Social Monitoring Report
Project No.: 43150-022 September 2017
Tajikistan: Regional Power Transmission Project
Prepared by: Fichtner Consulting Engineers for JHSC Barki Tojik for the Asian Development Bank (ADB)
This final social monitoring report is a document of the borrower. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of ADB's Board of Directors, Management, or staff, and may be preliminary in nature. Your attention is directed to the “terms of use” section of this website. In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area. BARKI TOJIK OPEN STOCK HOLDING POWER COMPANY
Dushanbe-Tajikistan Regional Power Transmission Project, Tajikistan ADB Grant No. 0213-TAJ
Social Safeguards Compliance Final Monitoring Report for LARPs on the 220kV Transmission Lines Geran-Rumi, Kairakum-Asht, and Kairakum-Sughd (Final Report revised in August 2017)
Fichtner Consulting Engineers Stuttgart – Germany
August 2017
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abbreviations and Local Terms 4 Definition of Terms 5 Introduction to Socio-Economic Final Report 6 0. Executive Summary 7 1. Introduction and Description of Project and Line Corridors 1.1 Introduction and general overview 10 1.2 Geran-Rumi line 10 1.3 Kairakum-Asht line 11 1.4 Kairakum-Sughd line 12 2. Scope of Land Acquisition and Resettlement 2.1 Farms affected or: Who is the partner in the compensation process? 13 2.2 Scope of land acquisition according to type of intervention 14 2.3 Geran-Rumi line 15 2.4 Kairakum-Asht line 16 2.5 Kairakum-Sughd line 17 3. Socio-Economic Aspects of LARP and Impact of Line Construction 3.1 Socio-economic situation in the project areas 18 3.2 Impacts of project on local communities 18 4. Legal Framework and Compensation Policy 4.1 Policy and legal framework for land acquisition and resettlement 21 4.2 Tajikistan constitution, law and regulation on land acquisition, resettlement, and compensation for expropriation 21 4.3 ADB’s Policy on Involuntary Resettlement 22 5. Gender Impact and Mitigation Measures 25 6. Information, Consultation and Disclosure Process 6.1 Information and consultation 26 6.2 Resettlement and relocation options for APFs losing agricultural lands 27 6.3 Community responses to the project 28 6.4 Diclosure 29 7. Grievance Redress Mechanism Established and Applied 7.1 The established grievance redress mechanism 30 7.2 Results from consultation and monitoring process application 31 8. Institutional Framework 8.1 Institutional arrangements 32 8.2 Commission on Assessment of Damages and Losses 33 8.3 Barki Tojik’s institutional capacity building in resettlement 33 8.4 Resettlement database 34 9. Resettlement/Compensation Budget 9.1 Introduction to compensation policy adopted 34 9.2 Geran-Rumi line 37 9.3 Kairakum-Asht ine 37 9.4 Kairakum-Sughd ine 37 10. Monitoring and Evaluation 10.1 M+E system, it performance and results 38 10.2 Institutional support to PMU 40 11. Conclusions Regarding Compliance of Project with ADB SPS 2009 Requirements 41 12. Conclusions 42 13. Recommendations 43 13. References 44
Attachment Photo-Documentation of Line Condition in February 2017 45
3 Abbreviation
ADB Asian Development Bank AF Affected Family agric. agricultural AP Affected Person BT Barki Tojik CBO Community Based Organization CC Civil Code CADL Commission on Assessment of Damages and Losses DMS Detailed Measurement Survey SEMD Barki Tojik PMU Social and Environment Monitoring Department GoT Government of Tajikistan GRC Grievance Redress Committee IOL Inventory of losses IR Involuntary Resettlement ha hectare/s hh household/s HVTL High Voltage Transmission Line kg kilogram LA land acquisition LARP Land Acquisition and Resettlement Plan LC Land Code MEI Ministry of Energy and Industry NGO Non-Governmental Organization p.a. per year p.c. per person p.m. per month PAP Project Affected Persons PMU Project Management Unit of Barki Tojik ROW Right Of Way RoT Republic of Tajikistan SEMD Barki Tojik PMU Social and Environment Monitoring Department SME Small and Medium-sized Enterprise/s t tower TJS Tajik Somoni (US$ 100 = TJS 626 in July 2015 and TJS 800 in February 2017) TL Transmission Line USD United States Dollars ZOI Zone of Influence
Local Terms aryk Irrigation channel dekhan farm Farm under private management organized either individually, by a family or collectively Goskhoz State farm Hakim Chairman of Rayon administration Hukumat District Administration Jamoat Sub-District, Sub-District Administration Kolkhoz Soviet-era collective farm Land Committee Responsible body of District for all land related questions Mahalla Village/neighbourhood Mahalla committee Board of mahalla organization (with all citizens in the mahalla area as members) Oblast Region Rais Chairperson (Tajik term, e.g. chairperson of neighbourhood = rais mahalla) Rayon District sotikh Russian square measure of 100 m2 Sovkhoz Soviet-era state-owned farm
4
Definition of Terms
Affected persons - Means all the people affected by the project through land acquisition, (APs) relocation, or loss of incomes and includes any person, household Also: Affected families (sometimes referred to as project affected family), firms, or public or (AFs) private institutions. APs therefore include; i) persons affected directly by the safety corridor, right-of-way, tower or pole foundations or construction work area; (ii) persons whose agricultural land or other productive assets such as trees or crops are affected; (iii) persons whose businesses are affected and who might experience loss of income due to the project impact; (iv) persons who lose work/employment as a result of project impact; and (v) people who lose access to community resources/property as a result of the project. Compensation - Means payment in cash or kind for an asset to be acquired or affected by a project at replacement cost at current market value.
Cut-off date - Means the date after which people will NOT be considered eligible for compensation i.e. they are not included in the list of APs as defined by the census. Normally, the cut-off date is the date of the detailed measurement survey. Detailed - Means the detailed inventory of losses that is completed after detailed Measurement Survey design and marking of project boundaries on the ground by the (DMS) contractor. Entitlement - Means the range of measures comprising cash or compensation in kind, relocation cost, income rehabilitation assistance, transfer assistance, income substitution, and relocation which are due to /business restoration which are due to APs, depending on the type and degree nature of their losses, to restore their social and economic base. Inventory of Losses - Means the pre-appraisal inventory of assets as a preliminary record of (IOL) affected or lost assets. Land acquisition - Means the process whereby a person is compelled by a public agency to alienate all or part of the land s/he owns or possesses, to the ownership and possession of that agency, for public purposes, in return for compensation at replacement costs. Poor - Means those falling below the official national poverty line. Replacement cost - Means the method of valuing assets to replace the loss at current market value, or its nearest equivalent, and is the amount of cash or kind needed to replace an asset in its existing condition, without deduction of transaction costs or for any material salvaged. Replacement Cost - This refers to the process involved in determining replacement costs of Study affected assets based on empirical data. Significant impact - Means 200 people or more will experience major impacts, which are defined as; (i) being physically displaced from housing, or (ii) losing ten per cent or more of their productive assets (income generating). Vulnerable - Means any people who might suffer disproportionately or face the risk of being marginalized from the effects of resettlement and includes: (i) female-headed households with dependents; (ii) disabled household heads; (iii) poor households (within the meaning given previously); (iv) landless; (v) elderly households with no means of support; (vi) households without security of tenure; (vii) ethnic minorities; and (viii) marginal farmers (with landholdings of five acres or less, which is not applicable in Tajikistan’s irrigated sector where land sizes are only one hectare on average).
5 Introduction to Socio-Economic Final Report
This Report aims at providing an overview on the implementation of three LARPs which were elaborated, updated and followed up within the frame of the ADB-GoT-CAREC Project in various areas of Tajikistan (ADB Grant No. 0213-TAJ). The report is based on the final version of each LARP. It is taking up the structure of the LARPs and thereby showing the development of each LARP during the construction phase and including the results of the final monitoring after completion of construction works: i. 220 kV HVTL between Geran substation and Rumi substation in Khatlon Oblast, based on LARP of 2012, and updated LARP of September 2014, with some addenda by Barki Tojik PMU during construction works within the financial framework of the provided contingencies; ii. 220 kV HVTL between Kairakum substation and Asht substation1 in Sughd Oblast, based also on LARP of 2012, implemented without addenda but with changes in the addressees for compensation payments based on a Due Diligence Survey Mission 1st until 4th April 2014 after wrongly made compensation payments to farm representatives instead of affected people; iii. 220 kV HVTL between Kairakum substation and Sughd substation in Sughd Oblast, based on LARP of 2015 with addendum of 2016 and some minor changes during construction without any adverse impact on houses or additional requirement agricultural areas.
The implementation of all three LARPs were constantly monitored by Barki Tojik’s M+E Department and annually at least by one mission of the consultant’s socio-economic expert. During these missions, work progress was recorded and visits to affected farmers carried out.
During construction works, affected people were also able to use the instruments as prepared by the grievance redress mechanism. Members of all affected households could communicate at any time directly with the head of BT’s M+E Department which they knew from the DMS and the assessment of damages prior to construction works.
In November 2016 a survey was accomplished by the consultant’s local socio-economic expert who carried out focus group discussions in all Jamoats which were crossed by the three line corridors supplemented by individual interviews.
After completion of the third line (Kairakum – Sughd) a final survey was carried out by the consultant’s socio-economic expert again with interviews in all three project corridor areas. In all Jamoats affected by the line construction these meetings allowed for another chance for farmers and all Jamoat leaders to provide information on the impacts of construction works, damages and/or problems not yet redressed.
This final report summarizes the arrangements of the three LARPs, the most important events during LARP implementation and the results of the compensation process. It cannot provide insights into the development impacts of the line projects apart from the fact that for the Kairakum – Asht HVTL line already a significant improvement of electricity supply during the last months was reported by the Rayon and Jaomat administrations and confirmed by the local APs.
Details regarding magnitude of damages and compensation payments for every farm affected are presented in the attachments A - C while attachment D provides a glimpse of the construction sites and new towers after project completion.
1 At first this HVTL was named according to its starting point at Kairakum substation Kairakum-Sughd line. Later the project numbers given to the towers were scheduled with the first at Sughd substation and ending with no. 176 at Kairakum substation. The LARP as well as most project related reports retained the earlier denomination Kairakum- Sughd. 6 Executive Summary
Basic Line Data Geran-Rumi Total length of line: 77.467 km from Geran substation near Dusti (Kumsangir Rayon) to Rumi substation No. of towers: 226 Towers on agricultural lands*: 173 Towers on barren lands*: 53 Permanent losses of land: 23,431 m2 (= 2.3 ha) Temporary*** losses of land: 252,931 m2 (= 25.3 ha) Kairakum-Asht Total length of line: 74.289 km from Kairakum substation (Bobojon Gafurov Rayon) to Asht substation (Asht Rayon) No. of towers: 183 (incl. gantry) Towers on agricultural land: 21; 6 corner towers and 15 suspension towers Towers on barren lands: 162 Permanent losses of land: 1,902 m2 (= 0.2 ha) Temporary losses of land: approx. 20,000 m2 (= 2.0 ha) Kairakum Sughd Total length of line: 63.317 km from Kairakum substation (Bobojon Gafurov Rayon) to Sughd substation (Spitamen Rayon) No. of towers: 176 Towers on agricultural land: 42 Towers on barren lands: 134 Permanent losses of land: 8,743 m2 (= 0.9 ha) Temporary losses of land: 197,320 m2 (= 19.7 ha) Philosophy of To fit ADB requirements efforts have been made while elaborating the LARPs three LARPs to avoid/minimize as much as possible negative impacts. Non-agricultural private or government-owned land is used wherever possible. Where the HVTL has to traverse agricultural land, the shortest feasible crossing distance has been proposed. Built-up areas are avoided and resettlement of households should be, if ever possible, completely avoided. By implementing a very thorough determination of possible line corridors for each HVTL it was completely possible to avoid destruction of houses and other relevant buildings so that no APs were forced to move from their homes. This required a couple of additional corner towers and expenditure mainly for Geran-Rumi and Kairakum-Sughd lines. Accordingly, there was no objection at all against the LARP contents and the project in general. Affected farms** Geran-Rumi 202: 96 farms in Kumsangir Rayon, 85 farms in Jilukul Rayon, 15 farms in Rumi Rayon, and 6 farms in Kabodian Rayon Kairakum-Asht 16: 9 farms in Bobojon Gafurov Rayon, and 7 farms in Asht Rayon; Kairakum-Sughd 91: 4 farms in Ganchi Rayon, 52 farms in B. Gafurov Rayon, and 35 farms in Spitamen Rayon. Losses and For all permanent losses land users received an allowance for lost land compensation use rights based on the market value of the potential produce of the affected land x 5 years (for fruit bearing trees x 7 years). For temporary losses, payment was be made according to the specific losses (either annual or perennial crops). All damages of channels, roads, bridges, etc., resulting from the construction work, were repaired by the contractor. The full compensation of affected assets was a condition for the initiation of civil works. The payment was monitored by an external auditor for Geran-Rumi and Kairakum-Asht lines, while for Kairakum-Sughd line by BT‘s PMU M+E unit. Payments were also cross-checked by the consultant’s socio-economic
7 expert. For Kairakum-Asht line, this means the repayment of the compensation money was enforced and payment finally made to the actual APs. Gender impacts No negative gender impacts of the project are reported. Prior to construction a major concern of men was that temporary land acquisition could result in interrupting cropping and harvest. Men also doubt if they would receive actual compensation for tower placements. Women did not express such concerns and supported the opinion that the project would have little if any (adverse) impact on them. After construction this view was confirmed. However, for Kairakum-Asht HVTL a positive gender impact could be expected: as by now electricity is constantly supplied in Asht Rayon school children are better able to do their homework - and there is evidence that girls perform slightly better than boys while using this opportunity. The list of affected hh shows that just a couple of women-headed hh were amongst the affected persons. These hh received additional 25% compensation. Vulnerable Vulnerable hh received additional compensation and some additional people support from the project. The same was true for hh for which permanent losses of land will exceed 10% of their land being currently used. In total, no vulnerable people were identified for the Kairakum-Asht HVTL. For Geran-Rumi line, four hh were identified as vulnerable and compensated with additional 25% on the value of damages. The same additional compensation money was paid to two farms which lost more than 10% of their land for the new Geran substation site. For the Kairakum-Sughd HVTL four hh were identified as vulnerable and compensated accordingly. Grievance An adequate grievance redress mechanism was established by the redress LARP. In addition, care was taken to prevent grievances. This was done through careful land acquisition design and implementation, by ensuring full AF-participation and consultation, and by establishing extensive communication and coordination between the community, the BT/PMU and the local governments. This resulted in the complete absence of any complaints regarding compensation payments prior to civil works and with regard to damages during construction works. However, for some farmers in Bobojon Gafurov Rayon its PMU and the consultant were able to prevent the actual APs from being cheated by some collective farm managers when it came to payment of compensation money for losses. Consultation The initial versions of the LARPs were prepared in close consultation with process some of the possible APs who very early were informed about the project and its likely impacts (by group meetings and individual visits to hh). During project implementation, consultation with APs continued. There was a close communication also with the PMU M+E representative at all times during the project planning phase and construction works. After completion of civil works about 20% of the APs were consulted additionally. Costs of LARPs Funds for the implementation of the LARP are part of the overall project budget. For all three LARPs the initial cost estimates proved to be very accurate. Additional costs after DMS and payments of compensation were fully covered by the contingencies (mainly for the Geran-Rumi HVTL). Rehabilitation of construction sites was not covered by the LARP costs but realized under the construction budget by the contractor immediately after completion of tower construction and stringing.
8 Geran-Rumi Geran substation: total compensation payments are TJS 300,983 Geran-Rumi HVTL: total compensation payments for affected farms in four Rayons are TJS 585,412. Kairakum-Asht Total expenditure for Bobojon Gafurov Rayon is TJS 116,834, and for Asht Rayon TJS 22,997, the total compensation payment is TJS 139,831. Kairakum Sughd Total expenditure for compensation in the three Rayons of Bobojon Gafurov, Ganchi, and Spitamen is TJS 277,464 General The elaboration of all three LARPs was based on information and conclusions consultation of all stakeholders at a very early stage. A thorough field work with local support (BT staff, Jamoat staff, farmers) resulted in the identification of line corridors which did not require the demolition of houses and the resettlement of its inhabitants. Even the loss of adjoining buildings was almost unnecessary. Wherever possible, barren land was used for tower construction. The assessment of damages and the establishment of the compensation payments was made in close cooperation with all stakeholders and did not create any grievance. Construction work was made with extreme caution so that in general less land was used on a temporary basis than provided in the compensation contracts. This is all the more true for stringing which nowhere required the cutting of trees and even grapevines were spared by predominantly handmade stringing. Remarks * For all three lines: figures are estimates as for a small number of towers it remains unclear if the land is still in use (here, farmers were given the benefit of the doubt); ** as a remarkable no. of these farms are either family or collective dekhan farms the no. of affected and compensated households is much larger than the no. of farms; *** due to careful construction work less land was de facto affected.
9 1. Introduction and Description of Project and Line Corridors
1.1 Introduction and general overview
In the focus of this report is the construction of the three high voltage transmission lines (HVTL) under ADB Project 0213 TJ (CAREC):
I. Geran - Rumi HVTL: 77.467 km with a total of 226 towers, II. Kairakum-Asht HVTL: 74.289 km with a total of 183 towers, III. Kairakum-Sughd (later renamed Sughd-Kairakum) HVTL: 63.317 km with a total of 176 towers.
For Geran-Rumi HVTL in addition a new substation has been built next to the old Geran substation opposite the main road. For this substation seven hectares of agricultural land have been acquired and the members of two collective dekhan farms compensated. The entire process from the identification of the land required to construction works including M+E was part of the LARP for Geran-Rumi HVTL.
1.2 Geran-Rumi line
This line starts at the new substation of Geran (part of CAREC project with land acquisition and resettlement provisions as for the HVTL project itself) and crosses four Rayons (see below) on 77.467 km. The total number of towers is 226 out of which 173 are constructed on agricultural land and 53 on barren land.
Regarding the administrative structure, the transmission line Geran - Rumi crosses four Rayons (districts) with 13 Jamoats (sub-districts):
I. Kumsangir (Kumsangyr) Rayon (starting at Geran substation in the North-East) with Jamoats of • Yakkadin • Istiqlol • Pyandj • Dusti.
II. Rumi Rayon with Jamoats of • Tugalang • Frunze
III. Jilikul (Dusti) Rayon with Jamoats of • Nuri Vakhsh • Dekhonabad • Jilikul • Gulmurod.
IV. Kabodyan Rayon with Jamoats of • Kaboyan • Nasir Khusrav • I. Niyazav.
To compare with the Northern Kairakhum-Asht line (cf. §1.3) the Geran-Rumi line routing initially provided quite a few challenges with regard to the objective to avoid physical resettlement of households. The initial line corridor proposal was relatively old and did not yet consider huge new settlement activities. When the new LARP (first draft) was elaborated in 2012, quite a few rows of houses were blocking the tentative corridor.
10 Several field visits and discussions with members of the Rayon land commission, the Rayon architects, and the representatives from the concerned Jamoats resulted in a completely new corridor with a very complex final design which did not require any shifting of private or public buildings so that no APs at all had to be resettled. However, to compare with the very first design this solution required additional corner and suspension towers and extra costs.
The main adverse impacts to the local people are caused by the footing of 173 of a total of 226 towers which had to be constructed on productive agricultural lands. In order to avoid damages even for these towers locations were selected according to the rule to take the site with the lowest adverse impact so that only very few house gardens were affected, almost no trees cut and just one building replaced (a shop constructed slightly after the cut-off date so that the commission also in this special case agreed upon a compensation payment).
The remaining 53 TL towers could be constructed on mountain areas, empty barren hills, road ROW, and wasteland and did not cause any direct social impact. However, based on Tajik legislation, the area taken for these TL towers on public lands was also compensated, based on an inter-governmental nominal price to the hukamat governments. This compensation indeed is not part of the LARP but an internal Barki-Tojik governmental affair.
1.3 Kairakum-Asht line
This line starts at the rehabilitated substation of Kairakum (part of CAREC project within the territory of the old substation, which is why no land acquisition was required) and crosses only two Rayons on its route of 74.289 km. The total number of towers is 183 out of which 21 are constructed on agricultural land and 162 on barren land. Agricultural areas are only placed at the beginning of the line at the Syr Darya River and before arriving at Asht substation.
Regarding the administrative structure, the transmission line Kairakum-Asht crosses only two Rayons (districts) with five Jamoats (sub-districts):
I. Bobojon Gafurov Rayon (starting at Kairakum substation in the West) with Jamoats of • Ispisor • Ismoil.
II. Asht Rayon in the East with Jamoats of • Shodoba • Shaydon • Pongoz.
The main adverse impact to the local people of this line is caused by the footing of 21 of a total of 183 towers which had to be constructed on more or less productive agricultural lands. The remaining 162 towers could be constructed on areas with mainly desert character or road ROW and wasteland which lacks irrigation facilities. Again, based on Tajik legislation, even these areas taken for the construction of towers on a permanent base were compensated by Barki-Tojik.
The identification of a suitable line corridor also took some time as at the beginning, after crossing the Syr Darya River and the valley of a rivulet, some of the best agricultural areas of B. Gafurov Rayon had to be traversed. In order to minimize damages the line was, as early as possible, led away from this area through barren land with a desert character for up to a few kilometers, before reaching Asht. Also the last kilometers did not constitute major problems as this area was used mainly for fruit trees, but lacking irrigation water so that the plantations were more or less dried up. Those areas with healthier trees were spared in most cases. Even where the line had to cross a plantation with more valuable trees the contractor worked in a manner that did not require cutting of fruit bearing trees.
11 Accordingly, the assessment of losses and the agreement on compensation for the Kairakum- Asht line was much less complicated than for the lines Geran-Rumi and Kairakum-Sught.
1.4 Kairakum-Sughd line
This line starts at the new Sughd 500kV/220kV substation (Spitamen Rayon) in the West (not being part of the CAREC project) with a total length of line of 63.317 km before reaching Kairakum substation (Bobojon Gafurov Rayon). The total number of towers is 176, out of which 42 are constructed on agricultural land and 134 on barren land. Agricultural areas are mainly placed after about two km behind Sughd Substation until crossing the Syr Darya River and before the line reaches the territory of Khudjand town and behind the urban area again until the Syr Darya where the line again crosses the river before arriving at Kairakum substation.
Regarding the administrative structure, the transmission line Kairakum - Sughd crosses three Rayons (districts) with eight Jamoats (sub-districts):
I. Ganchi (Devashtikh) Rayon (starting at Sughd substation in the west) with Jamoat • Yakhtan.
II. Spitamén Rayon with Jamoats of • Kurush/Kurkat • Sarband/ Qushtegirmon • Khuramzamin.
III. Bobojon Gafurov Rayon (in the eastern sector around Kairakum) with Jamoats of • Yova • Dodoboi Kholmatov • Ismoil • Ispisor.
In addition, some areas of the City of Khudjand are affected with regard to land acquisition by Barki Tojik for the construction of quite a few towers on state owned land in this area. However, compensation for state land is not part of the LARP as stated before.
The main adverse impacts to the local people are caused by the footing of 42 of a total of 176 towers which had to be constructed on productive agricultural lands. The remaining 134 TL towers are constructed mainly on mountain areas, barren hills, and wasteland which for a long time lacks irrigation water and do not cause any direct social impact.
The current line corridor is the result of balancing various alternatives. Initial plans of BT showed four different line alternatives: (i.) a line corridor remaining completely south of the Syr Darya river from Kairakum through densely populated and agriculturally intensively used lands to Sughd 500 kV substation, (ii.) a corridor starting on the northern banks of the Syr Darya river and after about 35 km turning southwards in order to follow alternative (i.), (iii.) a line corridor bypassing the mountain areas south of Khudjand and turning southwards only near to the Uzbek border where the line would cross the Syr Darya river and continue to Sughd substation, and, most recently added, (iv.) a corridor crossing the Syr Darya from the double circuit Kairakum-Asht line following the existing 220 kV line mainly parallel to the northern side of the Syr Darya on the southern slopes of the mountain and crossing the Syr Darya River near to the Uzbek border in order to run southwards to Sughd substation.
In order to follow the guidelines of BT and ADB not to demolish houses and resettle people the fourth alternative was selected, although it took some efforts in order to avoid crossing some industrial areas of Khudjand town and one area which was subject to possible future
12 urbanization. In the end, the line was conducted north of the urban area with some towers placed on the slopes of the adjacent mountains.
2. Scope of Land Acquisition and Resettlement
2.1 Farms affected or: Who is the partner in the compensation process?
Apart from barren land, mainly or even exclusively belonging to the state, the line routes crossed considerable strips of agricultural land. There are three types of farms and owners in Tajikistan to which this land may belong (apart from a few still existing state owned farms):
I. The first is registered as individual dekhan farm, i.e. the land title has been attributed to one single man or woman or as a common share of both. This type of farm is very uncommon in all three line corridors. Individual dekhan farms include seldom more than two ha of land, but may be limited to less than half a hectare. For this farm contractual arrangements and compensation payments are very easy. BT has to deal only with one person and final payments goes to the contractual partner himself.
II. The second type of farm is the family dekhan farm where an extended family (several households) shares a common land title. Such a farm may be limited to one or two ha and seldom exceeds 10 to 15 ha. For this farm contractual arrangements and compensation payments are also more or less easy. BT has again to deal only with one person, the family farm representative, and final payments go to the farm representative, too. The family members have to decide internally what to do with the money.
III. The third type of farm is the collective dekhan farm. Regarding such farms there is a broad spectrum of structures2. The most common collective dekhan farm consists of the shared land of a dozen up to several hundred of farmers. They all could get an individual or family land title. However, in order to avoid bureaucracy, due to low experience in agriculture, convenience, but also as a result of lack of information about the land legislation they do not insist in individual titles but join together under one collective land title. Such farms may have only 10 or 15 ha but may exceed 1,000 ha or more according to the former entire collective farm of an area or parts of it.
For this type of farm contractual arrangements and compensation payments are very difficult – in practice. In theory all members of a collective farm have equal rights if it comes to decision making. According again to the internal decisions they may elect one person as farm representative or a group of persons with one chairperson who represents the farm vis-à-vis the local administration, input providers and/or customers who purchase the farm products. Again, but in theory, BT could deal only with one person and final payments could go to the farm representative as the contractual partner himself.
In reality, many collective farm are usurped by their managers which treat their farm co- owners as subordinates and workers instead of shareholders. It was very common during the identification of the suitable line corridor and later during assessments of damages to deal with this type of farm representative who spoke solely in their own name and acted in their personal interest. Many of them did not provide any information about the compensation procedure to their folks so that the LARPs had to be based on a strategy which reached the farmers actually affected and not the farm representatives.
A second problem apart from the misbehaviour of the farm managers is the fact that the members of a collective farm work either on a plot of land which they use permanently or they work on the farmland wherever labour is required without having their “own” plot. In the first
2 For example, a collective dekhan farm could be transformed into a joint stock company for which the rules regarding the compensation process would be the same (see below) 13 case it is easy to identify the person affected by the line construction and to pay him or her the compensation amount as fixed by the responsible commission of the Rayon.
For the compensation under the second case two alternatives were introduced. Both were based on a democratic decision-making process within the entire group of each collective farm. Alternative (i.) was the decision which has to be taken by the general assembly of the collective farm to distribute the money from the compensation payment to all farmers of their farm in equal share. The second (ii.) alternative was to invest the money from the compensation payment into the infrastructure of the farm, into input supply or other important means of production. For both cases a regular meeting of the general assembly was required and a decision to be made with the majority of all votes.
2.2 Scope of land acquisition according to types of intervention
The line construction prevailingly evoked the following four main types of losses:
I. Permanent losses for towers which range between a minimum of about 56 m2 for suspension towers and a maximum of 289 m2 for the strongest corner towers. Most corner towers required between 132 m2 and 210 m2. For the land under the towers no continuation of agricultural usage is allowed. Monitoring missions proved that farmers strictly respected this demand.
II. Temporary losses for work sites which were calculated between 600 and not more than 1,200 m2. In theory, all this land was assumed as completely used and no crops left over to the owner. In practice, many work sites were smaller and none exceeded the size which was scheduled and compensated.
III. Temporary losses for access to work sites were estimated at four meters wide and the length between the next road and the work site. Usually, these limits of space were respected. However, in a few cases farmers complained that lorries exceeded the width of four meters. Monitoring visits showed that there was not a single case where work sites, together with space for the access road, exceeded the volume of damages which were compensated before.
IV. Temporary losses for stringing, which were assumed to happen on a corridor of four meters width along the entire line. So one kilometer of line stringing would cause damages on 4,000 m2, this being either fields with crops, grapevines, fruit tree gardens or other useful trees (mainly expected poplars and mulberry trees). The exact usage of the land was assessed during the DMS and compensation paid as if all the products on these 4,000 m2 would be lost. In practice, most stringing work was done by hand with much lower rate of damages than expected and calculated.
During stringing both lines (Kairakum-Asht and Kairakum-Sughd), in the grapevine areas of B. Gaforov Rayon much of the grapevines and their concrete poles were spared so that perhaps even less than 50% of the predicted damages actually occurred. For fruit trees monitoring missions showed even less damages. The larger apricot gardens at Asht substation were almost completely spared and only some branches cut instead of adult trees. Only some areas with apricot seedlings were cut down.
2.3 Geran-Rumi line Geran substation:
Initially, it was assumed that about 10 ha of land were required for the construction of the new 220 kV substation of Geran. As the area chosen was intensively used agricultural land it was achieved to reduce the area required to seven ha. These seven ha belonged to two farms, (i.)
14 5.65 ha to one larger collective dekhan farm “Vahdat” with a total surface of 50 ha of agricultural land which was continuously used until the transfer to BT, (ii.) 1.35 ha to a family farm “Abubakr” with only 5.1 ha of arable land.
All trials to reduce the land requirements from the second farm were untenable so that the loss of 26.5% of the farmland was coercive. The losses for the first farm at 11.3 percent were also slightly above the limit for low losses so that also this case was treated as bad impact with additional compensation payments.
Against this background it is important to mention that prior to the elaboration of the LARP, the Hukumat of Kumsangi/Dusti concerned had put pressure on the two farmer groups to hand over the land as a present to the government “in favour of the development of the energy sector”. This present was documented by a letter signed by the representatives of the two dekhan farms.
In co-ordination with the consultant, PMU decided not to accept this present which would have caused hardship and severe losses in income for the farmers of the two dekhan farms. Consequently, for the seven ha the same procedure was carried out as for the line corridor with full compensation payment plus additional payment for severe impacts (both farms were granted 25% additional payment to the amount assessed for the general losses).
Table 1: Affected APs and Land Area Affected for Geran Substation Number Remarks Number of affected APs with 2 farm units 57 members of farm no. 1 losses (collective dekhan farm) and 7 members of farm no. 2 (family dekhan farm) Affected land area in ha 7.0 ha (permanent) Affected land area in ha none (temporarily)
Geran-Rumi HVTL
Out of the 226 towers for the HVTL, 173 were constructed on agricultural land. Under the legal norms of Tajikistan, no agricultural or other land use activity is permitted under any erected transmission line tower. Therefore, acquisition of land had to be permanent for the foundations of the towers. As presented more in detail in chapter 4 land acquisition from private dekhan farms has to be compensated according to Tajik law and additional regulations between the state and the donor (ADB). Towers in mountains/unused areas require transfer of land from the local administration to Barki Tojik and payment from Barki Tojik to the concerned state bodies.
Due to the fact that huge areas along the line corridor are intensively used agricultural lands, 23,431 m2 were required for footing of towers (i.e. permanent losses for the farmers) and another 252,931 m2 were taken for construction and stringing on a temporary basis. All this land was compensated according to the LARP (cf. chapter 9). For this line no physical resettlement of private households or public institutions at all took place.
In one place a shop was demolished and the owner compensated although it remained not clear if the owner had disregarded the cut-off date. However, in order to avoid any tension compensation was negotiated and agreed on the basis of the costs for new construction material. During the final impact monitoring the affected person expressed his full agreement with the arranged solution.
15 In one second case compensation was paid for an adjoining building in one enclosed farm area which was no longer used. As the owner would have the chance to use this building again (only built from clay bricks) it was also compensated based on the costs for the material and both sides were fully satisfied with this compromise.
In total, line construction affected 202 farms between Geran and Rumi, 96 farms in Kumsangir, 85 farms in Jilukul, 15 farms in Rumi, and six farms in Kabodian.
Cases of specific interest are hh with losses exceeding 10% of their arable land and vulnerable hh. For Jilikul Rayon only one of such hh was identified and compensated. This hh owned only 2,000 m2 and was considered as very poor so that they got additional 25% although the suffered no permanent losses. In Kabodian there were three cases: (i.) on house garden affected with losses of 63 m3 out of a total of only 500 m2, (ii.) one women-headed hh with losses of 289 m2 out of a total of 2,000 m2, and (iii.) one other women-headed hh with temporary losses on 140 m2.
Table 2: Affected APs and Land Area Affected for Geran-Rumi HVTL Number Remarks Number of affected APs with 202 farm units 4 vulnerable APs losses Affected land area in ha 23,431 m2 (permanent) Affected land area in ha 252,931 m2 (temporarily)
2.4 Kairakum-Asht HVTL
Permanent losses for towers attained only 1,902 m2 or less than 0.2 hectare while temporary losses reached approximately 20,000 m2 or two hectares. It will be explained later that the real damages did not reach even this modest area of land, which was provided as losses and compensated to the farmers. We can assume that this observation is also true for the two other lines where the theoretical losses were calculated while construction was made sometimes on less land, and less damages of crops were effected than estimated.
For this line no physical resettlement or/and destruction of private households/houses or public institutions took place. Only in one place an adjoining building was compensated (TJS 600). All agricultural land was compensated according to the LARP.
The Kairkum-Asht line had to deal with 16 farm units, eight farms affected by losses in Bobojon Gafurov, and seven farms affected in Asht Rayon. For Asht a substantial part of the compensation payment was provided to a state farm (Goskhoz). There were no vulnerable hh either in Asht or in B. Gafurov Rayons.
As already mentioned in § 2.2 adverse impacts on the most valuable fruit tree and the grapevines areas in B. Gafurov Rayon and Asht were much less than assumed and compensated. However, if we can speak about relevant complaints with regard to all three lines only a handful of collective farm representatives of Ismoil Jamoat in the B. Gafurov area attract attention of the project team. First, these farm representatives tried to cheat PMU (and their farm co-shareholders) by presenting wrong ownership documents for their farms in order to claim the entire compensation payments for themselves. At first, they were successful and got the payment. A check of the documents by PMU and the consultant soon proved the frauds with the consequence that ADB and BT stopped project implementation. A due diligence mission of the consultant’s social expert with support of the government and the local Hakims allowed for a fast repayment of the funds and the transfer of the compensation payment to the actually affected farmers within the collective farms.
16 It was almost a joke that the very same men who previously had cheated PMU und their co- farm shareholders with regard to the land ownership and the compensation payment were the only people complaining after construction of the HVTL that damages exceeded the assessed values and begged for more money. PMU monitoring visits of the concerned areas proved very clearly that the opposite was true: both permanent and temporary damages were less than assumed and compensated.
Table 3: Affected APs and Land Area Affected for Kairakum-Asht HVTL Number Remarks Number of affected APs with 16 One state farm included losses Affected land area in ha 1,902 m2 (permanent) Affected land area in ha 20,000 m2 (temporarily)
2.5 Kairakum-Sughd HVTL
As for the Geran-Rumi line, due to the lack of alternatives parts of this Kairakum-Sughd line had to be constructed in areas with dense population and intensively used agricultural lands. 8.743 m2 (0.9 ha) were required for footing of towers (i.e. permanent losses for the farmers) and another 197,202 m2 (19.7 ha) were taken for construction sites, access to these sites, and stringing on a temporary basis. For this line no physical resettlement of private households or public institutions at all took place. All this land was compensated according to the LARP.
In total, line construction between Kairakum and Sugd substations affected 91 farms: four farms in Ganchi Rayon, 52 farms in B. Gafurov Rayon, and 35 farms in Spitamen Rayon. Amongst the owners of the affected farms there were four vulnerable households: (i.)in Spitamen, one women headed household lost 112.5 m2 for two towers out of 2,000 m2 of total land property; in B. Gafurov three hh were identified as vulnerable, (ii.) again one women headed hh which lost 132 m2 out of less than one ha arable land, (iii) another woman headed hh with a loss of 42 m2 (from a total of 1.38 ha), and (iv.) a fourth woman headed hh with a loss of 44 m2 out of 1.3 ha arable land.
Legal insecurity about land ownership in one area of Spitamen forced the project team to change a part of the HVTL corridor. This resulted in additional towers but less agricultural land required than the initial alternative selected for the line routing. The monitoring mission in February 2017 proved as for the two other lines that no additional damages exceeding the assumed and compensated adverse impacts occurred during construction work. It also became clear that most farmers received at least the amount of compensation payments which covered all damages if not (partially) even more than the value of their losses.
Table 4: Affected APs and Land Area Affected for Kairakum-Sughd HVTL Number Remarks Number of affected APs with 91 losses Affected land area in ha 8.743 m2 (permanent) Affected land area in ha 197,202 m2 (temporarily)
17 3. Socio-Economic Aspects of LARP and Impact of HVTL Construction
3.1 Socio-economic situation in the project areas
All three LARPs present an overview of the socio-economic situation in the project area. During LARP elaboration, hh surveys were made and focus group discussions carried out. For details about the living conditions of the affected households we refer to the final texts of the LARPs. In this final report only a summary of the social and economic set up is presented which allows for some conclusions.
The rural population of Bobojon Gafurov in Sughd Oblast is mainly engaged in agriculture and cattle breeding and therefore vulnerable to unstable weather conditions, limited land resources and deteriorated infrastructure. For example, in early 2015 a sudden incursion of frost affected flowering fruit trees resulting in a very poor harvest of apricots in June of this year. Land is scarce if related to the population figures. For example, in Kurkat/Kurush with a population of 28,423 individuals there are only 3,564 hectares of land. Out of this land, only about 1,560 ha are irrigated and from this irrigated land 462 ha are (fruit) tree plantations, leaving roughly 1,100 ha for crops.
The 2,000 ha of non-irrigated land depend on rain which allows for only one cropping season per year and the cultivation of only wheat and barley. Cotton and all types of vegetables, oil seeds, or alfalfa as an important source of animal fodder require regular irrigation and cannot be planted on rain fed lands.
For the other Rayons of the Kairakum-Sughd line the situation is similar. Spitamen has huge areas of good land but the irrigation situation is as critical as in B. Gafurov and Ganchi. In all three Rayons the challenge is to guarantee water lifting and water distribution, which requires electricity and the financial resources to pay for electricity and the maintenance of the irrigation infrastructure. The irrigation channels are also poorly maintained and as a consequence only an estimated 30% of the available water reaches the fields. Due to the scarcity of water supply parts of the land were left uncultivated during the elaboration of the LARPs. Nobody could definitely state that these lands will ever be used again. This situation was taken into account when the DMS and the valuation of losses were carried out.
For Asht, the situation is still worse but may improve in future with the additional electricity supply supported by the project. Huge areas which were under cultivation at least until the end of the Soviet Union, but possibly at least partly until most recent times, are deserted. Channels are dry and the land became wilderness again.
Khatlon between Geran and Rumi has enormous irrigated lands and a rich agricultural production although strips of barren hills are crossing the area. Every hectare of land in Khatlon depends on irrigation so that electricity supply and sustainable pumping is the precondition for the development of the local economy which is mainly based on the agricultural resources. Again, as in Sughd the poor condition of the irrigation systems and especially of the drainage channels and lack of water hampers the full utilization of the land.
3.2 Impacts of project on local communities
3.2.1 Adverse impacts
Social costs / losses from the HVTL projects resulted in direct and indirect impacts. Adverse impacts from construction works are both permanent and only temporary. Permanent losses are related to land. While loss of land in some cases could be accompanied by the loss of
18 private homes and other buildings the three lines within the CAREC project did not have such an impact. There was also no loss at all of public infrastructure. While HVTL could also affect cultural heritage and burial places, emphasis was made on avoiding such negative impacts. Especially for the Geran-Rumi line major changes in the line routing were made in order not to cross two burial places.
Some social losses/costs were non-permanent. The construction of all three HVTL damaged, apart from permanent land requirements, for instance crops and in some few cases also fruit trees and timber trees. However, again very little of such damages were allowed by the search for the most suitable (i.e. least harmful) line corridor.
Operation of and access to even a small construction site or the establishment of a construction camp did also cause temporary losses of crops for just one agricultural season. This was not at all avoidable even by the most generous line detours and sites for towers selected. But as for the other inevitable damages it must be emphasized that the construction company did much less harm to the farmland than assumed during the DMS and the damages assessed and compensated prior to civil works.
Indirect social costs/losses from electricity projects are mainly increases in electricity tariffs. A poor population does not have sufficient financial means to pay for increased tariffs and would, if possible, try to reduce electricity consumption. This fact may be important for the country in general. However, all stakeholders from Asht declared that such discussion would not diminish the overall positive impacts of the new line (cf. § 3.2.3).
3.2.2 Development impact of project
The development impact assessment of the project cannot be part of this final report regarding LARP implementation. However, as stated in the CAREC Regional Power Master Plan for Central Asia of 2011, safe electricity supply may contribute in various ways to the improvement of the living conditions. Improved electricity supply in many cases also stimulates the economic productivity of the population. Employment opportunities and additional income for the poor in the project areas from industrial development should also be taken into consideration.
Private use of electricity includes lighting, cooking, heating the house or apartment, use of electrical household devices (e.g. of sewing machines), in rural areas also small-scale agro processing (e.g. honey centrifuges, dairy accessories), etc. In general, household workload (mainly of women) is alleviated and time saved if electricity can be supplied throughout.
Heating the dwelling during winter is most essential in the continental climate of most regions of Central Asia. Lack of electricity during winter is one of the most pressing problems of all those (urban) households which depend on electrical heating.
Cooking with electricity is another challenge for hundreds of thousands of rural households. Where gas is lacking and electricity shut down for months people depend mainly on biomass, the use of which has various disadvantages including a strong negative impact on agriculture.
Electricity is a gender-friendly energy source: 24 h electricity supply during winter could prevent women from spending much time for collection of firewood. Last but not least, the availability of electricity is also a contribution to a healthy living environment.
Besides positive health impacts, educational services also profit from a stable electricity supply. Quite a few schools still have two shifts, one starting at early morning which requires the availability of electricity. Electricity supply is also required for computer classes.
19 In the health sector electricity supply is urgently required for diagnostics and medical treatment. Cooling facilities are needed e.g. for the storage of vaccines and some other medicaments.
Most industrial production requires a permanent electricity supply. In addition, voltage must be stable within defined limits. The present situation of the electricity supply systems especially in many rural areas jeopardizes the operation of quite a few firms mainly during the winter period. Until most recently this was true especially for Asht Rayon in Sughd Oblast of Tajikistan.
SMEs which do not have their own energy supply facilities would profit a great deal from a safe electricity supply. In addition, the existing industrial production can be strengthened, energy costs could be reduced and competitiveness of firms regained, new SMEs can be established which so far have no chance on the market due to high electricity costs in the case that generators are used. If the electricity supply of the business sector is guaranteed, a high level employment will be increased or at least stabilized.
All projects had a direct positive impact on the national, regional and local employment market of Tajikistan and the two Oblasts. These projects required mid-term construction works which provided income for dozens of people per project. Shops, restaurants and some services did also profit from the presence of workers which stay for weeks and months.
While many stakeholders see the poverty impact of an improved energy supply especially in terms of economic growth and additional employment, improvement in living conditions among large sections of the population as a result of such a development should also be viewed as a remarkable contribution to poverty alleviation.
3.2.3 Impact on Asht area
If we say that it is too early to provide statements about the development impact of the projects this is not true for Asht – at least if we look into the outcomes of the 220 KV HVTL Kairakum- Asht. In this area the situation prior to the new line was that parts of the old 110 kV line were conducted through the territory of Uzbekistan. As this line was old and prone to breakages, quite a lot of repair work was required. However, when the political situation between the two neighbours became worse some years ago it was very difficult for BT service teams to cross the border and mend the line. The consequence was that Asht region did not get electricity supply for days, weeks and even for a whole month. Blackouts every day during winter months were another problem due to low availability of electricity and low voltage even when the old line was working. This in turn was responsible for many damages of electrical devices such as TV sets, refrigerators, bulbs, etc.
With the opening and operation of the new 220 kV HVTL this situation has dramatically changed. As stated by the representatives of the Hukumat of Asht and the Jamoats concerned, stable electricity supply has today become a daily norm. This has a direct impact in both private and economic life. For instance, after completion of the new line a restaurant with quite a reasonable service opened, a new filling station was constructed and many former workshops which had declined started working now on a permanent basis.
For private households, there was also an ample set of direct outcomes from the new line. First, after years of uncertainty, people could heat their houses without resorting to scarce fuelwood or animal dung. Secondly, electrical light became ensured where for years and especially during winter time people were forced to cope with candles, battery lamps or even oil or kerosene lamps.
No empirical evidence exists for Asht with regard to the impact of a stable electricity supply on school children and their performance. However, there are clear reasons to assume that they could improve their school performance if they would be able to do proper homework. Studies
20 from Morocco also show that especially girls benefit from additional hours of homework (which is made possible by the improved electricity supply). If they can learn better their grade also improves and a good school success of girls is a strong argument for their parents to send them to secondary school and even support their tertiary education.
4. Legal Framework and Compensation Policy
4.1 Policy and legal framework for land acquisition and resettlement
The policy framework for the three projects is based on the ADB Involuntary Resettlement Policy (1995) as amended in the ADB's Safeguards Policy Update (2009) and Operations Manual (OM) Section F1/BP (2010)3, the Constitution of the Republic of Tajikistan, and the Land Code of the Republic of Tajikistan. Where differences exist between local law and ADB practices, the policy difference will be resolved in the favour of the latter.
4.2 Tajikistan constitution, law and regulation on land acquisition, resettlement, and compensation for expropriation
Article 13 of the Tajik constitution makes clear that all land in the country is owned by the state. Once the land is provided to citizens people have guaranteed rights which can only be affected on the basis of laws. Article 32 of the constitution allows for state acquisition of private property for public works but provides adequate compensation. Compensation procedures are based on the LC, the Civil Code (CC) and various normative/legal acts. Land users have the right to be reimbursed for losses due to withdrawal of right of land use.
Land in Tajikistan should be used in the interests of the people. However, Article 2 of the Tajik Land Code (LC) states that “Land in the Republic of Tajikistan is an exclusive ownership of the state. Jamoats assign and confiscate land within their boundaries. They register land use titles and land-lease agreements and exert control over land use and land protection (§ 8).
Accordingly, land can be taken back by the state. The legal basis for state acquisition of private property for instance for public works is outlined in Article 32 of the Constitution which states “[…] The property of an individual is taken away only on the basis of the law, with the consent of the owner and to meet the requirements of the state and society, and with the state paying full compensation”.
Compensation for land withdrawal and other impacts as a consequence of public interest projects are also regulated by other legislative acts governing land withdrawal, land allotment and impact compensation to citizens such as the Land Code, the Civil Code (CC) and various normative legal acts (cf. Land Code, as amended by N 498 from December 12 (1997), N 746 from May 14 (1999), N 15 from May 12 (2001), N 23 from February 28 (2004), N 199 from July 28 (2006), N 357 from January 5 (2008), N 405 from June 18 (2008), N 704 from March 25 (2011), N 819 from April 16 (2012), and N 891 from August 1 (2012).
Details are regulated by the Decree no. 641 of December 30, 2011 on “Statement of the Rule of Compensation of Damage to Land Users or Users of Other Registered Rights Associated with Land and Losses Connected with Withdrawal of Lands from Circulation/Usage”. Based on these laws and the decree the withdrawal/allotment of lands and resettlement is based on the following applicable principles:
3 It is important to remember that also policies e.g. regarding Gender and/or stakeholder participation have to be taken into account when elaborating and implementing LARPs (cf. ADB 2012, 2013). For instance, vulnerable households (i.e. very often women headed hh) should get additional compensation payments and individual support for all challenges with respect to the resettlement procedure. 21 a. Withdrawal of the owners’ land or those who maintain such a claim to the land for the state and public usage can be carried out only under the following conditions: - Allotment of equivalent land with the consent of the land owners, - Full compensation for other types of loss including lost profit in accordance with the legislation of Republic of Tajikistan (LC Article 41), - At termination of the rights of property, property will be assessed on the basis of its market value (CC Article 265, cf. Decree 641,4).
b. Land user or user of other registered rights associated with land should be notified in writing about land withdrawal by local land management authority.
If according to International agreements, which are recognized by the Republic of Tajikistan, other rules are established than those specified in the Land Code of the Republic of Tajikistan, the rules of international agreements will be accepted (LC Article 105).
When elaborating a LARP, compensation should cover all losses by full reimbursement including loss of profit. This includes compensation if the land quality deteriorates as a result of the non-agricultural activities. Confiscation (and resettlement) can only be made after having assigned equivalent land plots, having constructed new housing or other structures equivalent in their purpose to the sequestrated, and having paid full compensation for all other losses including loss of profits.
Most details concerning the regulations for damages to land users associated with losses from the withdrawal of lands from usage by the state are laid down in Decree 641 which also sets out the basis for compensation. Full reimbursement shall be provided for losses, including loss of profit, such as:
a. all costs of registration of land use rights, b. costs of real estate located on the land in view of fruit trees, berry, protective and other perennial plants, c. costs of work in progress (ploughing, mineral fertilizers, seeds, etc.), d. the value of uncollected crops, e. costs caused by early termination of obligations under contracts, etc. (all §7).
With one single exception in all three LARPs it was not possible to adopt an assignment of equivalent land plots for permanent losses of land. According to the statements of Hukumat leaders and the Land Committee chairpersons of the two concerned Oblasts of Khatlon and Sughd the present land regime with dekhan farms does not allow for easy commutation of land rights (cf. RoT 2011). So the rule was to identify the value of land and crop losses and provide full compensation by money bank transfer.
Calculation of the compensation due for land acquisition has to be based on actual prices of equipment and materials, as well as prices of assets and other works existing, or at the moment of confiscation of a land plot (LC § 43). When calculating losses of agricultural production and forestry, the standard costs for bringing into cultivation virgin lands and improving them so that they reach the maximum level of production obtained on the sequestered lands has to be applied. Disputes about the amount of compensation for damages caused and losses of agricultural production and forestry have to be settled in court.
4.3 ADB’s policy on involuntary resettlement
As per ADB’s Safeguards Policy Statement, important elements of the resettlement policy are: (i) avoid and minimize land acquisition and resettlement impacts, (ii) compensate for lost assets at replacement cost; livelihood, and income restoration, (iii) assistance for relocation, including, if required, provision of relocation sites with appropriate facilities and services, and (iv)
22 assistance for rehabilitation to achieve at least the same level of well-being with the project as without it.
This will be achieved through the following measures: (i) the TL alignment will avoid human settlements, (ii) compensation for crop losses as a result of permanent loss of land use, and (iii) compensation for access and damage to crops and cropping season as a result of construction impacts.
When elaborating the three LARPs with respect to land acquisition and resettlement, the following ADB requirements were taken into consideration and implemented as follows:
Table 5: Resettlement policy requirements and LARP implementation practice Principle Implementation status i. Involuntary resettlement is to be avoided or, if unavoidable, No physical resettlement at all had to minimized through all viable options take place ii. The AF should be compensated and assisted, so that No APs lost his or her livelihood basis their economic and social future is generally as favourable while in Asht (Sughd Oblast) the as it would have been in the absence of the project population has a direct benefit from the project which improves their level of living by providing stable electricity iii. The AF should be fully informed/consulted in From the very beginning the HVTL resettlement and compensation options planning was communicated to all stakeholders iv. Local socio/cultural institutions should be supported/used Mahallas were also informed about the to the greatest extent possible project and representatives from Mahallas joined the DMS v. Lack of formal legal land title should not be a bar to No such issues occurred during DMS compensation or rehabilitation and compensation process vi. Compensation shall be provided to the AF at full Compensation payments were replacement cost of the affected assets. Compensation absolutely made according to this rates for houses and other structures, and non-physical requirement assets will be calculated at prevailing market rates for replacements without provision for deduction of depreciation vii. Particular attention should be paid to AFs headed by This target group received additional women and other vulnerable groups, and appropriate 25% compensation payment and assistance provided to help them improve their status individual support was offered by PMU representatives for the procedure viii. Land/other compensation/rehabilitation provisions will In some cases payment was made in equally apply to women and men the name of the couple or the wife of an absent farmer ix. Land acquisition and resettlement will be conceived and Fully respected executed as an integral part of the project and related budgets will be included in project costs x. Compensation will be fully provided prior to ground Fully respected without any complaints levelling and demolition (except one case (cf. chapter 7.2)
Some more policy requirements were taken into consideration during LARP implementation (planning phase and construction works):
i. The LARPs are only applicable for losses of individuals or groups of individuals. Losses of governmental land are to be handled directly between BT/PMU and the Rayons concerned.
ii. Every effort possible was made to minimize the time lag between notice of acquisition and payment of compensation.
iii. Particular attention was made in all activities related to resettlement planning, implementation, and monitoring to ensure the involvement of women and other vulnerable
23 groups. Women in particular were invited for focus group discussions and other meetings of APs, and many individual visits were made.
iv. Wherever possible, members from the AFs were given priority where local unqualified or low-qualified labour was required for the construction works. E.g. in Asht about 30 people were temporarily employed by the contractor and some additional (women) got some income from providing food to the workers.
v. AP consultation should continue during the updating and implementation of the LARP. This requirement was respected until the final review of the project impacts after completion of the three lines.
vi. Payment of compensation after all should be made only to individuals and not to representatives of collectives (e.g. managers of collective dekhan farms). In the case that farmers belonging to one collective dekhan farm did not yet have land assignments with clear GPS based boundaries documented in the land register, every member of the collective dekhan farm had to receive the same share of the compensation payment divided by the number of dekhan farm members. Only when the general assembly of all members decided to invest the compensation money paid into farm equipment or inputs an exception of this rule was tolerated.
The following entitlement matrix was the main basis for the assessment of losses and the determination of compensation payments. Compensation was carried out in full conformance with this matrix:
Table 6: Entitlement matrix Loss type Entitled Entitlements Implementation Issues Persons Permanent Holder of land A compensation payment for Land Committee resurveyed loss of land use certificate losses of land right use in cash the plot on request and use rights from Hukumat, equivalent to market value of supported issue of a new land or the gross produce of the affected land certificate at no cost to the AF. government (i.e. multiplied by 5 years. If there are 2 Where currently non-used land presidential land) (or even 3) cropping seasons per got at least irrigation water for year this will be taken into two seasons during the last 5 consideration. years full compensation was paid (e.g. near Sughd substation). Crops As above Crops affected by the towers and Project will restore the land to its by stringing or tower transport will pre-construction condition. be compensated by default at market rate. Trees Owners of • Fruit-bearing trees: affected trees Compensation in cash based on one year’s yield x the number of years needed to re-grow the tree at productive stage. • Not yet productive fruit trees: Compensation in cash based on inputs x average age of trees. • Seedlings: Based on seedlings cost plus inputs x 1 year. • Wood trees: cash compensation based on wood volume x market value of the wood Vulnerable Affected Additional cash allowance equal to
24 Table 6: Entitlement matrix Loss type Entitled Entitlements Implementation Issues Persons households household market value of 25% of the gross produce of affected land was paid Permanent Affected Additional cash allowance equal to losses household market value of 25% of the gross exceeding 10% produce of affected land x 5 years of the total land per AF
5. Gender Impact and Mitigation Measures
During Soviet times the situation of women in Tajikistan changed substantially to compare with the period of the Emirat of Bukhara prior to the early 1920ties. An actual gender study for the country is missing. The last country wide survey was made under ADB finance in 2000. This study showed some deterioration since 1989, mainly of the economic role of women (employment and income). In addition, the enrolment rate of girls in schools has suffered considerably. As a consequence to this most recent development special care in the LARPs was taken with regard to gender aspects. Particular strategies were elaborated in order to ensure gender mainstreaming of project activities.
During the socio-economic surveys amongst some APs, several women were identified as household heads because their husbands were working abroad or they were widows or because of other reasons. These women were given special attention and it was also decided to consider such households as vulnerable as most of these women headed hh were also land- poor households. Additional provisions for livelihood enhancement were given to female- headed households with no support from other members of the family.
During DMS PMU ensured that each household had a copy of the project information leaflet for reference of entitlements rather than relying on dissemination via village or public meetings, which are more likely to be attended by men. Additional copies of the project information leaflet were locally distributed to women’s groups, Hukumat and Jamoat offices where especially women from female headed hh gather.
More important than such leaflets was the personal contact between the project team and the concerned women. SEMD staff was in permanent contact with the few women from female headed hh affected by the project and provided any support during DMS and later when payment was made. The M+E included also visits after completion of civil works.
The LARP itself provided for equal entitlements and provisions for men and women. Contractor’s These two pictures show that the Soviet bid documents also emphasized on equal tradition to have women and men jointly in a opportunity and equal pay regardless of gender focus group meeting has clearly been ruled out: men are sitting on one side with the chairperson wherever possible. Unfortunately, regarding while women are sitting behind the curtain. recruitment of workers no women could be
25 contracted. The contribution of women was mainly focused on catering on work sites or working in restaurants which were used by the construction workers.
If we look into gender impacts of the CAREC projects the following conclusions could be drawn:
- Due to the fact that the stabilization of the central electrical power network supports women and men in a more or less equal manner the project does not favor strategic gender needs and does not support changing the gender relations between women and men. As a consequence, it was assumed that the project according to the OECD/DAC gender categories had to be classified as gender neutral (= G 0).
- However, from interviews in Asht (where the HVTL is already in full operation) it became evident that stable electricity not only has a direct positive impact on the living conditions but allows for better preparation (homework) for school of which girls would profit slightly more than boys.
If looking into adverse impacts of line construction (not to be mixed with the impact of the project, i.e. improved electricity supply!) it is evident that construction of electrical power transmission towers has construction nuisance/land acquisition as its major social impact. However, the end product will not enhance or disrupt any community service.
Both men and women were consulted during the base line survey and later during construction of the lines and after completion of civil works. The initially socio-economic survey data also include the collection of disaggregated data based on gender in the project areas in order to determine the views of men and women on project impacts:
- Men’s major concern was temporary land acquisition resulting in interrupting cropping and harvest, and issues related to receiving actual compensation for tower placements. Individual interviews showed that some few farmers had bad experience with other infrastructure projects where damage was made but rehabilitation was almost left to the affected people themselves.
- Women did not express such concerns and supported the opinion that the project would have little if any impact on them.
- Both men and women expressed the desire to undertake project-related employment if the opportunity arose. This became true mainly in Asht and Bobojon Gafurov where a reasonable number of men were employed for non-qualified works
- Men in general were more aware of the rules of the Land Code and the Constitution with regard to compensation rules in case of land acquisition. Men were also better connected to formal community networks through participation in village meetings and activities at the mosque. This was the reason why during the preparation of the DMS also meetings only with women were carried out or meetings where the Mahalla representatives were asked to ensure that half of the participants would be women.
6. Information, Consultation and Disclosure Process
6.1 Information and consultation
All three LARPs were prepared in consultation (i.) first during the identification of the best line corridor with some of the possible APs who have been informed about the project and its likely impacts. During this stage also socio-economic data of the area in general were collected.
26 Later, (ii.) during the refinement of the corridor with the setting of coordinates for corner towers, and just a short time prior to the DMS, some focus group discussions were held in order to inform the APs about the DMS and the entire compensation. These meetings with APs every time started with a presentation of the project with its possible impacts on the farm title owners and their land followed by the explanation of the key principles of BT and ADB regarding assessment of losses and compensation. In detail the participants were also informed about the procedure of the DMS, the work of the CVLC payment process, the external monitoring and the grievance redress mechanism and further legal opportunities. There was much emphasis put on the participation of women during these meetings which was not always successful (especially in Khatlon).
Finally, (iii.) during construction works and after completion of the lines another series of meetings took place in order to ensure the strict observance of the LARP requirements.
Apart from the public meetings (mainly focus group discussions but also information meetings in the Rayon assembly halls with all stakeholders) a great many meetings with affected farmers took place. PMU and the consultant deemed it their duty especially in order to check, in parallel to the work of the Commissions on Assessment of Damages and Losses (CADL), if the assessment of damages was correctly made, the payment done in time and later if construction works respected the extent of areas taken for permanent or temporary requirements of the HVTL.
Other stakeholders consulted during the preparation of the initial LARP and the updated version of the plan included:
- Sughd and Khatlon Oblast representatives (vice chairman of Oblast and secretariat of Oblast): the first meeting took place at the very beginning of the line corridor identification process for general information and a second meeting was arranged prior to the establishment of the various CADL in order to explain the rules regarding the entire compensation process. This meeting was also used to arrange for the publication of the cut-off date for all construction works and changes in land use rights within the scheduled line corridor.
- All chairpersons of the Rayon Hukamats were informed immediately after the Oblast administration. Between this first meeting and the line completion PMU representatives and/or the social-expert of the consultant visited these Hukumats almost all three months in order first to discuss the line routing, later to organize the establishment of the CADL and the Grievance Redress Mechanism, accompany the DMS and in order to review possible damages caused by civil works and to close the two to three years cooperation between PMU and the concerned Rayons.
- Jamoat leaders were informed in addition to the chairpersons of the Rayon Hukumats and visited again when the line corridor was fixed and prior to the DMS. There was also a final visit after completion of the lines of most Jamoats in February 2017 which was used to check if no complaints from any of the many stakeholders were left unsettled.
- For the Kairakum-Sughd HVTL the vice mayor of the city of Khudjand was informed like the chairpersons of the Rayon Hukumats and again during DMS and construction works, contact between PMU and the major`s office was sustained.
6.2 Resettlement and relocation options for APFs losing agricultural lands
During the consultations the question was raised which compensation options exist. In theory, such options include cash compensation, land for land or a combination of both approaches. The results of the dialogue with the APs showed clearly that almost all preferred cash compensation for withdrawal of the land use in accordance with its cultivation value. As the
27 socio-economic survey at Jamoat level and of the interview partners themselves everywhere indicated, most APs are viewed as “cash-poor”, thus cash compensation for crop loss is important.
Talks with Hukumat representatives also showed that the option land for land would be very difficult to put into practice as in some Jamoats the ongoing land reform process has left no land reserve at all under the state disposal so that losses of land could not be compensated for by land or at least not by land which would be situated near enough to serve the affected farmers in an efficient and sustainable way.
6.3 Community responses to the project
Apart for the people in the Rayon of Asht (Kairakum-Asht HVTL) there are no direct benefits for the affected households or communities along the TL route. However, the project helps stabilizing the electricity supply of the entire two Oblast so that also the affected villages, Jamoats and also the affected farmers may profit from the improvements. In the long-term the lines will also support economic development (especially the SME sector in rural areas) and while contributing to energy efficiency it will keep electricity fees for the population at a reasonably low level. Given the immediate, potential impacts and benefits of the project, again with the exception of Asht, community response was understandably reserved. Those consulted generally accepted the necessity of the project. They also appreciated the efforts of the implementing agency to minimize adverse social impacts which is not the common standard in the region.
Later after completion of the three lines all affected farmers visited confirmed that the entire land acquisition process was well organized, information excellent, the price for losses fair, and especially the fact that compensation was paid in time and without any problems was highly praised. Also regarding the quality of the construction work with regard to access, size of work sites and the mainly handmade stringing there were only positive voices.
In some cases Hukumat and Jamoat officials initially were very reluctant to provide valuable assistance for the conducting of the base line data collection and the socio-economic survey. This may show that they did not understand the role of the project in improving the regional power supply situation. Only after intervention of BT PMU on the Oblast level did support increase and allow for a satisfactory implementation of the survey. This was especially true in Sughd while in Khatlon initial support was better.
Focus group discussions showed that only few participants had some experience with involuntary resettlement and land acquisition Special care was taken that women were able measures. In Sarband (Kairakum-Sughd line), to participate in the various information and an electricity line (low voltage?) with poles was consultation meetings. built prior to the CAREC project but nobody informed the people in advance and no
28 compensation was paid. In Kholmatov, a water pipeline was built and all people got compensation and damages were cleared away. In Taghoyak there was some work done with heavy machinery which passed through a piece of land but nobody took responsibility for its rehabilitation. In general, there were no fears raised regarding the project and the compensation process. However, some people requested the contact data of the consultant with the comment “you never know”.
In 1993 land reform started in Tajikistan. However, transfer of state farms (Kolkhozes and Sovhozes) was a long process which even in 2017 is not yet completely accomplished. Therefore, there was still quite a lot of confusion regarding the question who the owners of the land – i.e. the persons which might claim compensation payments – are. For the HVTL Kairakum-Asht partners of the land acquisition process were mainly state farms (Asht Rayon) and collective dekhan farms (Bobojon Gafurov Rayon). For Geran-Rumi the situation was very mixed with mainly family dekhan farms and collective dekhan farms (especially in Kumsangir and Jilikul Rayons).
For Kairakum-Sughd HVTL all three types of farms were represented with some huge collective dekhan farms which had very different structure (including open joint stock companies). In Kholmatov, there were only individual or family dekhan farms (apart from some commercial units) and people were more or less aware of to whom payment would go. In Kurush/Kurkat land has been distributed to the households only in 2014 and (even after some information meetings earlier) at the beginning of DMS the participating farmers so far were not aware of who the recipients of compensation payments would be. In Taghoyak distribution of land was made some years earlier but again terms like farm managers and farm members were mixed and some participants spoke about “my farm” and “I paid taxes” etc. even though they were only representatives of a collective dekhan farm. In Sarband one meeting prior to the DMS showed a similar situation but it was clear that everybody in collective farms should participate in compensation payments.
Later on, during the DMS again it became evident that the distribution of farm titles was quite a bit delayed and also poorly implemented. Although former Kholkhozes were already dissolved and land handed over to the people in many cases there were (and are!) still no documents available which prove these transfers. Some farm owners have got a preliminary decision of the Land Committee but no documents so far. Other were only able to show their application formats which was just the start for a formalized process although they were already using the land by their household members. In such cases for the compensation process the interim land usage right was confirmed by the concerned Jamoat chairperson and agreed upon by the commission on compensation.
During the information and consultation process people did not expect larger problems caused by the line construction apart from the fact that some increase in traffic on rural access roads was mentioned. PMU picked up this issue by agreeing with the contractor to take special care of children when accessing the work sites with lorries.
People were also asked about their view of possible environmental problems. However, nothing with regard to the line was mentioned. Environmental problems for the people are mainly related to “lack of water”, which means that the old irrigation systems that are interference- prone do not always provide enough water to irrigate the entire land of a farm and/or the Jamoat. This is the most serious problem in some parts of Kairakum-Sughd line areas and in Asht Rayon for the Kairakum-Asht HVTL while a minor problem in most Jamoats of Geran- Rumi HVTL.
6.4 Disclosure
29 For the information and consultation process Barki Tojik has prepared a project information leaflet in Tajik language. This leaflet was distributed to the possible APs before and during the Detailed Measurement Survey following acceptance of the respective LARP by the project partners.
The project information leaflet contained the following information: (i) a brief background of the project, specifically the civil works to be undertaken and the adverse social impacts; (ii) preliminary estimates of land acquisition; (iii) project entitlements; (v) indicative schedule of resettlement activities; (vi) grievance redress mechanism; and (vii) contact persons for any queries. A copy of the leaflet was part of each LARP (as an attachment).
Also after LARP acceptance by the project partners, a summary version of the draft LARP in Russian language was posted in Hukumat and Jamoat offices (i.e. the Operation Manual of which was also part of the attachments to the three LARPs). This Operation Manual provided a clear idea to all local stakeholders and especially to the affected households of the identification and assessment of damages during/prior to civil works and during construction works, and of the compensation and grievance redress mechanism.
Time frame for disclosure:
For Geran-Rumi and Kairakum-Asht HVTLs general information to all major stakeholders was provided very early in 2012, i.e. about 24 months and more before start of construction works. For the HVTL Kairakum-Sughd initial information was provided about 15 month prior to start of civil works. LARP and/or LARP summaries were provided to the Oblast, Rayon and Jamoat administrations as follows: I. Geran-Rumi line and Geran substation: approximately 18 months prior to construction (i.e. draft LARP/Operation Manual and workshop for Hukumat and Jamoat representatives); final version of LARP about 6 months before start of civil works. II. Kairakum-Asht line: about 18 months prior to construction (i.e. draft LARP/Operation manual and workshop for Hukumat and Jamoat representatives); final version of LARP about 8 month before start of civil works. III. Kairakum-Sughd line: approximately 12 months (draft LARP/Operation manual and workshop for Hukumat and Jamoat representatives); final version of LARP about 3 month prior to start of civil works.
Remarks and declarations of EA
Socio-Economic Final Report for LARPs Geran-Rumi, Kairakum-Asht, and Kairakum-Sughd has been published on ADB and Barqi Tojik websites. Hard copies of reports in English and Russian languages were printed and submitted to corresponding Hukumats and Jamoat’s administrations .
7. Grievance Redress Mechanism Established and Applied
7.1 The established grievance redresses mechanism
Great care was taken to prevent grievances. This has been done through careful land acquisition design and implementation, by ensuring full AF participation and consultation, and by establishing extensive communication and coordination between the community, the BT/PMU and the local governments.
30 As complaints are sometimes unavoidable a grievance mechanism has been adopted for the project to allow the APs the opportunity to appeal against any disagreeable decision, practice or activity arising from compensation/rehabilitation process.
In order to allow for addressing complaints and grievances the following steps and actions were established:
First Step: For one or two adjacent Rayons a Project Grievance Redress Committee was established. It included two members of the affected community (including AP’s and non-APs), one representative of each concerned Jamoat and one representative of each concerned Hukumat Land Council, to be chaired by one representative of the concerned Hukumats (agreed upon internally by the two Hukumats). Grievances were to be heard and resolved within 14 days of submission of the complaint.
Second Step: If the Project Level Grievance Redress Committees were not able to resolve the grievance within a 14-day period, the complaints could have been presented via the BT Rayon representative to BT PMU at a central level. The elected representatives of the AF were given the opportunity to mediate by providing their written comments and proposals to the PMU. A final decision in such cases should have been made by the Director of the PMU after the assessment of the case and a careful preparation of the decision by the PMU resettlement representative. Grievances should have been heard and resolved within seven days of submission of the complaint.
Third Step: If no solution would be reached within seven days at BT PMU level, the APs would have to submit their case to the appropriate court of law. While applying the Grievance Redress Mechanism, APs were invited to seek support from the BT PMU resettlement representative who on his part would have got assistance from the national and international consultants. At the start of the line corridor establishment, the contact addresses/phone numbers of BT and its PMU representatives were available at the level of each concerned Jamoat. After starting the DMS, contact with SEMD was additionally more or less established on a broad bilateral basis so that almost all APs knew the phone number of the SEMD manager.
7.2 Results from consultation and monitoring process application
For all three lines, no official complaint was made through the Grievance Redress Mechanism. However, PMU together with the consultant, at a very early stage of impending issues took up two serious cases where grievance was to be expected:
I. For the new Geran substation persons without any authorization from the side of the land users provided a letter to BT declaring that 10 ha of land would be given to BT without any demand for compensation. The LARP team immediately established contacts with the representatives of the two affected dekhan farms and launched the usual DMS process for assessment of damages and compensation requirements. Finally, the affected farmers received the compensation money for their losses.
II. For the Kairakum - Asht HVTL DMS was made but in early 2015 truth was dug out that not the Aps, but the managers of collective dekhan farms had provided false attributions to land ownerships so that the compensation payment went to their private accounts instead of being distributed to the farmers which cultivated the land where towers were to be constructed and work sites established. A due diligence mission proved the right claims and the money was to be paid back within a very short period of time and redistributed to the APs.
Informal requests and complaints
31 Apart from the Grievance Redress Mechanism some complaints or more exact requests were made and addressed to the SEMD manager who maintained a permanent contact between the APs and the project (with both both PMU and later the contractor). Also some complaints or requests were addressed to the national and international social experts of the Consultants during various M+E missions between early planning and completion of line construction. Approximately 20 of such cases in total occurred for all three lines with some examples as follows:
- For Geran the representative of one collective farm which provided land for the construction of the new substation asked SEMD if the land for two towers which were constructed outside of the stockades of the substation did not belong to their property. This point was checked and the farmers were informed that the land was indeed part of the seven hectares of land already acquired by the DMS and compensation process.
- While accessing a work site for the Geran-Rumi HVTL a vehicle slightly hit an irrigation motor pump. After informing SEMD the case was rectified by the contractor.
- Several cases were related to access roads claiming that the ROW of four meters was not respected and about 20 to 100 m2 of field affected were not compensated. A review showed in all such cases very clearly that the land affected in total by civil works was much less than assessed prior to construction work (and therefore fully compensated)
- Timing of civil works was perhaps the most frequent complaint. E.g., some towers of the Kairakum-Asht HVTL were constructed a few weeks (and even perhaps just a few day) before grapes could be harvested. While in other areas construction work occurred during the winter season here, longer waiting was not possible so that 500 to 700 m2 of grapevines had to be removed. Again, this issue was already taken into consideration during DMS and full compensation from losses attributed and paid. Accordingly, during a discussion with the APs all stakeholders agreed upon the fact that losses were absolutely fairly and sufficiently compensated.
8. Institutional Framework
8.1 Institutional arrangements
Ministry of Energy was responsible overall for LARP elaboration, updating, implementation and financing and exercised its functions through the Project Management Unit (PMU) at BT. Within the PMU, LARP tasks were handled by the resettlement representative, BT’s Monitoring Department (formerly known as the Environment and Social Department - ESD), in consultation with concerned Hukumats and Jamoats, which planned and managed all land acquisition, compensation and rehabilitation as provided by the three LARPs.
To carry out activities in the field the resettlement representative of the Monitoring Department liaised with BT’s Oblast (in Sughd in Kairakum, in Khatlon in Kurgan Tube) and district offices and mobilized their personnel as needed. In the implementation of the compensation/rehabilitation programme at the local level, the Monitoring Department did also coordinate with the district (Rayon) governments (mainly the Hukumat Land Committees and the Agricultural Departments but also with the Hukumat architects).
During project implementation, the project management consultants included in their team an international and a local resettlement specialist. They both assisted the Monitoring Department in updating, based on detailed design, and implementing the LARP. The project organization for land acquisition/resettlement required close cooperation between the PMU, the Rayon “Commissions on Assessment of Damages and Losses” and the local District Barki Tojik
32 offices. The APs were represented in the process with at least one representative of this group as a full member of the two Rayon-based CDALs for the three projects.
BT, with assistance from the contractor (who was responsible for assessing the land plots required and, together with the Jamoats concerned, identified the land usage title owners) and the Hukumat, arranged and finalized agreements with the APs on the compensation amounts due to them. Barki Tojik’s PMU by bank transfer delivered compensation payments to the APs. In the first draft LARPs payment in cash was scheduled. However, later it came out that due to the enormous migration ratio of hh members and transfer of remittance, almost every farmer in the areas of interventions had a bank account so that the banking system could effectively be used.
BT – by means of an independent external monitor for Geran-Rumi and Kairakum-Asht HVTLs - monitored the timely payment of compensation and its proper documentation. For all three lines the principle was so exactly respected that no approval to construction commencement would be given until compensation is completed and land area is appropriately “vacated” or compensated for. An account of this process, including amounts disbursed and verification of receipt by APs, was an integral part of the PMU’s internal monitoring work.
8.2 Commission on Assessment of Damages and Losses
The assessment of all damages and losses was most carefully done and valuation of compensation decided by the Commission on Assessment of Damages and Losses (CADL). According to the Decree No. 515 of 30th December 2000, the Commission should consist of the following members (i.) deputy chairperson of the Rayon (as chairperson of the commission), (ii.) chairperson of the Rayon committee of land resources and usage (incl. construction), (iii.) Rayon architect, (iv.) Representatives of the Department for Water Usage, (v.) Representatives of the District Environment Committee, (vi.) representatives of the Department for Sanitation and Fire Control, (vii.) Representatives of the land users where lands are taken permanently or temporarily, and (viii.) representatives of organizations who have a stake in land distribution and other representatives of organizations according to the local authority’s discretion.
However, these indications of the decree were not fully adaptable to the requirements of the assessment of damages and losses of a HVTL project. Consequently, in accordance with the Tajik law, which allows for modifications in international cooperation projects, the following solution was arranged and composed of the following persons: (i.) one vice chairperson of the Rayon administration (Hukumat) as chairman of the commission, (ii.) the representative of the Rayon Land Committee and/or the Rayon architect, (iii.) one representative of the Rayon Department of Agriculture4, (iv.) one representative of each Jamoat administration concerned5, (v.) one regional representative of BT or a staff member of from the PMU M+E unit (resettlement officer), and (vi.) one to two representatives of project-affected hh, one of whom was should have been a representative of village women or vulnerable groups.
The representative of the contractor, responsible for the identification of losses, was also a member of the commission without right to vote.
The work procedures of the sub-commission and the Rayon Commission was explained in detail in the Operational Manual which is an attachment to each LARP and which was distributed to all concerned stakeholders.
8.3 Barki Tojik’s institutional capacity building in resettlement
4 His/her participation was very important for the valuation of losses of agricultural products. 5 All Jamoat representatives did participate in the commission only in their affected area. 33 BT’s Project Management Unit (PMU) deals with the implementation of projects funded by ADB and other donors. PMU has been responsible inter alia for the Power Rehabilitation II project and all CAREC sub-projects and activities. As mentioned above all land acquisition and resettlement activities are the responsibility of the PMU’s Monitoring and Evaluation Unit. Key capabilities and activities of the Department were and are social impact assessments, environmental impact assessments, initial social and environmental examinations, and other monitoring, auditing, and associated project studies.
Although some of the members of the Monitoring Department formerly received some training, theoretical and practical experience in socio-economic investigations and surveys was limited at the beginning when the three LARPs were elaborated. For this reason, the PMU staff worked in close cooperation with the Project Management Consultant. LARP implementation therefore was also – at least for the two LARPS for Kairakum-Asht and Geran-Rumi LARP on-the-job capacity building training which took up definitions, principles and procedures of land acquisition, public consultation and participation methods (including data collection requirements), liaising with Hukumat and Jamoat level representatives, and entitlements and compensation and assistance disbursement mechanisms. Other local stakeholders such as the members of the Commission for Valuation of Losses and Compensation also received training prior to the start of their work. Training sessions also took place with the acceptance of the engineering design of the final HVTL by the contractor i.e. before the assessment of losses and compensation requirements. This training was under responsibility of the PMU-representative and done according to the Implementation Manual.
8.4 Resettlement database
With the first LARPs for Kairakum-Asht and Geran-Rumi, PMU M+E Unit’s office in Dushanbe started to computerize all information concerning land acquisition, socio-economic information of affected land and other assets structures, inventory of losses of individual APs, compensation and entitlements, payments and relocation. This database constituted the basis of information for implementation, monitoring and reporting purposes and facilitated efficient resettlement (here: compensation) management. Attachments to this report A-C show in detail the final summary compensation plans for all three HVTLs.
9. Resettlement/Compensation Budget
9.1 Introduction to compensation policy adopted
All three HVTLs traverse large agricultural areas. Especially in Khatlon (Geran-Rumi line) almost all agricultural lands in the scheduled line corridor are intensively used. The Kairakum- Sughd HVTL also crosses larger agricultural areas which are a bit less intensively used (due to lack of irrigation water) while the Kairakum-Asht line affects mainly farms at the first few kilometers and before reaching Asht substation.
The agricultural land affected are mainly cropping areas with a broad spectrum of cash crops and crops for the subsistence of the farming families. There are also some fruit tree plantations and many more trees planted within the home garden areas (which are however only slightly or not at all affected by the project). In addition – most recently since an initiative of the president in late 2011 – many farmers have planted new fruit trees in order to implement this national agricultural policy. And, mainly in Bobojon Gafurov Rayon (crossed by the Kairakum-Asht and the Kairakum-Sughd HVTLs) grapevines are common. Several plots were affected by construction of the two HVTLs.
During the line routing the issue arose that for some areas it was not absolutely clear whether or not land required for footing of towers and temporary work sites was used or not. Some areas were abandoned (e.g. near Asht), other lands showed traces of earlier crops from the
34 last years but were evidently not used during the survey work. In order not to discriminate farmers without occasional irrigation water for their documented (!) land, compensation policy by the LARPs provided that if irrigation water was available for at least two seasons during the last five years full compensation payment should be given for permanent losses.
For such cases during DMS Jamoat representatives or neighbours were requested to confirm that the land has been used during the last five years and that the potential for future resumption of the irrigation exists. All those farmers which were able to prove that their currently unused land has received water for a cropping season at least twice during these five years was fully compensated for losses according to the latter direction.
More principles were directed towards situations which would perhaps raise questions and disputes: E.g. losses of non-perennial crops should be compensated for fully already after preparation of the land and planting/sowing as if the farmer were to lose all his ripe crops.
A similar issue could be the question of whether fruit trees were fully fruit bearing or not. So it was decided that fruit trees which are older than one year should be considered as fruit bearing even if they are not.
If it were absolutely impossible to avoid construction of a tower on garden land, assessment of damage should not be based on all different crops which could be expected on 50 or 60 m2 affected but compensation should be paid for the highest value crops under such situations (i.e. TJS 40,200 / hectare has been calculated for onions).
Due to the low volume of compensation payments for permanent losses in most cases and the fact that the new towers constitute a constraint on all mechanical works on the fields, a base rate of TJS 250 was fixed additionally for every tower as a basic compensation to which the actual value of crop losses was to be added.
Other conditions influencing the assessment of damages and the volume of compensation payments are:
- The fact that construction work would at least partially be done during late autumn and winter (15th November until 20th March), when crops cannot be damaged, was not taken into consideration while calculating value of damages. This favoured those farmers on whose land towers were built during the winter period. Their only crop damages may have resulted from stringing.
- Many trees in the project area have been planted only recently and in larger distances to each other than older plantations, and they are often intercropped with wheat, maize or onions. In such conditions assessment of damages would be very difficult. Here, it was recommended to compensate as if a fruit bearing fruit tree plantation would be affected.
The projects required permanent acquisition of land for the foundation of towers to be constructed on cultivated lands of individual, family or collective dekhan farms. The users of these permanently acquired plots received a compensation payment for loss of land use rights based on the yearly potential produce of the land at market rates for five years (for seven years where apricot and citrus tree areas were required). The term “potential produce” referred to the produce of the land based on the crop cultivated on it, regardless of whether the land is fallow or planted at the time of construction.
35 Calculation of losses for compensation
(i.) Losses of crops: Compensation for cash or subsistence crops identified on land to be acquired for tower footings during DMS was determined by multiplying the estimated yield on these lands by the market value of the produce at 2014-2017 prices and again multiplying the result by five.
(ii.) Losses of apricot, pomegranate, and citrus trees: Compensation for fully-grown apricot trees and citrus was calculated by multiplying the market value of the produce from each tree during the previous year by 7 years. This is the time a newly planted apricot or citrus seedling would take before it can bear fruit. For pomegranate (mainly in Jiliuk Rayon, Khtalon Oblast) the market value has to be multiplied by five years.
On the other hand, compensation for trees which are not yet bearing fruit were calculated by multiplying the cost of production (i.e. inputs and labour) on the land for one year by 3.5 years (the average age of the trees) for apricots and citrus, and 2.5 years for pomegranate plus cost of seedlings. The assessment of age of trees and actual damage has proved to be complicated in many other cases of land acquisition so that for the LARPs all trees which are older than one year were considered as productive in order to avoid disputes.
Compensation for apricot, pomegranate, citrus, etc. trees which are less than one year of age is calculated by adding the cost of production (i.e. inputs and labour) on the land for one year and the cost of seedlings.
(iii.) Losses of grape vines: On one hectare of land approximately 1,650 grapevines can be planted, and the cost of one grape seedling was TJS 3.0 (2016). Grapevines bear fruit once a year, and the average yield of a plot of one hectare of land is about 8,000 kg with a market price of TJS 2.5 per kg. From this calculation the loss per square meter was generated (seedlings plus potential fruits).
For all types of trees which, according to the local information provided by the Agricultural Departments of the Rayons, require five to seven years to reach full productivity after replanting, input and labour costs have been added to the value of losses according to the following estimates: (a) input costs such as fertilizer and plant protection chemicals (neither of which are available everywhere and are used only at a very low intensity) TJS 250-275, (b) labour costs per year and hectare for irrigation and trimming TJS 600-650, and (c.) labour costs for maintenance of field channels TJS 100-115.
Apart from fruit trees it was expected that some miscellaneous trees such as poplars, mulberry trees and one or the other tree which could be used for timber would be damaged/cut. The value (mainly firewood) of one tree was estimated at not more than TJS 400 on average (in most cases most probably less, in single cases considerably more). In this respect the DMS mission was asked to check every case individually. In practice, only higher branches of a couple of trees were cut but not the tree itself (for example in Kairakum-Asht).
Additional non-agricultural damages
The LARPs also provided compensation for non-agricultural damages. It was assumed that to some extent e.g. concrete columns for grapevines with its galvanized steel wire D 4 mm, wooden poles for tree seedlings, and to a very limited extent metal enclosures/wood fences, could be damaged.
Damage with regard to lanes/streets and larger irrigation and drainage channels etc. are not part of the compensation payments to the APs, as repair of such small pieces of infrastructure has immediately been done after civil works by the construction company itself. For smaller
36 channels, walls, fences, etc. the Operation Manual to each LARP provided a list with current market purchase prices.
9.2 Geran-Rumi line
Geran substation:
Compensation payment included all costs for the land (permanent loss) with a total transfer of TJS 300,983
Geran-Rumi HVTL:
In this paragraph only some conspicuous details are summarized. All details on damages calculated and compensation payments effected for each these 202 farms are presented in attachment A:
The total compensation payments for farmers of 202 different affected farms in four Rayons is TJS 585,412.
For the members of 96 farms in Kumsangir Rayon compensation payment amounts to TJS 264,902 from the DMS and TJS 23,810 from smaller changes in the line corridor. For Jilikul Rayon, members of 85 farms received a total of TJS 155,187 plus TJS 26,555 after smaller changes in line routing. In Rumi Rayon members of 15 farms were compensated with the amount of TJS 10,327 while for Kabodian Rayon APs from six farms got TJS 104,631.
The highest compensation transfer with TJS 85,662 went to a state owned farm in Kabodian Rayon where 120 fruit bearing trees had to be cut down in order to build four strong corner towers with a total of 871 m2 of permanent losses and about 5,000 m2 of temporary losses (in a fruit tree area this means the almost total loss of trees for construction sites). No other segment of a line corridor was more carefully and often checked than this last two kilometers of the HVTL in front of Rumi substation without identifying an alternative routing solution with less damage.
To compare this payment amount with the average compensation e.g. for Jilikul Rayon: the 85 farm units affected in this area got TJS 2,138 each, and for Kumsangir the 96 farms were compensated with TJS 3,007 each.
9.3 Kairakum-Asht line
Total expenditure for 16 farms in both Rayons is TJS 139,831, out of it for Bobojon Gafurov Rayon TJS 116,834 for nine farms, and for Asht Rayon TJS 22,997 for seven farms. For B. Gafurov the average amount of compensation paid per farm unit is TJS 12,981, and for Asht TJS 3,285. The reason for the high average amounts for B. Gafurov is the share of grapevines amongst the affected areas. E.g. for one work site and the tower 142 grapevines plus concrete poles and steel wires had to be compensated with an amount of TJS 25,004.
9.4 Kairakum-Sughd line
The total expenditure for compensation in three Rayons for the owners/members of 91 is TJS 277,464. Out of these APs of 52, farms in B. Gafurov Rayon received a total of TJS 184,594 or TJS 3,386 on average per farm unit. For Spitamen Rayon the total payment for losses on 35 farms is TJS 88,684 or 2,534 per farm unit and for Ganchi Rayon it is TJS 4,186 for four farms or TJS 1,047 per farm unit.
37 This very low average payment in Ganchi results from the lack of sufficient irrigation water and the low value crops planted (wheat and barley, no vegetables or fruit trees at all).
Table 7: Compensation Budgets Planned* and Delivered (in TJS) Planned Delivered Geran substation 300,983 300,983 Geran-Rumi HVTL 635,085 585,412 Kairakum-Asht HVTL 124,603 139,831 Kairakum-Sughd HVTL 277,464 277,464
Remarks: * According to updated LARPs on basis of DMS without contingencies
10. Monitoring and Evaluation (M+E)
10.1 M+E system, it performance and results
The implementation of the LARPs was monitored regularly by PMU M+E department and the consultant’s socio-economic expert to help ensure that it was implemented as planned and that mitigation measures designed to address the Project’s adverse social impacts were adequate and effective.
Internal Monitoring was conducted by the PMU. Internal M+E covered the following aspects:
• Compliance with land acquisition and resettlement compensation policies; • Adequacy of the organizational mechanism for implementing the LARP; • Fair and judicious handling of complaints and grievances; • Compensation payments to APs made as mandated by the LARP; and • Success in restoring the AP’s incomes to pre-project levels.
In addition, it was carefully monitored if the work sites were handed back to the farmers by the contractor without any damages and cleaned of all rubbish from the construction works. This included all access roads and irrigation channels on and near the land used for civil works.
For the two lines of Geran-Rumi and Kairakum-Asht, Barki Tojik hired an external monitoring agency (EMA) to carry out external monitoring and post-implementation evaluation of land acquisition and resettlement. The EMA was supposed to provide Barki Tojik and ADB inter alia with the following reports:
I. baseline and inception report to be submitted to Barki Tojik and ADB within one week following EMA’s mobilization describing the methodology and the time schedule of the M+E activities;
II. the payment completion report (one common report with one attachment for each Hukumat) to be submitted to Barki Tojik and ADB after delivery of compensation payments for each Hukumat. The payment completion report should particularly focus on (i.) a description of monitoring and evaluation activities, (ii.) a report on implementation of all aspects of the LARP, (iii.) citing deviations, if any, from the provisions and principles of the resettlement policy specified in the LARP, (iv.) identification of problems, issues and recommended solutions, and, (v.) description of findings in relation to whether the project activities have been completed as planned and budgeted, and recommendations, timetable and budget for addressing outstanding problems.
III. Post-resettlement implementation evaluation study one year following completion of resettlement in the Geran - Rumi and Kairakum-Asht transmission line.
38 For Geran-Rumi HVTL the EMA M+E work was carried out in time and according to the ToR and reports submitted. For Kairakum-Asht the reports were also submitted but results did not comply with the expected accurate survey and monitoring work. As pointed out in paragraph 2.4 of this report the farm representatives of Asht tried to cheat the DMS team and get the compensation payment for themselves instead of handing it over to the affected members of their collective farm or to transfer it to the proper account of the dekhan farm. This fact was not disclosed by the EMA so that PMU together with the socio-economic expert of the consultant were asked to resolve the problem themselves. Accordingly, by means of a joint field mission to Sughd the issue was examined and the problem solved within a very short period of time.
This fact proved that the external monitoring agency was less effective than expected and that is why no more intervention of the EMA was commissioned. Instead, since then PMU M+E unit together with the consultant’s national and international experts carried out intensive monitoring work during the entire construction period. This was done in very close contact to the affected farmers. All APs were provided with the personal phone number of the M+E unit representative so that at any time they were able to call Barki Tojik. It was also arranged that the contractor’s representatives for each line in Khatlon and Sughd were known to the APs (and their phone numbers provided) so that in case of complaints or even if there were only some questions either BT or the contractor or both could be called. This happened in some cases e.g. with regard to the question if construction work for some towers could not be delayed until the harvest of grapes or field crops.
During construction works of each line monitoring missions took place in order to keep contact with the farmers and the contractor and to make sure that the grievance redress mechanism was still known to the APs and the work itself in accordance with the demands of the LARPs. In very few cases during such missions people reported about damages which were not yet rectified. All such problems were solved within a few days by the contractor.
After completion of the construction work again a survey was carried out for all lines in order to check if no damages from construction work were left without rehabilitation or if the losses were not exceeding the quantities of land and crops which were calculated during the DMS. During this survey also information policy and the quality of the consultation process during LARP implementation from the point of view of the APs was reviewed.
All interviewed farmers reported that the information process was clear and transparent and they received information on time i.e. before the beginning of construction work. Most of them reported that prior to the construction work the representative from PMU together with land committee visited them and explained the land acquisition by tower, the assessment of the assumed damage which would be caused by the construction work as well as the philosophy of compensation. Apart from two cases farmers reported that they received the money exactly at the time promised (through Amonatbank bank account). There was no complaint that people received less money than arranged previously by project representatives. There was no obstacle at all to obtain the money from the Bank and according to the farmers the procedure was also quite easy.
During the survey agreed compensation amount and the size of caused damages were compared, too. Regarding the assessment of the permanent and temporary damages caused during the construction work, most of the farmers replied that the compensation money was equal to the damages caused as a result of land acquisition and construction work.
From this survey only a small number of issues was taken up and examined. For example according to one farmer the estimated size of the damage for stringing was limited to an access road of four meters where the tractor/lorry would cross the field, but actually when the machinery entered it caused higher damage than foreseen for the area. One other farmer argued that the workers in order to shorten the distance between the road and the work site place took another road than the one which was preliminary suggested and as a result they crossed the wheat field causing damage to the crops. Two farmers mentioned the fact that
39 during construction work they could not irrigate parts of their fields located down from the tower construction site and accordingly they could not use the field for the period of time until the construction work was completed. These cases were verified and a check account made regarding damages and compensation payments.
One case was reported where a person received money for a tower which actually did not belong to him. After the inquiry by and with the assistance of PMU M+E unit a woman (the land owner) confirmed that she got the money from that person. There was also a case when a tower came into the land belonging to two farmers. In one case, a farmer complained that the tower was only on his land but the compensation was divided between him and his neighbour. After the inquiry concerning this matter it was found out (with support of the Land Committee) that the land used for the tower construction only partially belonged to him but the other part of the land was that of his neighbour. When the documents were shown the farmer withdrew his complaint. These examples prove that the grievance redress mechanism was accurately working for resolving such issues.
Apart from these few questions and remarks no complaints were made, so that if no unexpected problems would arise, from M+E perspective, the conclusion can be drawn that the LARP implementation was successfully carried out and completed for all three lines.
Report on dehkan farm “Vahdat”, the farm which lost more than 10% of the land (for Geran substation) (interview with the representative of the farm) The land area, according to the representative of the farm, was 5.65 ha which was acquired by Barki Tojik for Geran substation. At the moment of the land transfer, there were about 30 members working in this farm. Each of the farm members had approximately 65 sotikh of land. According to the head of the farmers, they cultivated wheat, cotton, onion etc. depending on the preference of the members. There were no fruit trees on the land being acquired by Barki Tojik. He also reported that prior to the distribution of the compensation money people from PMU/Barki Tojik as well as of the land committee visited them and explained them about the land transfer and compensation payment. Later there was another meeting where all members of the farm gathered and were informed about the land acquisition and compensation process. He reported that there were different representatives in this meeting including from the local authority. After the agreement during the DMS compensation money was paid to the bank account of the farm. Some of compensation money then was distributed among the members (those who had a plot of land within the farm). Each affected member/farmer received up to 3,000 TJS. The rest of the money was jointly used for the benefit of the farm i.e. acquiring machinery, seeds etc. The farm representative also reported that neither he nor the other members had any complaint concerning the land acquisition and compensation. The inquiry in this regard also shows that there were no complaints from the side of farmers of Vahdat collective dekhan farm.
10.2 Institutional support to PMU
The tasks of the socio-economic consultant included support to PMU’s M+E unit and its staff. This support included general training regarding the objectives of LARP elaboration, the practical work of socio-economic analysis, routing analysis for the HVTL with regard to a minimum of adverse impacts, the assessment of possible damages by the civil works, and how to establish and implement the analysis of value of losses and the compensation system. It also included the monitoring and evaluation work on the spot in both Oblasts. During the earliest planning phase it came out that the initial routing for the two HVTLs of (i.) Geran to Rumi and (ii.) Kairakum to Asht and the simultaneously implemented economic analyses did not comply with the demands by ADB and BT PMU. Accordingly, new routings were carried out which showed that construction of the two lines would be possible with a minimum of damages and requirements for compensation.
40 Fortunately, the PMU M+E unit after several changes of team members and its unit chief at that time got the staffing which finally, with support of the consultant, carried out the field work for all three LARPs, guaranteeing continuity to the present day. This allowed for a joint work starting with the line routings. Consequently, PMU M+E unit could establish good working cooperation with all concerned administrative levels starting from the Oblast vice chairperson (with energy portfolio) over the chairpersons of the Rayons and going down to the Jamoat leaders and the chairpersons of Mahallas.
To date, PMU M+E unit is able to continue monitoring of all mid-term impacts of the line construction, which includes protection of the towers and the line cables from agricultural usage, damages which in future may result from erosion of the tower fundaments, etc. Regarding the compensation, the survey of February 2017 indicated that there were no pending complaints or damages left from construction works which could result in future complaints. However, even if any issue of this type arises, PMU M+E team would be able to cope with such problems without external support.
11. Conclusions Regarding Compliance of Project with ADB’s Safeguard Policy Statement (SPS) 2009 Requirements
The project implementation complied in all the HVTL cases fully with the defaults of the ADB Safeguard Policy Statement of 2009. In particular, the social dimension was respected during the formulation of the compensation policy while
I. supporting vulnerable households with additional advice and in case of need with all administrative and technical support during the process of identification of losses, the determination of the amount of compensation to be paid and eventually regarding the transfer of the money, and II. paying 25% in addition to the general amount as generally fixed for losses to these vulnerable households.
Gender issues as the second important dimension of ADB’s SPS were also thoroughly followed up and action taken where required. Inter alia, the M+E team of BT’s PMU tried wherever possible to complement the general information offered to the affected groups (by public announcements and by information campaigns of the concerned Rayon and Jamoat administrations), particularly information for women. When organizing meetings, women of potentially affected households were explicitly invited. During the implementation of the various socio-economic surveys measures were taken to have as many women as men being interviewed. However, changes within the socio-cultural background during the last year did not favour these efforts so that many individual meetings with women had to be carried out (cf. our observations and recommendations of chapter 12).
Entitlement for both temporary and permanent losses was established according to Tajik legislation and ADB principles: full compensation at current prices and without any deductions (transfer costs, taxes, etc.). In cases of doubt the upper price range was accepted for compensation payments.
Regarding safeguards on Indigenous People no measures were required as no such indigenous people are living in the project areas.
Concerning protection of cultural heritage (i.e. physical cultural resources) mainly during routing of the Geran-Rumi HVTL various changes to the line were made in order to avoid negative impacts on some small cemeteries near to the line corridor. This resulted in the fact that not a single religious-cultural or historical place has been affected.
41 For all three lines and the Geran substation not a single household had to be resettled. In order to follow up and implement the policy of ADB to avoid Forced Resettlement substantial (and costly) measures were implemented, such as various changes of the line corridor with the final result that not a single home had to be demolished nor were people shifted to other areas. Again, this was a substantial challenge for the final identification of the Geran-Rumi line corridor which, according to the first line corridor selected earlier by Soviet planners, would have affected several dozen houses and compounds.
The consultation and participation process was implemented according to the defaults of the three LARPs. The final monitoring showed that from the sample interviewed not a single person felt they had been poorly or insufficiently informed. People also stated that compensation payments were absolutely fair and covered all losses. However, as countries like Tajikistan do not have a tradition of public debate and criticism again we would like to refer to the observations and recommendations of chapter 12.
The local Grievance Redress Mechanism was well established and all affected people were quite well informed in detail about the implementation process and how to use the grievance redress mechanism in case of problems. The final monitoring meetings showed that the mechanism was not used at all, but people argued that there were no reasons for complaints against BT, its PMU and the director. Only some minor objections were reported during various monitoring visits and action was immediately taken.
One assignment of the M+E process during project implementation was also to disclose and deal with unanticipated impacts and, where such adverse impacts were identified, to find solutions for a fast remedy. Again, no such impacts were reported during the numerous monitoring visits or could be identified by the PMU representatives or the consultant during such missions.
As a summary the matrix of the following table 8 presents an overview of compensation/entitlement equivalents to the social safeguard principles:
Table 8: ADB SPS principles and compensation / entitlement / action equivalents Principles Realization: fully, mainly, partially, non Social dimension fully Gender issues mainly-fully Entitlement fully Indigenous people - Cultural heritage fully Forced resettlement fully Consultation and participation fully Grievance redress fully Unanticipated impacts fully
12. Conclusions
ADB safeguard policy and its implementation are based on the Safeguard Policy Statement of June 2009. The statement explicitly refers to three objectives: (i.) avoiding adverse impacts of projects on the environment and affected people, where possible; (ii.) minimising, mitigating, and/or compensating for adverse project impacts on the environment and affected people when avoidance is not possible; and (iii.) helping borrowers/clients to strengthen their safeguard systems and develop the capacity to manage environmental and social risks. The document clearly states that “ADB will not finance projects that do not comply with its safeguard policy statement” (§47).
At least during the last few years, ADB headquarters and the country offices have pursued a rigorous policy in requesting strict compliance with the main requirements of the safeguard
42 statements during project planning. For instance, in the event of involuntary resettlement and land acquisition, no civil work is allowed to start before full compensation payment is made to the affected households.
The LARPs of the tranmission lines project was implemented guided by the legal, institutional and implementation framework in accordance with the ADB Policy and legislation of Tajikistan. All type of physical and economical losses such as lost assets such as lands, trees, income from crops and trees, structures, etc. have been fully compensated.
The framework for the Project LARP is based on the ADB requirements on Resettlement as embedded in the Safeguards Policy Statement (2009) and on the ADB Operations Manual F1 on the Safeguard Policy Statement (2010), the Constitution of Tajikistan, and the Land Code of Tajikistan. Where differences exist between local law and ADB policies and practices, the resettlement for this project were resolved in favor of the latter through a reconciliation measures and special entitlement matrix designed for the Project LARP. Reconciliation measures took place through consultations and discussions among international IR consultants and experts from relevant state institutions involved in the planning and implementation of LARP. The RP was implemented considering the following aspects:
1) Detailed lists of Project Displaced Households showing loss of land and other assets. 2) Determination of entitlements and remedial actions as per the SPS 2009, National Laws and preparation of LAR plans in consultation with DPs, relevant government institutions, districts’ executive government, EA and PIU. 3) Entitlements by categories of losses i.e land, assets, entitled persons, application guidelines and implementation issues. 4) Budget estimates for resettlement plan, including compensation, rehabilitation, other income restoration measures and assistance. 5) Grievance redress procedure to address complaints related to the planning and implementation of resettlement activities.
LARP was implemented in a manner that all potential adverse impact on DPs lands, crops and trees have been fairly compensated to achieve DPs satisfaction. 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, impact validation, community consultations, disclosure of information, etc. No conflicts among the DPs, project implementers and local authroties were reported. The Resettlement Plan was implemented guided by the legal, institutional and implementation framework in accordance with the ADB IR policy guidelines and legislation for compensation for affected assets and rehabilitation of the DPs.
13. Recommendations
Many partner agencies are not sufficiently acquainted with the content and the challenges of the ADB Safeguard Statement. In order to avoid misunderstandings with the consultants, who in most cases predominantly contribute to the elaboration of the LARP and/or ESIA, it would be advisable for ADB to provide the responsible managers of the national implementing agency with comprehensive information on the entire safeguard process at a very early stage of project planning. The internal resettlement monitoring system of the PIU and the filing and management of LAR information and data should be strengthened.
Expedite the land acquisition, and establish a feasible work plan to ensure the timely handover of land for construction.
43 14. References ADB. Asian Development Bank (2006): Special Evaluation Study on Involuntary Resettlement Safeguards. Manila. ADB. Asian Development Bank (2009): Safeguard Policy Statement. Manila. ADB. Asian Development Bank (2012): Strengthening Participation for Development Results. An Asian Development Bank Guide to Participation. Manila. ADB. Asian Development Bank (2013): Gender Equality and Women`s Empowerment Operational Plan, 2013-2020. Manila. ADB. Asian Development Bank (2014a): REG: Mainstreaming Land Acquisition and Resettlement Safeguards in the Central and West Asia Region. Manila (Technical Assistance Consultant’s Report, Project Number 43288). ADB. Asian Development Bank (2014b): Leaning Lessons. ADB’s Safeguard Policy. Manila. Barki Tojik (2011): CAREC Regional Power Transmission Project ADB Grant 0213-TAJ. Contract for Project Implementation Consultants’ Services. Dushanbe. Barki Tojik / Fichtner (2012-2014): Regional Power Transmission Project, Tajikistan. ADB Grant No. 0213-TAJ. Land Acquisition and Resettlement Plan (LARP) Kayrakum - Asht 220 kV Transmission Line. Dushanbe. Barki Tojik / Fichtner (2012-2014): Regional Power Rehabilitation Project, Tajikistan. ADB Grant No. 0213-TAJ. Land Acquisition and Resettlement Plan (LARP). Geran - Rumi 220 kV Transmission Line. Revised Version of LARP. Dushanbe. Barki Tojik / Fichtner (2015-2016): Regional Power Transmission Project, Tajikistan. ADB Grant No. 0213-TAJ. Land Acquisition and Resettlement Plan (LARP) Kayrakum – Sughd 220 kV Transmission Line. Dushanbe (final version of May 2016). Bliss, Frank (2012): Decentralisation, Civil Society Institutions and Citizens’ Participation on the Level of the Commune (Jamoāt) in Tajikistan. Project Working Paper No. 4. Duisburg. Bliss, Frank (2013): Poverty, governance and participation in Tajikistan, in: Ahrens, Joachim and Hoen, Herman W. (eds.): Institutional Reform in Central Asia. Politico-economic challenges. FAO (2012): Agrarian Reform Program of the Republic of Tajikistan. Compiled Documentation, Dushanbe. Lerman, Zvi / Sedik, D. (2008). The Economic Effects of Land Reform in Tajikistan. Policy Studies on Rural Transition 2008-1, FAO Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia. RoT (2000): Decree No. 515 on Procedures for Compensation of Damages to Land Users and the Loss Of Agricultural Production. Dushanbe (30 December 2000). RoT (2004): Constitutional Law of the Republic of Tajikistan about local government authorities. Dushanbe (Law No. 28 of 17 May 2004). RoT (2008): The Law of the Republic of Tajikistan on the Public Self-Initiative Bodies. Dushanbe (Law No. 347 of 5 January 2008). RoT (2009a): Decree of the President of the Republic of Tajikistan On additional measures to support agricultural sector in the Republic of Tajikistan. Dushanbe (Decree No. 663 of 30 May 2009). RoT (2009b): The Republic of Tajikistan. Law on Self-Governance in a Town or Township. Dushanbe (Law No. 549 of 5 August 2009). RoT (2011): The Law of the Republic of Tajikistan On dekhqan (farming) farm. Dushanbe (Law of 15 April 2011). RoT (n.d.): Law of Republic of Tajikistan “On Entering Amendments and Additions to Land Code of Republic of Tajikistan”. Draft. Dushanbe. Zerkalo (2011): Survey Report “Assessment of legal issues of farmers in Tajikistan and knowledge of their rights”. Dushanbe (for Helvetas).
44
Photo-Documentation of Line Condition in February 2017
Constructions, Damages and Rehabilitation Works by the Contractor
45 1. Geran – Rumi 220 kV HVTL
1.1 New Geran Substation
The substation has been constructed on 7 instead of 10 hectares of land acquired and compensated. There are no adverse impacts left for the former land owners. Some construction material and heaps of clay from the construction site are still deposited next to the substation but on the land acquired by Barki Tojik. The construction company will remove these deposits and clear the area in order to avoid future accruement of a garbage deposit.
Pictures 1 - 2 show Geran substation with a strip of land acquired by Barki Tojik but only used for two towers.
1.2 Geran – Rumi HVTL
The line between the two substations was constructed with some minor changes based on addenda to the LARP but no additional adverse impacts on houses or agricultural areas. Damages caused by civil works proved to be much lower than assessed during the DMS and the assessment of damages and compensation requirements.
Pictures 3 – 4 show details of the line after completion of civil works: absolutely clean construction sites with a minimum of land used for the towers.
46
Pictures 5 – 6 also prove that construction of towers was achieved on a minimum of land required on a permanent base.
Pictures 7 shows how the farmer bypassed the tower area in order to avoid erosion of the fundaments; picture 8 indicates that where a construction site becomes dirty it is the responsibility of the farmer and not of the contractor (here a deposit of used plastic foil).
2. Kairakum – Asht 220 kV HVTL
This HVTL between Kairakum substation and Asht substation did not cause any damages of buildings but had to cross a very valuable area with grapes and another with apricot trees. However, permanent damages (losses of agricultural land) for both areas remained very limited and much less temporary damages were eventually made than expected during the planning process (and compensated).
47
Pictures 9 and 10 show two towers within grapevine areas (as of February 2017). Only the construction site was cleaned of some rows of grapevines.
Pictures 11 and 12 show adjacent areas soon after stringing in summer 2016. Although it was expected that some rows of grapevines of 4 m would be removed on a path between towers in order to allow for stringing, no damages at all were caused in these places.
Picture 13 - 14 show sections of the line which cross areas with apricot trees (in between, the farmers were growing wheat as indicated by the small field channels). However, no apricot tree at all was cut down during stringing.
48 3 Kairakum – Sughd 220 kV HVTL
This HVTL between Kairakum substation and Sughd substation did not cause any damages to buildings either. By a thorough survey a line corridor was identified which did not require the demolition of any house. However, again also the line had to cross some very valuable areas mainly with grapevines but also some other crops.
Picture 15 shows a tower near Sughd substation on a piece of agricultural land suffering from lack of irrigation water. Nevertheless, the farmers in this area were fully compensated; picture 16 shows a tower on barren land (at the river Syr Darya crossing).
Pictures 17 and 18 demonstrate the accurateness with which the construction sites were rehabilitated and cleaned before being handed back to the farmers.
Picture 19 shows that indeed only the smallest possible area of land was taken for the tower construction.
49