In addition to the direct cost of compensation and livelihood restoration, R&R can generate huge indirect costs too, particularly when inadequate planning or difficulties in engaging with specific affected groups result in construction delays. During the MUTP implementationfor example, problems arose with affected shopkeepersbecause they were dissatisfied with the R&R package, which was mainly intended for affected residents and was based on a replacement apartmentin a resettlement colony. These problems arose because shopkeepers had not been adequately identifiedor consulted withat the baseline stage, and no specific package had been devised for them. The negotiation with shopkeepers took time, amongst others because the Government of Maharashtra was initially unwilling to make the R&R package more flexibleand accommodate the shopkeepers’ needs. These delays had huge implications on the cost of infrastructure, with contractors unable to work, as well as more global economic implications, with for example longer periods of works impactingtrafficand safety.In Mumbai, the resettlement related delays in implementing the MUTP are covered by the local press almost on a daily basis. A perception has developed in the public that compliance with the World Bank resettlement policies is the main cause of the delays in the R&R implementation, hence in the construction of the MUTP infrastructure. One may of course disagree with this assessment, and argue that the main cause of the delaysis poor planning of R&R components, bureaucratic hurdles or inadequate resources. Nevertheless the perception is widespread that things would be much easier if MMRDA, the implementing agency for the MUTP, would
have sourced funds from other lenders with more flexible resettlement requirements or none at allbeyond sheer compliance with Indian laws and regulations.