RESETTLEMENT PLANNING DOCUMENT
October 2012
REPUBLIC OF TAJIKISTAN:
Grant 0245-TAJ: CAREC Corridor 3 (Dushanbe- Uzbekistan Border) Improvement Project
Land Acquisition and Resettlement Plan (Phase 1) Addendum 3 Social Monitoring Report
Prepared by Ministry of Transport of Republic of Tajikistan for the Asian Development Bank.
Ministry of Transport Republic of Tajikistan
External Monitoring Report of the implementation of Land Acquisition and Resettlement Plan (Phase 1) Addendum 3
CAREC Corridor 3 (Dushanbe – Uzbekistan border Road Improvement Project) ADB Grant: 0245 - TAJ (SF)
Prepared by: Urakova Zarina External Monitoring Consultant (EMC)
OCTOBER 2012 Contents
1 Abbreviations and Acronyms 3
2 Introduction 4
3 Methodology and Approach 6
4 Asset inventory, compensations and entitlements 7
4.1 Agricultural land inventory 7
4.2 Agricultural land-use rights compensation costs. 8
4.3 Residential / commercial lands inventory and compensation payments. 9
4.4 Compensations for annual crop losses 9
4.5 Compensation for perennial crops 10
4.6 Impact on APs structure and buildings and compensation costs. 11
4.7 Allowances 12
5 Costs summary 13
6 Rehabilitation program for vulnerable Aps 13
7 Public consultation 14
8 Grievance cases 15
9 Conclusions 16
10 Recommendation 18
1 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AP Affected Person
AE Affected Entity
ADB Asian Development Bank
AIDS Acquired Immune Efficiency Syndrome
ALMGC Agency for Land Management, Geodesy and Cartography
CAREC Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation
CDF Collective Dehkan Farm
DF Dekhan Farm
DMS Detailed Measurement Survey
EA Executing Agency
FGD Focused Group Discussions
Ha Hectare
HH Household
Kg Kilogram
LAR Land Acquisition and Resettlement
LARP Land Acquisition and Resettlement Plan
LS Lump Sump
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MoT Ministry of Transport
NGO Non-Government Organization
PIU RR Project Implementation Unit Roads Rehabilitation
PMC Project Management Consultant
PSA Poverty and Social Assessment
RoW Right of Way
TJS Tajikistan somoni (currency) 2 INTRODUCTION
1. This Compliance report has been prepared by an Independent Monitoring consultant to assess whether the implementation of the Land Acquisition and Resettlement Plan, Phase 1 Addendum 3 for the Dushanbe-Uzbekistan Border road (the Project) complied with the stipulations of the approved LARP and ADB Involuntary Resettlement safeguards. A satisfactory implementation of the LARP is a condition for ADB no objection to the start of physical civil works.
2. The report covers only monitoring of the Addendum 3 of Land Acquisition and Resettlement Plan phase 1, which was endorsed by the Governemtn of the Republic of Tajikistan and approved by ADB in August 2012 and its immediate implementation has been carried in close colaboration of the Ministry of Transport, Project Implementation Unit (PIU) with the local hukumats representatives and resettlement specialists of the Project Management Consultant (PMC). The ADB National Resettlement Specialist based at the ADB Tajikistan resident mission also observed the compensation payment process in the field. External Monitoring Consultant (EMC) also participated during implementation activities from 27 August 2012. Addendum 3 LARP 1 implementation has been completed 20 September 2012. External monitoring of the implementation has been fully carried by EM team.
3. This report covers information on additional impact on APs caused by Addendum 3 of the LARP (phase 1), based on finalized design of the road sections of A, B, C and D, in Rudaki, Gisar, Shahrinaw and Tursunzoda districts. Detailed information on road sections, locations and lengths is provided in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Road Sections under LARP Phase 1 Road Section Kilometer Length (km) Included in From To addendum 3 A 7+540 14+000 6.46 A B 17+060 21+500 4.44 B C 26+500 34+000 7.5 C D 43+800 61+550 17.75 D Total 36.15 4
4. In the project sections with additional impact on entities’ lands, structures and income sources, contractor was informed on time and no any construction work has been started. Necessary detailed correspondence was in place to inform contractor in advance about additional impact on affected entities’ assets, based on the finalized project design, in order to avoid start of any kind of activity in the project area with an additional impact. These instructions were strictly followed and no construction work obsereved to be going on in these project areas with additional impact on APs.
5. The External Monitoring Consultant has prepared this Compliance Report based on the following parameters and objectives: i. Verification that all APs have been compensated in the amounts stipulated in the Addendum 3 LARP 1 document; ii. Assessment of the accuracy of survey and asset valuation; iii. Assessment of the effectiveness and thoroughness of the legalization/re- registration process; iv. Assessment of the rehabilitation program for severely affected and vulnerable APs; v. Review of complaint and grievance cases and of their solution vi. Assessment of the satisfaction of the APs vii. Lesson learned to be applied to the next projects, and; viii. General assessment of Addendum 3 LARP 1 implementation and recommendations to ADB regarding provision of No Objection Letter to start the civil works.
6. Impact Summar. Based on the final design of the project road additional impact on 130 affected entities 1028 persons comprising 124 households and 6 collectives have been identified in different locations of Rudaki, Gisar, Shahrinaw and Tursunzoda districts, who were not listed in the LARP 1. Of these, 21 entities have been included in the main LARP 1 and previous addendums who would experience additional impacts, while 109 are newly affected entities. Scale of LAR impact on these newly identified 130 affected entities has been measured and their enttlements were validated based on the matrix used for the LARP 1. A sammery of impacts on AEs provided in Table 2. Based on the information from the table below, 70 AEs lose 2.35 ha of agricultural lands of annual crops, orchards and vineyards, 60 households lose 3,869 sq. meter of residential/commercial lands. 21 different type of buildings and 63 partition walls and other structures of APs were affected. 294 fruit trees grown on residential plots will be lost. According to the table there are 18 additional fruit trees that were identified by 3 APs which were evaluated by GRC and compensated. 1 AP claimed an addtional 60 square meter of cropping land, which was also evaluated by GRC and compensated.
Table 2: Addendum 3 of LARP 1 Impact Summary Identified and Actual Impacts on community land, buildings and facilities Unit Planned Actual Affected agricultural land and orchards number 70 70 Affected area of agricultural land and orchards sq. meter 23,426 23,486 Average % of the affected land area against total land holding % 1.34% 1.34% Affected fruit trees on agricultural land number 74 74 Affected residential / commercial land number 60 60 Affected area of residential / commercial land sq. meter 3,869 3,869 Affected fruit trees on residential / commercial land number 276 294 Affected buildings number 21 21 Single floor living house sq. meter 157.2 157.2 Outbuildings (toilets, barns, cattle barns, etc.) sq. meter 572.1 572.1 Affected walls, fences and other miscellaneous items number 63 63 Concrete walls m3 151.8 151.8 Cement blocks wall m3 54 54 Burnt bricks wall m3 2.25 2.25 Mud bricks wall m3 97.1 97.1 Metal netting structure sq. meter 96.2 96.2 Concrete surfaces / structure m3 50.22 50.22 Severely Affected Households number 13 13 Number of Households to be relocated number 0 0 Vulnerable affected households number 7 7 Total affected entities number 130 130 Total Affected Persons number 1,028 1,028 7. Compnesation entitlements planned and amounts delivered. Following the entitlements defined in the LARP phase 1 Addendum 3 compensation matrix, APs were delivered with compensation quantities/amounts commensurate to the amounts and unit rates detailed in the approved LARP 1 Addendum 3. Amount of 587,604.70 TJS was paid to APs, as compensation and allowances against their losses. Additional 6,756 TJS from the contingency budget line was paid to 4 APs, whose 18 fruit trees and 60 sq. meter cropping land remained out of list and were identified during implementation based on the grievances submitted by APs. Overall, compensation amounts provided to affected entities comprised 594,360.66 TJS for the entire Addendum 3 of the LARP 1 implementation.
8. Public Consultation. Group and individual consultations with the affected persons and other stakeholders (community leaders, jamoat and district hukumat representatives) have been conducted at different stages of the Addendum 3 LARP 1 implementation. APs used their rights to discuss and submit their grievance applications on disagreements of evaluation of affected assets and or any other issues and suggestions about the project. Eight written grievances and 16 oral complaints were registered in jamoats of Sharhinaw, Gisar and Rudaki districts. External Monitoring Team conducted round of consultation and meetings with individual APs and groups, jamoat representatives and other project stakeholders from 29 of August to 10 October 2012 to gauge level of APs satisfaction.
9. Assessment on Compleance. LARP was implemented in a manner that all potential adverse impact on APs land, buildings, income sources and other assets have been fairly compensated to achieve APs satisfaction. Valuation methods, entitlements matrix used for the LARP phase 1 has been applied during addendum 3 preparation and implementation. LARP implementation complied with the ADB Safeguard Policy Statement requirements for involuntary resettlement and the principles adopted for the project, in terms of provision of compensation and impact validation. All compensations, assistance and benefits adopted in the proposed entitlements matrix, corresponded to the APs received benefits that they were entitled for.
3 METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH
10. The External Monitoring Consultant has prepared this Compliance Report based on the following parameters and objectives: ix. Verification that all APs have been compensated in the amounts stipulated in the Addendum 3 LARP 1 document; x. Assessment of the accuracy of survey and asset valuation; xi. Assessment of the effectiveness and thoroughness of the legalization/re- registration process; xii. Assessment of the rehabilitation program for severely affected and vulnerable APs; xiii. Review of complaint and grievance cases and of their solution xiv. Assessment of the satisfaction of the APs xv. Lesson learned to be applied to the next projects, and; xvi. General assessment of Addendum 3 LARP 1 implementation and recommendations to ADB regarding provision of No Objection Letter to start the civil works;
11. The above work entailed a thorough review of all documents used for LARP 1 Addendum 3 preparation and implementation. This included a systematic comparison of the impacts survey records with the compensation tallies. In addition, direct fieldwork and individual or group interviews with the APs were carried, to evaluate resettlement implementation, AP participation in decision-making and the provision modalities of compensations and allowances to APs. In addition, direct fieldwork and individual or group interviews with the APs were carried from 28 August to 10 October 2012, to evaluate resettlement implementation, AP participation in decision-making and the provision modalities of compensations and allowances to APs.
12. To gauge the satisfaction of the APs a 3-page questionnaire was used to interview 55% of the APs to obtain quantitative and qualitative information on entitlement delivery, efficiency, impact and sustainability and review level of APs satisfaction. See Attachment 2 of this report. The selection of the interviewees took in consideration impact type, gender and vulnerability status, as detailed in table 3 below. Table 3: APs with different types of impact interviewed
APs by category Total AP No. Number interviewed Percentage All APs interviewed 130 72 55% Impact on Agricultural land 70 38 54% Impact on Residential land 60 34 57% Vulnerable APs 7 4 57% Severely affected APs 13 10 77% Women headed HHs 18 10 56%
13. Discussions were organized with the PMC and PIU resettlement specialists individually and joint group discussions with APs at jamoat level involving APs, local government and, community leaders were also carried out to elicit information about performance in various resettlement activities. Individual APs were interviewed for obtaining more detail information and understandings of individual perceptions on the project.
14. All documents related to Addendum 3 LARP 1, informational reports such as Addendum 3 LARP 1 approved by GoT and ADB in August, and data analysis provided by local authorities, data from PIU RR, PMC on asset registration and valuation methods, type of impacts etc., have been reviewed and analyzed.
4 ASSET INVENTORY, COMPENSATIONS AND ENTITLEMENTS
4.1 Agricultural land inventory 15. Referring to the data of actual LARP 1 Addendum 3 implementation, received from project sites districts authorities and PIU RR resettlement specialist, 73 agricultural land parcels 70 affected entities had some adverse impact. Table 4 below compares agricultural land area based on cultivation type and number of plots and AEs (affected entities). The table illustrates data from LARP 1 addendum 3 document and actual implementation.
16. A combined area of 23,486 sq. meters (2.34 ha) of crops and fruit bearing agricultural lands of 64 households and 6 collectives have been affected. Combined affected land in the initial land acquisition with the additional land acquisition under addendum 3 represents less than 1% of the total land holding of 70 entities. 47 APs holding presidential lands, 17 individual dehkand farms and 6 collective dehkan farms have been affected by the addendum 3. 18 APs holding presidential lands have lost between 10.5 to 22.7 % of their lands with total average total land area of 0.09 ha of each land parcels.
Table 4: Agricultural land losses Affected land as Affected Affected land as Total area of per LARP 1 % of Type of land area per implementation agricultural Addendum 3 affected Cultivation from LARP land (ha) 2 Area Plots AEs Area Plots AEs land 1 (m ) (m2) No. No. (m2) No. No. Annual Crops 1,001 3,928 21,806 69 66 21,866 70 660.26% Orchard 275 27,800 980 3 3 980 3 3 1.05% Vineyard 5 848 640 1 1 640 1 12.98% Total 1,281 32,57623,426 73 70 23,486 74 700.44%
4.2 Agricultural land-use rights compensation costs.
17. APs losing their rights on the use of agricultural lands received compensation for 5 years of yearly gross income of affected land with annual crops at existing market rate and 1 year of yearly gross income of affected land with fruit trees, which corresponds to the compensation entitlement matrix adopted for the project. Tables 5 below compares the planned and the actual compensation payments for the loss of use rights on agricultural lands.
Table 5: Compensation for the loss of agricultural land use rights of annual crops, vineyards and orchards Average Actual Planned Road Plot Affected % of the compens Type of AEs compens Sec - Districts s area of affected ations cultivation No. ations in tion No. land m2 land paid in TJS area m2 TJS B Annual crops 12 13 6,965.0 1.36% 34,618.0 34,618.0 Gisar Annual crops 14 15 7,459.0 0.54% 28,524.5 28,524.5 C Shahrinaw Annual crops 38 40 3,901.5 4.77% 34,674.8 35,454.8 D Tursunzoda Annual crops 2 2 3,540.0 0.05% 11,493.0 11,493.0 Total annual crops 66 70 21,865.5 0.26% 109,310.3 110,090.3 B Orchards 1 1 600 1.16% 2,585 2,585 Gisar Orchards 1 1 200.0 0.07% 1,335 1,335 C Vineyeards 1 1 640.0 2.98% 1,650 1,650
Shahrinaw Orchards 1 1 180.0 2.26% 2,460 2,460 D Tursunzoda Orchards ------Total orchards and vineyeards 4 4 1,620 1.08% 8,030 8,030 Grand total 70 74 23,486 0.44% 117,340.3 118,120.3
18. Compensation payments to APs with loss of use rights on agricultural and perennial crops lands have been provided as per the estimations given in LARP 1 Addendum 3 document. Interviewed APs confirmed of having received compensation amounts equal to the stipulated amounts in the documents that they have signed for. Total compensation for the loss of use-rights on agricultural land was computed at 117,340.3 TJS but compensations paid to APs were increased by 780 TJS. Total amount of compensation received by affected entities comprise 118,120.3 TJS. A 60 square meter of affected chickpea land of an AP was not registered and the AP submitted a grievance application. Based on GRC assessment where external monitoring team also participated, the AP’s land was re-measured and payments for the loss of land use rights was made accordingly for the identified 60 sq. meter land. Thorough review of the documents and discussion with 55% of APs did not identify any other cases as such.
4.3 Residential / commercial lands inventory and compensations paid for the loss of use rights.
19. Overall, 60 parcels of residential lands, of an area of 3,869 sq. meter (0.38 ha), are affected in Rudaki, Gisar, Shahrinaw and Tursunzoda districts. Very narrow strip of residential land is affected compare to total land holding of the APs that did not cause any land replacement need and/or case of severely affected. Interviewed APs confirmed that have received amount of compensations as per the documents, which we had presented to them. Residential / commercial lands have been compensated according to the policy adopted for the project, 11 TJS (2.5 USD) per sq. meter. Affected households received 42,559 TJS for affected residential lands. No any commercial land was affected by the project.
Table 6: Residential / Commercial land use rights compensations As per plan in Addendum 3 Actual implementation Category of No. No. AP Affected Unit Rate Compensation Affected Compensation of of area (m2) (TJS/m2) in TJS area (m2) in TJS HHs HHs AP with marginal land loss and with 60 3,869.00 11 42,559 60 3,869.00 42,559 sufficient land to rebuild
4.4 Compensations for annual crop losses
20. The agreed agricultural production valuation mechanism for the Project is based on cash compensation only and on an assessment of the products of the affected plots. Compensations for the losses of annual crops were paid in cash at prevailing market rate based on year’s yield. Table below provides information on planned and actual payments of compensations for annual crops. Compensations for income losses from annual crops was computed at 21,862 TJS for 60 affected entities but similarly to compensation of the loss of use rights only 1 field crop of an AP remained out of list. Including the additional impact (26 kg of chickpea) on this AP total amount of compensations for the loss of income from crops, comprise 22,018 TJS, which have been paid to the AEs as per the collected documents, receipts and farmers statements. Individual interviews with APs and physical observations also confirmed provision of payments to the AEs.
Table 7: Annual crops compensation costs. Type of Cultivated Average Affected Current Actual Compensation crop area (m²) crop agricultural price per payments amount (in productivity production kg (TJS) provided TJS) kg/ha (in kg) (in TJS) Onions 1,175 20,000 2,350 1 2,350 2,350 Vegetables 1,133 16,000 1,812.8 0.7 1,268.96 1,268.96 Tomatoes 314 16,000 502.4 1 502.4 502.4 Type of Cultivated Average Affected Current Actual Compensation crop area (m²) crop agricultural price per payments amount (in productivity production kg (TJS) provided TJS) kg/ha (in kg) (in TJS) Potatoes 390.5 20,000 781 2 1,562 1,562 Corn 2,769.5 4,000 1,107.8 3 3,323.4 3,323.4 Wheat 6,288 4,500 2,829.6 1 2,829.6 2,829.6 Saplings 720 3,000 216 5 1,080 1,080 Lucerne 3,775 10,000 3,775 0.3 1,132.5 1,132.5 Chick-pea 1,666.5 4,000 668.6 6 3,855.6 4,011.6 G Saplings 24 20,000 48 5 240 240 F Saplings 250 15,000 375 4 1,500 1,500 Cotton 3,360 3,000 1,008 2.2 2,217.6 2,217.6 Total 21,865.5 15,474.2 21,862.06 22,018.06
4.5 Compensation for perennial crops
21. 74 fruit trees (grapes, cherry, apple, peach, plum and nut tree) located on the affected orchards and vineyards were affected. 276 fruit trees (apple, cherry, small cherry, peach, pomegranate, apricot, grapes, nut tree, etc., which had to be cut, were also identified on the affected portions of residential plots.
22. Compensation for fruit trees and vines losses were calculated based on annual volume of production of the tree multiplied by the number of years to re-grow the tree to productive stage and value of product at market price. Compensation for loss of income from fruit trees planted on agricultural land was estimated at 23,680 TJS. Review of receipts and payments confirmation statements showed that affected entities losing orchards and vineyards have received equal amount of compensations as stipulated in the plan (Table 8).
Table 8: Compensation for fruit trees loss on agricultural land As per LARP 1 Addendum 3 Actual Implementation Current Estimated Annual Compensati Total Number of Tree Type No of price compensati No of fruit on amounts product years to re- trees per kg on volume trees producti received by ion kg grow a tree (in TJS) TJS on kg APs / TJS Apple 31 1,240 3 3 11,160 31 1,240 11,160 Cherry 3 75 5 2 750 3 75 750 Peach 10 250 5 2 2,500 10 250 2,500 Grapes 22 550 3 4 6,600 22 550 6,600 Plum 7 245 3 2 1,470 7 245 1,470 Nut tree 1 50 6 4 1,200 1 50 1,200 Total 74 23,680 74 23,680
23. APs received fully compensation estimated for the loss of income from trees on agricultural lands. Market value of products and number of years to regrow a tree, which was used for provision of compensations for trees, corresponds to the data in approved original LARP 1 and the Addendum 3.
Table 9: Compensation for fruit trees grown on residential lands As per LARP 1 Addendum 3 Actual Ave.fruit Current No. of Total Compensa Numb Numb Type of fruit trees production price per years to compens tion er of er of per tree kg re-grow ation provided to trees trees (in kg) (in TJS) a tree (in TJS) APs (TJS) Apple 26 40 3 3 9,360 26 9,360 Cherry 17 25 5 2 4,250 19 4,750 Small cherry 59 20 3 2 7,080 59 7,080 Peach 19 25 5 2 4,750 19 4,750 Plum 26 35 3 2 5,460 26 5,460 Pear 5 40 3 3 1,800 5 1,800 Apricot 33 50 2 2 6,600 44 8,800 Nut tree 28 50 6 4 33,600 29 34,800 Pomegranate 4 25 6 2 1,200 4 1,200 Grapes 29 50 3 4 17,400 31 18,600 Mulberry 25 30 3 2 4,500 27 5,220 Khurmo 3 50 1 3 450 3 450 Fig tree 1 30 5 3 450 1 450 Almond 1 15 8 3 360 1 360 Total 276 97,260 294 103,080
24. APs losing fruit trees on their residential lands were compensated for the loss of income from 294 different types of fruit trees grown on their residential lands, an amount of 103,080 TJS. Initially based on the Addendum 3 LAR 1 planning 276 affected fruit trees were registered but 18 additional fruit trees of APs, which remained out of list, were identified and accordingly APs received compensation based on actual impact and decision made by GRC. This additional impact on fruit trees grown on residential lands were identified during FGDs with APs. 3 APs grievances were registered and their actual losses were approved by GRC based on which these APs received 5,820 TJS for the loss of 18 additional fruit trees.
4.6 Impact on APs structure and buildings and compensation costs.
8. LARP 1 Addendum 3 has affected 21 different type buildings of APs with total area of 729 sq. meter out of which 157 sq. meter is dwelling house (only 1 house), 462 sq. meter is outbuildings (16 buildings) such as barns, livestock shelter, toilets, etc. and 110 sq. meter of sheds (4pcs.) similarly used as out kitchen an storage places. Overall 63 different types of boundary walls of different materials and concrete structures and surfaces of total volume of 451.52 m3 have been affected.
9. 140,284.5 TJS was paid to Aps against affected buildings and 123,366.8 TJS was paid for partition walls and other miscellaneous structures. Interviewed APs confirmed that all their buildings and structures enumerated correctly. They have mentioned about awareness of costs calculations for buildings and structures. Current condition of the existing structures, specially of boundary walls is very bad, several boundary walls has collapsed during last rain season, however LAR is paying for these walls to be renewed and rebuilt. During discussion with APs some of them mentioned that with the amount of money they have received, they cannot build a new wall. But when we discussed further people want to use better material such as concrete and cem blocks to rebuilt structures. It was explained that project pays only for the existing structures of the same material and if APs build the same material walls the compensation amounts received by them is sufficient to rebuild, which was confirmed by APs as well.
Table 10: Buildings and walls compensation costs planned and actual payments As per LARP 1 Addendum 3 Actual payments Type of buildings Total Total No. Area m2 compensation No. Area m2 compensation (in TJS) (in TJS) Single floor building 1 157.2 38,124.9 1 157.2 38,124.9 Outbuildings (barns) 16 462.08 95,463.2 16 462.08 95,463.2 Sheds 4 1106,696.4 4 110 6,696.4 Sub Total 21 729.28 140,284.5 21 729.28 140,284.5 Total Total Type of walls, fences 3 Volume No. Volume m compensation No. compensation and structures m3 (in TJS) (in TJS) Concrete wall 34 151.796 73,874.6 34 151.796 73,874.6 Cement blocks wall 10 53.97 13,195.7 10 53.97 13,195.7 Burnt bricks wall 1 2.25 891.0 1 2.25 891.0 Mud bricks wall 11 97.08 10,193.4 11 97.08 10,193.4 Metal netting structures 2 96.2 769.6 2 96.2 769.6 Concrete surfaces 3 37.8 18,396.1 3 37.8 18,396.1 Concrete structure 2 12.424 6,046.4 2 12.424 6,046.4 Sub Total 63 451.52 123,366.8 63 451.52 123,366.8 Total 84 1,180.8 263,651.3 84 1,180.8 263,651.3
25. Overall 263,651.3 TJS was paid to APs for their buildings and walls. No any grievance registered and no issue of underestimation or underpayment neither was raised by the APs nor identified in the process of review of proving documents and censuses.
4.7 Allowances
26. Acording to the LARP compensation policy the severely impacted households are either those who will be relocated or those that will lose more than 10% of their income source. Information on affected agricultural land shows that 18 APs lose more than 10% of their agricultural land out of which 13 APs were provided severity impact allowance. The main reason of not paying remaining other five APs losing more than 10% of their agricultural land was that, these APs are affected for second time and during implementation of LARP 1, they have already received allowance being severely affected. Now these five APs are losing another small portion of lands, which has been compensated according the crops and income lost from these lands.
Table 11: Vulnerability and Severity impact Allowances Targeted number of APs Actual payments provided Rehabilitation allowance Actual No. of APs Planned Eligible Rehabilitation (TJS) Eligible for households allowance (TJS) Rate Total payment Severely impacted APs 1,386 18,018 13 18,018 Loss of agricultural land >10% Vulnerable APs 462 3,234 7 3,234 Below poverty line and WHHs
27. Allowance of 462 TJS (2 months of the minimum salary) was paid to 7 APs as their livelihood situation was regarded below poverty line. Out of 7 APs received vulnerability allowance, 5 are both women headed and living in poverty. Individually each of these women was met during site visits and project impact on their livelihoods has been re-checked. None of the vulnerable APs are losing any income source that could worsen their situation. Their attitude and perceptions were positive regarding the project and the compensation process and payments. Information on provided allowances provided in table 11.
5 COSTS SUMMARY
28. The compensation and other related resettlement costs due to LARP I Addendum 3 was budgeted to TJS 609,556.75 including 2% of contingency to cover costs for any relevant complaints and or unexpected impact on communities. Direct cost of the addendum 3 is 587,604.66 TJS, where 100% this amount was paid to APs as compensation and allowance against their losses. Additional amount of 6,756 TJS was paid to four APs based on increased impact on their fruit trees and crops, which were identified during monitoring assessment and grievances submitted by these APs. Overall, 594,360.66 TJS was paid to affected entities.
Table 12: Addendum 3 Compensation Budget Planned Planned ITEM Budget TJS Budget TJS 1. Rehabilitation Assistance for Loss of Land Use Right a. Cash Allowance - agricultural Land 117,340.3 117,340.3 - Residential / Commercial Land 42,559.0 42,559.0 2. Compensation for Structure Losses a. Buildings 140,284.5 140,284.5 b. Walls and Fences 98,924.3 98,924.3 c. Other structures (concrete surfaces 24,442.5 24,442.5 3. Compensation for Crop Losses a. annual crops 21,862.1 21,862.1 b. perennial crops/fruit trees 23,680.0 23,680.0 c. fruit trees at households' plots 97,260.0 97,260.0 4. Allowances a. Allowance for Vulnerable APs 3,234.0 3,234.0 b. Allowance for Severely affected APs 18,018.0 18,018.0 Total compensation Costs 587,604.66 587,604.66 5. Support Costs (lump sum) 10,000 0 Total 597,604.66 587,604.66 6. Contingency 2% on total 11,952.1 6,756 Grand Total 609,556.75 594,360.66
6 REHABILITATION PROGRAM FOR VULNERABLE APS
29. Out of 130 affected entities 7 households considered as vulnerable and 13 households as severely affected.
30. 3 Severely affected households’ members have been employed by the project. One of these households members is Mansurov Khursand who is working as as track driver and he recieves 1200 – 1500 TJS salary per month. Responsive measures have been taken to avoid adverse impact of the project on agricultural lands during construction works. All irrigation and drainage chanals re-established before start of any construction activity that will not create water shortage for the crops. Similarly drinking water systems have been relocated from the construction area.
31. So far no any other long term rehabilitation project has been undertaken by the government and other social organizations. There would be opportunities for different types of income generating activities after completion of civil works. It is recommended generate ideas for development of concept notes and business plans for different small scale income generation activities.
7 PUBLIC CONSULTATION
32. According to the information provided by local jamoat authorities and minutes of the consultation meetings with APs round of consultation meetings were conducted from 25 to 21 July 2012. Another round of consultation meetings were conducted with APs before provision of payments in in August. Affected people were consulted during addendum 3 preparation and implementation and information is disclosed to them in accessible form, manner and language. Minutes of these consultation meetings were reviewed by EMC. Accountability mechanism was set up to provide a platform where APs could express their grievances, seek solutions and report on alleged violations of the adapted policies established for the implementation of LARP phase 1 addendum 3. Local jamoats (sub district offices) collected written and oral complaints of the AEs and arranged meetings with AEs and GRC representatives to provide solutions for each individual or groups of AEs.
33. Discussion with the PIU and PMC resettlement specialist showed that LAR 1 Addendum 3 planning and implementation was done in a very proficient and accurate manner. All relevant information, data and evidences of the Addendum 3 LAR phase 1 planning and implementation is in place. Safeguard plans disclosed to the public and information is updated at various stages of the project cycle. Roles and Responsibilities have been followed by undertaking required social assessments, carrying out consultations with affected people and communities during preparation and implementation of the project, and internal monitoring of the work was ensured. See Attachment 1 for list of people interviewed by EMC.
Table 13: Analysis of APs responses during individual interviews Total number of APs 130 100% Number of APs interviewed 72 130 55% Vulnerable APs interviewed 4 7 57% APs with severe impact 10 13 77% APs/Female headed HH 10 18 56% APs losing residential / commercial land 34 60 57% Presidential lands 22 47 46% Types of ownership of agricultural lands Individual DF 12 17 71% Collective DF 4 6 67% Did you receive compensation for your affected assets? Yes 72 100% No 0 0% Were your damaged assets enumerated realistically? Yes 72 100% No 0 0% Was there any deduction from the approved payments? Yes 0 0% No 72 100% Was the affected land area correctly enumerated? Yes 38 100% No 0 0% Did you receive income loss compensation Yes 38 100% No 0 0% Did you receive use rights loss allowance? Yes 38 100% No 0 0% Did you receive compensation for fruit trees? Yes 72 100% No 0 0% APs self‐assessment of the impact on agricultural lands Seriously affected Yes 10 26.3% Moderately affected Yes 11 28.9% Minor Yes 17 44.7% Did you receive compensation for your affected residential land? Yes 29 100% No 0 0% Were your buildings, walls and other structures compensation estimated Yes 24 100% correctly? No 0 0% APs self‐assessment of the impact on residential/commercial land, structures Seriously affected Yes 4 17% Moderately affected Yes 8 33% Minor Yes 12 50% Have your income source been affected by the resettlement? Yes 38 53% No 34 47% Are you aware of your own compensation entitlements? Yes 72 100% No 0 0% Were your compensation payments sufficient to replace affected assets? Yes 72 100% No 0 0%
34. Table 13 above is summary of individual interviews carried out with APs. Out of 130 affected entities 72 (55%) have been interviewed and their affected assets have been measured. 22 presidential land holders, 14 individual and 4 collective agricultural land holders (54% of the interviewed affected entities) reported that their income source have been affected out of which 26% levelled the impact as seriously, 29% assumed that impact on them is moderate and remaining 45% said the impact on them is minor. All interviewed affected entities reported have received compensations fully. They were aware of the volume of losses and compensation amounts that they will receive. 56% of women headed, 57% of vulnerable and 77% of severely affected households have been interviewed. 57% of APs losing residential land and 54% of APs losing agricultural land have been visited and interviewed. Interviewed APs perceptions about the project were positive.
8 GRIEVANCE CASES
35. APs used their rights to discuss and submit their grievance applications on disagreements of evaluation of affected assets and or any other issues and suggestions about the project. Eight written grievances and 16 oral complaints were registered in jamoats of Sharhinaw, Gisar and Rudaki districts. Most of these grievances raised by APs was based on comparison of their own compensation amounts received and other neighbours whoes compensation amounts were higher. GRC and external monitoring team visited each of these grievance cases and affected assets of each AP were cross checked and proper comparison of losses and amounts of compensations of different APs was done jointly with claimant APs. It was proved that no any case of underestimation was found and proved that each AP has received compensation amounts based on their types and volumes of losses of different assets. In this way concensuss was achieved with the APs.
36. Again another concern, which is repeatedly raised by farmers in all four districts was land re-registration because of taxasion. As the project has acquired cropping land of different dehkan farms, the actual sizes of each affected entities land must be measured and based on type of use for each parcel of land all taxes and reporting procedures should be established.
37. Four grievance cases found realistic and APs received extra compensation based on the volume of losses. 3 APs will lose 18 fruit trees and 1 APs 60 sq. meter cropping land remained out of list. GRC committee and EMC visited these households and solved these issues for the favour of APs. Amount of 6,756 TJS was paid to them based on findings.
38. All grievance cases were solved in a very transparent way with participation of APs. Each individual and or groups grievances discussed in the presence of APs by the GRCs where PIU and PMC resettlement specialists also took part. In some of the discussion ADB representative – local resettlement specialist also participated.
9 CONCLUSIONS
39. Discussion with affected entities prevailed that their lands, building and other structures have been correctly enumerated and they have received compensation payments accordingly. The amounts of payments were equal to the amounts that was announced during consultation meeting organized for them to check the acuracy of assets inventory and cost calculations.
40. Implementation of the Addendum 3 of LARP 1 corressponds to the principles and policies adopted for the project. The impact was assessed in the LARP and subsequent ammendments and was adequately compensated.
41. The ADB Safeguard Policy Statement requirements for involuntary resettlement and the principles adopted for the project were followed. All compensations, assistance and benefits adopted in the proposed entitlements matrix, corresponded to the APs received benefits that they were entitled for. Implementation of Addendum 3 LARP 1 has adequately met all requirements listed in the LARP 1 document that was adopted for addendum 3, which were approved by the Government of Tajikistan and ADB. Table bellow provides information on the status of LAR activities progress.
Table 14: Monitoring Indicators listed in the report and progress LAR Activities Progress Remarks Pre Construction Activities and LAR Activities 1 Assessment of resettlement impacts due Done Inventory of losses of newly to changes in Project design (If required) identified APs and APs with additional impact, was carried based on the approved final road design 2 Preparation/ updating of the resettlement Done Amendment 3 of LARP 1 plan based on changes in Project design provides information on overall LAR impact based on the changes in the project design. LAR Activities Progress Remarks 3 Approval of updated LARP I by ADB Done Addendum 3 was endorsed by the Government of Tajikistan and approved by ADB in August 2012 4 Circulation of information leaflet Done Updated information leaflet was circulated among APs in May 2012 5 Capacity building of LAR team in Another round of refresh and PIU/Hukumat capacity building consultation with local authorities is planned before LAR phase 2 planning 6 Verification of APs Census list; Done Verification of APs list was done assessment on compensation and and necessary correction on assistance, and readjustment names were made LARP Implementation 1 Payment of compensation to APs Done All APs have received compensation payments per Addendum 3 2 Disbursement of assistance to title Done All APs with agricultural lands holders losses were provided compensations for income and land loss of land use rights 3 Disbursement of special assistance to Done 7 vulnerable APs were identified vulnerable groups and paid 4 Replacement/ shifting of community Done All affected structures, walls have property resources been demolished by the owners 5 Reinstallation of public utilities 6 Records of Grievance Redress Done 8 Written grievance cases were registered and solved, other 16 oral cases were also checked and consensus achieved with all APs.
42. Exteral monitoring team firmly confirms complete implementation of Addendum 3 of the LARP 1 and recommends for provision of No Objection Letter for commence of civil works. Table 15 below provides information on number of APs for each different type of impact. This data elaborated from different sources such as local jamoats, PIU and PMC offices and cross check of these information corresponds to the information provided in Addendum 3 LARP 1 main document based on which implementation was complete. EMC found the same number of APs for each type of impact based on the compensation entitlement matrix adopted for the project.
Table 15: Compensation Entitlements Matrix Affected APs Assets Entitlements Persons No. An allowance for loss of land use rights in cash Agricultural Individual equal to 5 years of the gross income of the affected land: All land-use annual crops land at market rate or to 1 year of 64 APs losses rights holder gross income of affected fruit trees land at market irrespective rates. of impact An allowance for loss of land use rights in cash Cooperative severity equal to 5 years of the gross income of the affected 6 AE land holder land at market rate Affected APs Assets Entitlements Persons No. Provision of alternative land or rehabilitation cash Residential/ Residential allowance for loss of land use rights equal to the commercial 60 APs rights holder current land lease rates multiplied by 25 years ($2.5 land per m2) Cash compensation at replacement rate for Houses and All relevant affected structure/other fixed assets free of 24 APs structures APs. salvageable materials and transaction costs. All buildings will be compensated in their entirety Crop compensation in cash equal to 1 year of the Income from gross income of affected land at market rate. This 64 APs All APs crops shall apply whether the land is fallow, or under 6 AEs cultivation. Cash compensation for productive trees based on Income from the net annual harvest from the tree(s) for the All APs 38 APs trees number of years taken for replacement tree(s) to reach comparable production Rehabilitation/substitution in kind or cash at Communal/ replacement cost of affected items and rehabilitation 2 Public assets of their functions APs below Employment priority in Project-related jobs 1 AP poverty line, Vulnerable households Cash contribution equal to 2 month’s official APs 7 APs headed by minimum salary. women
10 RECOMMENDATION
43. During implementation of the project many incorrect names of APs in the lists provided by district authorities, were identified and corrected. In order to avoid such problem of erroneous names, relevant government departments such as agriculture and land committee within jamoats should update their information and registration documents. In most of the cases head of the households have left out of the country for labour migration and accordingly another member of such families should be identified who is managing livelihoods and could receive compensation on behalf of the family. In case of Addendum 3 LARP 1 implementation, all incorrect names and APs being out of the country were identified and amended and households could receive their compensations. It has been noted that there was a time constrains during preparation of Addendums but during preparation of LARP phase 2, review of APs names should be done in advance that reduces such cases to the minimum.
44. Land re-registration remains one of the main issues raised by APs. People concern is mainly based on land taxation as now people are not using part of their lands which have been acquired, but still being taxed. It is recommended that PIU RR should pursue this issue witht land administration at State level. Any taxes paid by APs on land, which has been already acquired, should be considred in future land taxation. Appendix 2
List of people contacted and interviewed.
No. Name Position District Jamoat Village 1 Salmonov Jurabek AP Rudaki Choryakkoron Mehrobod 2 Davlatova Mohru AP Rudaki Choryakkoron Mehrobod 3 Umarjoni Emomali AP Rudaki Choryakkoron Mehrobod 4 Saidov Faiziddin AP Gisar Somon Ghairatobod 5 Hodiev Faiziddin AP Gisar Somon Ghairatobod 6 Rahmonov Ato AP Gisar Somon Ghairatobod 7 Rahimbekov Safarbek AP Gisar Somon Ghairatobod 8 Sharifov Bakhtiyor AP Gisar Somon Shurob 9 Mirzoev Qiyomiddin AP Gisar Somon Ghairatobod 10 Sharipova Sanginoy AP Gisar Somon Ghairatobod 11 Faiziev Aminjon AP Gisar Somon Ghairatobod 12 Komilov Davlatkhuja AP Gisar Somon Ghairatobod 13 Saidov Sai'ali AP Gisar Somon Ghairatobod 14 Khalilov Yusuf AP Gisar Somon Avghonobod 15 Arzanova Salima AP Gisar Somon Avghonobod 16 Saidahmadov Saidjon AP Gisar Navobod Guriyot 17 Qalandarov Orzubek AP Gisar Navobod Guriyot 18 Quvatov Shodi AP Gisar Navobod Mavlonjari poyon 19 Kenjaev Imomiddin AP Gisar Navobod Mavlonjar poyon 20 Mansurov AP Gisar Navobod Mavlonjari poyon 21 Boev Ahror AP Gisar Navobod Guriyot 22 Ne'matov Maqsadullo AP Gisar Navobod Davlatmanqa 23 Olimov Usmon AP Gisar Navobod Hujum 24 Saidahmadov Saidjon AP Gisar Navobod Guriyot 25 Sangov Suhrob AP Gisar Navobod Guriyot 26 Ubaidulloev Ashurali AP Gisar Navobod Guriyot 27 Gaffurov Bekmurod AP Gisar Mirzo Rizo Dehinaw 28 Sadulloev Bahrullo AP Gisar Mirzo Rizo Dehinaw 29 Narzulloev N AP Gisar Mirzo Rizo Dehinaw 30 Mudinov Nazar AP Gisar Mirzo Rizo Dehinaw 31 Sharipova Gavhar AP Gisar Mirzo Rizo Dehinaw 32 Barotova G AP Gisar Mirzo Rizo Dehinaw 33 Rahimov Rashid AP Gisar Mirzo Rizo Dehinaw 34 Mansurov Khursand AP Gisar Mirzo Rizo Dehinaw 35 Turaeva Risolat AP Shahrinaw Chuzi Chuzii bolo 36 Nematova Firuza AP Shahrinaw Chuzi Chuzii poyon 37 Hazratqulova Dilafruz AP Shahrinaw Chuzi Chuzii bolo 38 Asrorov Saidburhon AP Shahrinaw Chuzi Chuzii poyon 39 Nematov Daler AP Shahrinaw Chuzi Chuzii poyon 40 Mirzoeva Malika AP Shahrinaw Chuzi Chuzi poyon 41 Mardonov Norqul AP Shahrinaw Chuzi Chuzi poyon 42 Zubaidov Nurullo AP Shahrinaw Chuzi Chuzi poyon 43 Khushmurodov Azizkhuja AP Shahrinaw Chuzi Chuzi poyon 44 Kukanov Sobir AP Shahrinaw Chuzi Chuzi poyon 45 Kholmurodov Nabi AP Shahrinaw Chuzi Chuzi poyon 46 Elmurodov Yuldosh AP Shahrinaw Chuzi Chuzi poyon No. Name Position District Jamoat Village 47 Boboev Sobir AP Shahrinaw Chuzi Chuzi poyon 48 Ismoilova Gavhar AP Shahrinaw Chuzi Chuzi poyon 49 Safarov Nizom AP Shahrinaw Chuzi Chuzi poyon 50 Zubaidov Nurullo AP Shahrinaw Chuzi Chuzi poyon 51 Aliev Zainiddin AP Shahrinaw Chuzi Kofirqal'a 52 Safarov Abdurashid AP Shahrinaw Chuzi Kofirqal'a 53 Ismoilov Burhoniddin AP Shahrinaw Chuzi Kofirqal'a 54 Safarov Abdughaffor AP Shahrinaw Chuzi Kofirqal'a 55 Aliev Jamshed AP Shahrinaw Chuzi Kofirqal'a 56 Jalilov Usmonali AP Shahrinaw Chuzi Kofirqal'a 57 Mahmadov Fathuddin AP Shahrinaw Selbur Selbur 2 58 Gaffurov Saidkhuja AP Shahrinaw Selbur Selbur 2 59 Abdulloev Safarkhuja AP Shahrinaw Selbur Selbur 2 60 Ahrorov Akram AP Shahrinaw Selbur Selbur 2 61 Qurbonova Sayora AP Shahrinaw Selbur Selburi 2 62 Ahrorov Saidnumon AP Shahrinaw Selbur Selburi 2 63 Nurov Tolibjon AP Tursunzoda Garav Regar 64 Nazarov Hotam AP Tursunzoda Navobod Beshkapa 65 Razzoqov Shavkat AP Tursunzoda Navobod Beshkapa 66 Umarova Mavjuda AP Tursunzoda Qaratoq Askari Surkh 67 Narzulloev Amonulokhon AP Tursunzoda Qaratoq Askari Surkh 68 Saidjafarov Hasan AP Tursunzoda Qaratoq Askari Surkh 69 Uroqov Saidjon AP Tursunzoda Qaratoq Askari Surkh 70 Sodiqov Malik AP Tursunzoda Qaratoq Askari Surkh 71 Norqozieva Sanavbar AP Tursunzoda Qaratoq Askari Surkh 72 Ochildiev Sobirjon Land committee Tursunzoda Navobod Tursunzoda representative 73 Tursunov Faizullo Head of jamoat Tursunzoda Navobod Tursunzoda Navobod 74 Pardaev Nematullo Land committee Rudaki Choryakkoron Mehrobod representative 75 Sheraliev Sadriddin Deputy head of Rudaki Choryakkoron Mehrobod jamoat 76 Saidamadov Siyar Community Rudaki Choryakkoron Mehrobod leader 77 Hakimov Abdukarim Land committee Hisor Somon Shurob representative SMEC 78 Kudratov Faizullo Resettlement Dushanbe SMEC specialist PIU RR 79 Mirzoev Eraj resettlement Dushanbe PIU RR specialist ADB 80 Nazrieva Rangina Resettlement Dushanbe ADB specialist
Appendix 3: Individual APs assessment questionnaire
Project: CAREC Corridor 3 (Dushanbe Uzbekistan border) Improvement Project Funded by: Asian Development Bank Implementer: Ministry of Transport, Republic of Tajikistan Grant No: 0245
EXTERNAL MONITORING OF LAND ACQUISITION AND RESETTLEMENT IMPLEMENTATION
Project section ___ Road Segment ___ Road Kilometer ____ Road side Right Left Head of household's Name ______
Ownership Male / Female headed F / M
Address village______, jamoat ______, district ______
Did you receive compensation for your affected assets? Yes / No
Were your damaged assets enumerated realistically? Yes / No
If No, give details. Was there any deduction from the approved payment? Yes / No
If Yes, what %: Type of ownership (Please mark) Affected Cultivated Annual Crops Orchard Vineyard Presidential land Land Area m2 Individual Dehkan Farm Compensation Collective Dehkan received (TJS) Farm
Affected Fruit Trees Number of Compensation Trees received (TJS)
Self assessment of the impact on agriculture lands and fruit trees Serious Moderate Minor
Affected Residential and commercial land / Measureme Area m2 Compensatio nts n received AxB (TJS) Residential Commercial
Affected Buildings, Shops, Sheds and Outbuildings Type of buildings Number Measureme Area m² Compensati nts on received axbxc (TJS) Buildings (type1) multi- storey Buildings (type 2)single floor cement Buildings (type 3)single floor burnt bricks Buildings (type 4) single floor mud bricks Buildings (type 5)single floor mud walls Sheds Outbuildings (toilets, barns)
Affected Walls and Fences Walls type Measureme Volume m3 Compensati Fences type Area m² Compensati nts on received on received axbxc (TJS) (TJS)
Self assessment of the impact on buildings and structures Serious Moderate Minor
Household's income sources with the level of importance from 1(low) to 5(high)
Major Economic Activities / Put number according to the level of importance Agriculture Agricultural Small Government Business Transport/taxi Daily Wage labor enterprise and trading
Have your income source been affected by the resettlement? Yes / No If Yes, How?
Are you aware of your own compensation entitlements? Yes / No If No, what did you do? Агар Не, барои фахмидан чи кор кардед?
Were compensation payments sufficient to replace lost assets? Yes / No
If No, than what did you do? Did you know where to complain and what was the result of your complaint?
Are you satisfied with the resettlement process? Yes / No
Explain why:
Were you invited in any meeting / consultations regarding the Resettlement? Yes / No
Tell about topics discussed:
If you had any concern, did you get enough information and were you agree with the arguments provided to you?
Are you planning to demolish walls, structures and clean the land? Yes / No
If Yes, When and how?
If No, Why?
Affected Person's signature Sign:
Name of Interviewer: Sign:
Date of visit ____/_____/201_