgeltei khoshuu darjaa

a Yes ENo

35.5% of households interviewed said in repaying a loan they could afford monthly payment of 1dollar, 32.9% 2 dollars, and 31.6% 5 dollars.

Asked how much they would pay for vacuum truck cleaning once a year, 73.6% of householdsanswered less than 5000 tugrug, 22.6% answered 5000-20000 tugrug, and 3.8% more than20000 tugrug.

The salient features of the sanitation issues as obtained from the household survey arepresented income group-wise in the following table.

Table 2.17: Sanitation Issues by Income Groups

Si. No. of HH Pit Dig new Space for Preference VentilatedNo. Income Group Interviewed Latrine latrine new hole for lined pit pit existing

1 Very Poor 353 99% 81% 76% 93% 41%

2 Poor 949 100% 81% 76% 93% 40%

3 Non-Poor 597 100% 82% 76% 93% 41%

The table above shows that there is little significant difference with regard to sanitation amongthe defined income groups, as obtained from the household survey. However, the qualitativesurvey conducted among the all-poor sample presented an altogether different picture, wherepeople have complained of not being able to dig a new hole due to difficult soil conditions aswell as unsanitary conditions of their latrines. This is discussed in Chapter 3 under stakeholderconcerns.

2.3.7 Bathhouses

74.5% of the households answered that there are no bathhouses in the area that they live. Only24.4% of households bathe in the public bathhouses and the remaining 75.6% bathe in theirown homes and in apartments of their relatives. However, the qualitative survey carried out forthe social impact assessment showed that ger area residents who used to bathe and do laundryin the apartments of their friends and relatives are shying away from it because the apartmentresidents now pay for water by the metre reading and so, reluctant to allow others to use their



facilities. Moreover, the ger area residents themselves are embarrassed about it. As a result,less and less number of people is getting a chance to bathe, also because the bathhouse ratesare not affordable with Tg 1000 for an adult bath. Moreover, many people have reported thatthere are no bathhouses in their close proximity.

2.3.8 Solid Waste

6.6% of households reported that waste is collected once every two weeks, 51.0% once amonth, 39.6% less than once a month, and 2.7% of them never collected. 87.6% of thehouseholds said the municipality collects waste, and 93.9% of households pay for the solidwaste collection fee.

The qualitative survey, on the other hand, brought out that solid waste management is poor.People complained of not getting to any waste disposal bins, wastes are not disposed for a longtime, and this in some cases despite people having paid the fee.

2.3.9 Operation and Maintenance of the Services

The respondents for the qualitative survey mentioned that they were not aware of any aspectsof the operation and maintenance of the water supply and sanitation services. They complainedthat decisions were made at the upper level in the Khoroo office and nobody cared to ask theresidents on the operation and maintenance aspects. They also mentioned that on manyoccasions they had offered suggestions, which were turned down. The officials, on the otherhand, mentioned that the ordinary people were not capable of making decisions, although theyadmitted that the people need to be consulted on operation and maintenance of the services.The officials' position is that the people themselves should be responsible for the maintenanceof their own sanitation facilities.

2.3.10 Livelihoods

The quantitative sample survey on livelihoods in the six project ger areas brought out interestinginformation on the prevailing livelihood and poverty patterns. The survey obtained genderdisaggregated livelihoods information, compiled season-wise (winter and summer). Thefollowing table presents the obtained data percentage-wise:

Table 2.18: Livelihoods PatternSeason Employment Category Male Female

Full-time 53.8% 51.4%Winter Part-time _ 4.0%

Unemployed 32.4% 29.7%Retired 13.8% 14.9%Full-time 56.8% 50.7%

Summer Part-time _____ 4.1%Unemployed 29.2% 30.1%

______________Retired 13.8% 15.1%

There is little difference between male and female or winter and summer with regard toemployment availability. On average, 53% people are engaged in livelihood activities round theyear although the female percentage is approximately 51%. In this sample, there are no part-time male income earners. The unemployed percentage is quite high, approximately 30%.Approximately 15% people are retired and depend on their pension benefits. These numbersare corroborated by the results of the qualitative survey on the poor households.



Of the people who are employed, the government sector accommodates 33.3% males and21.95% females. Females dominate the retail and wholesale sector with 34.15% while malescomprise only 2.8%. Males comprise 13.9% in the industry sector but females only 7.32%.There are no females in the construction activities, while male work force constitutes 11.1% inthis sector. Males and females are equally distributed in the transport and communicationsector, with 11.1 % males and 12.2% females.

The study group of the qualitative survey showed that a large number of people are unemployedand those who are employed do small jobs, such as working as part time help, which is notenough for their survival. Most people depend on their immediate family for survival.

2.3.11 Migration

Cities are the centres of opportunities globally, having a "pull factor" tagged on to them andpeople have historically migrated to cities from the hinterland in search of better livelihoods.Largely being nomadic people, migration in Mongolia has traditionally centred on livestockherding which is the country's major economic activity although technically, it is Just a seasonalmovement.

In the urban context of Ulaanbaatar, however, migration has meant a movement away from thepeople's original place of residence to the ger areas in search of better livelihoods. Althoughthe new Constitution of Mongolia (1992) grants its citizens the liberty to live where they wish,there is a high price for registration to live in Ulaanbaatar (Tg 50,000 or approx. US$5 for anadult and Tg 25,200 for a person below 18). As a result, the household survey carried out in thesix project ger areas showed that 13.8% of the households have no registration and certificatefor their residence in the city.

Overall, 24.7% of the approximately 2000 households surveyed claimed to have migrated to theger areas of Ulaanbaatar from the countryside. Dari-Ekh ger area has the highest percentageof migrants, 33.5%, followed by Uliastai (19.6%), Naran (18.2%), Bayankhoshu (23.5%),Dambadarjaa (19.4%) and Chingeltei (15.9%).

In the qualitative survey for the social impact assessment, it is found that only a few householdsout of the total 70 households (Study Groups 1-7) have migrated to the ger areas ofUlaanbaatar recently from other aimags, such as from Darkhan-Uul (1), Aarkhangai (1), Uvs (1),Zavkhan (1), Altai (1), Dornod (1), Bayankhongor (2), Dornogobi (1). All others are from variousparts of UB, some even from the apartments.

2.3.12 Household Income

The household survey derived information on household income in two ways: interviewees wereasked their household income directly in the questionnaire and secondly, the income wascalculated by aggregation of the total expenditure and saving/loses of the households. Theaverage monthly household estimated income is Tg 88,887.7.

Following the practice of the National Statistical Office of Mongolia, information on householdincomes was divided into three groups, as shown in the following table. These groups are basedon poverty lines, which define poor and very poor in Ulaanbaatar city.

Table 2.19: Household Income Groups by Ger Areas, %

Income group Average Naran DEakrh Uliastai Chingeltei khoashuu daraa

Less than 44000 18% 18% 15% 25% 15% 18% 12%



Dari- IBayan DambaIncome group Average Naran Ekh Uliastai Chingeltei khoshuu darjaa

44000 -110000 48% 52% 54% 51% 49% 45% 48%More than 110000 30% 29% 31% 15% 34% 34% 23%Non-response 4% - -1- - - -

The first group is a very poor family group with household monthly income less than 44000 Tg.18% of the interviewed households belong to this group. By area, the highest number ofhouseholds in this group was 25% in Uliastai ger area. The lowest percentage (12%) in thisgroup belongs to the households in Dambadarjaa ger area.

The second group comprises households with monthly income from Tg. 44,000 to 110,000.48% of households interviewed belong to this group. This percentage is similar in each gerarea of this income group.

The last group comprises households which are non-poor or "above the poverty line" withmonthly income of over Tg 110,000. 30% of the interviewed households are in this group. Arelatively high percentage of households (34%)in this group live in Chingeltei andBayankhoshuu gerareas; the lowest percentage (15%) live in Uliastai ger area.

The qualitative survey organised income information according to the pre-conceived studygroups. As people were selected from the poor or vulnerable background, in most cases theyare unemployed or lowly paid. Some pensioners complained of getting a pension in the rangeof as low as Tg 16,000 to Tg 24,000 a month.

2.3.13 Household Expenditure

The household survey calculated information on household expenditures for 1,994 households,with 75 non-responding households. The household expenditure includes payments for rental,water, electricity, telephone, bathhouses, fuel, transportation, solid waste disposal, fees for TVand radio, cost for clothing and household goods, medical expenses, livestock taxes, animallicense and other expenses, as shown in the following table.

Table 2.20: Household Monthly Expenditure by Items

Si. No. Items of Expenditure Composition of Expenditure ofan Average Household

1 Rental 0.8%2 Water 1%3 Electricity 8%4 Telephone 6%5 Bathhouse 2%6 Fuel 28%7 Transportation 15%8 Solid waste disposal 2%9 Fees for TV and radio 2%10 Cost for clothing and household goods 11%11 Medical expenses 7%12 Livestock taxes 0.2%13 Animal licenses 1%14 Other expenses 16%

Total Expenditure 100%



Many of the households interviewed did not have a ger or other housing structures. They livedas tenants. The results show that the highest expenditure is for fuel, which is 28% of totalexpenditure. Of other expenses, public transportation, and clothing and household goodsrepresent 15% and 11 %, respectively, of the total expenditure. Water constitutes an average1% of total expenditure. Household medical, electricity and telephone expenses are 6%-8% permonth. Solid waste disposal cost is relatively low at 2% of the total expenditure. The followingtable shows the monthly household expenditure by the individual ger areas.

Table 2.21: Household expenditure by Items per month and by ger area

Item of expenditure Naran DEakrh Uliastai Ching- Bayank- Damba-Ekh ____ eltei hoshuu darjaa

1 Rental 1.8% 2.5% 0.3% 0.5% 0.6% -

2 Water 1.1% 1.0% 1.2% 1.0% 1.3% 1.3%3 Electricity 7.7% 6.6% 8.1% 7.6% 7.9% 8.3%4 Telephone 6.2% 7.5% 6.9% 5.8% 4.3% 7.6%5 Bathhouse 1.5% 2.0% 2.1% 2.5% 1.3% 2.5%6 Fuel 26.2% 26.5% 34.8% 26.4% 27.4% 21.1%7 Transportation 15.4% 13.1% 19.2% 15.3% 15.3% 15.3%8 Solid waste 1.8% 1.2% 2.7% 1.3% 1.3% 3.1%9 Fees for TV and Radio 1.4% 2.4% 1.7% 2.8% 2.4% 1.9%

10 Cost for clothing and 9.1% 10.3% 16.2% 10.1% 10.7% 11.6%household goods

1 1 Medical expenses 11.2% 7.1% 6.7% 7.3% 6.6% 7.4%12 Livestock taxes - 1.0% 0.1% - 0.1% 0.1%13 Animal licenses 0.2% 1.9% - - 0.9% 0.9%14 Other expenses 16.4% 16.9% - 19.4% 19.9% 18.9%= Total Expenditure 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

The above table shows household expenditure components by each ger area and highestexpenditure was still in fuel for each ger area and highest percentage is in Uliastai ger areawhich is 34.8%, and the households in Dambadarjaa spend 21.1% for fuel which is the lowest,compared to other ger areas. The highest percentages for other expenses are in Bayankhoshuuand Chingeltei at 19.9% and 19.4%, respectively. Households in Uliastai ger area have moretransportation cost which is 19.2% and it reflects the relative distance of this ger area from thecity center. Dari-Ekh has the lowest transport cost at 13.1%.

While the information in the above two tables are only indicative, the qualitative survey showedthat poor or the vulnerable people cannot even afford to buy water, coal and firewood. Theymelt ice for water and live in cold for want of heat in the ger. Many have complained ofsurviving on one meal a day.

2.4 LAND MANAGEMENT ISSUES FOR THE SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The nature of land and user rights in the informal settlements: In the socialist era in Mongolia allland belonged to the State, which is now in the process of being privatised. The UB Municipalityconducted an inventory of land in the (informal) ger areas and prepared a plan for freeprivatisation of 61,753 plots in 2003 and 2004. These are plots for which licenses forpossession exist. The UB Master Plan has not been an impediment to land tenure for gerresidents, as the privatisation plan consciously allowed privatisation of plots even in those areasdesignated for complete redevelopment in the Master Plan. Only, plots in the right of way ofimportant roads are not eligible for private possession.



Ensuring the claims and rights of all, especially the poorest, for land rights: The MUB identifiedanother set of 11,848 households that cannot apply for the license of the plot they live on, butthey have a right to free plots elsewhere. Moreover, with the recent abolition of UB's deterrentfee for registration as a resident of the City, the most significant barrier to land rights for the poorhas been eliminated.

There are some inequities in the land privatisation programme, however. Only families areeligible for land possession, so single persons without children cannot benefit from theprogramme. More discussion on the land management issues will be found in the landmanagement section of the UBSIP-2 feasibility study report.

2.5 IDENTIFICATION OF STUDY GROUPS AND THEIR PRIORITIES

This SIA has considered the following stakeholder groups as study groups and has carried out aqualitative survey to examine their needs, interests and concerns with regard to water andsanitation.

* Study Group 1: The Unemployed - different categories of the unemployed (young andmiddle aged men and women; educated and uneducated; old and recent ger residents);

* Study Group 2: Women-headed Households - single women with children or womenwho are the main bread winners whose husbands or other male family members are ill,alcoholic or jobless; those of various age, education, profession, old or recent ger arearesident background;

* Study Group 3: Single Male-headed Households - single males with children; typicallythey are widowers or divorcees, middle or older age; educated and non-educated; oldger residents (those living in the ger for 10 years and over) or the newcomers (recentmigrants within 2-3 years);

* Study Group 4: The Elderly - elderly couples, single elderly (male/female; educated andnon-educated, those living on pension or with a supplementary income, old and new gerresidents);

* Study Group 5: Young Couples with Children - young families with children where oneof the spouses is either a student or unemployed; most of those are the newcomers;

* Study Group 6: Single Youth/Students - there are many students who live in the gerarea either in the gers, houses on a lease, or dormitories; they include students of manyUB located colleges, as well as young employees of various private or publicbusinesses, processing factories, etc.;

* Study Group 7: Vulnerable Groups, Disabled, Other Individuals at Health Risk, andStreet Children - this group typically includes people who are unemployed, have nosupporting family members or relatives and are at serious health and poverty risks;

* Study Group 8: Officials and Community Leaders Responsible for the Implementation ofthe Project - various representatives of khoroo and duureg administration, othercommunity leaders (formal and informal, if any), and any other most respectedindividuals (elderly, school teachers, doctors/nurses ) who have good experience inorganizing community activities.

The qualitative survey was carried out to supplement the quantitative household survey. Thepriorities of these groups are described below with regard to water and sanitation.

Study Group 1: The Unemployed: Six males, four females. Age group 20 to 52; averageeducation secondary schooling.



Water supply sources currently available to this group include trucked kiosks (located 800maway) and wells. Available sanitation services available include pit latrines. There is nodiscrimination in accessing water and sanitation services, but people have limited access tothese services due to their inadequate income. Moreover, the services are complained to beunreliable. The priorities suggested by the people in this group in regard to these services arethe following:

a) Locate new water kiosks in close proximity;b) Connect the kiosks to the piped system, so that the water supply would be stable and

the quality hygienic;c) Provide improved sanitation and affordable bathhouses and laundry facilities;d) Ensure solid waste collection and install solid waste processing plant.

Study Group 2: Women-headed households: Ten females, age group 39 to 48, six areemployed in positions varying from servant to driver, accountant and interior decorator.Average education is secondary schooling; one has a university degree.

Water supply sources currently available to this group include kiosks in remote location,reservoir, boreholes and wells, and spring and river. Water needs are generally limited, butthere is difficulty in bathing and doing laundry. The water supply is not reliable and adequate.Sanitation services currently available include own pit latrines, but these are getting filled. It isdifficult to dig a new hole due to soil conditions. No disinfections and chlorination of the latrines.are carried out. The priorities suggested by the people in this group in regard to these servicesare the following:

a) Locate new water kiosks in close proximity;b) Connect the kiosks to the piped system, so that the water supply would be stable and

the quality hygienic;c) Provide affordable bathhouse and discounts to the poor people;d) Operate bathhouses and water kiosks on schedule;e) Provide improved latrine;f) Ensure solid waste collection.

Study Group 3: Single male headed households: Ten males, age group 38 to 76. Averageeducation is secondary schooling; one has a university degree and one person is uneducated.Seven of them are employed ranging from watchman and herdsman to economist.

Water supply sources currently available to this group include trucked kiosks. People cannotuse water as much as they need to due to inadequate supply and purchasing capacity. This isthe limiting factor, but nobody feels there is any discrimination in their accessing the services.Sanitation services are reported to be bad and no bathhouses nearby. Solid wastes are notcollected regularly. Nobody in the group feels that the services are reliable, especially becausekiosk operators do not operate on schedule. It is reported that they had better access to waterand sanitation services before 1990. This group suggests the following priorities in regard towater and sanitation:

a) Construct new kiosks nearby;b) Construct borehole water source;c) Operate kiosks on schedule and ensure adequate supply;d) Construct affordable bathhouses;e) Clear the ice from the road near the kiosks.



Study Group 4: The Elderly: Five males, five females; age group 52 to 76. Average educationis less than secondary schooling, although one person has a university degree. Seven of thesepeople are retired.

Water supply sources currently available to this group include trucked kiosks. Fetching waterprecludes long queues. People cannot use water as much as they need to due to inadequatesupply and purchasing capacity. This is the limiting factor, but nobody feels there is anydiscrimination in their accessing the services. Sanitation services are reported to be bad and nobathhouses nearby. This group believes that the services are unreliable and in fact, haveworsened in the last five years. This group suggests the following priorities in regard to waterand sanitation:

a) Increase the number of water kiosks;b) Connect kiosks to the piped system, so that supply would be stable and quality hygienic;c) Increase the number of water trucks;d) Increase the number of toilets;e) Install bathhouses;f) Install waste collection bins and empty thee regularly;g) Increase the number of waste collection trucks.

Study Group 5: Young couples with children: Five males, five females; age group 21 to 32.Average education is secondary schooling; three have professional training centre diploma.

The water supply sources currently available to this group include trucked kiosks as well aswells and springs. There is no public sanitation service. There are no discriminations inaccessing the services, but the limiting factors are the long distance of the kiosks. They believethe conditions of the services are unreliable and the khoroo officers should be responsible forthe supervision of the services. This group offers the following priorities in regard to water andsanitation services:

a) Provide water kiosks in close proximity;b) Connect kiosks to the piped system, so the supply would be stable and the quality

hygienic;c) Provide good pit latrines;d) Provide affordable bathhouses.

Study Group 6: Single youths/students: Seven males, three females; age group 19 to 37.This group comprises six students and four unemployed persons. Average education level issecondary schooling; four students are going to the university. This group gets water fromtrucked kiosks, boreholes and spring. There are no public latrines. The households clean theirtoilets themselves. Nobody feels discriminated against for their access to water and sanitation,but they have limited access to the services due to their financial incapacity as well asinadequate supply. Nobody thought the services were reliable. Especially during the winter, thetrucks do not come frequently, so the kiosks do not operate regularly. It is said that thedormitories where single youths and students live used to have heating and hot and cold waterrunning from the taps, but transition of the economy and privatization of services have changedthe situation. This group offers the following priorities in regard to water and sanitation:

a) Do not increase the price of water, but install meters so that people pay according totheir use of water and there is no wastage;

b) Install water kiosks in close proximity and operate these daily;



c) Ensure regular supply of water;d) Provide public toilets with better design and regular clearing of sewage;e) Renovate dormitory with a toilet;f) Provide a bathhouse.

Study Group 7: Vulnerable groups: Six males, six females; age group 12 to 74. Averageeducation level is secondary schooling. In this group there are three unemployed persons, onepensioner and two registered disabled persons.

The water supply sources currently available to this group include trucked kiosks. There are nopublic toilets, but the households have their own pit latrines. There is no bathhouse available tothe people. Nobody thinks that there is any discrimination in their access to water andsanitation, but they do not also think that the services are reliable, which some said was betterearlier. This group has the following priorities with regard to water and sanitation:

a) Construct new kiosks at close proximity and supply water on schedule;b) Ensure adequate supply of water at the kiosks;c) Connect the kiosks to the central piped system to ensure stable supply;d) Provide pit latrines in the area;e) Provide affordable bathhouses;f) Arrange for solid waste disposal.

Study Group 8: Officials and community leaders: The interviewed officials included fourkhoroo leaders, one kheseg (community) leader, four social workers, and one specialist of theDepartment of Infrastructure and Environment, attached to a district governor's office. Seven ofthese officials were females and three of them had a university degree.

The officials and community leaders mentioned that the current water supply available to theircommunities include trucked kiosks. As for sanitation services, the households have their ownpit latrines. They have bathhouses in their respective khoroo territory and believe that hesanitation situation has improved in the last five years. They do not believe that any householdis discriminated against in regard to water and sanitation, although they recognise that manyhouseholds do not get adequate quantity of water because they do not have the money for theservices. These leaders are divided in their opinion regarding the reliability of the services.While some think these are satisfactory, others think otherwise. Nevertheless, they recognisethat the services are not being able to cope with the increasing population in the ger areas,which are adding almost everyday. They recommend constructing new water kiosks.

2.6 SOCIAL DIVERSITY: ETHNICITY, GENDER AND CHILDREN

All societies are composed of diverse social groups that may be identified on the basis ofgender, ethnicity, religion, age and culture, as well as "spatial" (geographic) and economiccharacteristics. This SIA report has considered the issues of ethnicity, gender and children aspart of social diversity.

2.6.1 Ethnicity

Language or ethnic differences have not been known to become significant political or socialissues in Mongolia. In the project ger areas, common economic goals override ethnicdistinctions and the influx of migrants has not resulted in ethnic distinctions being acute. This is



also evident in the qualitative survey where the identified ethnic minorities did not mention ofany discrimination because of their ethnicity.

There are 29 different ethnic groups in Mongolia, as listed in the Mongolian 2000 Censusreport.2 They are either the descendants of Mongolian nomadic tribes, or groups of Turkic originwho have become Mongolized over time.

The national census conducted in Mongolia in 2000 identified the Khalkh Mongols as the largestethnic group with 81.5% of the total population of 2,373,493. The Kazakhs are the second inrank, with approximately 4% of the total national population. Other groups include the Dorvods,the Buriads, the Bayads, etc. There are also some Chinese and Russians who are Mongoliancitizens and listed as ethnic groups.

The Consultants have compiled an ethnic population data for the six project ger areas, withpopulation details down to the Khoroo level (Table in Annex 4). In contrast to the national levelethnic composition, this exercise shows that in the project ger areas the majority Khalkhconstitutes 93% of the population. The Dorvod (1.8%) and the Bayad (1.5%) occupy thesecond and third positions, respectively. The Kazakh ethnic group is in the sixth position,constituting only 0.4% or 565 people whereas, at the national level, they are in the secondposition.

The qualitative survey carried out for the social impact assessment showed that of the 70households for the Study Groups 1-7, 63 households or 90% are Khalkh Mongols, while theremaining 7 are distributed among the following ethnic groups: Buriad (3), Borjigon (1), Uuld (1),Uriankhai (1), and Dorvod (1).

Analysis of the Ethnic Situation

An earlier study on the ethnic issue in Mongolia3 indicates that ethnic distinctions among theMongol subgroups are relatively minor, although some may have a stronger sense of theiridentity than others.

Ethnic minorities in the study area as social groups are not found to engage in economicactivities that are less lucrative than those of the ethnic majority. In law, there are nodifferences in the entitlement of the different ethnic groups to natural resources (viz., access toland). While the extent and severity of poverty is of great concern across the country and in theger areas, there is no suggestion that it is driven by ethnic differences.

2.6.2 Gender Issues

The gender matter as a part of social impact assessment examines the capability of adevelopment project to target female beneficiaries. Relevant gender issues in a social impactassessment for the project include the following:

* Gender and access to income opportunities;

* Project effects on women's access to water and sanitation;

* Women's involvement in project design and implementation.

22000 Population and Housing Census: The Main Results. Ulaan Baatar, Mongolia National Statistical Office, July2001.

3 Ethnic Minority Development Strategy, as part of the World Bank's Mongolia: Sustainable Livelihood Project,December 2001.



Gender Situation in Mongolia

Mongolia is a relatively gender-equal society in which men and women have similar access tosocial services, and where there is relative gender equality in terms of basic human rights.Mongolian women, in comparison to men, enjoy similar levels of health, higher life expectancy,higher level of education (though enrolment and attainment rates have fallen for both womenand men since transition, and relatively high levels of participation in the labour force, especiallyin the urban context of Ulaanbaatar.4

Gender Issues in Ulaanbaatar GerAreas

Gender considerations are important in the urban social context of Ulaanbaatar. Men andwomen- have been affected differently since the transition and, in general, women moreadversely than men. Migration patterns show that more women have migrated into Ulaanbaatarthan men. People who live in ger areas of the capital tend to be poorer than those in apartmentareas and evidence indicates that the poorer the households, the higher the proportion offemale-headed households. The major issue facing poor women in Ulaanbaatar is access towork. Statistics and surveys indicate that women are more likely to be unemployed in Mongoliathan are men and if employed they are more likely to be in the lower occupational and decision-making categories.5

In the project ger area context, gender issues relate mostly to unemployment, poverty,vulnerability, and lack of access to cash income that affects their access to water and sanitation.Indicators show a rise in inequality with unemployment disproportionately affecting women (andyouth), leading to approximately one-third of the population living in poverty and an increasedfeminisation of poverty.5 The following is a discussion of the identified issues related to genderin the context of the qualitative data generated.

Gender and Access to Income Opportunities

The qualitative survey carried out for this report identified the impact of poverty on thevulnerable people according to seven "study groups", which showed remarkable similarity in theperception of poverty among these groups. The following questions directly related to the issueof income opportunities:

* How long have you been living as poor or vulnerable? What was your previous status,position in the society? When did things change for you and why? (Loss of job, loss ofhealth, etc.)

* Could you please describe the causes or reasons of such changes for you (falling intopoverty or falling into deeper poverty; becoming vulnerable or more vulnerable)?

The analysis of the qualitative survey data indicates that income opportunities are limited for theger area residents, especially the women. The most notable limitation on income opportunitiesreported by the Study Group 2 (Women-headed Household) respondents as well as by some

4 Summarised from the Population Census 2000 and Mongolia PRSP, 2003 (Economic Growth Support and PovertyReduction Strategy, Govt of Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar, July 2003)

5Mongolia Statistical Handbook 2002; Mongolia PRSP 2003 (Economic Growth Support and Poverty ReductionStrategy, Govt of Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar, July 2003)

6 Mongolia PRSP 2003 (Economic Growth Support and Poverty Reduction Strategy, Govt of Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar,July 2003)



respondents from the Study Group 6 (Single Youths and Students) for their mothers is thatwomen are discriminated against in regard to their gender, age, education, looks and height.

Some respondents also reported that potential employers resort to nepotism and offer availablepositions to their relatives and friends. The average education level of the respondents in thequalitative survey was secondary education and this was found to be inadequate for them tolocate appropriate income opportunities.

It is often said that women have equal rights and access to participation in the economy inMongolia but the reality can be quite different. The qualitative survey showed that women areaffected by discrimination in their search for livelihoods in terms of gender, age, education,looks, and height. Female-headed households represent the most vulnerable section of thecommunity. The lack of access to male labour and capital severely limits the livelihood optionsfor these households.

Gender and Access to Water and Sanitation

The following issues in the qualitative survey related to the availability and access to water andsanitation services:

* Water supply sources currently available;

* Sanitation services currently available;

* Discrimination in accessing water and sanitation services;

* How effective and reliable are these services;

* Maintenance and constraints in water supply and sanitation;

* Perception of advantages in the improvement of the services

The following is a summary of the response of the Study Group 2, women headed households,to the issues indicated above:

a) Most people collect water from kiosks; some people get water from wells, springs, riversand boreholes.

b) Kiosks are usually located in away from the households (more precisely, thehouseholds are distantly located).

c) Water supply is inadequate and unreliable.d) Children spend long hours to fetch water. Thus, their studies are affected. During winter

access roads become slippery due to ice and the children suffer injuries.e) Nobody feels discriminated against in respect of their access to water and sanitation, but

poverty limits their access to these services; in some cases, people's water needs arelimited.

f) Most people use ordinary pit latrines, but many people have no toilet facilities, who usepublic toilet.

g) For those having pit latrines, it is getting difficult to dig a second latrine due to difficultspoil conditions.

h) Public toilets are over-burdened. In some instances, 170 households use one latrineand there is hardly any attempt to disinfections or chlorination.

i) Solid waste disposal is a problem. There is no bin in the neighbourhood for the wastedisposal and the authorities do not collect waste on a regular basis.



j) Bathing and doing laundry are a problem in the ger area. Public bathhouses areunaffordable with Tg 1000 fee for an adult bath. Earlier many people used to visit theirrelatives' apartments for bath and laundry. The apartment residents now have to pay forwater according to meter. Hence, it is becoming embarrassing for them to do this. Evenotherwise, apartment residents are discouraging them to use their facilities for the samereason.

It is clear that access to water and sanitation in the ger areas is limited by access to cash andlocation of the gers. The ger areas did not develop in a planned manner. As vulnerable peoplemigrated to Ulaanbaatar from the countryside, they settled on the available land in the gerareas. Some of these areas are located far away from the existing service facilities. Becauseof the hilly location of some of the kiosks, trucks cannot travel there on the icy roads during thewinter months. Respondents have said that in many areas the situation was better five yearsago, but due to migration of new people to the ger areas from the countryside, the servicesituation has worsened. They have suggested that the water supply company should carry outsurveys to determine the water needs of the ger area households and plan water supplyaccordingly.

Women's Involvement in Project Design and Implementation

The UBSIP-2 project preparation organised consultations on the location of kiosks as a first stepin ensuring that community views were taken account of in the project design. The consultationprocess was seen to serve three important purposes:

i. It would allow real account to be taken of people's views in an issue of crucialimportance to them;

ii. It would provide evidence to the communities involved of the project's genuine intentionto include them in decision-making in the project;

iii. It would allay a perceived sense of increasing "consultation fatigue," especially amongkhoroo leaders, that had been detected by the Consultants.

Community groups formed for this purpose were each provided with a large scale Al sizecontour map, which showed all registered khashaas (fence), existing kiosks and the proposednew pipeline. This allowed individuals to identify their own residences and consider new kiosksin relation to their households and access paths.

Each discussion began with an explanation of the project and why their assistance was beingsought. It was emphasised that the project considered their views with considerable importanceand that they were to decide on kiosk points on the basis of need, not on any technicalconsiderations. It would then be the responsibility of the engineers on the project team to try tomake their selected locations work. Two main constraints were specified in selecting kiosks.Firstly, there was to be one kiosk for every 250 households and no person should have to walkmore than 300 metres to get to a kiosk.

The qualitative survey showed that no women interviewed had attended any of the consultationsorganised by the Consultants in September-October 2003 as part of the project preparation. Itis noted that all the households selected for the qualitative survey were poor and very poor, sotheir threat perception and vulnerability perception was more than normal. Nevertheless, theirperception about the project is that when implemented, their access to water and sanitation willbe better and in some cases, morbidity level will decrease. They were divided, though, in theiropinion about if common people could influence important decisions on the urban services.



The survey also showed that no interviewed woman was a member of any community basedorganizations, although some of them had heard of the activities being carried out in theircommunity by such NGOs as the Red Cross and World Vision. Many of them mentioned thatWorld Vision undertook comprehensive activities for community development and that the RedCross successfully operated in the community.

2.6.3 Children

A third of Mongolian children live in poverty. The situation of children is exacerbated by thecountry's harsh winters, rising unemployment, increasing problems of homelessness, familybreakdown and the deterioration of the country's education and health systems. The rapidgrowth in poverty incidence has led to an increasing number of street children. There areapproximately 3,000-4,000 street children in Mongolia7, almost all of who are in Ulaanbaatar. Itis estimated that 87% of street children8 come from poor and very poor families. The reasons forchildren living on the street are many and varied - they may have been abandoned or there maybe family problems, the parents have separated ordivorced or other issues.

The Consultants carried out a focus groupdiscussion with a group of street children, seven girlsand six boys in the age group of 10-17, in achildren's care centre as part of the qualitativesurvey. Four of the children are originally from threeof the UBSIP-2 project ger areas, while theremaining are from different aimags, Shariin gol (1),Batsumber (3), and other aimags (5). The childrenleft home 1-5 years ago. The reasons for theirleaving home varied from being orphans to beingchildren who had single parents and children whoseparents did not care. Their living standards have improved since they arrived at the care centre,as they are being given vocational training as well as basic education. They have access tobath and shower and toilet in the care centre, which are connected to the central seweragesystem of the city. The care centre contributes towards their medical expenses. For theiroriginal places of residence in the ger areas, they would like to see more bathhouses and waterkiosks.

2.7 KEY POVERTY ISSUES

2.7.1 Poverty Definition

Poverty in Mongolia -is defined using a minimum living standards approach. According to theMongolian Law on Defining the Minimum Living Standards, the National Statistical Officedetermines the minimum levels differently by regions.9 Currently, the monetary equivalent of thepoverty line ranges between Tg 19,500 and Tg 25,300 (approximately US$ 17) per capita permonth, depending on the region.

7 Estimate by the SCF-UK, October 20038 Some agencies prefer to call them "unsupervised children."9 Economic Growth Support and Poverty Reduction Strategy, Govt of Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar, July 2003.



2.7.2 Poverty Indicators

The existing information on poverty in Mongolia has identified five categories of people affectedby poverty, viz., (a) single parent headed households with many children; (b) households withless than 100 heads of livestock; (c) the unemployed; (d) the uneducated; and (e) specificvulnerable groups, such as, the elderly, disabled, etc.10

The results of the 1998 Living Standards Measurement Survey (LSMS) of the Government ofMongolia showed a poverty level of 35.6% in the country. Ulaan Baatar population has 34%living below this poverty line. It is reported that the average monthly income of householdsliving in ger areas is less than 70% of that of households living in apartment areas. Householdswith income less than 40% of the minimum living standards level and who are unable to providefor their basic food needs are defied as households in extreme poverty or very poor.

Accordingly, as discussed in Section 2.4.13, Household Income and accompanying Table 2.18,a very poor household is so designated with monthly income up to Tg 44,000, a poor householdwith a monthly income up to Tg 110,000, and a non-poor household with a monthly incomemore than Tg 110,000. It was already indicated that in the project ger areas 18% householdsare in the very poor category and 48% households are in the poor category.

The following sub-sections elaborate the different aspects of poverty in the ger areas ofUlaanbaatar based on the qualitative survey, household survey and secondary data.

2.7.3 Urban Poverty

Urban settlements in Ulaanbaatar are characterized by the separation of formal apartmentareas from the informal ger settlement areas. The informal ger areas are where most of themigrants to the city live. These areas have a poor level of basic urban services in sharp contrastto the living conditions in the formal settlement areas. As a result of this, Ulaanbaatar's urbandistricts have an increasing demand for public services such as water and sanitation. Thecurrent social and physical infrastructure capacity in the city cannot meet this increasingdemand.

Large numbers of unregistered migrants continue to enter UB. These migrants do not haveaccess to formal social security, education and health services, and they are not entitled to landownership, as they are not fully registered UB citizens1". To add to this, the lack of formalservices leads to growing social problems, such as crime and alcoholism. Internationalhumanitarian NGOs working in the ger areas report that the situation is severe for manyhouseholds and getting worse; the number of families who survive on a single meal per day isincreasing and malnutrition is common in their children. There are virtually no neighbourhoodself-help groups and most households do not rely on any help from friends or relatives. Thesefindings are confirmed by the Consultants' qualitative survey.

The qualitative survey carried out for this report identified the impact of poverty on thevulnerable people according to seven "study groups", which showed remarkable similarity in theperception of poverty among these groups. The following four questions directly related to thestate of poverty:

10 Economic Growth Support and Poverty Reduction Strategy, Govt of Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar, July 2003.

" This scenario is now changing under the new land law.



* How long have you been living as poor or vulnerable? What was your previous status,position in the society? When did things change for you and why? (Loss of job, loss ofhealth, etc.)

* Do you think that poverty (permanent or new) is typical for people of your age,education, social, ethnic, and gender background?

* Could you please describe the causes or reasons of such changes for you (falling intopoverty or falling into deeper poverty; becoming vulnerable or more vulnerable)?

* Who helps or supports you? Your family/friends/other? How do other people like youcope with such challenges? What kind of support systems do you know or are engagedin? Are you member of any groups (formal and informal, based on traditional familyconnections)?

The qualitative survey was carried out in the third week of November 2003, when the weatherwas bad with severe cold. Most vulnerable people reported that access to water and sanitationwas a minor issue compared to their level of absolute poverty. Many people could not afford tobuy coal and firewood to protect them from the severe cold. Some could afford food only oncea day. Healthcare has been a casualty. Those who had income, such as pensioners or theemployed, complained of inadequate income in the face of rising prices and large family size.

The results of the survey show that most people became poor since the time of economictransition of the country in the early 1990s. These are discussed below according to therespective study group's perception.

Study Group 1: The Unemployed: Six males, four females. Age group 20 to 52. Averageeducation secondary schooling. The members of this group became very poor and vulnerableapproximately four to seven years ago. They blamed the bad economy of the country since thetransition of the country's economy for their state of unemployment, but they also believed thattheir lack of adequate or appropriate education as well as social background and in the case ofthe female members, gender, were responsible for their difficulty in finding employment. Someof them also blamed bad health for their unemployment. They did not have the money orcollateral for starting a business of their own. They are not members of any group. Some ofthem receive help from their friends and relatives. While many of them never heard of any aidorganisations, some of them mentioned receiving help from the World Vision and Red Cross.

Study Group 2: Women-headed households: Ten females, age group 39 to 48, six areemployed in positions varying from servant to driver, accountant and interior decorator.Average education is secondary schooling; one has a university degree. Like Study Group 1,this group too blamed the economic transition of the country for their very poor condition, whichwas aggravated in some cases by husbands' death or their own ill health, large family, loss oflivestock, inadequate education and training, rising prices, and their increasing years. They arenot members of any community groups. The wintertime is a difficult period and a few of themmentioned of receiving coal and firewood from the khoroo. Some of them mentioned ofreceiving help from the World Vision, Red Cross and other NGOs, while some others havereceived help from their relatives and friends.

Study Group 3: Single male headed households: Ten males, age group 38 to 76. Averageeducation is secondary schooling; one has a university degree and one person is uneducated.Seven of them are employed ranging from watchman and herdsman to economist. Two arepensioners and one is unemployed. This group too blamed the economic transition of thecountry as generally responsible for their vulnerable condition. Some in this group of men havebeen unemployed for the past 4-7 years. Specific reasons for their being poor or vulnerable,apart from being unemployed, are losing animals in the dzud of 2000, being disabled,



inadequate education and training, old age, and poor health, all of which contributed to theirearning less income or no income at all. A few of them reported that as a result, they turneddrunkards in hopelessness and their wives left them. These people are not members of anycommunity group and they have no knowledge of how other people in similar conditions copewith the situation. Some of them have got help from relatives and friends and from the WorldVision and Red Cross, while some others from the Korean Care Centre. A homeless personhad this to say:

"I am without a ger; I live in other people's ger. My ger got burnt. I did not receive any help orassistance. I requested for a ger from the khoroo administration, but they refused because Iwas late for registration of homeless households."

Study Group 4: The Elderly: Five males, five females; age group 52 to 76. Average educationis less than secondary schooling, although one person has a university degree. Seven of thesepeople are retired. All these people live with their families or extended families. A few of themare widows or widowers. These persons blamed the economic transition of the country and the"bad policies" adopted by the government as the reason for their vulnerability, which has led tothe devaluation of the currency and the rising prices. Some of them complained of earning lessincome due to retirement pension and that old age prevented them from seeking newemployment. Some other reasons of poverty was having an invalid child who required medicalcare and attention that prevented the parents from running a small business.

These people are not members of any community groups, although some of them have reportedknowing that the World Vision has constructed a public toilet in their neighbourhood anddistributed medicines and clothes to the poor people. Some of these persons receive help fromtheir expatriate sons, while others get help from their family members. The khoroo helps someof these people with coal and firewood. A Christian church also helps the community. This iswhat some elderly people have to say about their children:

"Our children help us a lot with milk and other basic groceries and commodities. Children havethe willingness to support us, but their own income is so low that they cannot always help us."

Study Group 5: Young couples with children: Five males, five females; age group 21 to 32.Average education is secondary schooling; three have professional training centre diploma.Only five of these couples are employed and their employment varies from being a worker in atextile factory to running a kiosk. Similar to the other group, this group too blamed the economictransition of the country for their bad conditions. One of these persons used to own anapartment which he sold for business capital, but his business failed and he became bankrupt.Most of these people complained of inadequate income. Others without employment depend ontheir relatives and some of them reported that this state has impacted their mental health. Theyconsidered their inadequate education and training responsible for their not finding employment.They thought society should be responsible for their worsening situation due to the economictransition.

These people are not members of any community group. They get help from relatives andfriends and live on their charity. They have also reported of their knowledge of the World Vision,Care Centre and NLM Centre helping the community, especially the women-headed vulnerablehouseholds. Some of them have been beneficiaries of the distribution of coal and firewood bythe khoroo.

Study Group 6: Single youths/students: Seven males, three females; age group 19 to 37.This group comprises six students and four unemployed persons. Average education level is



secondary schooling; four students are going to the university. These people have stated thatthey are poor because they are students or unemployed. Students work part-time tosupplement their education costs. Young people of working age reported living on theirmothers' or grandmothers' or other relatives' pension. It is said that the dormitories wheresingle youths and students live used to have heating and hot and cold water running from thetaps, but transition of the economy and privatization of services have changed the situation.Some students mentioned that their mothers could not find a job to support their respectivefamilies because the job requirements are always restricted by age, gender and height of thejob seeker. In the language of an unemployed woman in this group which is representative, "Ina market economy age, gender, or being tall and beautiful are the requirements for securing ajob."

These single youths and students are not members of any community groups. Some of themhave received help from relatives but admit that the latter's own conditions are bad. Othershave reported getting help from the World Vision, Red Cross and other NGOs.

Study Group 7: Vulnerable groups: Six males, six females; age group 12 to 74. Averageeducation level is secondary schooling. In this group there are three unemployed persons, onepensioner and two registered disabled persons. Others work in lowly paid jobs, such as makingshoes or working as a watchman. Similar to the other groups, this group too blamed theeconomic transition of the country, "bad policies" of the government and the rising prices fortheir vulnerability. Other reasons cited are small pension amount and large families. Increasingyears and inadequate education and training have been restricting forces for some people.They mentioned that during the socialist era, at least nobody went hungry. Now some of themdo not even have money to buy water. The source of money of these people is seasonalincome, especially in the summer months. Winter brings miseries to them with no money to buycoal and firewood.

These people are not members of any community groups and they have no knowledge of howother people in similar conditions cope with the challenges. Some of them have reportedreceiving help from the World Vision and other NGOs.

This brief discussion of the perceptions of the given study groups or stakeholders show thatthere is little difference in their poverty situation or their perception of their poverty. The majorreasons for poverty, as learnt from these perceptions, are thus summarised as follows, whichcorroborate recent studies on the poverty situation in Mongolia.

a) Being unemployed.b) Rising prices, including cost of education, health care and transportation.c) Bad economy since the transition. Many employers became bankrupt and employees

lost jobs.d) Bad health, including being disabled, leading to loss of jobs accounted for a sizeable

number and increased expenses for health care.e) Spouse's death, leading to less income, which does not sustain family expenses.f) Gender based discrimination in offering jobs.

2.7.4 Gender and Poverty

Women are more likely to be poor if they are heads of households. Poverty is disproportionatelyfemale in the urban context of Ulaanbaatar. The qualitative survey in the ger areas show thatold age of the female heads of households compounds their poverty.



The qualitative survey shows, the major issue facing poor women in Ulaanbaatar is access towork. Access to work has been limited by lack of appropriate or adequate education andtraining, and poor health in some cases. There are also indications that there is a sharp genderdisparity in earnings with women earning less than their male counterparts. While grandparentsor other non-working household members often share rearing and family care duties, the socialsupport services that help to ensure women's active participation have been drastically reducedsince 1990 due to non-availability of funds or privatisation.

Almost all the respondents for the qualitative survey reported that they do not have anytraditional based social support system. Nevertheless, some people have mentioned gettinghelp from the emerging NGO sector, most notably the World Vision and Red Cross.

2.7.5 Environment and Poverty

A large proportion of the population in ger areas is poor or extremely poor, according to theMongolian national poverty line and as revealed by the Consultants' household survey andqualitative survey. Improvement of social and physical environmental conditions and reductionof poverty for the communities in the ger areas are interrelated and strongly linked with theimprovement of the living conditions of the local community. Such communities arecharacterized by the widespread use of child labour, alcoholism, exposure to natural disasters,food insecurity, and high costs of health and hygiene associated with marginal water uses.

As will be seen from the tabulation of the qualitative survey input, the poor people cannot affordthe cost of a bath and laundry. The earlier practice of bathing and doing laundry in relative'sapartment is coming to a stop, as apartment residents are having to pay for water according totheir water use metres. People have reported wearing dirty clothes, as they cannot afford to dolaundry. Moreover, It is reported that toilets are rarely sanitised, as the poor people cannotafford the cost. The situation goes out of control during the summer months with smells.



3 STAKEHOLDER AND INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS

3.1 CLASSIFICATION OF -STAKEHOLDERS

Stakeholder analysis typically classifies stakeholders or all those who have an interest in theproject, into three categories:

* Primary stakeholders who are directly or indirectly affected by a project, such as theproject beneficiaries and not least of all, the people who are likely to be adverselyaffected by a project, such as being displaced by the road improvement component ofthe project.

* Secondary stakeholders are those who are involved in the delivery of the projectoutputs, such as the Government (GOM), the implementing agency (MUB), theexecuting agency (e.g., contractors), the funding agencies, the NGOs etc.

* External stakeholders are those who are "outside" the ambit of the project activities, butwho can influence the outcome of the project, such as the media, politicians, religiousleaders and other opinion leaders.

This project has identified seven groups of people ("study groups") as the primary stakeholders,as described in Chapter 1. In addition, there is one group of secondary stakeholders, who areofficials. Except the Study Group 8, Officials, all others are poor or very poor. The socialcharacteristics of the stakeholders are tabulated below:

Table 3.1: Stakeholder Social Characteristics

Gender Ethnicity Education Employment Dist. to WaterStudy Group Age Group G F (Khalkh (Average) Status ) and Sanitation

M F ~~%) (Average)

1 The Unemployed 20 - 52 6 4 100% Secondary 0% 2 km2 Woman Headed 39 - 48 - 10 90% Secondary 70% 500 m

Households

3 Single MaleHeaded 38 - 76 10 - 100% Secondary 80% 400 mHouseholds

4 The Elderly 52 - 76 5 5 60% Secondary 0% 400 m5 Young Couples 21 - 32 7 7 90% Secondary 50% 1.5 km

with Children

6 Single 19 - 37 7 3 100% Secondary 0% 800 m

7 Vulnerable 12 - 74 6 6 80% Secondary 40% 1.9 kmGroups

8 Officials 36 - 57 3 7 University 100%

The interviewed officials included four khoroo leaders, one kheseg leader, four social workers,and one specialist of the Department of Infrastructure and Environment, attached to a-districtgovernor's office. Seven of these officials were females and three of them had a universitydegree. Other institutional stakeholders include NGOs, most notably the World Vision and theRed Cross, as mentioned by the poverty groups working in their community. Moreover, early inthe inception stage of the project in August, the Consultants had carried out discussions withNGOs and CBOs in Tolgoit ger area (since dropped).



In addition to the qualitative survey that included officials and community leaders, theConsultants had carried out in September-October 2003 discussions with khoroo leaders in theproject ger areas. The discussions centred on such project issues as drainage, water supply,bathhouses, and roads. The concerns of these community leaders are included in this chapter.

3.2 SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS

In the case of Mongolia in general and Ulaanbaatar in particular, religious or ethnic institutionsdo not count much or at all. In recent years, the civil society organisations have been activelyinvolved in shaping social life in Ulaanbaatar.

The qualitative survey carried out showed an amazing cohesion of the perception of threat bythe poor and the vulnerable "study groups." The country's economic transition has beenperceived as the main culprit for their present social condition. As their relations and friends allbelong to the same level, they either fend for themselves or go hungry. It appears that thetraditional community organisations (Khesegs) have been losing their legitimacy in the urbanpoverty environment of Ulaanbaatar. However, many respondents praised the activities of theNGOs that have been working in the ger areas.

3.3 CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION

Civil society in Mongolia is characterised by a vibrant NGO sector, currently comprising morethan 1700 registered NGOs, involved in participatory policy making processes, training andservice delivery. However, despite the success of the law on NGOs, it has also resulted indisempowerment for rural communities due to the insurmountable obstacle of requiringregistration in Ulaanbaatar. Most NGOs are, therefore, located in the capital.

The following NGOs and/or CBOs, and a political party were listed by different respondents asbeing active in their respective areas:

* Activities from Vatican Church* Humanity Fund of France* Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party (76th Unit)* Mongolian Socialist Woman's Committee* Mongolian Woman's Federation* Oyuntulkhuur Fund* Pensioner's Committee* Red Cross* World Vision* Young-Sei Hospital

Most people who listed these names knew the functions of these organizations, such as, theWorld Vision concentrates on the vulnerable sections of the community, while some others hadonly heard of the names of some NGOs. Most were appreciative of their activities, such asproviding gers and pre-fabricated walls for the homeless, providing clothes to children, providingincome generation training, providing healthcare, etc.

3.4 STAKEHOLDER CONCERNS

NGO/CBO Concerns



As indicated before, the Consultants had carried out three consultatidns with NGOs and CBOsin Tolgoit ger areas, which included World Vision, Tolgoit Community Organization (CBO), andthe Tolgoit Ger Area Cultural Center. These NGOs and CBOs were aware of the UBSIP-1 andmentioned that the community is pro-active in development activities and is keen to contributesuggestions. The older residents in particular have a useful contribution to make, such as inselecting the best locations for kiosks. The concerns discussed by the NGOs/CBOs include thefollowing:

The first issue is that there is only one bathhouse in the area. It is difficult for residents to havea bath even once a week, and many use baths in friends' or families' apartments. The secondbathhouse is now under construction. WV did propose to build a bathhouse at an estimated costof US$ 45,000/-, but abandoned the idea due to ownership issues. The Government finds itloss-making to manage bathhouses. However recent attempts at integrating bathhouses withactivities like sauna, beauty salons and billiards might make bathhouse management financiallyfeasible. One of the Christian Churches is constructing a Community Center with a bathhouseand it might set a good example on how NGOs could manage bathhouses in a financially viablemanner. The taxes paid by public should be made available, through CBO or directly, to runbathhouses in ger areas.

Most people would not like to move from the place where they are living now because theyhave lived there for many years. Some expressed a different opinion and said they would leavethe ger area if a better alternative were provided. Even if they build a house in their plot, mostwould still like to keep the traditional ger. Some said this was because they are warm in winter,some said because they are cool in summer. It was also stated that gers use less electricitythan houses. Gets are preferred especially amongst older residents for socio-economicreasons.

When a new family comes to settle in a ger area it usually settles first, and then registers withthe Land Management Agency (LMA). The LMAs check the land and if it is suitable forsettlement the registration will be completed.

During land privatization, households receive certificates of ownership and the certificatesspecify that all members of a household own the land jointly. The certificate only providespermission to settle in the place for 15-20 years. Land privatization is in the preparation phasenow and households have started to apply for certificates. Households must pay a certificationfee, which is 10% of the property value. The land ownership provides better security forhouseholds.

A couple of years ago WV conducted a household survey and they found out that most peoplewould like to run their own business if small loans were available. Access to loans isapparently limited if households do not have property to use as loan guarantees. WV alsoorganized training for the community workers on how residents could obtain loans withoutguarantees, and the community workers will transfer this knowledge to the people.

Concerns of the Officials and Community Leaders

The officials and community leaders included khoroo and kheseg leaders and officials of theDepartment of Infrastructure and Environment.

With regard to Bayankhoshuu ger area, the officials' concerns include new water kiosks inkhoroo 5,7,8 and 11; bathhouse in khoroo 5; drainage seriously being affected by solid waste.



The leaders also mentioned that many households are up the hillsides that are difficult forservice, and are not being privatised.

The concerns of the officials and leaders in Chingeltei ger area relater to the need for a well andnew kiosks in khoroo 17 (highland). Khoroo 18 already has 12 kiosks and 2 more are underconstruction; residents have demanded one more kiosk, but the USAG has declined the requestbecause as per the existing policy, there could be one kiosk per 500 households. There is aneed for a bathhouse in khoroo 18; it was suggested that the previous khoroo office is lyingvacant, which could be used for a bathhouse. With regard to road, there is a need for improvedsecondary access roads in khoroo 17 and widening required of the main road through the gerarea in khoroo 18.

The officials and leaders in Dambadarjaa ger area expressed concern for connecting the wellsby pipes and new kiosks in khoroo 16. A bathhouse is also required in khoroo 16 along withother services, such as hairdresser. In the same khoroo road improvement is mentioned as thenumber one priority. As regards solid waste disposal, they expressed concern that nothing wasbeing done. The khoroo leader mentioned that this was the third time that he was asked abouthis concerns. The last two times some Japanese officials asked him so. He is sceptical ifanything will really happen this time.

The khoroo leader of Dari-Ekh ger area mentioned drainage as the number one priority. Thereare 43 gullies in the khoroo. Four large gullies cause major problems. When it rains water fromthe mountainsides flows over the main road and debris is left on the road. This also damagesthe road and the adjacent households. Water supply is the second priority in this khoroo. Atpresent there are only 6 kiosks, supplied by trucks and the khoroo leader would like to haveinstalled two more urgently. The biggest problem is for the households west of the road.Children collect water by crossing and risking the very busy road. The bathhouse is a silentissue; apparently the World Vision has determined that it is not financially viable.

According to the khoroo leader of Naran ger area, solid waste disposal is the main problem.There is only one truck for the purpose for 6000 households. He would like to see green spacesin his khoroo. He does not think that water supply is a problem at the moment. There areseven kiosks and there is piped supply to the apartments in the southern part of the khoroo.Presently, three bathhouses are being constructed.

The khoroo leader of Uliastai ger area mentioned that drainage is the major concern in hiskhoroo. Flooding from the Uliastai Gol is a problem in the north-western corner of the gerarea.The District has proposed to relocate 120 households who are presently located adjacent to theriver in this area. Water supply is the second priority, although presently there are 12 kiosks.Five are supplied by trucks and others get water from wells. Three new kiosks are underconstruction. Bathhouse is another priority in this ger area.

Concerns of the Proiect Study Groups

As indicated before, there is a similarity of the concerns of all the study groups with regard towater and sanitation, as they all belong to the poor and vulnerable groups. This is more sobecause the water and sanitatibn utilities do not respond to the customers' demand. Theconcerns of the stakeholders related to water and sanitation in the study ger areas are thefollowing, discussed according to the respective study group's perception.

Study Group 1: The Unemployed: The members of this group are concerned that the waterkiosks are located at long distances, which affects children's studies. Moreover, due to



inadequate water supply there is always a long line to get water. Thus, productive time is lost.The sanitation condition is bad, which affects the individual and community health.

Study Group 2: Women-headed households: The members of this group are concerned thatthe long queues at the water kiosk takes away their productive time. Moreover, the kiosks arelocated at difficult locations and due to slippery roads, it becomes difficult to reach them. Thebathhouses are costly and they have infrequent baths. Some of them are so poor that theycannot buy water, melt ice instead. Presently the solid waste disposal is costly.

Study Group 3: Single male headed households: This group is concerned that water tankersoften do not arrive and people tend to waste their time at the kiosks. Moreover, the kioskoperation is irregular, in addition to inadequate water supply. When water is sold out, the kioskis shut down instead of ordering for a new truck of water. Bathhouse required.

Study Group 4: The Elderly: This group is concerned for the poor toilet and sanitationconditions. Moreover, the difficult location of and long queues at the kiosks make their livesmniserable. They would like to see solid waste disposal bins in their neighbourhoods, whichshould be cleared regularly. They would also like to see affordable bathhouses and betteraccess roads in their ger area.

Study Group 5: Young couples with children: The concerns of this group centres arounddifficult location of kiosks, time lost for fetching water, absence of bathhouses and sanitationfacilities, and non-disposal of solid waste disposal. They also complained of inadequate watersupply and too much chlorine in water.

Study Group 6: Single youths/students: This group is concerned about the waste of time forfetching water from long distance kiosks, where there is always a long queue. The problem iscomplicated by inadequate supply of water and the kiosks remaining closed for two days aweek. People do not have enough storage facility, so this causes them much hardship. Amajor problem regarding sanitation is that there is only one public toilet for 170 households inkhoroo No. 10. Other issues include absence of bathhouses and lack of solid waste collection,although fees are collected.

Study Group 7: Vulnerable groups: The major concern of the disabled people in this group isfetching water from the kiosks, which have long queues. It becomes difficult to access the waterkiosks in winter. Due to poverty their water needs are limited, but they would like to see bettersanitation conditions in their ger area.

To summarise and consolidate, the following are the major poverty-group stakeholder concerns.

* Long queue and time at water kiosks* Difficult location of kiosks* Water is costly, people do not have money to buy enough water* Water supply is inadequate, which gets sold out quickly and reorder is not placed* Irregular water supply and kiosk operation* Injuries to children who fetch water due to icy slippery roads* Too much chlorine in water* Children have little time for study due to water fetching* There are no bathhouses or affordable bathhouses* Poor sanitation condition and no waste disposal, leading to health and environmental

hazards.



While Study Groups 1-7 are unanimous in their opinion regarding the service standards of thewater and sanitation, the officials' group hold different views. The vulnerable people are allpoor; approximately 50% are unemployed with average secondary school education. They feelthat they are not getting the services worth the money they are paying. The officials believe thatthe service levels are adequate, but the poor people cannot avail of these because of their lackof access to cash income. The only area of agreement between the Study Groups 1-7 and theofficials and khoroo leaders is that they all believe there has been tremendous pressure on theservices due to increasing population in the ger areas in the last five years. This explains thelong queues for the water fetching. Moreover, many newcomers to the city are unregisteredcitizens, as a result of which they live far away, sometimes even on hilltops. According to citynorms, services are not provided in an area where the household density is less than 250(according to some this number is 500). Therefore, people in the far away area do not getadequate services.

Most kiosks do not have adequate water storage facilities. Hence, when water is available, itgets finished very quickly, leading to much inconvenience and unhappiness among the people.The situation becomes worse in winter, when water trucks cannot access the kiosks in thedifficult areas due to icy roads.

It is also said, for example, that in the pre-1990 period, dormitories had heating and running hotand cold water taps, but these facilities have been stopped now due to privatisation of theeconomy, as a result of which poor and unemployed people are having to pay for the services.

Regarding sanitation, it is said that when a public toilet is erected, whether wooden or brickmade, the people are so poor that they tend to remove the structure and only the hole remains.The community participation component of the project should be able to make people aware ofthe importance of sanitation, so that stealing of public toilet parts stops.

3.5 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

Effective participation includes participation of beneficiaries in project design andimplementation as well as participation in the opportunities created by the project. To this end,the Consultants liaised with the communities, convened community meetings and collected datafor the social assessment. The following sub-sections describe the activities undertaken for thecommunity participation.

3.5.1 Community Consultations on Water Kiosks

The Consultants decided that it was important to organise consultations on the location ofkiosks as a first step in ensuring that community views were taken account of in the projectdesign. The consultation process was seen to serve three important purposes:

iv. It would allow real account to be taken of people's views in an issue of crucialimportance to them;

v. It would provide evidence to the communities involved of the project's genuine intentionto include them in decision-making in the project;

vi. It would allay a perceived sense of increasing "consultation fatigue," especially amongkhoroo leaders, that had been detected by the Consultants.

Access to the community was made with the assistance of several agencies: UNICEF,Mongolian Association of Local Authorities (MALA) and the Mongolian Women's Federation(MWF). UNICEF, which has developed an innovative community based approach to health andsanitation awareness raising has been working in khoroos 9 and 10 of Naran ger area (part of



the UBSIP-2) and they arranged for the Consultants to meet with the family cluster groupsestablished through their programme in those khoroos.

The MWF arranged for two community groups in Dambardarjaa ger area for the meetings. Alengthy meeting was held with MALA at their headquarters and the project was explained tothem. Their assistance was requested to identify potential water kiosk points that matched thewishes of the community members. This was agreed to with considerable enthusiasm andMALA arranged meetings in the 12 other khoroos through its representatives, some of whowere khoroo leaders themselves. The variety of agencies used to establish contact withcommunities allowed the Consultants to assess the different approaches of each agencyinvolved and compare the differences. A journalist from Central Radio, a Mongolian radiostation, accompanied the Consultants to one of the community meetings and recorded part ofthe consultations and interviewed participants. This was seen as another means for informingthe community about the project at the early stages.

Community groups formed for this purpose were each provided with a large scale Al sizecontour map, which showed all registered khashaas (fence), existing kiosks and the proposednew pipeline. This allowed individuals to identify their own residences and consider new kiosksin relation to their households and access paths. In addition to the maps, simple instructionswere included in Mongolian to assist those MALA representatives in facilitating the meetings.They were also given blank formats for listing the names of participants and whether they weremale or female.

Each discussion began with an explanation of the project and why their assistance was beingsought. It was emphasised that the project considered their views with considerable importanceand that they were to decide on kiosk points on the basis of need, not on any technicalconsiderations. It would then be the responsibility of the engineers on the project team to try tomake their selected locations work. Two main constraints were specified in selecting kiosks.Firstly, there was to be one kiosk for every 250 households and no person should have to walkmore than 300 metres to get to a kiosk.12

3.5.2 Rationale for Including Community Involvement and Public AwarenessDuring the inception phase of the project the Consultants assessed the design and outcomes ofthe UBSIP-1 and held discussions with members of communities involved. Many communityresidents said that they were not aware of the project until construction teams arrived in their

12 Since community discussions were held, these criteria have been reduced to increase the number of kiosks in theproject areas.



khoroo. The community members expressed a clear wish to be involved in the project and to bepart of decisions made about their lives. Community involvement and participation from an earlystage of project preparation was, therefore, considered vital to ensure that community prioritieswere ascertained and included in the design where engineering, geological and financialconsiderations permitted. In addition, it was considered that community participation would becrucial in developing an understanding of the current social and environmental imperatives forUBSIP-2 as well as to facilitate community awareness and acceptance of the project.

Community participation was an essential component of the feasibility study. In late Septemberand early October 2003, meetings were held with khoroo leaders to introduce the project anddiscuss issues related to existing conditions and problems in the ger areas, as well as issuesarising from UBSIP-1. In the third and fourth weeks of October, over 300 residents of gerareaswere involved in consultation processes about the location of kiosks. Approximately 51% ofthose consulted were women. Large-scale contour maps showing the location of khashaas,existing water kiosks and proposed new pipelines, were provided to each khoroo. Meetings ofger area residents were arranged using community facilitators through several agencies todiscuss the project and to consider together the best location for new kiosks in each khoroo.Agreed locations were marked on the maps and then passed to the engineering team for theirtechnical appraisal.

The UBSIP-2 project requires a communications component aimed at:

* Facilitating consultation and participation with local communities in order to ensure thatthe communities' views and priorities are taken into account in project design andimplementation, that they are an active part of the project and can influence projectdirection.

* Facilitating support for and understanding of the project.

* Increasing awareness of health, hygiene and environmental problems related to poorwater, sanitation and solid waste management services among project beneficiaries.13

* Ensuring consistent information flow both within the project and between the project andthe outside world.

The communications strategy will need to be an integral part of the community participationframework designed for UBSIP-2. For example, it is difficult for people to participate in decisionmaking about the project if they have little understanding of it. There needs to be a unifiedapproach to project communications so that all components work together and support thecontributions of other components. It is also important that the communications strategy issustainable and contributes to capacity building within the Mongolian Government.

3.5.3 Existing Community Activities in Ulaanbaatar

A Communications Needs Assessment was carried out for the project in June 2002 by theWorld Bank. It considered national and local government agencies, NGOs and the media inorder to understand the existing institutional arrangements for communications in Mongolia andto assess their potential role in the project. The Needs Assessment identified several

3 Information from agencies working in the health and sanitation sphere such as the UNICEF, SCF and World

Vision, suggests that there is limited knowledge concerning hygiene and sanitation issues in the ger areas. This is

supported by the high incidence of sanitation related diseases reported in national statistics.



organisations that have the potential to carry out various components of research andcommunications activities for UBSIP-2.14

The Consultants carried out a review of other organisations' activities in communitydevelopment in Ulaanbaatar, particularly in the ger areas, in October 2003. This review wasundertaken to take advantage of and build on other organisations' experience to ascertain areasof overlap between UBSIP-2 and others' activities, and to determine any possibilities of jointendeavour.

The community and communications activities of the following agencies were reviewed. Somehad been considered in the Communications Needs Assessment and were revisited by theConsultants together with some additional agencies: GER Initiatives (USAID/USDA); SorosFoundation; UNICEF; UNDP; SCF-UK; Mongolian Women's Federation; Mongolian Associationof Local Authorities (MALA); Sustainable Livelihoods Project; JICA; World Vision, local media;ADRA. Findings are summarised below.

The ADB project on the Housing Area Action Plan has not formed any CBOs in Ulaanbaatar sothere is no potential for UBSIP-2 to use the same CBOs for community consultation purposes.However there is potential for replicating the model of forming CBOs to run and maintaincommunity facilities in UBSI P-2.

GER Initiatives: USAID and USDA's Growing Entrepreneurship Rapidly (GER) Initiativesupports and promotes local entrepreneurship in some of the ger areas of Ulaanbaatar. TheGER Initiative will run for 36 months from August 2002 to August 2005. There could be usefulcollaboration with the agency for identifying companies for the construction of VIP latrines in theproposed sanitation project for the grant component of the UBSIP-2.

Soros Foundation: The Soros Foundation established the Mongolian Foundation for OpenSociety in 1996. There is some potential to work with the Foundation on its informationprogrammes for sanitation.

UNICEF: the UNICEF's Convergent Basic Social Services programme which works through aparticipatory educational approach called "Making My Ger Blue" operates in ger areas from thelevel of the family upwards to Khoroo level using a family empowerment strategy, to promoteimproved sanitation and health. Early indications are that the programme is extremelysuccessful both in raising awareness of health and sanitation issues and creating demand forbetter sanitation facilities, namely improved latrines.

UNDP: UNDP is in the preparatory stage of its Urban Poverty Programme (UPP) for 2003onwards. The urban poverty project will aim at piloting alternative ways of improving the livingconditions for households living in poverty and extreme poverty in the ger areas of Ulaanbaatar.It will promote community development at Khoroo level and will target poverty alleviation amongfamilies in poverty and extreme poverty. Participatory needs assessment and joint problemsolving will be developed at community level through the programme.

4 They include the Mongolian Academy of Science's Institute of Sociology and the University of Ulaanbaatar's SocialScience school, which are both capable of producing quality baseline surveys and monitoring progress of acommunications programme. Involvement of these institutions could be considered for baseline survey ofawareness levels and for M&E work to measure change in awareness and demand for improved sanitation durngthe UBSIP-2 implementation.



SCF-UK: the SCF-UK is engaged in a range of specific project interventions with schooldropouts, social work education, preschool education, working children, street children and childprotection and safety. Their work focuses on institutional strengthening as well as some specificservice provision to vulnerable children and families.

Mongolian Women's Federation: Its main goal is to protect women's basic rights andinterests. The MWF has member organisations inside the ger areas where UBSIP-2 will beimplemented and they would be useful contacts for organising community consultationespecially, but not exclusively, for women's viewpoints.

MALA: The Mongolian Association of Local Authorities (MALA) is an NGO that hasrepresentatives of all local authorities in Mongolia down to the Khoroo level. The network can beused for consultative purposes and for informing the public about the project.

Sustainable Livelihoods Project: The Government of Mongolia approved in 2002 the NationalHouseholds Livelihoods Capacity Support Program, a 12-year undertaking that is aimed atreducing poverty among poor households and preventing non-poor households falling intopoverty.

World Vision: World Vision (WV) has a community development programme in the ger areas ofUlaanbaatar, which include four of the ger areas of the UBSIP-2. Its activities include skillsdevelopment including improving quality in building techniques, (such as mixing concrete,carpentry) and other skills such as gardening.

ADRA: ADRA focuses on community development covering a range of areas. Their activitiesinclude a micro enterprise programme. ADRA has had considerable success in developinggroup mechanisms in the ger areas. It has learned from experience the most appropriate waysto operate in Mongolia. It frequently works with existing Mongolian social workers in health andother education programmes.

There is potential for UBSIP-2 to work with ADRA on a similar micro finance activity forenterprise development (e.g., privatisation of kiosks) and for financing household construction ofimproved latrines.

The most suitable potential partners from the above list for participation and communicationsactivities in UBSIP-2 are summarised in the following table with likely positive and negativeaspects of each. It includes the possibility of forming community groups specifically for theUBSIP-2.

Table 3.2: Potential Partners for Community Participation and Public Awareness

Organisation Positive aspects Negative aspects

UBSIP2-specific Groups will be focused solely on There are many existing communitygroups formed for UBSIP2 groups and adding another maythe project create group-fatigue in the

community; doesn't build on existingnetworks and experience.

World Vision Have existing groups in some ger Groups are formed specifically forareas; do some small amounts of micro-finance and not so much forhealth and sanitation education; do education; question of sustainabilityskills development training. once their programme ends.

Mongolian Women's Already exist in each khoroo; are Don't necessarily get the views and



Federation efficient and effective; can by-pass participation of men; question ofkhoroo leaders sustainability

UNICEF's Structure and means for organising Not in all ger areas of UBSIP2;Convergent Basic the programme for UBSIP2 already possibility of capture by khorooServices programme established in the government; leaders

review of impacts are positive

UNDP Urban Will use community Self Help Not yet established; UNDP isPoverty Programme groups. Approach tried currently in project preparation

successfully in other transition stage. May be some time beforeeconomies such as Kyrgyzstan groups get underway. Untested in

Mongolia.

ADRA Have tried different approaches to At present they operate mostly informing groups and have evolved rural areas (but are willing to applyappropriate mechanisms; Have their existing models to UB).had considerable success workingdirectly with communities throughsocial workers rather than khorooleaders; Have an established andsuccessful micro-financeprogramme using a commercialbank and targeting those withoutcollateral.

National media, Suitable for public awareness Will need to be contractedradio, television and aspects of the project. Have a wide separately for specific inputs.newspaper audience in ger areas where

ownership of radios and TVs ishigh as is readership. Useful tocomplement community-basededucation/awareness componentsand communicating progress to thewider community

3.5.4 Recommended Community Development and Awareness Strategy

The following proposed strategy has been based on the experience of other donors andagencies, both international and national, working in community development in Ulaanbaatar, aswell as on the feedback received from the potentially affected people through the qualitativesurvey carried out for the project. It is considered by the Consultants that UBSIP-2 wouldbenefit by working alongside agencies that are already working with communities in the gerareas rather than creating its own community structures to support the project. Not only wouldthis be more cost-effective, it would take advantage of proven approaches. It would also placefewer burdens on communities who are already involved in other projects, mitigating anyconsultation fatigue, which is beginning to become apparent in some khoroos. It would alsoreflect the World Bank's willingness to build co-operative relationships with other donors. TheConsultants have assessed the above agencies for their effectiveness and existing activities inthe ger areas and determined the most suitable approach for collaboration for communitydevelopment activities under the UBSIP-2.

The most logical partner for the community driven development mechanisms of UBSIP-2 wouldbe UNDP as it is the United Nations agency responsible for community development and has aproven record in participatory methods in other transition economies. However, the UNDP ispresently only in the preparatory stages of a community-based Urban Poverty Programme inMongolia. Given that the Programme is not yet underway, it is inopportune to recommend



overlapping or developing a partnership with UNDP for the UBSIP-2. It is possible that by thetime the UBSIP-2 project commences, the UNDP Urban Poverty Programme and its communityself-help groups will be well-established in communities and it may be necessary to revisit theappropriate agency for collaboration at that stage.

Instead, it is suggested that a cooperative relationship be developed with the UNICEF. TheUNICEF's capacity building within the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare and the NationalBoard for Children will allow their already successful approach developed under the ConvergentBasic Social Services Programme to be extended relatively easily from the two ger areas thatoverlap the UBSIP-2, to other ger areas in Ulaanbaatar. The Convergent Basic Social ServicesProgramme has focussed primarily on awareness raising and demand creation of improvedsanitation in the project ger areas using a training system called "Making My Ger Blue." Localinitiatives have developed out of this, such as the construction of a water kiosk, community-based monitoring of child growth and development (using community volunteers) andconstruction of a model sanitary toilet, all in khoroo 9 of Naran ger area under Bayangol District.The groups formed under this programme, the family clusters, would be used as focus points forother community-based project-related activity under the UBSIP-2, such as monitoring. It isenvisaged that UNICEF would oversee the process in cooperation with GOM.

The Consultants consider that because of its earlier work with the UNICEF, the Ministry ofHealth and Social Welfare be advised to lead the communications strategy in cooperation withUNICEF. The Ministry will also need to involve the media for specific activities to complementthe UNICEF inputs such as press releases, television programmes and articles in all media.Associated costs, which would be very small, could be covered from UBSIP-2. UNICEF hasalready developed the necessary materials. A formal agreement will need to be formulatedbetween the project and the UNICEF. The use of the same organisation for communityawareness and encouraging community participation in the UBSIP-2 would allow synergybetween the two activities. The UNICEF could be actively involved in ensuring quality of inputsand in reviewing progress. An agreement setting out the arrangements for any UNICEF/WorldBank collaboration will need to be developed.

In the event that the UNDP's Urban Poverty is underway by the time of project start-up and theirgroup strategy is considered a more useful focal point for community interactions, it is stillrecommended that the UNICEF's Convergent Basic Social Services approach to awarenessraising and demand creation is used. Other consultation processes could then be channelledthrough the UNDP self-help groups.

Several components are proposed in the community strategy and these are described morefully in the implementation arrangements of the project. The components are:

* Development of family clusters in accordance with the UNICEF's Convergent BasicSocial Services programme;

* Awareness raising and demand creation for improved sanitation through the UNICEFprogramme's community-based education methodology;

* Use of the same cluster groups and their representatives for community involvement inmonitoring and evaluation of UBSIP-2 implementation, and involvement in annual orsemi-annual community feedback workshops on project progress and process.



4 ASSESSMENT OF SOCIAL BENEFITS AND RISKS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses both the social development benefits and risks of the project, asobtained from the qualitative survey carried out in the project ger areas.

The social risks of any project can be broken down into three categories:

* Vulnerability risks including increased exposure or susceptibility, especially of thevulnerable and poor, to endemic risks or external shocks.

* Political economy risks are those that might affect the project's intended beneficiariesas an indirect result of the project. Undermining of goals and elite capture of benefits aregood examples of this type of risk.

* Institutional risks include inappropriate institutional arrangements, weak governance,complexity and low capacity.

The Consultants examined the social, poverty, and institutional risks related to the project. Onlythe categories of vulnerability risks and institutional risks could affect the project performance, ifnot appropriately planned.

4.2 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT BENEFITS

The project proposes to install a new water kiosk for every 200-250 households at a distance of250-300 metres from each other. The location selection will be carried out through communityconsultations, especially women as well as children who are mostly responsible for householdwater collection. Moreover, addition of new kiosks will reduce the distance and time taken forfetching water, thereby saving children's time for study and adult's time for utilizing in otheruseful activities. The proposal for piped water connection in four of the six gerareas will ensureregular, adequate and hygienic water supply - a demand made by all the study groups. Theseare the direct social development benefits of the project.

Other project components, viz., roads and drainage, and sanitation and bathhousescomplement the social development benefits. The improved roads will facilitate the water trucksto travel to hitherto unreachable areas in the ger areas to deliver water. The issue of unsafe icyroads in winter is outside the scope of this project, but it is presumed that the municipality wouldlook into this matter.

The community consultations and the household survey have brought out that the ger arearesidents are willing to share a small fraction of the costs of installing VIP latrines for thecommunity use. This will go a long way in ensuring a healthy environment in the gerareas.

As discussed in Section 3.3, the analysis of the outcome of the qualitative survey showed thatall the primary stakeholders are unanimous in their concerns; hence, no separate discussion ismade for each of the study groups for indicating the social development benefits. The followingpresentation shows a typical stakeholder group's perception of social development benefits fromthe project with regard to improved access to water and sanitation. The perceived projectbenefits are categorized as social benefits, economic benefits, environmental benefits, andhealth benefits, both for the community and the individual families. These category-wiseperceptions are not strictly mutually exclusive and are often crosscutting.

1. Social Benefits




1. Improvement in water supply would save time of the people and make a peacefulsocial environment;

2. With new kiosks and bathhouse closer home, the ger area people's waterconsumption will increase;

3. Everybody will make an effort to maintain the facilities that they own;

4. Comfortable, clean, neat neighbourhood to live in.

b) For the family

1. Families will be happier with more water at home;2. Water fetching time will be saved and children and students will be able to devote

more time to study;3. Will be able to get water everyday and use water whenever needed;

4. Clean surroundings;5. Better-designed toilets will improve the living standards by one step.

2. Economic Benefits


1. The improved water supply would save money and time that could be utilised inother meaningful activities;

2. Will help the general economic situation.

b) For the family.

1. To some extend it will positively impact the household's finance;

2. The cost of living will decrease if water is available closer at hand;

3. Save time and do other things in the gained time.

3. Environmental Benefits


1. Improved water supply and sanitation will effect a cleaner environment;

2. The terrible smell emanating from the toilets will be gone and pollution in the area willbe reduced.

b) For the family.

1. Improved water supply and sanitation will reduce pollution in the surrounding area;

2.- Saving the environment by not having to dig a latrine hole again and again.

4. Health Benefits


1. Drinking water quality will be ensured because of less contamination;

2. Use more quality secured water;

3. The streets and public spaces will be cleaner;

4. Water related infections will disappear or will be reduced;



5. Flu infections will be reduced, because people will not have to wait in queue for longtime anymore.

b) For the Family.

1. There will be enough water for cleaning and laundry;

2. Clean environment and improved water quality;

3. No infectious diseases related to water;

4. Other illnesses caused by cold weather will be reduced.

4.3 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT RISKS

The potential social development risks are associated with the project intervention. However,these risks are within control, given the community participation plan outlined in the previouschapter. One risk that cannot be totally controlled is the involuntary resettlement of the ger arearesidents due to the project intervention, especially with regard to the improvement of roads anddrainage. The project has already prepared a resettlement policy framework in line with theWorld Bank's safeguard policy OP 4.12 (Involuntary Resettlement), which includes appropriatemitigating measures for the people who may be displaced or otherwise negatively impacted bythe project intervention. A time-bound resettlement action plan will be prepared, once it isknown (due to the preliminary engineering design) who the affected people are, what they do fora livelihood, and what they lose due to the project.

The resettlement issue was part of the questionnaire, so they were briefed about it and theyunderstood it. The following presentation shows a typical study group response to the risks:

1. Resettlement will require money;2. The community was not informed about the project therefore don't understand the

project activities;3. Don't think there will be any disadvantages. The area has very poor water or

sanitation or lighting facilities. The project will only make the situation better.4. Don't see any disadvantages, but during implementation some unexpected risks

might appear, which should be resolved.

Apart from the resettlement issue, other risks mentioned by the people include the-possibility ofan increase in road traffic due to improvement in roads that is anticipated to causeinconvenience to the community.

The officials (Study Group 8), on the other hand, had some idea of the possible risks due to theUBSIP-1 and their response is as follows:

* The compensation of the resettlement should be indicated in the project and they shouldidentify the source of it.

* The resettlement issue is very sensitive issue in itself. If some households were to beaffected by the project, khoroo and district offices should compensate those householdsto collaborate with land management office.

* Resettlement issue is very difficult issue and we should be very careful on this issue.One of the examples from the previous project is in our khoroo 4 households wereaffected by the project of UBSIP-1 and they got compensation to resettle. But till nowthey haven't moved yet and we don't know how to build pressure on them. Therefore,when you implement your project you should consider this matter.



* I think we can solve resettlement problem through financial compensation. Peopleshould not lose anything if they are affected by the project.

* This is one of the difficult issues. In our district there is no land to give to the community.* Urban planning of Ulaanbaatar city is very bad and such resettlement problem will occur

every time. The project or government should compensate the affected households.

* The households who are affected by the project will not resettle themselves. Therefore,we should find a financial source to compensate them.

Apart from the risk of displacement and associated problem of loss of livelihoods, there aresome other risks related to environment and operation of the project, such as, high risks ofsurface and ground water contamination, which were pointed out by a few respondents. Theinterviewed people for the qualitative survey did not think of other risks that could be associatedwith the project.



5 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT MONITORING AND EVALUATION

5.1 INTRODUCTION

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) are management functions that should help in (a) greateraccountability, (b) a clearer basis for decision-making, and (c) more practical lessons fromexperience. M&E of social development are critical activities for following up a developmentproject's effectiveness during implementation. Monitoring is a continuing activity that aimsprimarily to provide project management and stakeholders with early indications of progress, orlack thereof, in the achievement of objectives.

As noted initially in this report, the social development objective of this project is to raise theliving standards in the ger areas of Ulaanbattar under the project by delivering sustainablehealth and hygiene benefits to the population through improvements is water supply andsanitation, and improving the capacity of the local community, the MUB, and nongovernmentalorganisations to undertake and sustain these efforts.

In this context, there are two broad activities to be monitored: first, the improvement in watersupply and sanitation and second, the improved capacity of the local communities and theconcerned agencies. The range of activities and issues that will have to be recorded andmonitored include:

* Reduction of time in fetching water as well as waiting time in line;* Increase in water intake;* Decrease in the number of water borne disease incidence;* Increase in the number of public toilets;* Increase in the number of baths taken by an individual per week;* Adequate water for laundry;* Land required for digging new pit latrines;* Increase in the number of new toilets.

All these activities are to be carried out through public consultations and participations. Thebroad category of outcome/impact indicator shall be used to monitor the project implementationwith regard to the social development objective of the project. The outcome/impact indicatorsrelate to overall project objectives.

5.2 MONITORING PROJECT OUTCOME/IMPACT INDICATORS

The progress of the project should be monitored against the objectives of the project, throughimpact performance indicators. Table 5.1 contains a list of suggested outcome/impactperformance indicators, obtained from the qualitative survey, which will be used as benchmarkto monitor project objectives.

Table 5.1: Impact Monitoring Indicators

Impact Indicator Examples of Variables

New water kiosks Better access to water;

Waiting time reduced;Children's study time increased;Increase in the number of baths taken per week;Water related diseases reduced.



Impact Indicator Examples of Variables

VIP latrine, bathhouse and laundry Better access to sanitation and laundry;Wearing clean clothes;Affordable bathhouse and increase in the number of baths taken

per week;Better sanitation leading to better health.

Changes to status of women Time saved due to better water availability being utilised in othermeaningful activities;

Changes to status of youths Time saved due to better water availability being utilised instudies;

Better education and training helping in securing a better job.Changes to status of children Water carrying home by children reduced;

Children's study time increased;Household Earning Capacity thEmployment status of economically active members due to

Househol EarningCapacitythe project implementation activities.

Housing structure replacement Suitable structures occupied by the displaced households.

The outcome/impact indicators are, in effect, parameters for measuring the qualitative impact ofthe project and how the project has changed the lives of the people qualitatively. Theseindicators are expected to provide information about whether the project objectives are beingachieved or not. A key objective of the project is to improve the quality of life of the urban poorin the informal settlement areas (ger areas) of Ulaanbaatar by providing basic urban servicesincluding water supply, sanitation, drainage, laundry and bathhouses, access roads andpathways in a sustainable manner.

5.3 PARTICIPATORY MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Participatory monitoring is a process in which the project recipients become actively involved inthe implementation and regular checking of the project progress or lack of it. Participatoryevaluation is the active collective assessment and examination of a project by all stakeholders,in which the project recipients become not just mere objects of evaluation but also agents ofevaluation. The qualitative survey showed that all the respondents are willing to participate inthe project implementation. Although they were divided in their opinions, both the Study Groups1-7 and the Study Group 8 believed that ordinary people could influence the projectimplementation.

5.4 M&E MECHANISMS

The MUB needs capacity augmentation with trained personnel to carry out internal monitoring ofthe social development aspects of the project. There should be a social developmentcoordinator, who will be responsible overall for monitoring of the progress of the socialcomponent. This project does not envisage any negative impact except minor resettlementneeds. On the other hand, there are many benefits which have been identified and which haveto be monitored.



6 REFERENCES

1 CIDA, Draft Area Upgrading Plan, Ulaanbaatar, 20022 Ethnic Minority Development Strategy, as part of the World Bank's Mongolia:

Sustainable Livelihood Project, December 20013 Economic Growth Support and Poverty Reduction Strategy, Govt of Mongolia,

Ulaanbaatar, July 20034 Mongolia Statistical Handbook 2002. Ulaanbaatar, National Statistical Office, 20035 Population and Housing Census: The Main Results. Ulaan Baatar, Mongolia

National Statistical Office, July 2001


(a) The ger area water supply component, to improve water supply in the ger areas ofBayankhoshuu, Chingeltei, Dambadarjaa, Dari-Ekh, Naran, and Uliastai.

(b) The city water supply component, to strengthen the primary network system in selectedareas, support water conservation and leakage control, and expand monitoring of water flows andwater quality.

(c) The energy efficiency improvement component, to replace selected obsolete high energyconsuming electrical equipment with energy efficient equipment.

(d) The institutional development and project management component, to support furtherimprovements in selected operational and commercial aspects of USAG, as well as the overallproject management of UBSIP2.

5. FinancingSource: ($m.)BORROWER/RECIPIENT 5.27INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION 18.00

Total 23.27

6. Implementation

Because of its previous experience with UBSIP, Government has directed MUB to beresponsible for overall project management, under the direction of the Project SteeringCommittee (PSC), and through the project management unit (PMU). The PMU will haveadequate appropriately qualified staff (including some from USAG and from those who workedon UBSIP). The PMU, which has developed adequate capacity through implementation ofUBSIP, will have its capacity further enhanced through: (a) training on Bank procedures,especially procurement, accounting and financial management, environment, and resettlement;and (b) technical assistance from international project management consultants.

Compared to UBSIP, USAG will have an expanded role in project implementation. In additionto being represented on the PSC and in the tender committees, USAG will work closely with thePMU in a supporting role. USAG's capacity on selected priority operational and commercialmatters (e.g., metering policy, house connection policy, communication strategy, etc.,) will beenhanced through institutional development technical assistance.

7. Sustainability

Government requested the project as a follow-on to UBSIP, and MUB has taken the lead role inproject preparation, with the active involvement of USAG, related Government agencies, andother key stakeholders, including the communities. Timely preparation of the feasibility study,the EIA, the EMP, the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF), and the Resettlement Action Plan(RAP), as well as their prompt internal reviews, further demonstrates Government commitmentto the project.

Financial viability of USAG is key to sustainability of project objectives, especially in view ofUSAG's failure to fully comply with the financial covenants of UBSIP relating to full costrecovery. The project design addresses this issue through: (a) least cost solutions for theinvestment program; (b) focusing on operational cost savings; (c) agreement on the financialobjectives of USAG; and (d) tariff related disbursement conditions. In addition, tariffadjustments for water are part of the actions required under the Policy Matrix of the PovertyReduction Strategy Credit (PRSC).

8. Lessons Learned from Past Operations in the Country/Sector

The project builds on the lessons learned from the implementation of UBSIP, in particular: (a)improved engineering designs, balancing the extent of protection against freezing in the extremeweather conditions against the additional cost; (b) choosing between connecting kiosks to thenetwork and supplying kiosks by truck, based on cost considerations; (c) better packaging ofcontracts, to avoid splitting work into many small contracts; and (d) more attention to sanitation,albeit through parallel financing. In addition, to ensure the financial sustainability of the USAG,the financial objectives for the project have been agreed with Government, MUB, and USAG,and the required tariff increases in 2004 and 2006 towards achieving these objectives have beenmade disbursement conditions.

The project design has also taken into account the experience of Central Asian countries of theformer Soviet Union in the water sector, in particular with private sector participation.

9. Safeguard Policies (including public consultation)

Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project Yes NoEnvironmental Assessment (P/BP/GP 4.01) [xI []Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) [] [x]Pest Management (OP 4.09) [] [x]Cultural Property (OPN 11.03, being revised as OP 4.11) [] [x]Involuntary Resettlement (P/BP 4.12) [x] []Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20, being revised as OP 4.10) [] [x]Forests (/PBP 4.36) [] [x]Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) [] [x]Projects in Disputed Areas (P/_P/GP 7.60)* [] [x]Projects on International Waterways (P/IP /GP 7.50) [] [x]

a. What is the safeguard screening category of the project? (S1, S2, S3, SF) S2

b. What is the environmental screening category of the project? (A, B, C, FI) B

c. If applicable, what are the key safeguard policy issues raised by the project?Environment and resettlement

By supporting the proposed project, the Bank does not intend to prejudice thefinal determination of the parties' claims on thedisputed areas

d. If applicable, what are the main results of any safeguard policy related studies, and how havethey been incorporated into the project?

The findings of the SIA, as well as the project EIA, have been taken into account in projectdesign, e.g., location of kiosks, minimization of land acquisition and resettlement. The project'ssocial and environmental impacts would be positive, as it would increase the availability of safedrinking water to the people in the ger areas. Temporary negative environmental impacts fromconstruction would abate upon completion. A monitoring plan is integrated into the projectthrough the EMP. The RPF and RAP will address the minimal negative social impacts onproject affected persons.

e. What is the borrower's capacity to implement the safeguard policies recommendations, and, ifthe capacity is insufficient, how will this capacity be brought to the required level?

The borrower has implemented the resettlement aspects of UBSIP satisfactorily; however, thecapacity to implement safeguard policies needs to be further enhanced. Four training courses forenvironment and resettlement will be organized during the implementation stage to augmentcapacity.

f. What type of consultations have been conducted related to safeguard issues? How did theseconsultations influence project design?

Fifteen Khoroo leaders in the project ger areas were consulted during project preparation. Nearly2,000 households in ger areas were interviewed in order to explain the safeguard-relatedimplications of the proposed project. Meetings with officials of MUB departments on policyissues relating to land acquisition and resettlement are reflected in the Resettlement PolicyFramework. Views ascertained during the consultations were generally supportive of the overallproject design; however, they led to changes in the locations of some of the infrastructure.

g. When were the safeguard studies made available at the InfoShop?

The draft RPF and the draft EIA were made available in the InfoShop on November 19, 2003.The final draft EMP and the final draft RAP were released to the Infoshop on February 4, 2004.

h. When and where were safeguard studies made available in the cooperating country?

Both the English and Mongolian versions of the draft EIA and the draft RPF were disclosed onNovember 3, 2003 in the MUB Office, and the District and the Khoroo offices; the final versionswere placed on the MUB Website on December 15, 2003. Notification of disclosure was givenin the mass media on December 15, 2003. The final draft RAP was disclosed at the samelocations as the RPF on February 6, 2004.

9. List of Factual Technical Documents

Num Name of the Document Date of the Prepared byber Document

01 Economic Growth Support and July 2003 Government of MongoliaPoverty Reduction Strategy

02 Ulaanbaatar City Development August Pacific ConsultantsStrategy 2001 International, Nikken,

I_____ I____________________ I__________ Almec Corporation

10. Contact pointContact: Raja IyerTitle: Lead Management SpecialistTel: (202) 473-0840Fax:Email: [email protected]

11. For more information contact:The InfoShopThe World Bank1818 H Street, NWWashington, D.C. 20433Telephone: (202) 458-5454Fax: (202) 522-1500Web: http://www.worldbank.org/infoshop

wbl 8313N:\RAJA\UBSIP2\PID_UBSIP2 Appraisal.docFebruary 9, 2004 10:19 AM

Date post:	18-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times