LARP Implementation External Monitoring Report
April 2018
KGZ: CAREC Transport Corridor 3 (Bishkek-Osh
Road) Improvement Project, Phase 4 for Kara-Balta
Prepared by an External Monitoring Consultant for the Ministry of Transport and Roads of the Kyrgyz Republic.
This land acquisition and resettlement plan implementation external 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. 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.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 4 1.1. Background ...... 4 1.2. Project Description ...... 4 1.3. Objectives of the External Monitoring ...... 5 2. METHODOLOGY ...... 5 2.1. Desk Review ...... 5 2.2. Data Collection and Analysis ...... 6 3. LARP IMPLEMENTATION STATUS ...... 6 3.1. Resettlement Plan implementation process ...... 6 3.2. Project Impacts and Displaced Persons ...... 7 3.3. Compensation delivery ...... 8 3.4. DPs that were not compensated ...... 9 3.4.1. DPs included in LARP without compensation ...... 9 3.4.2. DPs excluded from compensation tallies ...... 10 3.4.3. DPs with avoided impact ...... 13 3.4.4. DPs waived compensation ...... 14 3.4.6. Affected Public Facilities ...... 14 3.4.7. Allowances for Vulnerable and Severely Affected ...... 15 3.5. Level of DPs Satisfaction ...... 17 4. PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS AND INFORMATION DISCLOSURE ...... 18 4.1. Public consultations ...... 18 4.2. Information disclosure ...... 18 4.3. Grievance redress mechanism ...... 18 5. INTERNAL MONITORING REPORT...... 19 6. CONCLUSIONS ...... 19 Annex 1: Photos from face-to-face interviews with DPs on Section 2 ...... 21 Annex 2: Sample letter of notification to DPs on avoidance of impact ...... 23 Annex 3. Letter from local government on DPs status ...... 29 Annex 4. Metal containers with no compensation (photos taken in 2015)...... 32 Annex 5: Sample consent signed by owners of the containers on moving to new locations34 Annex 6. Letter from Shopokov Mayor on container of Kubanbaev M...... 36
TABLES Table 1: Section 1 to be handed over to contractor аithin 28 days after commencement………...…….4 Table 2: Section 2 to be handed over аithin 16 months after commencement……………………………4 Table 3: Summary comparison of DPs……………………………………………………………..…….…..7 Table 4: Summary of Project Impact………………………………………………………………..…..…….7 Table 5: Summary comparison of impacts per type…………………………………………….…………..8 Table 6: LARP implementation status as of April 28, 2018…………………………………………………9 Table 7: Summary DPs аhose assets аill be moved аithout compensation……………………….….10 Table 8: DPs without monetary compensation or excluded………………………………………..…….10 Table 9: Summary of DPs not present or resumed business in new location - Section 2……………….11 Table 10: Summary of DPs excluded due to design change – Section 2………………………………13 Table 11: List of DPs Refused Compensation………………………………………………………..……14 Table 12: Affected public facilities – Section 2………………………………………………..……………15 Table 13: Alloаances for Severally Affected by Districts…………………………………………………15 Table 14: Alloаances for Vulnerable DPs ………………………………………………………………...15 Table 15: Alloаances for Severally Affected and Vulnerable DPs………………………………………15 Table 15: Summary complaints as of 28 April 2018………………………………………………………19
2
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ADB ─ Asian Development Bank CAREC ─ Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation DP ─ Displaced Person EMC ─ External Monitoring Consultant EMP ─ Environment Management Plan GRM ─ Grievance redress mechanism HH ─ Household IES ─ International External Resettlement Monitoring Specialist IPIG ─ Investment Projects Implementation Group KR ─ Kyrgyz Republic LAR ─ Land acquisition and resettlement LARP ─ Land acquisition and resettlement plan MoTR ─ Ministry of Transport and Roads PSC ─ Project Supervision Consultant RoW ─ Right of way SPS ─ Safeguard policy statement
3
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
1. This LARP implementation monitoring report has been prepared by an External Monitoring consultant to verify compliance of implementation of the Land Acquisition and Resettlement Plan for the Bishkek – Osh Road, Improvement Project Phase 4 for Kara Balta (The Project) with the approved final LARP and ADB Safeguards Policy Statement 2009. A satisfactory implementation of the LARP is a condition for ADB no objection to the start of physical civil works.
2. The LARP has been approved by ADB and the Kyrgyz Government, endorsed by the Governmental Ordinance dated 14 April 2017, and disclosed on the IPIG and ADB websites.
3. LARP implementation has been made in tranches to allow for efficiency and comply with financial regulations of the country.
1.2. Project Description
4. The Bishkek – Osh Road, Improvement Project Phase 4 for Kara Balta (The Project), will improve national and regional connectivity by rehabilitating an estimated 52 km of crucial road sections between Bishkek and Kara Balta. The project is consistent with the government’s priority of upgrading key corridors as stated in its draft Medium-Term Development Program (2012–2014) and is included in ADB’s draft Country Operations Business Plan (2012–2014) for the Kyrgyz Republic. The Bishkek- Osh road represents about one third of the core international road corridor network in the Kyrgyz Republic, and links the country to Kazakhstan in the north, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan in the south, and the People’s Republic of China in the southeast. It is the only direct ground link between the southern and northern parts of the country making it crucial for maintaining the country’s social, political, and economic integrity.
5. To facilitate effective LARP implementation and start of physical works, the Ministry of Transport and Roads and the Contractor agreed to a “Sectional handover schedule” аith details as follows:
Table 1: Section 1 to be handed over to contractor within 28 days after commencement (Original) Project mileage chainage (km) No of AHs at Section 1 Start of End of End of sub- sub- No Start of sub- sub- section section Section Lease- section section (km) (km) length km Owners holders Employees 1 74+00 128+00 15+900 21+300 5+400 1 270+00 320+80 35+500 40+580 5+080 0 0 0 1 371+00 431+00 45+600 51+600 6+000 1 457+00 508+50 54+200 59+350 5+150 Total 21+630 0
Table 2: Section 2 to be handed over within 16 months after commencement
(Original) chainage Project mileage (km) No of AHs at Section 2 No Start of End of End of sub- sub- Start of sub- section section Section Lease- Sub-section section (km) (km) length (km) Owners holders Employees 1 128+00 270+00 21+300 35+500 14+200 39 9 11 2 320+80 371+00 40+580 45+600 5+020 46 32 30 Affected Public facilities under the sub-section 4 3 431+00 457+00 51+600 54+200 2+600 1 0 0 4 508+50 525+00 59+350 61+000 1+650 3 3 1 89 44 42 Total: 23+470 175 4
6. The following details describe the road technical features: - Number of lanes – 4 and 6 - Lane width –3.5 – 3.75m - Carriageway width – 2 7.5 - Shoulder width – 3.75 m
7. The Decision of the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic No182-b, dated 25 May 2014 that establishes the Cut-off date for the Project, set the Right of Way (ROW) width at32 meters from the centerline each side, i.e. 64m. The same has been applied for the width of Corridor of Impact of the Project road.
1.3. Objectives of the External Monitoring
8. The of Terms of Reference of the International External Resettlement Monitoring Specialist (IES) implied verification of compliance with RP that includes review of reports prepared by the IPIG, review and verification in the field the results of the reports prepared by the IPIG, involving a random check of payment/compensation records. Field verification shall be done through interviews with DPs. The IES shall also review the compliance of compensation process with procedures/methodologies/mechanisms stated in the approved RP. The IES shall check if the valuation, consultations, disclosure, payments, and related processes are done in accordance with the approved RP.
9. The objective of this LARP Implementation Monitoring report is to describe the outcomes of LARP implementation, determine whether resettlement goals have been achieved, as well as provide opinions of DPs, whose interests and rights have been affected by this process.
10. The LARP provided that the LARP Implementation Monitoring Report will include the following: - A verification of the schedules and the achievement of targets related to land acquisition and resettlement activities; - A verification for whether the resettlement has been implemented in accordance with the approved final LARP; - A verification that the unit compensation rates used in the valuation reports, contracts and agreements are in accordance with the LARP provisions; - A verification that compensation and the amounts defined in the LARP were delivered to all AHs; - An assessment of the compensation distribution procedure, its timing in relation with LARP provisions; - A review of the GRM and grievance cases including an assessment of whether grievance resolution was carried out in accordance with LARP provisions; Training of the GRG at the local and central level; - An assessment of public consultation; - An assessment of the delivery of allowances to severely affected, vulnerable and resettled DPs; - A final assessment of satisfactory implementation of the LARP and if necessary, details of the required corrective measures.
2. METHODOLOGY
11. This LARP Implementation Monitoring Report has been prepared based on the following: - Review of adequacy of resettlement planning carried out under the project; - Review and verification of internal monitoring by IPIG; - Interview of DPs to verify compensation and assistance delivery as per entitlement matrix; - Assess participation in public consultation, involvement of people in and their satisfaction with the resettlement implementation process;
12. The above has been carried out through desk review as well as field level data collection and interviews.
2.1. Desk Review 13. The desk review covered project documents, including land acquisition and resettlement plan, LAR Action Plan implementation, Contracts between MoTR KR and DPs, copies of reports on bank transfers from IPIG to KICB with details of DPs, amounts transferred per tranches and other relevant documents such as notifications sent to DPs on whom impact is avoided, as well as the detailed design 5
drawings and proposed technical solutions to minimize and/or avoid impacts. The official letters issued and other notifications relating to the LARP implementation were reviewed as well as part of the desk review.
14. Whereas changes occurred to the detailed design, notifications of no impact sent to the relevant DPs, along with the technical solutions (i.e. design drawings attached to the letter) were collected from the IPIG in support of informing DPs.
15. In case of replacement of DPs/changes in names of the DPs against the initial tallies, similarly, the relevant cases were explored, interviews conducted with the available DPs, and justifications collected accordingly.
2.2. Data Collection and Analysis 16. Data collection and analysis included data from IPIG and from the field. Data from both sources was collected, analyzed and the results used for compliance assessment purposes and documented in the report.
17. The data collection, analysis and update were completed during the two missions tied up to the release of compensation funds in tranches. The missions were fielded in October and December of 2017. The filed survey under this report covered the status of LARP implementation throughout the released tranches.
3. LARP IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
18. The compensation payment has been made as per the eligibility and entitlements in accordance with the approved LARP and released in four tranches. This report covers the status of compensation payment for all the four tranches.
19. The LARP implementation status was prepared based on the documents, detailed design and tallies provided by the IPIG, assisted by the Project Supervision and Implementation Consultant and covers the following: i) No. of displaced persons; ii) Impact on land; iii) Loss of structures (miscellaneous); iv) Loss of trees and shrubs v) Loss of income and job; vi) Allowances; vii) grievances and complains.
3.1. Resettlement Plan implementation process
20. Implementation of LARP started in September 2017, while it was approved in April 2017.There were some changes in the design that resulted in additional impact. However, considerable efforts of the Supervision Consultant’s design engineers and resettlement team, IPIG resettlement and engineering team to come up with engineering solutions enabling avoidance of new impact or in some cases minimizing the impacts on affected assets identified earlier.
21. By the time of LARP implementation there were cases, where some of the DPs deceased, left the country, not working within the road corridor any longer, or not affected by the project due to changes in the engineering design. All such cases were investigated jointly by the LAR Committee, local authorities and the IPIG representatives – resettlement and engineering teams along with the Supervision Consultant. Where the DPs were excluded, the IPIG and the local authorities prepared the following:
- letters detailing the name, location and status of the DPs. - a notification letter (for those on whom impacts have been avoided) informing the DP about avoidance of impact and providing detailed engineering design solution per case. - IPIG’s request the information from the Rayon’s Government Administration on DPs not found in the corridor; - Rayon’s Administrations checking and responding for each DP not residing/аorking in the corridor. (Please see Annexes on excluded DPs due to leaving the corridor, establishing business/staring employment elsewhere or migrating abroad).
6
3.2. Project Impacts and Displaced Persons
22. The final LARP indicated a total of 284 HHs loses the following assets:
- 114 land plots; - 97 fruit trees; - 115 wood trees and 37 decorative trees; - 4 residential homes; - 12 ancillary residential structures; - 142 non-residential buildings and ancillary structures; - 71 gates and fences and 37 land improvements; - 142 businesses; - 85 employments
23. At the implementation stage, number of DPs decreased to 175, including 85 owners, 44 leaseholders, 42 employees and 4 Public Facilities. The table below summarizes the number of DPs at LAR planning and implementation stages. During the implementation of the LARP, the IPIG of the Ministry of Transport and Roads of the Kyrgyz Republic, encountered difficulties locating the DPs who were residing/working in the Project Corridor during the DMS. To resolve the issue, the IPIG requested the State District Administrations to instruct the local Aiyl Okmotu (village government) to locate the DPs. The Ail Okmotu (village government) is the executive and administrative body under the ail (rural) or village kenesh, which, within its’ powers, administers the vital activities of the local community. According to this request, the heads of the Aiyl Okmotu organized a search for these DPs. On the IPIG’s request, the Head of the regional administration, referring to the letters from the Head of the respective Ayil Okmotu, provided a list of DPs that are no longer affected by the Project because they no longer work in the Project corridor, they have migrated to another country, they established their businesses /employment at other locations, etc. These DPs were excluded from compensation and letters from the Ayil Okmotu’s are attached to this Report.
Table 3: Summary comparison of DPs Number of Public Ref. No Stage Owners Lease-holders Employees HHs Facilities A Final LARP approval 2821 115 82 81 4 B LARP implementation 175 85 44 42 4 C Difference (C=A-B) 107 30 38 39 0 Source: IPIG and Supervision Consultant
24. The desk review and field visit found that the decrease has resulted from: (i) design change to avoid impact; (ii) excluded DPs who has left the country/Project affected area. There were also DPs that were included in the LARP without compensation, because there is no impact on them, and their affected assets will only need to be moved to the new locations. In total, there were 171 HH with 480 DPs affected by the Project and 4 government and community entities. The details showing changes in scope of impact per category during LARP implementation are summarized below in Tables 4 and 5.
Table 4: Summary of Project Impact Private entities, Community/ Type of impact Households/ (DPs) Businesses Government entity 1.Total number of affected households (people in brackets) – non-overlapping and 171 (480) 4 not double counted between the categories. 2. Severely affected whereby more than 10% of productive asset/income generating 84 (270) facility is taken. 3. Vulnerable 4 (30) 4. Business/income loss 60 (139) 5. Number of employees affected by the 19 (37) project All values are without double counting
1Initial number in the approved final LARP was 284, whereas 2 DPs were double counted: Bedelbaev A. and Kim L. To avoid confusion, the double-counted were removed from the lists and summary tables. 7
Table 5: Summary comparison of impacts per type LARP LARP Ref. Measuring approval implementation Category of impact No unit Number Number Quantity Quantity of DPs* of DPs* 1 Land Affected land TOTAL Sqm 9186,35 114 6009,01 92 private property Sqm 4928,89 37 2668,49 24 right of use Sqm 2273,1 29 1299,3 21 illegitimate use Sqm 1984,36 48 1654,36 39 additional documents 38,8 1 excluded by design 348,06 7 2 Structures Gas station 78 2 30 1 Residential house (floor / house) 250,5 4 250,5 4 Fences (wooden, metal, wire mesh, Sqm 3816,5 120 2803,6 85 asbestos slabs) excluded by design 135,6 3 Iron gate Sqm 154 18 120,2 14 Pavilions TOTAL No 2278 91 1269,6 40 Brick No 720,6 10 637,1 7 metal/plastic No 769,2 33 359,8 16 Containers No 788,2 48 163,2 9 excluded by design No 41,6 3 already removed No 67,9 5 3 Trees/shrubs/flowers 249 39 263 39 Fruit trees No 23 8 25 8 Non-Fruit Trees No 138 19 135 18 Seedlings No 32 7 32 7 Shrubs/Flowers No 56 5 62 5 excluded by design No 9 1 4 Income source No - 142 - 60 business owner 58 29 excluded by design 5 business tenant 84 25 excluded by design 1 5 Jobs No - 82 - 24 excluded by design 2 6 Severe impact and Vulnerability Persons 146 88 Double counted DPs for the purpose of detailing the impact types (One DP received both allowances)
3.3. Compensation delivery
25. Compensation eligibility for Section 2 DPs, as for the entire Project, was limited by the cut-off date set on 26 May, 20142 and was the same for all DPs regardless of their legal status. Nonetheless, the DMS was completed in September 2015 and all the DPs found within the corridor of impact as of September 2015 were registered and considered for compensation subject to eligibility. Hence, compensation eligibility is compliant with the ADB safeguards requirements in this regard.
26. Based on the inventory of Project affected assets, the LARP determined types of assets and income loss for compensation and entitlements. As per approved LARP, the adopted Project Specific Entitlement Matriб, based on the Kyrgyz Republic laаs and the requirements of ADB’s SPS (2009), specifies the following eligibility compensation and/or at least rehabilitation: (i) all DPs losing land covered by the legal title; (ii) owners of buildings, crops, plants, or other objects attached to the land regardless of their legal title; (iii) DPs losing their businesses, income, and salaries regardless of their legal status entitlement provisions for DPs include provisions for land losses, building/structure losses, crops, plants, (or other objects attached to the land), and a business/employment losses based on tax declarations and/or lump sums, as well as allowance for severe impact, relocation and vulnerability.
27. The desk review, discussion with the IPIG and the field visits shows that the compensation delivery was based on the thoroughly adhered legal procedures ensuring transparency, compliance and avoiding misuse.
2Decree of the Prime Minister No 182-p, dated 26 May 2014 8
28. The compensation was paid through bank transfer, which completely eliminated misuse of funds and/or any potential fraudulent actions related to compensation.
29. Compensation for the Section 2 DPs has been paid in full as per LARP with the increased actual amount paid to some of the DPs due to added reimbursement for transactions related to separation of land plots, formalizing the renewed titles etc. Hence, compliance has been observed in relation to ensuring replacement cost free of transaction costs.
30. Total planned compensation for the Section 2 as per the LARP, amounted to 62,973,550 KGS. After clarifications and amendments to the impact recorded in the LARP and actual situation on the ground аhich changed due to people’s migration from the Project area, the total planned compensation was adjusted. The actual compensation amount paid was 33,321,113 KGS for 106 DPs. This amount includes actual compensation for affected assets and properties of 32,938,102 KGS and addition of the actual transaction fees (383,011KGS) related to updating titles etc. The LAR implementation was completed in the first week of April 2018.
Table 6: LARP implementation status as of April 28, 2018 No of DPs without No of Total No of DPs received Sections compensation and public DPs compensation excluded facilities Section 1 0 0 0 0 Section 2 175 106 65 4 Total 175 106 65 4
3.4. DPs that were not compensated
3.4.1. DPs included in LARP without compensation 31. As mentioned earlier, there were DPs whose assets – metallic containers were located within the ROW during the surveys and impact assessment and preparation of the LARP. Such DPs and their assets were included in the LARP, yet were not entitled for monetary compensation, because their assets were moved to the new locations by IPIG upon agreement with these DPs.
32. Five of six such DPs made metallic containers/trailers easy to move as they are, i.e. without being dismantled/re-assembled. Hence, Kumushbekov Tynychtybek (148+05L), Kurbanbaev M (139+36R), Kalmambetov Saydylda (141+29R), A. Zhumataeva (190+07 L), and Cheshiza Ravil (253+26L) are owners of metal containers that were staying idle at the time of asset valuation back in 2015 and located on the state land owned by the local administration (Ayil Okmotu). The valuation report includes these affected assets with a provision that the assets will be moved to new locations without compensation. Acceptance of the container owners to be moved to new locations has been sought by the local administrations and scan sent to IPIG for files. Photos of the assets at the time of valuation along with the scans of the acceptance to be moved to new location is attached to the report. Containers of Kumushbekov T. will be moved 2km down the same location as agreed between the DP and the local administration (signed consent annexed below); Kurbanbaev T. has already moved his container (confirmation letter from local administration annexed below); container of Cheshiza Ravil will be moved near the same place onto a concrete basement (the consent and photos are annexed below). Container of Kalmambetov S. will be moved back on to his own land plot, while it currently encroaches on the minor strip of the state land. The containers were by the Contractor and in agreement with owners of the containers.
33. One of the six assets listed but without compensations is a wracked tandoor3 identified during the asset valuation back in 2015.
3Traditional oven for making bread and/or samsa 9
34. The owner reject compensation and stated that she would dismantle a long time ruined tandoor. The table below summarizes complaints per type as of 28 April 2018. Details related to locations, types of objects and names of owners are provided in the following table.
Table 7: Summary DPs whose assets will be moved without compensation Ref. Chainage (R/L) Object description Property owner No Address 1 148+05 L Romanovka Container/Trailer Kumushbekov T. 2 139+36 R Shopokov a/o Metal kiosk Kurbanbaev Muhambet 3 141+29 R Shopokov a/o. 1 Residential trailer on a Komsomolskaya str. corner of Kalmambetov Saydylda privately-owned land Frunze str. 4 253+26 L Aleksandrovka Container/Trailer Cheshiza Ravil 5 190+07 L Sokuluk, Frunze str., bus stop Metal kiosk "Kamila" A. Zhumataeva 6 340+61 L Belovodskoe, Destroyed tandoor J.Beishenov, Nazira Source: Valuation Repot, letter from local government
3.4.2. DPs excluded from compensation tallies 35. Number of DPs were excluded from tallies for various reasons. The total number of excluded DPs made 69 for the entire Section 2, of which, 8 were excluded due to the design change, while 47 either migrated, quit their business/lease, resumed business outside the project ROW or otherwise.
Table 8: DPs without monetary compensation or excluded List of not State Design Without Waived Total working DPs facilities change payment compensation 69 47 4 8 6 4
36. Thorough investigation was carried out by the IPIG with support from the consultants, to decide on each such a case. External monitoring missions during payment under both tranches show that efforts to investigate physical presence, validation and locating of these DPs was carried out by the resettlement specialists of both, IPIG and the Consultant, liaison officer of the IPIG contacted local authorities to collect relevant available data on these people. The IPIG management issued an official request to local authorities of Belovodskoe, Novonikolaevka, Poltavka and Sokuluk local authorities to confirm the status of the displaced people on whom the information was missing or whose location was not known/identified.
37. Letters from the local authorities confirming such cases and providing details on the DPs status were received and scans are annexed to this report. It is to mention that whereas leaseholders or employers of the affected pavilions or containers moved to new locations to resume businesses, the owners of such assets were fully compensated for the incurred impact according the LARP. The details on DPs excluded from the compensation tallies is provided below.
10
Table 9: Summary of DPs not present or resumed business in new location - Section 24 Ref. Chainage (R/L) Owner Property owner Leaseholder Employee No Address Object detail 1 456+84 R N/A Poltavka, – retailer/seller in Jumataev Jakshylykov Tsentralnaya str. - the affected Mudarbek Esen (no number) container 2 524+26 L N/A Novonikolaevka, 7 – leaseholders of Sabirova Engels str. bus- Ajibaev Nurlan - the affected Ghuncham stop container 3 524+29 L N/A Novonikolaevka, 7 – leaseholder of Sabirova Moldokulkyzy Engels str. bus- the affected Ghuncham Jazgul stop container 4 176+50 R Sokuluk, Frunze Metal pavilion Gulnara
str. No number "Albina" Sharshenova М. Tukeyev 5 176+85 R Sokuluk, Frunze Container N. Filimonov T. Kozhomberdiev
str. No number 6 177+02 R Sokuluk, Frunze Pavilion Joomart Jenishov E. Isakova str. No number, (container) bus stop 7 177+22 R Sokuluk, Frunze Metal pavilion Joomart Jenishov N. Egemberdieva str. No number, bus stop 8 183+22 L Sokuluk, Frunze Pavilion from str. / - Bolnichnay concrete blocks Timur Jumagulov B. Sydykov str. bus stop 9 183+22 L Sokuluk, Frunze Pavilion from str. / - Bolnichnay concrete blocks Timur Jumagulov D. Osmonov str. bus stop 10 183+22 L Sokuluk, Frunze Pavilion from str. / - Bolnichnay concrete blocks Timur Jumagulov Jazgul str. bus stop 11 183+22 L Sokuluk, Frunze Pavilion from str. / - Bolnichnay concrete blocks Timur Jumagulov Nurzada str. bus stop 12 183+50 L Sokuluk, Frunze Pavilion from Azamat Otorbaev О. Mezentseva str. / - Bolnichnay concrete blocks E. Jantaeva str. bus stop "Adil" 13 183+50 L Sokuluk, Frunze Pavilion from N. Kydykova Azamat Otorbaev str. / - Bolnichnay concrete blocks E. Jantaeva str. bus stop "Adil" 14 185+27 R Sokuluk, Frunze "Svegak" metal N. str. No number kiosk G. Asanbaeva Beshorkoukova (А. Asanbaev) 15 190+01 L Sokuluk, Frunze Pavilion ет A. Khromova str. No number, (pink) (M.Kupazy) bus stop
4Table provides details regarding the ownership of the affected structures, while the excluded DPs include owners, leaseholders and employers, and those in question are indicated in boldface letters 11
Ref. Chainage (R/L) Owner Property owner Leaseholder Employee No Address Object detail 16 323+08 L Belovodskoe, "Petroleum" "Petroresurs" LLC Frunze str. petrol station «Biorg Oil» LLC 17 323+08 L Belovodskoe, "Petroleum" Almazbek uulu "Petroresurs" LLC Frunze str. petrol station Bakhtiyar 18 323+08 L Belovodskoe, "Petroleum" "Petroresurs" LLC N. Bazarbekov Frunze str. petrol station 19 323+08 L Belovodskoe, "Petroleum" "Petroresurs" LLC Frunze str. petrol station А. Mamytbekov 20 341+25 L Belovodskoe, "Zam Zam" metal Frunze str. No kiosk G. Kydyralieva А.Kydyralieva number 21 341+35 L Belovodskoe, White metal Kaldibay kyzy Frunze str. No kiosk Aigul А. Bekbashova number 22 341+84 L Belovodskoe, "Shahida" beauty A. Yusupov N. Lehnoba Frunze str.# 132 salon 23 342+03 L Belovodskoe, Mini shop A. Yusupov
Frunze str.# 132 А. Alisherov 24 342+10 L Belovodskoe, Pavilion A. Akbashev Frunze str. No "Arina" cafe N. Usenova number #130/7 25 342+10 L Belovodskoe, Pavilion A. Akbashev Frunze str. No "Arina" cafe Е. Brilkova number #130/7 26 342+10 L Belovodskoe, Pavilion A. Akbashev Frunze str. No "Arina" cafe Samia number #130/7 27 342+23 L Belovodskoe, "Kolobok" kiosk A. Masirov Frunze str. No N. Vanchukova number 28 342+23 L Belovodskoe, "Kolobok" kiosk A. Masirov Frunze str. No V. Vanchukov number 29 342+27 R Belovodskoe, Green metal B. Yangulina М. Rashitov Frunze str.# 167 kiosk 30 342+27 R Belovodskoe, Green metal B. Yangulina Mamytbekov
Frunze str.# 167 kiosk uulu Saydibali 31 342+31 L Belovodskoe, Flower pavilion O. Shparagina
Frunze str.130/5 М. Parkhomenko 32 342+50 L Belovodskoe, container ("Aida" Ch. Mysahodjaeva
Frunze str.21/1 market) Е. Kim 33 342+50 L Belovodskoe, container ("Aida" Ch. Mysahodjaeva B. Almaev Frunze str.21/1 market) 34 342+50 L Belovodskoe, container ("Aida" Ch. Mysahodjaeva M. Shevtsova Frunze str.21/1 market) 35 343+00 L Belovodskoe, Metal kiosk B. Myrzajanov Frunze str.- Lenin H. Hadzizova
12
Ref. Chainage (R/L) Owner Property owner Leaseholder Employee No Address Object detail 36 344+05 R Belovodskoe, Container E. Shitogubova N. Sasykeev Frunze str.# 157 37 344+05 R Belovodskoe, Container E. Shitogubova N. Kochkorbaeva Frunze str.# 157 38 344+05 R Belovodskoe, Pavilion for E. Shitogubova Frunze str.# 157 branch of the
Micro financial МКК UFC company 39 344+05 R Belovodskoe, Pavilion for E. Shitogubova D. Dolzhenko Frunze str.# 157 branch of the
Micro financial company 40 344+20 R Belovodskoe,, Pavilion T. Ibraimov Frunze str.# р ее I. Ashirmetov No number) 157/1 41 344+20 R Belovodskoe,, Pavilion T. Ibraimov LLC Frunze str.# р ее Nur Telecom No number) 157/1 42 344+20 R Belovodskoe,, Pavilion T. Ibraimov Z. Askarbekova Frunze str.# р ее No number) 157/1 43 344+20 R Belovodskoe,, Pavilion T. Ibraimov М. Sardarbekova Frunze str.# р ее No number) 157/1 44 344+33 R Belovodskoe,, "Chabrez" kiosk E. Pyankov
Frunze str.155 45 344+33 R Belovodskoe,, "Chabrez" kiosk N. Akimenko Frunze str.155 46 344+47 R Belovodskoe,, "Begemot" metal Ya. Amanov
Frunze str.155 pavilion 47 344+47 R Belovodskoe,, "Begemot" metal R. Amanov Frunze str.155 pavilion Source: IPIG
3.4.3. DPs with avoided impact 38. There were 9 DPs who were no longer impacted due to proposed detailed engineering design solution allowing to avoid impact. The desk review found that all the DPs received written notification from IPIG informing them about avoidance of impact with the engineering design drawings attached per case. Scan notification letters sent to DPs are annexed to this report.
Table 10: Summary of DPs excluded due to design change – Section 2 Chainage (R/L) Ref. No Affected asset details Property owner Employee Address 1 508+90 L Novonikolaevka, Kambarov Land plot (cafe) - Engels str. no number Jumanazar. 2 Sokuluk, Frunzestr. no Sharshenova Metallic pavilion“Albina” number Gulnara 3 191+20 R Sokuluk, 231 Frunze Shed, metallic fence, Kelizo Abdurashit str. concrete ground, 2 walnut
trees
13
Chainage (R/L) Ref. No Affected asset details Property owner Employee Address 4 344+48 R Belovodskoe, 155 Land plot Bulekbaeva
Frunze str. Zhursun 5-6 Belovodskoe, Frunze Metallic kiosk Moldokoychieva Moldokoychiev
str. no number Aynura Tariel 7 344+49 L Belovodskoe, Frunze Bayganaeva Metallic kiosk “Nurkan” str. no number Svetlana 8 323+08 L Belovodskoe, Frunze "Petroleum" petrol station "Petroresurs" LLC str. Source: IPIG
3.4.4. DPs waived compensation 39. Four of the DPs under Section 2 waived their compensation. Two out of four DPs are mother and son working on Belovodskoe market operating a small kiosk. The mother – Medetbekova Anara did not want to receive compensation when IPIG invited her to collect it. She explained her refusal by the fact that she apparently had paid a large amount of money to get the plot and run her business. The interview with Medetbekova during the external monitoring visit confirmed her unwillingness to collect compensation, which she demonstrated by writing the refusal statement. The DP was suggesting that she cannot provide any proof in support of the informal deal she made, hence there was no basis for factoring in her ownership of the affected plot.
40. The pavilion "Begemot" Manager provided a letter of rejection to receive compensation for two employees as they will receive their salaries during the relocation of the container and therefore, will not have any impact. The statement is annexed to this Report.
Table 11: List of DPs Refused Compensation Ref. Chainage (R/L) Object description Property owner Employee No Address 1-2 343+08 L Belovodskoe, Frunze str.-Lenin "Dlya Vas" kiosk A.Medetbekova Medetbekov 3-4 344+47 R L. Kurmanhodzhaeva Belovodskoe, Frunze str.155 "Begemot" metal pavilion H. Vutyasheva Source: IPIG and external monitoring interview
3.4.5. Affected Public Facilities 41. There are 4 public facilities affected under Section 2 that were listed in the LARP comprise the fences of Belovodskoe aiyl okmotu and of the social department and some land. As the affected assets belong to the state, no compensation was budgeted and/or paid. Fences and other affected assets belonging to the state institutions, will be moved outside of the corridor of impact at the expense of the Contractor's funds within one day. Thus, these state facilities will not incur any losses due to the relocation of fences. Moreover, all impacts on government ‘s assets will be reinstated if needed and the monetary compensation between two state organizations is not envisaged. Details of the affected public facilities are provided in the following table.
Table 12: Affected public facilities – Section 2 Ref. Chainage (R/L) Owner details Affected asset details No Address 1 168+68 R Sokuluk, Frunze str.125 Metal fence of "Tan Cholponu" DUZUEV Tan Cholponu DUZEV 2 174+07 L Sokuluk, Frunze str. Metal fence of the recruitment office Recruitment office 3 336+45 L Belovodskoe, Frunze str. Perpetual right to use the land Belovodsk ayil okmotu 4 341+56 L Belovodskoe, Frunze str.# 132 Perpetual right to use the land Social Fund of Moscovskyi
raion Source: IPIG
14
3.4.6. Allowances for Vulnerable and Severely Affected Eighty four of the 175 DPs under the Section 2 received, vulnerability and four received severity allowances. One DP received both allowances. Entitled DPs received vulnerability allowances because they were persons with disabilities (PWD), elderly headed households, poor or because they lose their businesses, residential homes and/or have to be physically relocated, Total allowances paid under Section 2 amounted 488,880 KGS. (Tables12 and 13)
Table 13: Allowances for Severally Affected by Districts Business Business Residential Total No of Allowance Total Rayon owners renters DPs amount (KGS) (KGS) No of DPs No of DPs No of DPs Sokoluk 1 10 9 20 116'400 Moskovsky 3 23 33 59 343'380 Jayil 0 2 3 5 29'100 5'820 Total severely 4 35 45 84 AHs (relocates) 488'880
Table 14: Allowances for Vulnerable DPs No Type of affected assets DPs Allowance for Vulnerable (KGS) 1 Shed, fences Anarmetov K.H. 5 820 (received two allowances) 2 Fences "Р и " Abitova. N. 5 820 3 Metal fencing, trees, roses Ismailova L. 5 820 4 Door and fencing (rabitsa). Nizolova L.A. 5 820 5 Fence, shed, gate Salyamova Sh.. 5 820
Table 15: Allowances for Severally Affected and Vulnerable DPs Allowance for severely Allowance for No Owner Owner/Renter affected (KGS) vulnerable (KGS) 1 Sult n liеv D niyar. 5 820 2 Аbdyr iym v Gul i 5 820 3 5 820 Sh rshеn v Guln r 4 Tukееv M ir mbеk 5 820 Аn rbеk vich 5 Filim n v N. 5 820 6 (b z rk m) K j mbеrdiеv T lg t 5 820 7 Jеnish v J m rt 5 820 8 Jеnish vich Is k v Elvir 5 820 Jеnish v J m rt 9 Jеnish vich Egеmbеrdiеv N zir Dj 5 820 10 5 820 Djum gul v Timur 11 Sydyk v B. 5 820 Ryspеk vich 12 Оsm n v D 5 820 13 5 820 Kushchub еv F.M. 14 H nshеz M. 5 820 15 Оt rb еv А. M. 5 820 16 Dj nt еv E.А. Mеzеn еv О.V. 5 820 17 Аs nb еv J.R. 5 820 18 Bеdеlb еv А.D. 5 820 19 Kub nychbеk v 5 820 Tеmirbеk 20 Аbyk n v K.I. 5 820 Djum sh liеvich. Dush n li v .J by 21 е е А 5 820 attorney Dinl d 22 Аn rmеt v K.H. 5 820 5 820 23 5 820 LCC «Pеtr rеsurs» 24 LCC «Bi rg Оil» 5 820 25 Ism il v B. 5 820 26 Ism il v B.D. 5 820 27 Kurm nb еv Z.А. 5 820 28 Kydyr liеv G. 5 820 15
29 B r zdin А. 5 820 30 K ldyb i kyzy Аigul 5 820 31 Erdеsh v B. 5 820 32 Yusup v А.S. 5 820 33 Yusup v G.YU. 5 820 34 Yusup v SH.А.. 5 820 35 Еrgеshеv S.R. 5 820 36 Sh rshеn v SH.А. 5 820 37 Fеdchеnk S.V. 5 820 38 Lеhn b N.N. 5 820 39 Umеt liеv А.А. 5 820 40 Аlishеr v А. 5 820 41 Iv n v I. 5 820 42 Аksh b еv А.А. 5 820 43 Аksh b еv А.K. 5 820 44 Аksh b еv А.А. 5 820 45 Usеn v N. 5 820 46 Brilk v Е.А. 5 820 47 S miya 5 820 48 K dyrkul v I.А. 5 820 49 M sir v А.K. 5 820 50 V nchuk v N.T. 5 820 51 Ysngulin B. 5 820 52 R shit v M. 5 820 53 Shp r gin О.D. 5 820 54 Mus h dj еv Ch.B. 5 820 55 Kim N. 5 820 56 Yanshin V.G. 5 820 Mus h dj еv Ch.B. 57 Аsylb shеv Аsk r 5 820
58 Mus h dj еv Ch.B. Kim Lilya 5 820
59 Аlm еv B l t 5 820 60 5 820 61 Myrz dj n v B tyrbеk P np nz F 5 820 62 H dziz v H 5 820 63 Mеdеtbеk v Аn r 5 820 64 Shit gub v Еvgеniya 5 820 65 B ris vn . S sykееv N.А. 5 820 Shit gub v Еvgеniya 0 66 B ris vn . Yusuz R m z n 5 820 Shit gub v Еvgеniya 67 B ris vn . Аbdylk sym v SH mil 5 820 Shit gub v Еvgеniya 0 68 B ris vn . MKK UFC 5 820 69 Ibr im v T.А. 5 820 70 Аshirmеt v Isl m 5 820 71 N m tbеk v B. 5 820 72 Hihiz Muh mmеd 5 820
73 Аdis ОsОО 5 820 Nur Tеlеk m 74 Bulеkb еv J. 5 820 75 5 820 Pyank v Е. 76 Аkimеnk N.V. 5 820 m n v Ya (individual 77 А 5 820 entrepreneur) 78 M ld k ichiеv А. 5 820 79 B ig n еv Svеt 5 820 80 Djum t еv M. D. 5 820 81 5 820 S bir v G. M. 82 Аjib еv Nurl n 5 820
83 S bir v G. M. Аbdr im v S.I. 5 820 84 M ldkul kyzy J zgul 5 820 16
85 Аbit v N. 5 820 86 Ism il v H. 5 820 87 Аbit v N. 5 820 88 Ism il v X. 5 820
3.5. Level of DPs Satisfaction
42. During the external monitoring visits, 30 DPs (17% sample of the total DP population) were randomly selected and interviewed to explore their level of satisfaction as well as probe their perception of the scope of impact.
43. One DP – Ismailova Lalokhon said the bank charged her KGS 778.00 and the reason was not explicitly explained to her by the bank clerk. This case has been reported to IPIG, and IPIG Chief Accountant, who dealt with the bank and made all the transactions related to transferring compensation funds, visited the bank to clarify the case. The bank made apologies for misunderstanding occurred and immediately transferred KGS 778.00 to the account of Ismailova Lalokhon without charging extra fees either the DP or the IPIG. IPIG Chief Accountant urged KICB to once again instruct its staff in relevant rayons to avoid similar cases. IPIG subsequently informed Ismailova Lalokhon about the funds recovered on her account and conveyed KICB’s apologies.
44. When asked interviewed DPs, if they were aware of their entitlements, 74%of the interviewed DPs confirmed they are aware of their entitlements and 26% said they were not. However, when asked further if they knew what they would supposed to be compensated for, all said they were aware of the details because had numerous discussions and meetings with the IPIG staff and consultant during the measurements of their affected assets.
45. When asked how they would assess their impact, 27% of the DPs assessed it as minor, 63% said they experience moderate impact and 10%of the DPs said they would assess it as significant.
46. One of the DP that assessed the impact as significant – Sabirova Ghuncham is losing her income source as a result of relocation of containers. Although she said she is satisfied with the compensation, she asked IPIG to follow-up further the process after the road section civil works are complete and the businesses were located by the local authorities. When probed further, DP said she is concerned that after the road will be rehabilitated her containers will not be moved back. At the same time, she shared that the rayon Chief Architect as well as project engineering team consulted her and said exact location of containers will be possible only upon completion of road construction, to avoid inconveniences and several relocations as well as to work on urban development planning for that road section.
47. The interviewed DPs reported moderate impact are those who mainly lose miscellaneous assets such as fences, wire mesh fencing, trees or small strips of land. 49. 78% of the interviewed DPs reported they are satisfied with the Resettlement Plan implementation process. While some did not explain the reason, those who did, said that the compensation cost is adequately calculated and allows a replacement of the affected assets and because the DPs were consulted during the measurements and issues were explained to the DPs. One DP stated that the LARP аas satisfactorily implemented because “even the leaseholders of the businesses аere taken into account and compensated for their losses”.
48. Five DPs or 22% of the total interviewed, stated they are not satisfied because the compensation was not sufficient, but could not specify the details. Two out of the five DPs said they have not been sufficiently consulted on the amount of compensation prior to signing an agreement, they did not understand it at first, but when they signed, it was already too late. When probed further on the compensation amount, it came out that the DPs who were not satisfied with the compensation amounts were those who had no supporting document for their businesses, although they were running their businesses for years.
49. In general, majority of the interviewed DPs felt satisfied with the resettlement process implementation. It was observed that dissatisfied DPs were those whose businesses were affected, and they felt inconvenient because were not certain on the final business location after construction works are over, and if they will be able to continue running their business.
17
4. PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS AND INFORMATION DISCLOSURE
4.1. Public consultations
50. Public consultations with the affected persons have been conducted throughout the LARP preparation and finalization processes. Consultations covered key stakeholders such as the heads and deputies of Rayon administrations, the heads of Ail aymaks, representatives of the Gosstroy and architecture departments, IPIG and Design Supervision Consultant. Consultations were aiming at sharing information about the Project, ensure local authorities’ cooperation during LARP preparation and implementation, establishment of the Grievance Redress Groups and the establishment of the Land Acquisition and Resettlement Committees.
51. Consultations were also conducted with the project displaced people in Belovodskoe, Novopavlovka, Nurlan market in Petropavlovka, Poltavka, Petrovka, Aleksandrovka, Sadovoe and Sokuluk. Those were aiming at sharing information about the project, land acquisition and resettlement framework, ADB SPS (2009). They were also consulted on impact assessment and the entitlements.
52. Formal consultations were complemented with the individual meetings, explanations, clarifications going on throughout the LARP preparation and finalization process, but also during the implementation stage.
53. Information brochures describing the Project, entitlement matrix, GRM and contact details of the key contacts both on-site and in the MoTR and IPIG as well as the Project Supervision Consultant have been distributed among the DPs during the consultations.
54. All the interviewed DPs during the external monitoring visits said they were invited to consultations and meetings related to the Project, yet some of them did not participate because were not able to do so for various personal reasons. Issues discussed at those meetings and consultations were reported as related to resettlement and compensation, entitlements, shared information brochures, alternative land plots, and in general, on impacts. However, those DPs that did not participate during the formal consultation process mentioned they have the information brochures handed over to them. The observations and interviews suggest that public information and information disclosure have been adequately planned and implemented and is compliant with the ADB SPS (2009).
4.2. Information disclosure
55. The final LARP for the Project has been be uploaded on the ADB and MoTR websites after its approval by the Kyrgyz Republic Government and ADB.
4.3. Grievance redress mechanism
56. The Grievance Redress Mechanism for the Project has been described in the final LARP and entailed series of meetings, discussions and training sessions covering relevant stakeholders. Grievance Redress Groups are established at the local and central levels in all the rayons. The groups will function for the entire duration of the project implementation. The local level GRG is established at each of the rayons in the Project area. The GRG at the central level is established at the MoTR in Bishkek. The Local Person of Contact (LPC) is appointed at each Ayil-aymak (local authority) located along the project road.
57. The Project GRM has been formalized5and was functional at the time of both visits. Information about the GRM was distributed to all DPs prior to consultations and to all consultations participants. Despite rigorous efforts and wide coverage of the affected communities, and particularly, the displaced persons, 17 of the 30 interviewed DPs said they did not know where to go with a complaint. However, when asked about the reason, 9 of these DPs said they never had a complaint, one said “they (IPIG) never told anything” and only 4 said they did not know where to file a complaint. Two DPs said their issue has been addressed immediately on site.
5 (i) MOTC Order No 148 from July 10, 2013 instructing establishment of the GRM; (ii) MOTC Order No 135 from May 26, 2014 to update the GRM and activate the GRGs (iii) MOTR Orders No 25 and 28 dated 29 January 2016 to update the GRM and update the list of GRG members. 18
58. All the 30 interviewed DPs said they know/have the contact numbers of the local Resettlement Consultant, in case there is any issue. Consolidated data of the grievances log has been analyzed. From 17 July 2017 through April 2018, the total number of grievances registered made 21 cases.17 out of 21 grievances were related to the appearance of cracks on walls, ceilings and foundations of the DPs houses resulted from vibration of which 13 DPs wrote statements indicating that they would like the road construction to continue. Four grievance cases were resolved and closed. At the time of visit, investigation/vibration study was ongoing to clarify the reasons and propose solutions. IPIG informed all the DPs about the vibration study and was anticipating technical solutions. As soon as study outcomes are available, IPIG reportedly plans adequately inform DPs on the key decisions and proposed resolution of the cases.
59. Concerning the complaints related to the cracks due to vibrating-roller’s work, the following decision was made: upon completion of the construction work, the interdepartmental committee for dealing with cracks, will compare the baseline images of the cracks with the cracks after the completion of the construction work. If it is confirmed that the construction work, somehow caused the increase in cracks or the emergence of new cracks, the Contractor will make cosmetic repairs in the homes of people who have applied on this issue. The table below summarizes complaints per type as of 28 April 2018.
Table 16: Summary complaints as of 28 April 2018 Type of complaint Number of Remark cases Impact on front garden and fences, request to 1 Resolved, impact avoided due to adjusting the change the centerline to avoid impact center line Cracks on the walls due to vibration 17 Investigation ongoing, cases pending investigation outcome. DPs informed of the process Moving 2 containers on concrete lined ground 1 Resolved, impact avoided resulting from adjustment of walkway centerline Potential impact on private land plot due to 1 Resolved, undercrossing design adjusted to undercrossing avoid impact Inquiry about road alignment 1 Resolved, information provided to DP Total complaints per period covered 21
5. INTERNAL MONITORING REPORT
60. IPIG is responsible for internal social monitoring. It carries out regular internal social monitoring and produces periodic semi-annual social monitoring reports. Routine monitoring is conducted using set of indicators for tracking the progress of LARP implementation and the summary data reported through the Quarterly Project Implementation Reports submitted to ADB.
61. The first Social Monitoring Report covered period until June 2017 and has been released in July 2017. The second Social Monitoring Report has been prepared in December 2017.
6. CONCLUSIONS
62. The desk review and field visit suggest that in general, LARP implementation on Section 2 is satisfactory and compliant with the ADB SPS (2009). Impacts has been fairly listed and compensated for affected assets/structures/trees and land plots. Eligibility for compensation and assistance was limited by the cut-off date established for the Project. Assistance to the eligible DPs has been paid as per LARP and eligibility.
63. In total 106 DPs received compensation. 69 DPs were not compensated, of which 47 DPs excluded from the compensation tallies were no more eligible for compensation; for 8 DPs the engineering team re-considered the detailed design to avoid impact on them; 6 DPs were moved without compensation, while 4 DPs waived compensation. There are 4 public facilities affected. As the affected asset belongs to the state, no compensation was budgeted and/or paid.
64. Compensation was paid through bank transfers, and all the potential exposure to cash or misuse of funds eliminated completely.
19
65. Project level GRM has been established and is well functioning. To date 21 complaints have been received, of which 3 resolved and 17 pending the result of the vibration investigation. Grievance logs are maintained at local level and data on grievances collected and analyzed regularly by IPIG.
66. The ADB Safeguard Policy Statement requirements for involuntary resettlement and the principles adopted for the project were complied with. Most of the DPs showed awareness of their compensation entitlements, consider impacts were adequately listed and compensated for, they attended or were invited for consultations, received information brochures. This suggests that affected communities, and particularly DPs were involved in the LARP preparation process.
67. However the GRM needs further follow-up, particularly, additional awareness to allow smooth project implementation.
20
Annex 1: Photos from face-to-face interviews with DPs on Section 2
Interview with Berezuckiy V. Interview with Kushchubaeva F.
Interview with Ismailova L. Interview with Jaanbaev N.
Interview with Jumataev M. Interview with Sabirova Gh.
21
Interview with Tibuev Kh. Interview with Pozdnyakova E.
Interview with Jenishov J. Interview with Khizkhza M.
22
Annex 2: Sample letter of notification to DPs on avoidance of impact
23
Dear Mr. Kambarov Jumanazar, Herewith IPIG under the Ministry of Trtansport and Roads of the KR would like to inform you that the land plot located Engels street no number, in Novonikolaevka village of Akbashat a/a in Jayil distrtict of Chuy oblast is no more affected by the Project. The engineering solution on the cited land plot is attached herewith. Respectfully, Head of IPIG MOTR KR Satybaldiev R. (signature)
24
25
26
27
28
Annex 3. Letter from local government on DPs status
29
30
31
Annex 4. Metal containers with no compensation (photos taken in 2015) Idle container of Kurbanbaev M. (139+36R) condition as in 2015
Idle container of Kumushbekov T. (148+05L) as in 2015
Idle container of Cheshiza R. (253+26L) as in 2015 32
33
Annex 5: Sample consent signed by owners of the containers on moving to new locations
English translation (unofficial) Consent I, KumushbekovTynychtybek, owner of the 2 containers agree with the decision of Ayilokmotu on relocating my objects located on Kalinin street for 2 kilometers beneath. Passport Number: , issued by: Address, phone number
34
Signature: Kumushbekov T. English translation (unofficial)
Consent I, CheshizaRavil, owner of the container in Aleksandrovka village agree with the decision of AyilOkmotu on relocating my container onto the basement. Passport Number: , issued by: Phone number Signature: Chishiza R.
35
Annex 6. Letter from Shopokov Mayor on container of Kubanbaev M. English translation (unofficial) To Sokuluk district administration A. Usenov In response to your letter the Mayoralty of Shopokov town informs you that the object No65,
chainage 139+36, metallic container owned by Kurbanbaev Muhambet has been moved. Mayor: S.Umaraliev (signature)
36
Annex 7. Statement of refusal from compensation, Medetbekova A. and Begemot
I, Medetbekova Anara, on behalf of my minor son Medetbekov Aslan, refuse to receive compensation
of KGS 970.00
37
38