Tdistribution Lines Ibanda, Kazo and Rushere

2 RP1490 V3 0 1 Public Disclosure Authorized RESETTLEMENT0 ACTION PLAN TDistribution lines Ibanda, Kazo and Rushere RESCO PROPERTY CONSULTANTS Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AGENCY i Executive Summary This Resettlement Action Plan has been prepared for the proposed 33Kv electricity distribution grid-extension and associated low voltage networks in Ibanda (Igorora) - Kazo-Rushere and environs-covering a distance of about 142 Kms and requires a 10 meters wide corridor. The project is under the auspices of the Government’s Rural Electrification (RE) Strategy which is also an integral part of the NDP. The objectives of the RAP were twofold; first was to determine the extent of resettlement impacts associated with the establishment of the distribution lines and put in place measures to mitigate those impacts. The impacts are in relation to land acquisition and the accompanying loss or interruption of livelihoods of the Project Affected Persons (PAPs). Second was to carry out consultations with relevant stakeholders including potentially affected persons to obtain their views and suggestions regarding the social impacts of the proposed project and measures to cover the losses. This report presents the findings of the socioeconomic studies which are used together with findings of the physical survey and valuation to propose a course of action. Efforts have been made to minimize resettlement arising from the project as well as disruption of livelihoods during construction including keeping the width of the corridor to a minimum of 10 meters which will consequently keep the geographical extent to a minimum, limiting restriction of land use to improvements taller than six meters (vertical clearance) which will enable continued habitation of structures along the corridor. Furthermore, the proposed line is largely by the road side thereby leaving out most structures. In areas where structures are too close to the road and diversions, the restriction in use will be in relation to improvements taller than six meters. Compensation of improvements took care of only improvements that may be destroyed during line construction including trees and annual crops along the corridor. Survey largely involved offsetting the proposed reserve for the distribution line of 10 meters from the centre of the corridor (5 meters on either side) to define the extent of the land of interest. Because all the resultant data were in the National Control system, the points at which the boundary lines were traversed by the proposed reserve line were pegged using the same GPS equipment in a set-out mode and simultaneously a strip map showing the effect, plot and size was generated for the Valuer to use in referencing and computing compensation packages to the different interests. The basis of valuation for compensation primarily lay in the constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 and the Land Act 1998. Due to lack of Area Compensation Rates for the districts of Ibanda and Kiruhura, the consultant applied/used the current Area Compensation Rates of Mbarara the mother district to arrive at the compensation awards to the PAPs. The valuation was ii informed by reconnaissance visits which indicated that construction of the distribution line would impose negligible restrictions on the use of land for cattle rearing/grazing which is the main economic activity for three quarter (¾) of the route stretch-thus land was not captured in the valuation but may be compensated for on a case by case basis. The date of the valuation is November 2010. A total of 1045 entities to be affected by the proposed project were covered during the socio economic census across 12 sub-counties from the two districts-excluding properties for which respondents could not be traced. The entities can be categorised in to three with male owners comprising 73% (755), female owners comprising 21% (222) and Institutions comprising 6% (58). A total of 1,269 Project Affected Persons (PAPs) eligible for compensation under the criteria set were identified. The difference between total entities identified (1045) and the PAPs to be compensated is due to the fact that no respondents could be traced at the time of the census while in some instances respondents declined to take part in the interview- this is one of the limitations faced by the socioeconomic team. There seems to be a perception that the socioeconomic census is less important compared to survey and valuation. The PAPs were asked to indicate how they would like their situation to be handled given the indicated extent of the corridor. A total of 995 (97%) respondents mentioned cash compensation as the preferred mode of settlement followed by relocation cited by 376 (37%). Some respondents did not express preference for any measure while two wanted their premises to be connected to the grid for free. The desire to move appears to have been due to expectations of greater compensation in the event of moving as well as concerns over safety/risks associated with the power line. Suggestions on the implementation of the project were mainly affirmations of the support for the proposed project Two key conclusions can be drawn from the results of the socioeconomic studies; first is that under the present arrangements, the adverse effects of the project will be limited to destruction of crops and trees which will be compensated for. However, the major concerns of the PAPs are in relation to safety and the timeliness and adequacy of the compensation. Addressing these concerns will require inclusion of measures to ensuring safety of communities along the power line in the project design which will be communicated in downstream sensitization exercises-pre disclosure. Second is that while the project promises several benefits to the communities with the potential of transforming the social economic set up of the project area, the concern is how to ensure that the benefits of the project are far reaching and cut across different strata of the communities particularly the poor. Subsidizing the electricity consumption of rural households is one of the iii main avenues of ensuring that the project benefits accrue to a larger proportion of the communities in the project area. Efforts will be made to bring disclosure closer to the elderly as well as providing them with necessary assistance during payment including assistance in opening bank accounts where required. For the widows, they will have to be provided with guidance on how to utilize the money from compensation to ensure that immediate needs do not capture resources that would otherwise be used for setting up income generating enterprises. In all these cases individuals will have the option of declining the extra assistance proposed here. In order to get feed- back on the efficacy of the grievance mechanism, internal audits will be undertaken periodically. External audits of the same will be undertaken by an independent party (to be identified by REA) to enable elimination of risks associated with improper functioning of the system. The information collected during the RAP preparation exercises will serve as baseline for the monitoring and evaluation indicators including; overall spending on compensation and other interventions (planned), number of PAPs compensated, number of grievances received, overall spending on compensation and other interventions (spent), number of PAPs who have been reached (disclosure), number of grievances settled. It is estimated that implementation of this RAP will cost about Ug. Shillings 328,638,414 including; Ug. Shillings 285,772,534 for compensation, Ug. Shillings 42,865,880 for disclosure and, payment. iv Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ ii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ v Glossary of Abbreviations Used .................................................................................................. viii 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Back Ground to the Project ..................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Overview of the Project .......................................................................................... 2 1.1.2 Description of the Project Components .................................................................. 2 1.1.3 Minimizing Resettlement ........................................................................................ 2 2. Methodology .................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Reconnaissance and consultations .......................................................................... 4 2.2 Mobilization and Sensitization ............................................................................... 4 2.2.1 Cadastral survey and design review ........................................................................ 5 Objective ................................................................................................................................. 5 Technique ................................................................................................................................ 5 Freehold Land Records ..........................................................................................................

Load more