a review of the southern transport development project ... · bank (adb) to provide an assessment...
TRANSCRIPT
A REVIEW OF THE SOUTHERN TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (STDP) GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISMS
ADM/80-046: RSC No. C80610
Consolidated Final Report
Submitted to:
Office of the Special Project Facilitator, The Asian Development Bank
May 18, 2009
Submitted by:
29 Gregory’s Road, Colombo 7, Sri Lanka Tel: +94 11 2676955-8, Fax: +94 11 2676959
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.cepa.lk
ii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ADB Asian Development Bank AP Affected Party/Person CBO Community Based Organization CCG Community Consultative Group CEA Central Environment Authority CEPA Centre for Poverty Analysis CRP Compliance Review Panel DS Divisional Secretary/Divisional Secretariat EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMP Environmental Management Plan EIMO Environmental Impact Monitoring Officer FGD Focus Group Discussion GN Grama Niladhari GOSL Government of Sri Lanka GRC Grievance Redress Committee GRM Grievance Redress Mechanism GSMB Geological Surveying and Mining Bureau IEM Independent External Monitoring of Resettlement Activities in STDP IFC International Finance Corporation KPI Key Person Interviews LAA Land Acquisition Act LARC Land Acquisition and Resettlement Committee LARD Land Acquisition and Resettlement Division MIS Management Information System OSPF Office of the Special Project Facilitator PC Provincial Council PCRM Public Complaints Resolving & Monitoring Committee PS Pradeshiya Sabha RA Resettlement Assistant RDA Road Development Authority RIP Resettlement Implementation Plan RoW Right of Way SARD South Asia Department SC Supervision Consultants SIMO Social Impact Monitoring Officer SLLRDC Sri Lanka Land Reclamation and Development Corporation STDP Southern Transport Development Project TOR Terms of Reference UDA Urban Development Authority WSO Women’s Support Officer
iii
CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ........................................................................................II
I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 1
II. REVIEW FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................. 1
A. Role of grievance mechanisms in development projects...............................................1 B. Definitions and terminology ..............................................................................................3 C. Scope of the review ............................................................................................................3 D. Review Questions...............................................................................................................6 E. Methodology........................................................................................................................6
1. Methodological approach...................................................................................................6 2. Sources of Data .................................................................................................................6 3. Sample selection ...............................................................................................................7 4. Methods of analysis ...........................................................................................................7 5. Limitations arising from the methodology ..........................................................................7
III OVERVIEW OF STDP GRIEVANCE REDRESSS ............................................................ 8
A. Types of Grievances........................................................................................................8 1. Trace-related Grievances ..................................................................................................8 2. Grievances related to Land Acquisition and Compensation ..............................................8 3. Grievances at Resettlement Sites .....................................................................................9 4. Construction-related Grievances .......................................................................................9
B. Description of Institutions and Actors in STDP .....................................................11 1. Grievance Redress Committees......................................................................................11 2. Land Acquisition and Resettlement Committees and the Super LARC...........................12 3. Community Consultative Groups .....................................................................................14 4. Resettlement Units in STDP Regional Offices.................................................................14 5. Public Complaints Resolving & Monitoring Committee...................................................15 6. Supervision Consultants ..................................................................................................16 7. Other................................................................................................................................16
C. Other Institutions and Actors...................................................................................17 1. Legal ................................................................................................................................17 2. The Public Administrative system....................................................................................18 3. Peoples Representatives and Civil Society organizations...............................................20 4. International institutions ...................................................................................................20
IV. ASSESSMENT OF INSTITUTIONS AND ACTORS................................................. 22
A. Grievance Redress Committees (GRC) ..........................................................................22 1. Relevance:......................................................................................................................22 2. Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................22
iv
3. Efficiency .........................................................................................................................27 B. Land Acquisition and Resettlement Committee (LARC)..............................................28
1. Relevance: ..................................................................................................................28 2. Effectiveness...............................................................................................................29 3. Efficiency: ....................................................................................................................32
C. Super LARC......................................................................................................................33 1. Relevance ...................................................................................................................33 2. Effectiveness...............................................................................................................33 3. Efficiency: ....................................................................................................................35
D. STDP Regional Offices .............................................................................................35 1. Relevance ...................................................................................................................35 2. Effectiveness...............................................................................................................36 3. Efficiency.....................................................................................................................37
E. Public Complaints Resolving & Monitoring Committee and Supervision Consultants................................................................................................................................................37
1. Relevance: ..................................................................................................................37 2. Effectiveness...............................................................................................................37 3. Efficiency.....................................................................................................................41
F. STDP GRM: Strengths and areas for improvement .......................................................41 1. Summary Review of STDP GRM.....................................................................................41 2. Strengths and areas for improvement .............................................................................43
V. LESSONS TO TAKE FORWARD AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................. 47
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 50
ANNEXES........................................................................................................................ 52
Annex 1: TOR.........................................................................................................................53 Annex 2: Data Sources .........................................................................................................56 Annex 3: Review Questions .................................................................................................59
1
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This Report has been prepared by the Centre for Poverty Analysis (CEPA) which has been retained by the Office of the Special Project Facilitator (OSPF) in the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to provide an assessment of the grievance redress mechanism used in the Southern Transport Development Project (STDP). The objectives of the assignment as set out in the Terms of Reference (TOR)1 are:
• To assess the accessibility, efficiency and effectiveness of grievance redress mechanisms in STDP;
• To recommend improvements for future grievance redress mechanisms in resettlement plans in Sri Lanka; and
• To disseminate lessons learned among key actors involved in resettlement in Sri Lanka 2. To meet the stated objectives the team carried out a Desk Review of the grievance mechanisms in the STDP (November 2008) and developed a framework for review (November 2008). A (draft) final report was prepared in January 2009. Based on comments received from OSPF and the South Asia Department (SARD) ADB, a second draft was submitted on February 27, 2009. This Report has been finalised based on a second series of comments received from OSPF and SARD. 3. This Report is a consolidation of the three reports submitted so far, namely the Desk Review, the Review Framework and the (draft) Final Report. It was validated in a Resource Persons’ workshop and the relevant comments and suggestions have been incorporated2. The Report, moreover, provides the basis for a guide for the establishment and functioning of grievance redress mechanisms in resettlement planning and implementation in Sri Lanka. 4. The report is organized in five main sections. Section 2 of this report sets out the review framework, including terminology, scope of the review and methodology; section 3 sets out an overview of grievance redress in STDP including an overview of the types of grievances triggered by the STDP, and the institutions set out in the RIP to manage these grievances. It also provides an overview of other mechanisms outside of the STDP, which STDP-affected persons and parties could access. Section 4 contains the review of the institutions and actors comprising the grievance redress mechanism, based on the questions identified in the Review Framework. Section 5 concludes by drawing lessons identified through the review process. II. REVIEW FRAMEWORK
A. Role of grievance mechanisms in development projects
5. A grievance arises when there is an actual or supposed circumstance which can be regarded as just cause for complaint. The inclusion of a system to manage and provide solutions for grievances is increasingly a required element of project design and funding in many organisations. The ADB’s Policy on Involuntary Resettlement, for example, requires that a grievance redress mechanism is set up as part of the resettlement implementation plan. A ‘legal
1 Please see Annex 1 for TOR 2 Pleas see CEPA, Documentation of the Resource Persons’ Workshop dated March 20, 2009
2
framework including mechanisms for resolution of conflicts and appeals procedures’ is stated as one of the essential elements of a resettlement plan3. 6. Several development and academic institutions have formulated varying definitions and frameworks, as grievance redress mechanisms become more central to the planning and implementation of development projects (Box 1).
7. Grievance response channels are developed by organizations to enable stakeholders to file complaints on issues of non-compliance or against decisions and actions, and ensure such complaints are properly reviewed and acted upon. Grievance mechanisms provide a way to reduce risk for projects, provide an effective avenue for expressing concerns and achieving remedies for communities, and promote a mutually constructive relationship.
3 http://www.adb.org/Resettlement/faq_02.asp
Box 1: Features of a Grievance Mechanism – Some Examples from the Literature “A well-functioning grievance mechanism: • Provides a predictable, transparent, and credible process to all parties, resulting in outcomes that are seen as fair, effective, and lasting • Builds trust as an integral component of broader community relations activities • Enables more systematic identification of emerging issues and trends, facilitating corrective action and pre-emptive engagement.”
A Guide to Designing and Implementing Grievance Mechanisms for Development Projects
The Office of the Compliance Advisor/Ombudsman, IFC, Members of the World Bank Group.
“In order to make the grievance redress mechanism more effective, the following steps need to be taken:
• careful analysis of grievances • decision on grievances to be taken at a fairly senior level • forwarding the grievances to the departments concerned for prompt redress • reply to complainant informing details of authorities settling grievances • obtaining reply/report from the departments concerned • a reasoned reply to the complainant, if a grievance cannot be settled”
Policy Guidelines on Grievance Redress Mechanism,
Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances, Government of India
3
B. Definitions and terminology
8. This report uses the following definitions, which have been developed drawing on available grievance and accountability literature and fitting it to an understanding of how the STDP GRM functioned.
Grievance: refers to a dissatisfaction, perceived or actual, felt by an individual or group, or dispute between multiple actors, for which a resolution is being sought. It does not include short lived or low intensity dissatisfactions for which a resolution is not actively sought.
Complaint: is used in this document to refer to the articulation of a grievance. This could be
either in the form of verbal or written communication. This could originate from an individual or group/organisation.
Redress: A resolution of a grievance, a solution being provided and accepted. Grievance Redress Mechanism: The institutions, instruments/ method and process by which
a resolution to a grievance is sought and provided. This could be used interchangeably with Grievance Mechanism.
Portfolio of Grievance Redress Mechanisms: A number of mechanisms available to
aggrieved parties to access redress. These may include institutions specific to the project/event under consideration as well as the national and international legal system (through courts) as well as the public administration system.
C. Scope of the review
9. The context within which the STDP GRM is situated is mapped in Figure 1. The starting point is when a grievance is triggered due to the actions and processes of the STDP. The affected parties (APs) can react in two ways. First there are some who decide to ‘ignore the problem’ - ie those who decide against actively seeking a solution - and those who decide to seek a solution. Those who decide to seek a solution also have a choice; they could do so via formal or informal 4 methods/institutions. For purpose of this review, those who ignore the problem or resort to informal methods of resolution are considered to have moved out of the (formal) GRM space5. APs who enter the formal GRM process (that is, those within the coloured area in Figure 1), and who seek a solution via the range of institutions available within the portfolio of grievance redress mechanisms, are the main focus of the review. 10. As noted in the literature, the GRM needs to contain within it the ability to systematically identify emerging issues and trends, and facilitate corrective action. However, due to the focus of this review as contained in the TOR, this aspect of changing practices to reduce possibility of grievances, is outside the immediate focus of this review (as shown by broken line in Figure 1).
4 Informal solutions are those reached between individuals/ groups without even reaching CBO type institutions. Examples: negotiation among individuals/groups, informal mediation by community leaders 5 However, the reasons why some types of APs choose not to enter, or decide to leave the formal GRM, are considered in this review (see paragraph 161).
4
Ignore their problem
The aggrieved – i.e. those affected
Figure 1: Mapping the GRM within the larger context of its users (APs)
Source: CEPA 11. APs who enter the GRM process have access to a range of formal mechanisms as shown in Figure 2. This can be seen as a portfolio of GRMs which make up the entire group of institutions, processes, and types of redress that can be accessed. The total portfolio is made up of four main groups which in turn are made up of a range of individual institutions: (i) the GRM set up by the STDP; (ii) the legal system; (iii) public administration system; and (iv) Parliament. (ii), (iii) and (iv) exist independently of the STDP. They can be, and have been, accessed by persons and groups affected by the STDP. Both the legal system and the STDP GRM have counterparts at the international level.
Providers of solutions
Require a solution to their problem
Informal
Formal
Change practices to reduce possibility of grievances
Solution
Trigger/ source of grievance
Space within which Portfolio of GRMs is situated
5
Figure 2: Portfolio of GRM for STDP
Source: CEPA 12. As shown in Figure 2, all four national level systems can be accessed either by individuals or groups which can be a collection of APs or other concerned parties such as environmental activists, lawyers, people’s elected representatives as well as organisations. APs can also access civil society groups such as legal aid groups, community leaders including religious leaders prior to accessing the formal mechanisms. In some instances these groups can help to resolve grievances before they become formal complaints. In other cases, the grievance will become a formal complaint and the civil organisations may help the APs access the appropriate institution. 13. There are many institutions involved in the STDP GRM and it can be seen as the sum of many parts, rather than one single institution or process One of the ways in which this complex arrangement can be unpacked and analysed is by looking at the set of institutions which dealt with each major type of grievance. In the case of the STDP, each major type of grievance, such as compensation related grievances, construction related grievances etc, could be referred to a corresponding set of institutions, and grievance resolution followed a somewhat unique path through the different institutions. 14. Accordingly, a review of the opportunities available to APs and other concerned parties to access redress can be considered at three levels:
• Portfolio of GRMs (the entire circle shown in Figure 2, which contains the legal, public administrative and Parliament systems as well as the STDP GRM)
• STDP GRM • Individual institutions within the STDP GRM (such as a review of GRC, LARC, Super
LARC etc)
Affected Concerned Parties
Individual
National International
Group
Legal System
STDP GRM
Public Administration
International conventions / courts
Donor systems
Refers to some cases being passed on
The portfolio of GRMs
Peoples Representatives/ Parliament
6
15. The focus of this review, however, will be on the last two levels - the STDP GRM and the individual institutions within the STDP GRM. The rest of the mechanisms in the portfolio will be reviewed briefly and only in relation to their role and usage by APs affected by the STDP. D. Review Questions
16. The review questions are influenced by several theoretical frameworks drawn from the GRM literature6. Individual institutions within the STDP GRM are reviewed in terms of relevance, effectiveness and efficiency. Relevance questions consider the institution in the context of the STDP GRM, the rationale for setting up the institution and the appropriateness of the composition and structure of the institution in relation to its objective. Effectiveness questions consider the extent to which the institution was implemented in a way that met its objective, which is also broken down by the stages of the grievance redress process for sharper analysis. Efficiency questions consider the extent to which optimal use was made of available resources, and considers cost-effectiveness for the AP as well as for the project. 17. In addition to the review of individual institutions, the overall STDP GRM was also reviewed against a set of review questions that relate to relevance, effectiveness, overall coordination and monitoring and evaluation. 18. The review questions in relation to all of these aspects are set out in detail in Annex 3. E. Methodology
1. Methodological approach
19. The emphasis of this review is on learning, to enable the design of improved grievance redress mechanisms in future resettlement activities in Sri Lanka. Therefore the methodology has a qualitative orientation in keeping with the exploratory, rather than verification, nature of the review. Basic quantitative techniques are used mainly to set the context in terms of the relative prevalence of different types of grievances, the level to which individual institutions provided resolutions, etc.
2. Sources of Data
20. Information on different institutions of the STDP GRM was collected to enable the review of the STDP GRM as a whole as well as the individual institutions7. • Documentation: Where maintained, documentation and listings of complaints made to
different institutions (eg. Supervision consultants, CEA field office, Super LARC coordinator), reports and analysis of complaints, status of solution (eg. Reports of management consultants), complaint letters received by CEPA during the IEM activities to complement the data collected from the above sources.
• AP and AP household interviews: including from IEM household surveys, case study type interviews with APs who have accessed different institutions
6 references are attached 7 Please see Annex 2 for details of data sources used.
7
• KPI: coordinators, leaders and members of individual mechanisms (eg. GRC members, Super LARC members), institutional representatives (eg. Resettlement Officers, management consultants, construction supervisors, CEA officers), experts and consultants.
• FGD: group discussions where the grievances were felt or addressed in a group such as with resettlement sites, with semi-formal groups (eg. Association of those not receiving compensation).
• IEM database and reports
3. Sample selection
21. In keeping with the qualitative orientation of the methodology, the sample frame used does not attempt generalisibility. A purposive, stratified method was followed with sampling techniques, including snowballing, to identify particular cases of APs who differed from the norm in their path through the GRM. 22. The initial stratification of selecting the sample of households was on the basis of the institution used. The second level of stratification was the types of grievances. Where available, listings of complaints were used to derive the AP household interview sample. Within these strata, individual households were picked purposively to enable exploring issues relevant to those who have more or less followed the path mapped out by the existing portfolio of GRMs, and those who have deviated from the norm. 4. Methods of analysis
23. Process analysis, comparisons and contrasts, identification of patterns and critical factors were primary methods of analysis of qualitative data collected. 24. Aggregations and trends of quantitative data from secondary sources were analysed. In addition relevant data available from the 400 representative sample of household interviews carried out under the IEM was also re-analysed to provide information on knowledge and usage of the different grievance redress institutions available under the STDP.
5. Limitations arising from the methodology
25. The qualitative orientation of the review, not using a representative sampling method etc means the findings of this review will not be generalisable to the population, especially in terms of APs. However, the methodology orientation has been developed as most suitable for the objectives of the review within the limitations of its time and resource base, and provides indicative data to better understand the accessibility, efficiency and effectiveness of the STDP GRM.
8
III OVERVIEW OF STDP GRIEVANCE REDRESSS
A. Types of Grievances
26. STDP activities - from identifying the trace and acquiring the land, to ongoing construction - have given rise to a large number of grievances. It is important to differentiate between these grievances as the nature of the grievance requires differing redress. In the case of STDP, the grievances generated can be broadly classified into four main types. In order to provide the context for the review, these types are summarised below: 1. Trace-related Grievances
27. In all, three traces were done prior to an agreement being reached between the Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) and the financiers on the final trace of the STDP. Grievances relating to the trace and the changes of the trace were brought up both at the larger community or national level as well as by households and individuals. The former included environmental based issues such as adverse impacts on wetlands, watersheds, social issues such as severance of communities, and economic issues such as adverse impacts on agriculture. The environment related grievances were particularly highlighted because the initial Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) carried out for the STDP did not fully cover the final trace. Grievances by individual APs and households were predominately in relation to APs whose homes, property and livelihoods were affected by changes to the trace. 28. The STDP did not have a specific or appropriate institution to manage these grievances at the time. Despite the fact that there is some overlap with land acquisition related issues, trace related grievances essentially arise at the very early stages of the project. Some of the complaints seek a solution which if enforced, would require either a change in the project or a delay. Hence, by nature of the timing and type of complaint, project specific institutions had a limited role to play. The aggrieved parties therefore relied to a large extent on existing institutions within the legal and donor systems. 2. Grievances related to Land Acquisition and Compensation
29. All steps of the land acquisition process generated grievances and disagreements between APs and the agencies, as well as between APs themselves. Issues that gave rise to complaints include actual or perceived errors in land surveying, misinformation by neighbours, ownership disputes etc. The single most contentious issue during the land acquisition process however was in relation to valuation of land and assets, and the corresponding decisions on compensation. 30. In addition, there were issues which APs found unsatisfactory and were often articulated but not always converted into formal complaints. The household surveys by IEM shows that the way the RIP was operationalised in terms of information provided to APs, compensation payment being delayed and paid in instalments etc, created dissatisfaction among APs. The working style of the officials involved in the process moved to the point of becoming a grievance when some APs felt that they were not being treated equally and that officials were being insensitive in their dealings with APs.
9
3. Grievances at Resettlement Sites
31. “Resettlement sites” were created when the RIP entitlement of providing developed land as an option available for displaced households was implemented. In this connection, a range of grievances were triggered due to the custom-made nature of the sites, RDA’s responsibility to provide a ‘serviced’ site and the concentration of APs. AP grievances related to dissatisfaction with the quality or timeliness of basic infrastructure provided (which is a direct RIP entitlement) including internal roads, drainage, water and electricity. Another on-going grievance relates to delays in handing over deeds legitimising the ownership of land purchased by APs in resettlement sites In addition, APs in many resettlement sites are dissatisfied due to the non-provision of promised additional facilities (not necessarily based on RIP entitlements nor direct loss), such as playground, cemetery and community centre. Because of RDA and project financiers’ focus on the resettlement sites and the long period of involvement in resettlement site development by the regional officers of the STDP- RDA, the range of issues brought up as complaints have increased; for example, complaints have been received about mosquitoes, lack of street lamps, problems with garbage disposal. About 30% of sites are located close to the construction of the expressway, and also face problems created by the construction activities such as vibrations, cracks to structures and dust. 32. In addition to the 32 housing sites, one site was allocated at Kurundugahahathekma specifically for displaced commercial property. The APs who have resettled their businesses at this site are facing problems which are specific to the site location and its nature as a commercial site. Their main grievance has been the fact that they were not informed of the closure of the main road on which the site is situated due to the STDP, resulting in them being located in a dead-end road, rather than a bustling commercial area. These APs are also aggrieved by the continued unavailability of plans containing the proposed developments to the town through the link up to the expressway interchange. 4. Construction-related Grievances
33. As with the trace related grievances, issues arising during the construction of the expressway are seen both at the community as well as at the individual and household levels. At the AP household level, from the point of clearing the RoW to later stages of construction, the negative impacts due to noise, dust, vibrations, blasting, groundwater depletion, have been causes for grievance. Issues such as mudflows, landslides, soil erosion and siltation problems, flooding, water stagnation / drainage, disruption of irrigation systems / canals, damage to roads and disruption of access, heavy vehicle movement8, have generated grievances both at the household as well as community level. Some of the community level grievances have also been articulated by local government officers / organizations. The adverse impact has been felt in the living environment as well as in relation to household and community livelihoods. 34. According to the data received from supervision consultants, a high number of complaints have been recorded regarding immediate impacts or inconvenience due to construction activities, such as blasting related impacts, dust emissions, heavy vehicle movement etc (Table 1). Comparatively lesser number of complaints have been recorded
8 Summarised from documented complaints
10
Table 1: Construction related Grievances, STDP
JBIC Section ADB Section* Category Package 1, as
at January 2009
Package 2, as at January
2009 Cumulative to
July 2008 2007-2008 Total
Flood related 66 82 Not categorised Not categorised 148 Blasting related 8 79 Not categorised Not categorised 87 Dust related 37 41 Not categorised Not categorised 78 Danger to public Not categorised 11 Not categorised Not categorised 11 Access road related Not categorised 28 248 65 341 Additional acquisition Not categorised 13 Not categorised Not categorised 13 Material transportation and use of public roads Not categorised 20 Not categorised Not categorised 20 Water quality & quantity 9 19 Not categorised Not categorised 28 Noise related 6 31 624 63 724 Vibration related 99 31 4804 795 5729 Property damages Not categorised 83 Not categorised Not categorised 83 Crop damages Not categorised 37 1110 212 1359 Soil erosion & siltation 15 39 Not categorised Not categorised 54 Contamination due to oil spillage 2 Not categorised Not categorised Not categorised 2 Drainage / Irrigation related 37 Not categorised Not categorised 164 201 Heavy vehicle movement 61 Not categorised Not categorised 195 256 Others 52 35 19 17 123 Total 392 549 6805 1511 9257
Source: - Supervision Consultants of STDP * Supervision Consultant contract restructured, and data cannot be consolidated to show cumulative figure. Also certain complaints overlap. ** “Not categorised” means that this category has not been identified as a separate category in the data tabulations provided.
11
regarding long term impacts related to construction, such as flooding, groundwater level depletion, landslides etc. 35. In addition, private lands bordering the construction area have been gazetted as an urban development zone subject to the oversight of the Urban Development Authority (UDA). Building activities on private property within the zone have been placed under an indefinite ban, which has been a source of dissatisfaction among APs. Due to the expressway construction activities, additional acquisitions are also being made which has given rise to uncertainty among APs who have not been fully informed as to whether or not their land will, eventually, be acquired.
B. Description of Institutions and Actors in STDP
36. The RIP sets out the institutions and actors to deal with grievances generated by the STDP. The contents of the RIP were directly influenced by the requirements of the ADB resettlement policy as contained in its involuntary resettlement safeguards9. In addition to the institutions put in place to directly deal with grievances, other institutions introduced by the RIP, such as LARC, played an important role in grievance resolution. Other institutions were developed to fill a felt need during the implementation of the STDP. Finally therefore, the STDP GRM consists of three types of institutions: • institutions set out in the RIP specifically to handle grievances – eg: GRC • institutions set out in the RIP, not specifically to handle grievances, but which became
important institutions to handle grievances during RIP implementation – eg: LARC, STDP Regional Offices
• institutions which were not set out in the RIP, but established during RIP implementation to handle grievances – eg: Super LARC, PCRM.
37. An overview of the range of institutions and actors involved in providing redress for the grievances generated by the STDP is set out below. 1. Grievance Redress Committees
38. The GRC is the primary means by which the RIP design intended AP grievances to be resolved within the STDP project. The RIP states the ‘fundamental objective of GRC is to resolve disputes at the grassroots level to avoid lengthy and costly judicial process’ (RIP, 8.3.1.a). The RIP further states that the GRCs are structured as ‘extra-legal semi-structured bodies empowered to give judgement on grievances arising from land acquisition as well as during implementation of RIP’. By design the GRCs have a very broad mandate and grievances in the categories of social and community related, environmental, resettlement and land acquisition, can be addressed to them. Their mandate only excludes hearing complaints regarding the quantum of compensation. This limitation however, applies only to grievances pertaining to the valuation and amount decided and process related issues such as delays in payment of agreed compensation, non-receipt of documentation can be brought to the notice of the GRC. However the GRC had no mandate to deal with cases pending in any court of law, nor to look at grievances relating to the ‘rate of compensation’, which is under the authority of the LARC committee10.
9 Sri Lanka’s National Involuntary Resettlement Plan (NIRP) was developed subsequent to the STDP RIP. 10 RIP, chapter 8.
12
39. As stated in the RIP, the committees were to consist of seven members – the Assistant District Secretary who presided over the committee, the District Valuation Officer, the RDA District Engineer, and four representatives of the community appointed by the RDA Chairman. Between the period 2002 – 2003, four GRC committees were held at a District level. Restructuring of GRC 40. There was very low usage of GRC by APs, which according to the Ministry of Highways 11 , was due to the fact that they were held at district level, with district level membership, resulting in a small number of individual and community issues being taken up by the committees. IEM household surveys also showed that there was also very little knowledge among the APs about the existence of the GRCs and the role this institution was expected to play in grievance redress. 41. Accordingly, the GRCs were restructured in September, 2005. The new design placed the GRCs within the Divisional Secretary (DS) office which is a natural point of contact between the public administration and the public. Since restructuring, 22 GRCs have been operalionalised to date12. In keeping with the change from district to DS level, the committees are chaired by the Assistant DS and secretarial functions handled by the Social Impact Monitoring Officer (SIMO) of the STDP regional office. The membership of the GRC was changed to include regional officers from the STDP (Project Manager / Resettlement Officer), the Samatha Mandalaya (community level mediation instrument), a representative of a NGO and a community leader. The committee has the right to request the relevant GNs, the relevant technical staff from the STDP as well as officers from any relevant state or non-state institution, to attend the hearings as information providers. The membership of the GRC is regarded honorary and each participating member is paid Rs. 400 per meeting, for a maximum of two meetings per month. 42. Following the restructuring of the GRCs, steps were taken to increase its effectiveness via capacity building of its members. In addition, a concentrated effort was made to increase the AP usage of the facility by giving wide publicity to all aspects of the GRC. A new process of documentation, carried out by the Secretary to the GRC, was put in place to increase transparency and tracking of complaints, including maintaining complaint and complainer registers, documenting details of GRC sittings and decisions reached. Everyone in the GRC committee and the complainer should be informed by a written document of the decision taken following investigation of the matter. Copies of these decisions are sent to the Deputy Director STDP, and he should be provided explanations on unsolved complaints. Progress reports are to be provided to the Project Director, STDP. The operation of the GRC is monitored by progress meetings at the regional office and the project management (PMU) level.
2. Land Acquisition and Resettlement Committees and the Super LARC
43. The LARC is one of the most important institutions introduced by the RIP to the land acquisition and resettlement process in Sri Lanka. The LARC was mandated with negotiating with the AP and deciding on the replacement value compensation13. The RIP sets out the composition of the LARC as; Divisional Secretary (or representative) as Chairman, the 11 “Mahajana Gatalu Visadeema Kamitu Prathisanvidhanaya (Restructuring the GRCs), circular reference no: RDA/LARC/STDP/AP/GRC/33, issued by the Secretary to Ministry of Highways, 2005. 12 Information provided by STDP - Resettlement Officers. 13 RIP, Chapter 8
13
Valuation Officer of the region, the Superintendent of Surveys (or representative), RDA Technical Officer, Grama Niladari, and representatives of the APs as members. 44. The mandate provided to LARC by the RIP did not explicitly state any grievance redress functions. However in practice, the LARC acted as one of the most extensively used institutions for the redress of grievances relating to valuation of AP losses and compensation. As shown in Figure 3, the land acquisition and valuation process as set out in the Land Acquisition Act can and does give rise to grievances because the valuation is usually quite low. APs have the ability to access the Samalochana Mandalaya but it cannot provide a sufficient solution as it is limited to act within the provisions of the LAA. The LARC pre-empted triggering grievance by providing a space where AP could make the case for having their compensation increased. Where the APs were in disagreement with the LARC decisions, the issue can be referred to the Super LARC. Dissatisfied APs could also decide to move out of the STDP mechanism and into the national legal process via litigation. Figure 3: Role of LARC and Super LARC in the GRM
Source: visualised by CEPA based on information provided by the STDP-RDA and DS officers
45. Super LARC, also known as the Ministerial Appeal Committee, is not mentioned in the RIP. It came into being in 2003 specifically to meet the need for a higher appeal process, because ‘although [the LARC] operates satisfactorily in the majority of the cases there are
Land acquisition and valuation of compensation based on LAA
Solution: Review compensation decision at
Super LARC
Grievance: AP does not accept LARC compensation decision
AP accepts decision on compensation and leaves GRM
AP accepts decision on compensation and leaves the
GRM
Solution: Increase of compensation via LARC to
enable replacement
Potential grievance: Insufficient compensation to
replace lost asset
AP disagrees – leave STDP system enter legal system
AP appeals to the Samalochana Mandalaya (Mediation Board) under LAA which can revise
compensation paid under the LAA
14
instances where consensus cannot be achieved…14’ The Cabinet Memorandum sets out the objective of Super LARC as to ‘… examine appeals made by the affected persons which in view of the Committee needs special attention and make decisions to be implemented by the LARC.’ The members of the Super LARC are the Secretary, Ministry of Highways, Secretary, Ministry of Lands, Chief Valuer, Survey General and the General Manager of the RDA.
3. Community Consultative Groups
46. CCGs were designed with a participatory orientation and mandated with assisting APs in all aspects of resettlement which included grievance prevention and redress elements. The composition of the CCG is set out in the RIP as consisting of GNs, local religious leaders, representatives of CBOs, and APs. The responsibilities of the CCGs are set out broadly by the RIP as being involved in all local decision making, including those related to verification of land acquisition, assessment of valuation and compensation rates for structures and relocation schedules. An important role set out for the CCG is in assisting AP’s in making claims and grievances and resettlement site selection. The CCG members were also to be resource persons in the implementation of the Income Restoration Programme. 47. However, this institution was not set up and many of their functions were carried out by Resettlement Assistants attached to the Regional Offices of the STDP. 4. Resettlement Units in STDP Regional Offices
48. The Resettlement Units, located in the Regional Offices of the STDP, were mandated with all the functions relating to planning, coordinating and implementing the process of resettlement including coordinating the compensation payments and documentation. Their functions are set out in detail in the RIP, under the heading of Land Acquisition and Resettlement Division (LARD) They have no direct mandate to act as a grievance redress institutions in terms of the RIP, and their function in this aspect are limited to those of information providers: the provision of information regarding the GRC to APs and the provision of information to the GRC as needed. However, many of the mandated activities of the Units have a direct link to grievance prevention and management. Hence, in practice, because they provided information and handled project implementation, APs began to come to the Resettlement Units with their grievances. They therefore became an institution for resolving grievances as well as an entry point and coordinating body to forward grievances to other entities such as GRC and other government agencies. Officers under of the Resettlement Unit as per RIP: Resettlement Officer: The Resettlement Officer provides leadership and is responsible for
all activities in the resettlement process within the region under his purview. As per RIP, responsibilities include provision of information, consultation, resettlement site selection, site development and plot distribution, assistance to APs in finding replacement land, programme supervision and monitoring. All these activities are to be carried out in coordination with the other relevant authorities. The Resettlement Officer is a member of all key committees such as the LARC and the revised GRC. Because they are a focal point within the STDP regional offices, they also acted as entry points to receive and forward complaints to the appropriate redress mechanism. The Resettlement Officer also provided
14 Cabinet Memorandum titled “Providing relief to the persons affected by acquisition of land for Road Development Projects”, reference no: 03/0583/104/029, dated March 20, 2003 and approved by the Cabinet on April 9, 2003
15
resolutions to some grievances directly, for example in the case of complaints from Resettlement Sites, and indirectly via bringing the grievance to the notice of the appropriate institutions such as the LARC and the GRC
Resettlement Assistants (RA) The RAs provide field level assistance to the functions of
the Resettlement Officer particularly in relation to community mobilisation and consultations. Because of the nature of their activities as field level information and assistance providers, particularly at the stage when APs were preparing their compensation claims, the RAs played an important role in preventing the development of grievances. In addition, they also received and forwarded complaints to the Resettlement Officer for necessary action.
5. Public Complaints Resolving & Monitoring Committee
49. Due to the nature and scale of the STDP, substantial construction related impacts were expected at the start of the project and mitigation and resolution measures were introduced, mainly through the Environment Management Plan (EMP) and the contractor’s contractual obligations to mitigate and manage these impacts. Among project implementers there was an implicitly held notion that in a project of this type a certain amount of construction impacts are unavoidable and must be borne by the communities in the project area. However, during implementation, it became clear that the intensity and time period of construction impacts went beyond what these communities thought was acceptable – resulting in a large number of construction related complaints (Table 1), which in turn necessitated the introduction of stronger project measures to address and manage them. 50. PCRM, which is not mentioned in the RIP, is the main such institution and brings together the RDA, Supervision Consultants and contractors. It is co-ordinated by the Management Consultants. The PCRM is essentially a joint coordinating committee to monitor the progress of construction related complaints and their resolution, and increase the effectiveness of the process via joint trouble shooting and decision making. 51. There is very little documentation regarding the objectives of the PCRM. Its objectives have come to be defined in terms of its actions/tasks which are mainly to ensure that the construction related grievances are being attended to in line with the EMP recommendations and government rules and recommendations. The PCRM derives its legitimacy and authority mainly from its composition and role as a joint coordinator, and its effectiveness in trouble shooting. The main tasks of the PCRM monthly meetings are stated as15:
• to review the progress of resolving environmental and social issues / complaints during the month
• to do joint field investigations / studies to resolve critical issues • to review reactions / commitment of the field staff of the Contractor and the Supervision
Consultants on taking immediate actions to resolve urgent environmental and social problems
• to maintain constructive and better relationship with the relevant government agencies such as the Divisional Secretariat, Agrarian Services offices, Department of Irrigation, SLLRDC, CEA, Pradeshiya Sabha and Peoples / Farmer organisations through proper co-ordination and communication to resolve environmental and social issues during construction.
15 Primary source of information: Strengthening Public Complaints Resolving Monitoring system ( PCRM), document dated October 2007, by Project Director, STDP
16
52. In line with the role as a coordinating committee, all relevant stakeholders are represented here. High level officers are nominated to ensure that decisions are feasible and enforced. The participants of the PCRM are identified in the “Strengthening Public Complaint Resolving Monitoring system (PCRM), prepared by the Project Director STDP as: • Additional Project Director, STDP – PMU • Team Leader of Supervision Consultant and Environmentalist • Programme Director Programme Manager of the contractor with relevant staff • Deputy Project Directors (JBIC, ADB). • Project Manager (JBIC, ADB) • Management Consultants (Social and Environment Monitoring Specialist) • EIMO from the four Regional Offices of the STDP • Any other relevant officers from other agencies as required 53. From its inception in 2006, the PCRM met every fortnight. Since mid 2008, it meets once a month due to the decrease of complaints received.
6. Supervision Consultants
54. The supervision consultants are recruited to act as the intermediary between the executing agency (RDA) and the contractor, and oversee and monitor the activities of the contractors hired to construct the highway. The functions of the SC are set out in the contract between the three parties – RDA, Contractors and SC. The SC has a strong acknowledged authority in relation to supervising the work of the Contractor and the RDA must at all times, approach the contractor via the SC. Monitoring and supervising the solving of construction related complaints are core tasks of the SC. The Contractor, as the primary institution tasked with the implementation of the decisions, is contractually responsible to the SC. 55. In the case of STDP, all construction related grievances by individual APs, and groups are being monitored by the SC and they receive complaints from a number of sources such as the RDA, representatives of central and local governments, government departments and agencies as well as APs. Following investigation, the issues related to design issues are forwarded to the STDP and those relating to construction are forwarded to the Contractor. The Supervision Consultants also track the enforcement of the decisions. 7. Other
Community Resettlement Workers and Social Mobilisers:
56. The first point of contact with the STDP for the APs was intended to be these Community Resettlement Workers. Their role according to the RIP is to transfer information between the STDP executing agency and the APs, as well as coordinate a range of resettlement related activities at the field level. While not specifically stated, the role of these field level officers in preventing dissatisfactions and misunderstandings converting into grievances is strongly implied. Neither Community Resettlement Workers nor Social Mobilisers as envisaged in the RIP were appointed during project implementation. The orientation of these officers, as well as their tasks, was taken over by the Resettlement Assistants.
17
Women’s Support Officers (WSO):
57. WSOs were mandated in the RIP to carry out gender planning, coordinating income restoration programs and other development activities for women, and supervision and monitoring of the resettlement and recovery process of women. While grievance redress tasks were not specified, the orientation of the office has a grievance prevention and redress role. However, no WSOs were appointed for the STDP. C. Other Institutions and Actors
1. Legal
1.1 The Courts System
58. The national legal system allows APs to seek relief under a range of laws and through various levels of the court system. At the lowest level disputes are taken to the Magistrate’s Courts which, if unresolved, can move all the way up to the Supreme Court via the appeal process. Redress under administrative laws for violations by state officers or state actions, redress for individuals or communities under the environmental laws can follow this process. APs can also file primary action at the Supreme Court, as a Fundamental Rights violation. In the case of STDP, the courts were mainly utilised for trace related and land acquisition related grievances. 59. The legal system has a strong role to play in the initial stages of a project where the usefulness of the entire project per se is in question. The court accepted ‘great economic and personal damage to the claimants’ and that the ‘…final trace was adopted without notice to the claimants, and without giving them an opportunity to be heard.’ However, balancing the interests of the complainants with those of the public, the solution provided was only in relation to monetary compensation payable to the complainants. The request for EIA for the new trace was not awarded by court as it would be too costly and burdensome for the State.16 60. Land acquisition for the STDP took place under section 38.a ‘special provision’ of the Land Acquisition Act (LAA) (Box 2), which enabled the acquisition process to be accelerated from an average 10 -12 months to an average of 2-12 weeks. Correspondingly, the time for grievance processing was also limited. Box 2: Land Acquisition Act (LAA) No.9 of 1950, and subsequent amendments The process of land acquisition for public purpose by the GOSL is governed by the above Act. The process includes a grievance mechanism which operates through the state administrative and legal system. Affected persons dissatisfied in relation to the decisions regarding land ownership, valuation and compensation can voice their grievances to the Mediation Board (Samalochana Mandala), and the judicial system up to the Supreme Court. The Act sets out in detail the type of grievances entertained, to whom and how they should be made, the timeline of the process including the appeal process for disagreements on the rulings given:
16 Lavanya Mahendran, Conflicting priorities and hard decisions – Evaluating the reasoning of Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court in the Mundy case, 2005
18
• Section 4 of the Act sets out the manner in which land owners are informed of the intention to acquire the land, and the owners of such lands have the right to make objections to the Secretary of the relevant Ministry.
• Section 11 of the Act states that should the AP be in disagreement with the ownership decision given under Section 10, s/he can present his grievance to the civil courts commencing at the District Court level. If the AP is dissatisfied with the courts decision the appeal process can go up to the Supreme Court and the decision is held as final.
• Under Section 22.1 of the Act, an AP who is in disagreement with the compensation decided under Section 17 of the Act, can within 21 days present a complaint to the Mediation Board, and should the AP be dissatisfied with the decision of the Mediation Board and appeal can initially be made to the Board and thereafter transferred to the court system for further appeal.
61. The available data does not allow an evaluation of the cost and time efficiency either from the point of view of the AP or the institution. However, considering the number of APs accessing these institutions, the generally known costs and time periods involved it can be surmised that APs were faced with prohibitive costs when accessing the legal system. From the RDA/STDP angle, grievances which reached the legal system, particularly trace related complaints, created long delays and increased costs exponentially for the project.
1.2 Mediation Boards (Samalochana Mandala)
62. The mediation process has been set up in 1988 by the GOSL as a complementary process to litigation. The Mediation Boards Act No. 72 of 1988 provides the legal framework for institutionalizing Mediation Boards, which are empowered to resolve by the process of mediation, all disputes referred to it by disputing parties as well as in certain instances, by courts. These Boards are made up of a minimum of 12 persons which include 5 public officers appointed by the relevant District Secretary. Since commencement 238 Boards have been set up17. 63. A mediation board specifically for land acquisition related grievances, ‘Land Acquisition Board of Review' (Samalochana Mandalaya) has been constituted under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act No: 09 of 1950, for the purpose of hearing appeals of the persons who are not satisfied with the compensation received under the Act. The appeal procedure has been specified from section 19 to 29 of the LAA. The Board consists of 16 members, of whom 8 are valuers and 8 are lawyers. The Government Valuation Department provides administrative support to all functions of the Land Acquisition Board of Review namely the administration and establishment work in relation to appeals before the Board of Review, as such as accepting appeals, issuing notices to appellants, fixing and calling boards for hearing of cases, conveying decisions of the board to appellants and preparing and accepting of documents for appeals. 2. The Public Administrative system
2.1 Divisional Secretary (DS):
64. The 24 districts of Sri Lanka are divided into administrative sub-units known as Divisional Secretariats (DS) which are further subdivided in to Grama Niladhari (GN) divisions which are a collection of a few villages. The DS via its village level officials – the Grama Niladari 17 www.justiceministry.gov.lk/
19
– is the first point of contact for the citizens with the government administrative system. The DS office is responsible for regulatory functions such as issuing of license/recommendations, issuing certificates (eg. death certificates, birth certificates, revenue certificates, value certificates), registrations, social welfare payments and coordination development services as well as mediation in civil disagreements and grievances with state administration. 65. In accordance with the provisions laid down in the Land Acquisition Act (LAA), the DS is the acquiring officer of properties required for the benefit of the public as well as the preparation, processing and payment of compensation. Within the STDP scenario, in addition to carrying out their responsibilities under the LAA, the DS office coordinated and led the Land Acquisition and Resettlement Committees (LARC) and the restructured GRC.
2.2 Grama Niladaris (GN):
66. The most local officer in the decentralised chain of state administrative officers, the GN is the final field level representative of the state. Communicating government information, attesting to the accuracy of village and household level information, liaising on behalf of the village for development activities are key functions of the GN. In addition the GN has a direct role in grievance mediation between individuals / households at the village level, as well as providing information on grievances when resolution moves to a higher level of authority. In the latter situation, the GN in effect acts as the representative of the individual / household or group. 67. In the GN divisions affected by the STDP, GNs worked very closely with the APs, providing information on all aspects of the process. In line with the mediation role of the GN, the responsibility of conveying the appeals of the APs to the GRC as well as presenting the APs point of view in other fora in the absence of the AP are regular functions of the GN.
2.3 The Central Environmental Authority
68. The Central Environmental Authority (CEA) is the institution mandated with ensuring that the design and construction of the STDP meets environmental standards and steps are taken to minimise, mitigate and compensate damages to the physical environment as defined in the National Environment Act No.56 of 1988. As such, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and all related Environmental Management Plans (EMP) are approved by the CEA. 69. The CEA’s role in the STDP grievance mechanism arises from its functions as a regulatory authority. This comes in two forms: (i) through the monitoring mechanism set up under the EIA specifically for the STDP; and (ii) through environment related complaints as part of its regular functions. The complaints are investigated and remedial action is recommended to be taken by other institutions. The CEA monitors the complaints received directly via the EIA process to ensure that action is taken and adequate, and at times requires that its approval is obtained for specific management activities for projects to continue.
2.4 Line Departments
70. Under the normal national system, any grievance with a State agency will be presented to the officers of the relevant line department, the public administration system or police. Aside from the RDA which is the primary line agency relating to the STDP, the agricultural department, the irrigation department, water board, electricity board, GSMB, are some of main line departments to which complaints were made in relation to the STDP.
20
71. Within the normal RDA system, a dedicated officer to handle complaints does not exist. The complaint handling process is based on working up the hierarchy of authority. Affected persons or groups complain to the official at the level closest to the issue, eg. depot manager, technical assistant, technical officer, site engineer. The issue moves up the hierarchy depending on the magnitude / nature of the complaint and solution provided. Complaints are also made via the police, peoples’ representatives such as politicians, community leaders, and community organisations. Where the solutions need the input of a number of actors, the complaints are discussed at the District Development Committee presided over by the District Secretary and attended by all state agencies. The resources needed to enforce the solution is drawn from the budgetary allocation for contingencies. The RDA / STDP officials feel this system functions at an acceptable level of effectiveness for the routine building and maintenance work of the RDA. However, it is not sufficient, and would be ineffective, for large projects such as the STDP. 3. Peoples Representatives and Civil Society organizations
72. Accessing political representatives is an unstructured but popular method of appealing for redress and draws on the concept of elected representatives of the people as well as on party politics. The political representatives most often find resolutions via the existing mechanisms. While relief has been obtained in certain instances, it has not always successful. Peoples representatives have largely acted as points of entry rather than problem solving institutions.
“When we complain to the President or the Minister they forward our issues to the RDA head office in Sethsiripaya. Then the head office forwards the problems again to RDA regional office. We complain to the heads because our problems are not been solved by the regional office. But if the complains and problems come back to the regional office what’s the use?18”
73. Legal aid groups, environmental activists including lawyers, community leaders including religious leaders have also played a role in the addressing APs grievances in the case of STDP. In some instances they have helped to resolve grievances before they became formal complaints, such as in the case of community leaders, while in some, they have assisted APs to the appropriate grievance mechanism, as in the case of environmental activists. 74. A recent development has occurred with APs directly accessed the Parliament of Sri Lanka through its Public Petitions Committee. The duty of this committee is to consider the petitions sent by the public and report back to the Parliament its opinion on the action to be taken in respect of such petitions. The Committee has the power to summon before it and question any person, call for and examine any documents. The STDP grievances which have been addressed to the Committee consist of about 20 individual petitions relating to construction related and compensation related grievances of APs. Decisions are pending. 4. International institutions
4.1 ADB’s accountability mechanism
75. In line with the accountability orientation of the multilateral development banks, the ADB too provides a space for private individuals and groups to present their concerns and seek
18 From the Independent External Monitoring, Phase 3 data base.
21
solutions to issues arising in projects funded by the institution. The ADB Accountability Mechanism provides a two-phase process for dealing with complaints from people adversely affected by an ADB-supported project. Project-affected people can initially file a complaint with the Office of the Special Project Facilitator (OSPF)19, headed by the Special Project Facilitator (SPF). That then triggers the consultation process, under which project stakeholders try to resolve the dispute. The consultation process is designed to find a way for project stakeholders to reach a common understanding over a dispute in an effort to solve the problem at an early stage. Complainants can also file a request for a compliance review20 alleging violations of ADB's operational policies and procedures, if the complaint is ineligible for consultation, if the complainant finds the consultation process unhelpful, or if the consultation process in at an advanced stage and there are serious compliance concerns. The Accountability Mechanism replaced the ADB's earlier Inspection function in 2003. STDP project affected persons activated all three, the Inspection Function, the Consultation Phase and the Compliance Review Phase. 76. The APs’ knowledge about the different institutions available through the ADB was limited: IEM data showed that only about 26% of APs were aware of ADB’s role in STDP and among these APs, only a few had a clear idea of the role of ADB as a GRM and potential entry points into it. The few APs who accessed the ADB in its GRM role, however had an excellent knowledge of its mandate, access points, etc. The ADB system presented access challenges in terms of remoteness, language, low awareness, costs and time. However, for those who did succeed in accessing the system, the ADB provided a structured procedure of processing and monitoring the complaints based on its safeguard policies and guidelines.
4.2 International conventions
77. As a signatory to international conventions the Sri Lankan state is also governed by these conventions. Though not widely used, affected parties or organisations may refer to these when seeking redress to grievances. Some examples are: (i) the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which has sections related to right to property, right to a home, right to effective remedy as well as right to due process, right to free expression and information; and (ii) the UN Economic, social and Cultural Rights Committee which includes sections on appropriate procedural protections in evictions21.
19 www.adb.org/SPF 20 www.compliance.adb.org 21 For further discussion see LST Review, Volume 15, Issue 213, July 2005 on Housing Rights and Forced Evictions, Law and Society Trust, Colombo.
22
IV. ASSESSMENT OF INSTITUTIONS AND ACTORS
78. This section discusses the operationalisation of the institutions in light of the review questions. A. Grievance Redress Committees (GRC)
1. Relevance:
79. The rationale for setting up the GRCs was to ensure that there is an on-going institution throughout the life of the STDP, through which all types of project related complaints can be addressed, in a timely and cost effective manner. Such a specialized institution to address grievances was necessary because the STDP is a special project, which is implemented through parallel institutions to the usual implementation process of the state administration procedures and institutions. The establishment of the GRCs is set out in the RIP and the objective of the GRC, which is clearly stated in the RIP, has not been changed in the subsequent restructuring of the GRC. 80. In its original form, the design of the GRC was not appropriate in terms of its objective. Despite the fact that the GRC was to solve problems at the grassroots level, the RIP design placed it at the District level. Subsequent restructuring brought the composition and venue of GRCs to the Divisional (DS), level which is much more in line with its stated objective22. Any further ‘grass rooting’, for example by locating it in the GN level, may have improved specificity but would have seriously hampered standardization of process and outcomes. In addition, the level of skills, capacity and leadership available at the DS level is not available at the GN level. IEM’s household and community level data collection clearly shows that the level of acceptance of the authority of the DS, and thereby the GRCs, would not have been achieved at the lower level of the GN. 81. In a formal sense, the legitimacy of the restructured GRCs was derived from the RIP and the circular issued by the Secretary, Ministry of Highways. However, as an institution with no legal standing nor a supporting Cabinet Memorandum, the GRC’s authority is, in fact, mainly derived from its members, as well as its ability to effectively provide solutions for grievances. Key person and household interviews carried out by CEPA point to the importance of the ex-officio authority of the GRC members as well as their individual personalities, which have influenced the community level acceptance of the GRC. However, because the GRCs had no mandate to enforce decisions, nor allocated monetary resources to support the enforcement of its decisions, enforcement has to take place via appropriate third parties. This has proven to be a weakness in the design that has had an impact on the ability of the GRC to meet its objective. 2. Effectiveness
Initiation 82. As shown in Table 2 more than 500 APs have accessed the restructured GRCs during 2006 – 2008. This is despite the fact that much of the land acquisition had already been completed by 2005. The GRCs have heard grievances relating to post-land acquisition issues such as resettlement and construction activities which formed the bulk of complaints during the
22 See Section III B 1 in this report for details of the GRC restructuring.
23
2006 – 2008 period (Table 3). The higher number of complaints in the Bandaragama and Dodangoda areas is related to availability of the restructured GRCs coinciding with the start of the high-intensity construction phase of the STDP in this area. Table 2: Trend in complaints to GRC, 2006 and 2008
Regional Office Divisions Total Total no. of complaints received Bandaragama Dodangoda K’hethekma Galle As at December 2006 21 37 175 69 302 As at December 2008 112 148 180 72 512 Source: STDP, GRC Progress Reports, Colombo, December 2008 Table 3: Complaints to GRC by type, as of December 2008
Regional Office Divisions Type of complaints received Bandaragama Dodangoda K’hethekma Galle
Blasting 14 54 93 12 Noise 13 28 4 8 Dust 5 1 6 21 Vibrations 1 5 8 17 Other construction related (mostly regarding access)
49 60 69 14
Other miscellaneous 30 0 0 0 Total 112 148 180 72 Source: STDP, GRC Progress Reports, Colombo, December 2008 83. STDP officials attribute the increased number of complaints to GRC as well as the increased number of GRC sittings since the restructuring, to the localization of the GRC and the more effective publicity carried out since re-structuring. Information about the GRC was provided at all relevant offices, through the print media and posters at gathering places such as shops in the area. The information disseminated included, general information on the existence of GRC as well as much more detailed information on the members of each GRC. Household interviews however, indicate that while there is greater awareness of the existence of the GRC, there is less knowledge about who can access the institution and for what purposes. Among APs, there is little awareness that GRCs are well suited for individual problems that do not have a customized solution. 84. Complaints have been made by individuals, groups or institutions including the STDP (Figure 4). Persons whose land was not acquired by the STDP but affected by the STDP in some way in relation to any aspect of their living conditions or livelihoods, have also accessed the GRC. Since the restructuring, it has also been possible to access the GRC as the problem occurs. There is no prescribed date or period from the occurrence of the activity which gave rise to the grievance, within which complaints are accepted. Usually, the GRCs heard the complaints within three weeks of the GRC secretary receiving the complaint, as required in its design. However, the time between the complaint being made and the GRC hearing has been longer when the AP complaint came to the GRC via a third party, eg. people’s representatives or state line agencies.
24
Figure 4: Restructured GRC - Process and time line
Source: visualised by CEPA based on information provided by the STDP-RDA and DS officers Action Stage: 85. GRC’s were held at DS offices which is an acceptable, probably the optimum, venue as it is familiar to the APs as the venue for regional administrative activities. In relation to women, it is generally accepted that a hearing will be more accessible to women if there are women participating as the members of the committee. In the case of the GRC however, the composition did not designate a female member. Female representation among committee members was through the ex-officio participation of Assistant Divisional Secretaries and STDP officers, where there is a strong female presence. Interestingly, it has been very rare for the civil society representative to be a female. Also only a relatively small number of persons who submitted complaints failed to participate in the GRC hearing, indicating that access may not be a major barrier to entering the GRC process.
People’s representatives: political, religious, community
Complaints to GRC Secretary in written form
Complaints by individuals/groups/institutions
Public Administration, other State Organisations
G R C process ends
GRC Meeting
Solution agreed, to be
implemented by third party
Solution agreed, to be implemented by
representatives present at GRC
No agreement reached
Enforcement assumed if complaint does not come back to GRC
GRC meeting within 3 weeks of receipt of complaint
Solution to be provided at meeting or within 3 weeks
Time varies
depending on point of entry
25
86. In terms of effectiveness however, the review is hampered by lack of systematic data relating to the solutions provided by the GRC and its implementation. At present the GRC process and documentation ends when a recommendation is suggested by the committee (Table 4). Documentation and data that was accessed by the review team did not allow for a reasonable evaluation of time taken for the solution to be implemented. KPI indicate that a solution or a partial solution is found within an acceptable time period (ie GRC sits within 3 weeks of receipt of complaint and a decision is given at the first sitting where ever possible). However, this has not always meant that the solution has been implemented. The enforcement of the solution has often been very long, and time is spent on a series of ‘investigations’ to decide who is responsible for implementing the solution. The currently accepted principle - that certain solutions will not be implemented until construction is completed - also seriously undermines the possibility of timely redress. Table 4: The GRC process from complaint to recommendation (Dec 2008) Bandaragama Dodangoda K’hethekma Galle Total no. of complaints received 112 148 180 72 No. of cases called for GRC 83 140 178 72 No. of recommendations suggested 107 134 172 72 No. of complainants that did not participate
26* 14 8 -
No. of cases outstanding 19** 8*** - - Source: STDP, GRC Progress reports, Colombo, December 2008 Note: all numbers are cumulative *Complaints forwarded to PCRM **Discussed through GRCs and recommended solutions to be implemented after completion of the construction work. *** Rejected by GRC 87. Inadequacies in relation to documentation and paper trails is a weakness of the GRC. While the Secretary to the GRC is required to document the solution provided at the GRC and provide a signed copy to the parties at the end of the GRC meeting, this design improvement has not been consistently implemented in all the GRCs23. 88. The method of arriving at a decision via the GRC has varied with the particular complaint. Given the variety of potential complaints and complainants, which include institutions, a single prescribed method of arriving at a solution has not been used. The combined institutional and personal knowledge base of the committee members and problem solving and conflict resolution skills have been used in a more discussion format, as opposed to negotiating from two positions (Box 2). However, in the case of known/common grievances, such as those relating to construction induced damages and disruptions, there is a greater orientation towards negotiation around prescribed solutions.
23 See Section III B 1
26
Box 3: Features of a “fair” GRC decision A solution needs to balance • sympathetic hearing without being excessively biased towards APs. • solution requested by the AP and a feasible/reasonable solution • specifics with a standard
Source: Consolidated from discussions at workshop for
GRC Committee members, January 2009
Outcome 89. One of the main weaknesses of the GRC has been in enforcing its recommendations, and monitoring enforcement. Problems with enforcement have arisen because the GRC process ends with a recommendation (see Figure 4) which is implemented by a third party. Most often the institution / individual that is to implement the decision takes part in the GRC discussions and is party to the final decision, but the GRC has had very limited direct authority over the final enforcement of its recommendation. 90. In line with its restricted mandate, the monitoring data for the GRCs does not provide information on ‘solution implemented’, instead it provides data on ‘solution recommended’ (see Table 4). The actual implementation of the GRC recommendation is not tracked by this system. The implementing institution – eg. Contractors via the Supervision Consultants – is expected to take over from this point, including the documentation and tracking of implementing solutions. There is, however, no direct method of tracking a particular GRC complaint among the rest of complains handled by these implementing institutions (Figure 4, Note: no feedback loop exists). The method of tracking enforcement of the decision is via the unsatisfactory method of: ‘if the AP does not come back and complain to us, we have to take it that it is solved’
“Though we suggested solutions for the issues forwarded to the GRC, we don’t know whether those decisions were implemented or not. If those complainants came again and complain, it means those issues are not solved yet. The problem is that if the complaint does not come again, it doesn’t mean that the issue is solved”.
- Chairman of GRC, Karandeniya 91. While the GRC members have sought to give a standardised solution (Box 3), the review shows that in relation to the GRCs, complainants feel that similar problems are given different
Box 2: Observation of GRC process by CEPA team DS office, Baddegma, August 2006 Extract from field notes on atmosphere and process; “(A)round 10 APs had been called for the GRC meeting. The seating arrangement is similar to a normal meeting: the officials around the table with the public sitting in front of them. Each AP is called by name to take a seat at the table and the case is discussed. The discussion happened in front the other complainants and in most cases ended up with people standing around the table supporting the complainant and adding information. The panel took about 20 minutes per person. The whole procedure was very polite and people were addressed respectfully - ‘mahathmaya’ ‘amma’ etc. Almost all the issues discussed today were construction related complaints. Cases which are directly related to the Contractor (eg: siltation in paddy lands) were forwarded to Contractor for compensation payments. There was no officer representing the Supervision Consultants or Contract at the meeting. Where further information or investigation was needed for a decision it was decided to recall APs following the investigation. Solutions or decisions were not clear to us in a few cases. The secretary wrote down the complaints and got the AP and the officials of the committee to sign it.
27
solutions, and the process has resulted in benefits and prejudices alike. There has been a lack of consistency between decisions given to similar problems across DS divisions/GRCs, which has been mainly due to each committee consisting of different individuals in different locations - though they are the same ex-officio categories. To address this problem, the RDA has carried out number of capacity building activities for GRC members, which have focused on information on the STDP, construction specific obligations of the contractor, existing regulations, etc24. However, the DS officials have articulated the continuing need for guidelines on procedures for the GRC. 92. The nature of the GRC is that it handles both standardized problems – such as construction related – as well as unique case specific problems which do not have pre-planned solutions. In such cases the effort to find an acceptable solution could be more time consuming and needing greater input from the committee than in the case of standard grievances.
“The GRC handles a variety of issues. It is important to inform the members of the GRCs about agreements, procedures, regulations, apart from the Acts and other normal state regulations. If the GRC takes a decision that is contrary to the contractors responsibilities, it will be an issue. Therefore it is important to inform the GRC members about the project, contractors, supervision consultants and their roles. If they are not aware about these things, the opinion of RDA, and the specialised institutions that are in the end responsible, dominates. It is good if they provided guidelines, which they can refer to. Officers in the GRCs have different ideas and perceptions. In separate GRCs, DSs have different ideas. The decisions can vary because of this.”
-Secretary to GRC, STDP Regional Office 3. Efficiency
93. Because of the limitations in monitoring data discussed above, cost and time efficiency of the GRC can be evaluated only up to the point of deciding on a solution. The cost to the AP in physically accessing the GRC has been minimal as the complaint can be handed to the local GRC representative – the Samatha Mandala Chairman, community leader – or the DS or STDP regional office. The DS office as a venue has also been easily accessible. In terms of time taken to process the complaint, it would depend on the length of time for the complaint to reach the GRC Secretary from whichever entry point the AP used. As discussed previously, the time taken for the decision to be enforced varies significantly and is difficult to track. 94. In terms of resource usage, the GRCs have been very cost-effective for the project as there is only the payment of a small honorarium to the committee members. The other resources are predominately existing state resources, such as the DS office where the meetings have been held. The only “cost” to the project has been in terms of the capacity building activities to inform the GRC committee members of their functions and limitations in relation to potential solutions. Overall, the general orientation of the GRC has been towards cost efficiency – for example the suggestions made by implementers for increasing awareness have focused on ‘simple methods’ and use of existing institutions. From an AP perspective too, the GRC system has been cost-effective as they have not had to travel far to access the relevant DS office.
24 STDP GRC Progress report, February 2008 and special report on GRC, 2009, by Environment and Social Division of STDP.
28
95. However, because the GRC’s have demonstrated weakness in enforcing its own recommendations, APs have started to bypass the GRC and directly approach the known implementers. This has nevertheless been limited to complaints that had already been foreseen and their management pre-planned by the responsible institution. Construction related complaints relating to dust, blasting and vibrations, night construction, etc fall in to this group. In contrast, when complaints are more complex, arise due to several factors, are felt only by few people, and solutions are not obvious but need to be thought out and negotiated, APs tend to approach the GRC and stay within its process for a solution. B. Land Acquisition and Resettlement Committee (LARC)
1. Relevance:
96. The rationale for introducing the LARC within the STDP stems from the need to fill two important gaps in the land acquisition procedure prevailing in Sri Lanka. The Land Acquisition Act (LAA) provides for compensation at market value as determined solely at the discretion of the Chief Valuer. While the LAA provides a mechanism for dissatisfied APs to seek redress, there is no mechanism for APs to participate in the compensation determination itself, nor to ensure the compensation is sufficient to facilitate replacement of lost asset. In STDP, these gaps were addressed by the design of LARC which has two important principles embedded within it; (i) provide compensation at replacement value 25 ; and (ii) provide space for AP participation to enable APs to understand the basis for the compensation decisions, air any grievances and try to influence the decisions made in relation to their case. Because both these principles meet a felt need, and forestalled large scale compensation related grievances of APs, the LARC has a sound rationale for its creation (see Figure 3). 97. The procedures for establishing the LARC are set out in the RIP (paragraph 8.2.1) and also in the Cabinet Memorandum approved on September, 2001. However, the objective of the LARC is only indirectly alluded to in both documents. For example, in the RIP, the LARC is set up ‘to assist DS in land acquisition’. In the Cabinet Memorandum the LARC is part of a set of procedures to “provide relief to the persons affected by acquisition of land for road development projects” and to ensure that the land acquisition process is completed within the shortest possible timeframe. During implementation, the LARC functioned as a forum to hear any grievances / adverse effects suffered by APs due to the land acquisition, and to decide the payments and benefits they are entitled to, based on the entitlement criteria and standard rupee value of individual allowances set out in the RIP (chapter 3). 98. The institution of the LARC derives its legitimacy from the Cabinet Memorandum, the RIP as well as its institutional composition. The membership of the LARC, as set out in the RIP and modified in the Cabinet Memorandum, was appropriate for its tasks. The necessary authority and ability to make compensation decisions were provided by the presence of the Divisional Secretary, and representatives of the Chief Valuer, the Surveyor General and the STDP/RDA. This composition also allowed for representation of specialised technical and project knowledge, state administration and knowledge of the AP context. However, a change in the composition set out in the RIP relating to AP representation was made through the Cabinet Memorandum when Grama Niladari and Representatives of APs, who were to have provided the specific context of the AP and represented the AP’s interests, were removed as Ex-Officio members. The Cabinet Memorandum notes; “When conducting negotiations with the APs concerned, it is essential that only the concerned AP is present at a particular time (other APs should not be 25 RIP Section 3.2 (f)
29
present).” This reflects the view held by implementing agencies that individual compensation decisions should not be made known to other APs as this could give rise to further grievances. Accordingly, the AP him/herself and an accompanying relative/friend were expected to negotiate on behalf of the AP. 2. Effectiveness
Initiation 99. While the LARC was set up to consider (monetary) compensation related grievances, in reality it was a forum to present any type of grievance related to the land acquisition. These meetings provided the APs with the space to present issues not just relating to their physical assets but also regarding their family situation, particular hardships or issues such as disability or poverty, and other losses which are difficult to capture in an asset valuation.
“Many people came to the LARC with a lot of grievances. We usually allowed them to talk about their problems and listened. That was very important. Some of these issues are relevant when deciding entitlements such as the vulnerability allowance. Only when they have composed themselves do we start the discussion about money matters”
- Resettlement Officer, STDP 100. Except in relation to a few cases, LARC meetings were held for all APs before they were required to relocate. APs were also allowed to request additional LARC meetings, for example, when any discrepancy such as non-payment of allowance was discovered. Data on the time line within which the process took place is not available. 101. Substantial effort was made to publicise the LARC. As the meeting was initiated by the STDP, the responsibility of informing APs - including multiple APs in the case of joint ownership – was taken by the STDP Resettlement Officer as the coordinator / secretary to the LARC. In addition to individual notifications, the LARC dates were displayed on the notice boards of the DS office and STDP Regional Office. The responsibility of explaining the mandate of LARC and the APs role in it was designed to be carried out by the CCG but as the CCGs were not operationalised, this function was performed by the 55 Resettlement Assistants attached to the STDP regional office. 102. While the large majority of APs were aware of the LARC, not all APs were aware of the precise nature of LARC as an institution. IEM survey showed that 6% of APs are unaware of LARC, and the role they were entitled to play within the LARC. However, this also reflects lack of knowledge of the name of the institution as 84% of the APs in IEM’s database who said they were not aware of the LARC have received LARC payments. 103. LARC meeting were held for all the acquired lots eligible for compensation where claimants came forward. All persons who were named in the ownership determination of an acquired lot under the Land Acquisition Act were able to request and participate in the LARC discussion. The fact that a LARC was held for everyone, not just those who requested for a meeting, is one of the strengths of LARC which has helped to provide an equitable outcome in STDP compensation and preempted the occurrence of mass grievances in relation to compensation payments.
30
Action Stage: 104. There was almost 100% attendance by APs in the LARC process with only a few exceptions, such as where the acquired lot size, and therefore expected compensation, was very small. The location of the LARC meeting facilitated its physical access by APs, as the DS is the most localised level of the state administration system, which is accepted by the public, and frequently accessed.
If we had the LARC in the STDP regional offices people will have no idea where to come, and DS office is always accessible by public transport. People are used to the DS office being the place to go for problems relating to the state, land issues, development issues etc.
- Resettlement Officer, STDP
105. There is no substantive evidence to suggest that gender, age, income levels were excessively constraining factors in accessing or negotiating at LARC. The LARC negotiations have, in general, favoured two contrasting groups. One group are APs and households who were seen by the Committee to be particularly vulnerable and ‘asarana 26 ’, ie in difficult household circumstances. Examination of LARC meeting records show that there are cases where the Committee has provided maximum support within the entitlement framework to such households. At the other end of the scale APs with good information, and strong personalities have also succeeded in negotiating in favour of themselves;
“I searched for information and got to know that others have been paid well. Then I asked them why I have been paid less. The first estimate was only Rs.1, 300 per perch. I continuously wrote to all those officers and authorities which are related to STDP. Then they estimated Rs. 2,000 per perch. I didn’t give up the attempt and continued to appeal to all possible authorities. Finally they agreed to pay Rs.7, 000 per perch. I only accepted it when they sent me a letter informing that my compensation was going to be cancelled.”
- Female, 55 years 106. In a majority of cases APs have been able to make their grievances heard but in some cases, the AP felt intimidated and was constrained in negotiating. All negotiations were carried out within the entitlement and value framework set in the RIP, about which the APs had limited knowledge. As a result the valuation department representative frequently dominated the final decision. This raises questions about the overall ‘quality’ of participation that was actually achieved.
“It was very good because we were able tell them all our problems, though the entire process got lengthened. Even though they were high level state officers they were still able to listen to everybody’s problems. They were able to be flexible; they tried to see both sides of the story”.
- Male 60 years
“They didn’t ask our problems. They told their values and tried to force us to sign. They didn’t give a letter to go to Super LARC. We also wrote to a few places after
26‘Asarana’ carries an extended meaning of being helpless/ vulnerable and innocent.
31
this, but no reply, then we appealed to Super LARC. They sent back a letter saying the decision cannot be changed - mema theeranaya wenas nokarana lad -” We agreed to it because they said that if not it will be a court case. We don’t have anyone to go to courts.”
- Male 77 years 107. The LARC compensation was decided and paid, at least in portion, in time for the majority of relocating APs to purchase new housing or commence building. However, approximately 75% 27 of families lived in temporary housing for at least 6 months prior to moving into permanent, often incomplete, housing. While this indicates that there had been a timing issue in providing the compensation, there is no clear data to construct a timeline. 108. One of the main weaknesses of the LARC is in relation to documentation and sharing of information with APs following the decisions taken at LARC. The STDP regional office is responsible for tracking the progress of LARC payments as well as tracking of repeated LARCs. The DS office too had a documentation system and the Divisional Secretary continues to be the acquiring officer and the Chair of LARC. Both institutions had subject clerks dedicated to the task who tracked progress of payments including returned cheques. Very little information however, was shared with the AP. On average, the document providing the final LARC decision, including the details of allowances was received by the AP 6 months to one year after the LARC meeting. This has led to dissatisfaction and suspicion even among APs who had agreed to the LARC decision at the meeting. Outcome: 109. As the LARC committee had the necessary authority and resources to enforce the decision, its decisions were all enforced, and all APs have (eventually) received the compensation as decided at the LARC. However, during the early stages, there was a wide variance in terms of the compensation decided at LARC, and the ones considered “unacceptably high” were then revised downward at the discretion of the Ministry / RDA, before the LARC decision was enforced. In December 2003, the Secretary, Ministry of Highways issued a requirement that if the compensation negotiated for land (structures excluded) at the LARC exceeds 25% of the statutory compensation under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, Ministry approval is required to effect payment. This standardised the LARC decision and reduced the likelihood of changes to the LARC decision before they can be enforced. 110. While there is widespread acknowledgment, among APs as well as officials, that the LARC compensation was fairer than the LAA estimates, the decision process lacked clarity, and valuation criteria was not explained to the APs resulting in the widespread belief that similar problems were provided with different solutions. This was particularly the case in the additions to the land and structure component which, unlike the allowances had no transparent criteria, and depended to a large extent on the professional capacity and opinions of the Valuation Department member in the committee. Variations also existed in the payment of allowances.28 However, as the eligibility for these allowances were much clearer, APs were able to either negotiate their case at the initial LARC or request follow up LARC meetings to obtain the allowances.
27 IEM household survey database 28 LARC payments consisted of a range of allowances that were designed to cover transaction costs. Examples of allowances are shifting allowance, temporary rent allowance, self-relocation allowance, water and electricity re-connection allowance.
32
111. LARC decisions mainly provide a monetised solution, and all grievances were addressed by providing compensation to alleviate the problem. LARC could not address issues that could not be monetised such as issues relating to loss of social networks, traditional lifestyles and informal access to common property. 112. LARC decisions were accepted by the APs, with approximately 4% rejecting the decision and moving to the Super LARC or courts (Table 5). Those who accepted did not always feel it was a sufficient or just compensation (according to the IEM survey, about 47% of APs were dissatisfied with the LARC decision), but was not willing or able to incur the additional cost of prolonging the process. Table 5: Participation in LARC, Super LARC and Court Cases, as of Dec 2008 LARC Super LARC Court cases
regarding compensation entitlement Number of lots 10,271 Approximately
410* 19
*based on RDA estimates Source: RDA/STDP, December 2008 113. There is a paper trail documenting the LARC decisions and their enforcement. All payments were made by cheque, and the payment process was documented by both the STDP Regional Office as well as the DS office, following the state procedures, which include registries of entitlements and payments. The APs were informed by letter when the payments were made. A key weakness in this system was that the AP had no information as to what a given instalment payment covered. It is only when payment process was completed – generally in 3 instalments over a substantial period of time – that the AP is provided with the ‘entitlement certificate’ which gives the complete breakdown of the compensation. 3. Efficiency:
114. The LARC system was efficient in that the large majority of APs accepted the LARC determination of compensation. Had they not done so, a great deal of time and resources would have had to be spent, both by the project and the APs, in finding resolution. Only a very small number of cases went up to the two available channels of appeal - the Super LARC and Courts (Table 5), which can be seen as an indication that only a low number of APs were [very] dissatisfied with the ruling of LARC. The monetary cost of accessing LARC was minimised for APs primarily due to it being held at the DS office. A documentation allowance was paid to subsidise the cost of preparing for the LARC. The time cost however, was marginally more significant as many APs are called for their LARC meeting on any given day. In most cases, only one LARC hearing was held per AP and the process was well worked out. 115. However, when compared to the LAA, the inclusion of LARC has increased the costs of land acquisition exponentially, for the STDP and the GOSL. The budget allocations for compensation payments, cost of officers working continuously even on non-working days, the significant lengthening of the decision process has contributed to the increase in cost. While the extent of these costs cannot be underestimated, the alternative would have meant a majority of APs who are unable to replace lost assets and a large increase in the number of court cases -which would have prolonged the acquisition process and delayed implementation.
33
C. Super LARC
1. Relevance
116. The Super LARC, which is not part of the RIP design, was set up mid process to address the need for a higher level review process for APs disagreeing with the LARC decisions. This objective is stated clearly in the Cabinet Memorandum which provides the institution with authority to change compensation recommended by the LARC. Because the costs of accessing the courts system is prohibitive for most APs, and too time consuming for the STDP29, Super LARC met a felt need of a higher level of appeal for APs disagreeing and thus not willing to sign on to the LARC decision, without having to access the costly and time consuming courts option. 117. In keeping with the intention of Super LARC being the final review of compensation related grievances within the STDP, the Committee comprised of the highest level of officers of the relevant ministries and departments30. The Committee, did not however, have the authority or resources to implement the decisions taken. This task remained with the LARC, re-enforcing the rationale that the Super LARC was a higher level review of the LARC decision. 2. Effectiveness
Initiation: 118. The Super LARC process was initiated when an AP requests a Super LARC hearing, or is sent up to Super LARC by the Chairperson of the LARC. The time period involved in initiating the Super LARC process was controlled by the institution. This was often very quick however, especially when Super LARC committee was in session or when the disagreement was resulting in delays in clearing the ROW31. 119. Knowledge of the existence, mandate, and eligibility to access Super LARC was initially very low among the APs. This was due to the fact that it was institutionalized in 2003, approximately 2 years after the commencement of the land acquisition and compensation process, and minimal effort was made to provide publicity regarding its existence and role. The APs learnt about the Super LARC primarily through the participation in LARC and the experience of other APs. During the latter phases of the land acquisition process – mainly in the section north of Kurundugahahethekma, APs had greater knowledge of availability of the Super LARC and correspondingly the number of cases moving up to Super LARC increased substantially. Action stage: 120. Because the LARC-Super LARC mechanism would be inefficient if all APs rejected the LARC decision and went up to Super LARC, built-in measures were provided in the Super LARC, to prevent everyone from accessing it. For example, it was held in Colombo, necessitating travel of some distance for most APs together with the attendant costs in terms of
29 The priority for the RDA was to clear the ROW and prevent any delay in handing over the project area to the contractor. An additional compensation, amounting to 25% of the total compensation, was introduced to incentivise APs to vacate the acquired land in a timely manner, to facilitate this process. 30 See Section III B 2 31 Despite the Cabinet Memorandum, September 2001, requiring vacant position on the payment of LAA S.17 compensation, STDP followed a more flexible approach of requiring vacant position when LARC payments had commenced.
34
time and resources. It was also introduced late (2003) in the land acquisition process so a large number of APs were unaware of its existence as a potential GRM. However, while these measures resulted in reducing the numbers accessing the Super LARC, it is not equitable as only those who had the capacity, rather than all those who were aggrieved, were able to access it. It would have been better from an equity perspective, had the Super LARC been more physically and cost-wise accessible but APs were required to meet clear and limited criteria to be eligible to appeal to the Super LARC. 121. The Super LARC hearing was generally processed quickly as one of the main aims of the Super LARC was to obtain final agreement from APs and prevent long court processes. The documentation and monitoring of Super LARC however was extremely weak, and there is very little systematic information regarding the both the process and the outcomes. It is therefore difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of the Super LARC in terms of time taken, quality of the decision making process, etc. The STDP regional offices maintained a list of files sent up to the Super LARC, and attendance registers were maintained at the Ministry level, but in formats that make it extremely difficult to cross-check or follow up. 122. Because information on the Super LARC process is limited, it is difficult to establish the way the process actually worked. There is anecdotal evidence that the Committee members attempted to give a hearing to the AP within what they perceived to be acceptable levels of fairness, but closing the case seemed to have been the key aim of the Committee. The process appears to have been oriented towards ‘hearing’ and a ‘ruling’ and APs who went up to the Super LARC were mainly seen as ‘problem cases’ rather than those who had an actual grievance. Interviews with APs who had accessed Super LARC indicated that they had accepted its decision rather than prolonging the process via courts because they did not want to take the risk of not receiving any compensation.
“I was not willing to agree to what they said at LARC. I went again to the Bandaragama office and they asked to appeal to the Super LARC. I think the Super LARC also had the Secretary to the Ministry. They said that that was the only amount they can give to me, that they are not in a position to increase more from that. So I walked out…Recently I had a letter from the highways ministry, which was said to accept the compensation, and that the amounts agreed at the Super LARC will be the final word on compensation. So I accepted it. “
Male, 54 years “I am satisfied with the discussion and solutions given at Super LARC. They agreed to what I was saying. I agreed to move from the land due to this”.
Male, 58 years Outcome 123. As per design of the Super LARC, its decisions were enforced via the LARC procedure. The decision taken on the compensation entailment and amount is the final decision by the STDP, and is processed as such irrespective of the APs approval. The only choice open to the AP at this stage is to accept the payment or move on to the legal system system. The extent to which the final decision is fair and equitable is impossible to evaluate in the absence of documentation of the decision process and standards used. 124. In the majority of the cases, Super LARC hearings succeeded in bringing the compensation negotiations to an end. The primary deterrent for APs to challenge the Super
35
LARC by accessing the legal system has been cost - in terms of money and time that the legal process entails. Further, it is difficult to leave mid-process however prohibitive the costs become. APs became more cautious because the members of the Super LARC and LARC often suggested that filing a court case will only be to the disadvantage of the AP. APs who have accepted the Super LARC ruling, despite the fact that they do not agree with it, have done so primarily in acceptance of the cost and time lag that a legal process would entail. One AP who initiated court proceedings on the basis that the compensation amount promised at LARC was not paid due to Super LARC interventions also eventually dropped the case. Many of these APs however, continue to air their grievances whenever they get or are able create an alternative platform, such as STDP public workshops, CRP visits etc. 125. While no centralised register of outcomes could be located by the study team, a copy of the letter informing the AP of the Super LARC decision has been filed in individual AP files, albeit with a considerable time lag. 3. Efficiency:
126. The cost of accessing Super LARC was considerably high. Higher travel cost, time and effort needed to access the Committee in Colombo, as well as the unfamiliar venue, did not facilitate AP access. All this, as well as the threat of compensation being reduced acted as a deterrent for APs. 127. The monetary cost to the institution was not significant. The increase in compensation was not excessive in relation to the LARC allocations. However, staff time was considerable as top level officers had to spend extensive work hours and week-end on hearings. D. STDP Regional Offices
1. Relevance
128. From the ground reality of the STDP, the Regional Offices have played a critical role in managing and providing feedback on grievances. Very often the memory bank of long serving officers make up for weaknesses in detailed, systematic and accessible documentation. As discussed in the review, a representative of the Regional Office (usually the Resettlement Officer) has been an ex-officio member in every one of the grievance mechanisms activated under the STDP. Where relevant their contribution in these institutions are discussed within the review of each institution and this section focuses on the role of the STDP Regional Offices in relation to grievances about the trace, land acquisition and resettlement sites. 129. The STDP Regional Offices involvement in the trace related complaints through the role of the RDA as the executing agency for the GOSL. The process of developing the design components of the plan, environmental impact assessment and plan, the resettlement plan, and contracting for construction did not quite follow the accepted chronological order. As a result the trace and land acquisition related complaints were taken up at the stage of preparing for the RIP as well. 130. To assist APs to manage the land acquisition process, the RIP stipulated the establishment of Community Resettlement Workers, Social Mobilisers, WSOs and CCGs. However, none of these positions were appointed. Instead, Resettlement Assistants (RA) position was created within the STDP Regional Offices, and they were allocated the specific tasks of these positions. In the first three years of the STDP project there were 55 RAs, each
36
having approximately 200 households to cover. These RAs were picked from a pool of young graduates, who were capable of interacting and being sensitive to the household environment of the APs. They provided all information regarding the complexities of the STDP process and entitlements, assisted in the preparation for LARC, and in general acted as the STDP representative in the field and the intermediary between the APs and the STDP. 2. Effectiveness
131. The STDP Regional Office was accessed directly by a range of APs with trace related grievances. Its methods of processing complaints, arriving at decisions and follow up seem to have changed considerably over time. Documentation available in the RIP (section 10) indicates that during phase of RIP preparation the RDA/STDP was heavily influenced by the ADB safeguard policies. The RIP states that consultations with APs were carried out as ‘intergral part of the methodology for the project road’ and ‘when preparing the RIP.’ The RIP documents detail the consultations held with APs and AP groups, but the quality of the consultations is difficult to assess. The consultation processes resulted in a change in the design of the Kahatuduwa interchange to reduce the number of house lots acquired. However, in most cases no change in the trace or land acquisition was decided. Reasons given in the RIP include 1) cost related; ‘add to the already escalated cost of project’, ‘ will involve extra rock excavation thereby adding to the cost of the project’, and 2) complaints not being sufficiently significant in terms of number of people complaining or lack of follow up by complainants evidenced by ‘ not pressing hard’ ‘protest is luke warm’ (RIP Section 10). However, where no changes were enforced, the RIP states ‘negotiations and awareness programmes continue.’ 132. The RAs were highly effective in assisting the APs with the land acquisition process. They provided the APs with necessary information and assisted in preparing APs supporting documents (such as proof of ownership, asset inventories etc) for presentation at the LARC meeting. Interviews with APs indicate that they had relied heavily on the RAs for information provision during the initial periods of the process and were to a large extent satisfied with the service provided. Feedback from the AP households indicates the appointment of a single officer with an overall knowledge, with whom the APs developed a certain degree of trust was an effective alternative to a number of officers with specialised tasks. The constant interaction, the ability of the RAs to provide holistic information, together with the social mobilisation skills of individual RAs contributed to solving grievances as close to the point of origin as possible. 133. The Regional Office has also been particularly important in relation to addressing grievances relating to resettlement sites. However, this process was not designed as a GRM nor documented as such, and hence is not conducive to a systematic evaluation of whether the Regional Office was an effective and efficient GRM in this case. Neither is there a systematic monitoring process. The review issues identified below are therefore based on discussions with key persons and AP feedback. The evolution of complaints from resettlement sites point to indicate that settlers have been encouraged to depend on the RDA for their requirements. Solutions to the grievances of APs in resettlement sites have been largely provided by, and at the cost of, the STDP. While this is highly cost-effective for APs, the cumulative cost of providing resettlement sites has been higher than planned for the RDA, which has given rise to a rethink within the RDA about providing such an option in future.
37
3. Efficiency
134. The lack of systematic monitoring data regarding the work carried out by the STDP Regional Offices regarding trace related and land acquisition related grievances precludes an assessment of their efficiency. 135. Relating to resettlement sites, lack of closure on AP grievances has potential efficiency considerations. As of December 2008, RDA has handed over all sites to the Pradeshiya Saba (PS). However, the settlers have persisted in their complaints to the RDA. Many of the complaints, such as street lighting and personal disputes are beyond the responsibility of the RDA. However, given that the PS is unlikely to entertain such complaints and due to the relationship that has been built up between the Regional Office and the sites the households continue to use the Regional Office as a de-facto GRM. This points to the need to put a limit on the responsibilities of a GRM. E. Public Complaints Resolving & Monitoring Committee and Supervision Consultants
1. Relevance:
136. The large number of construction related complaints which arose during STDP implementation necessitated the introduction of stronger project measures to address and manage them. In line with the extent of expected complaints, a process involving a number of project-level institutions was put in place (Figure 5). As the focal points the SC and the PCRM, are reviewed here. 137. A critical gap in the design of the construction related grievance redress process, is the lack of defined space for AP participation. Beyond the point of initiating the process via a complaint, no formal role has been allocated to the AP. APs have participated in the investigation of the complaint only at the field level, and that too at the discretion of the investigating team. Feedback to the complainant is institutionalized only in relation to some types of complaints such as damage to structures due to blasting, and vibrations, which are made by individual households. 2. Effectiveness
Initiation: Complaints regarding all types of disruptions and damages which occur during the period of construction have been made by any affected party, individually or as groups/ institutions to any point of entry (Figure 5). Complaints have been made by public officers such as school principles, presidents of the Pradeshiya Sabha, community leaders such as the Head Monk of the temple acting on behalf of the villagers. Communities have also come together as CBOs – eg. Walawatta Welfare Society – to make complaints on behalf of its individual members as well as collectively. 138. Given the nature of the grievance trigger, there has been no pre-designated time period for complaints. Complaints have been made as they occur or when they go beyond the threshold of AP tolerance. The complaints have been made to project related institutions such as the STDP regional office, GRC, or the general national system which includes the police, the GN or DS office, GSMB, CEA and people’s representatives in the form of politicians, community
38
leaders, NGOs (Figure 5). All complaints have been finally centralised at the SC. However, only complaints which are decided by SC and the investigation team to have been caused by the STDP construction activities have been retained. Other complaints have not been followed up via either the SC or the PCRM. Figure 5: Construction related complaints management structure
Source: visualised by CEPA based on information provided by the STDP-RDA and DS officers 139. In relation to construction related grievances, the knowledge regarding whom to complain to and what can be complained about has been acquired by the APs over time. The GRC was publicised as the complaint receiver, and in addition, the STDP Regional Office, police, GN and DS offices, GSMB, CEA, people’s representatives were frequently used as points of entry though not publicised as such (Figure 5). The APs however, have learnt via experience that the points of entry are not necessary the problem solving institutions. As such, APs have started to take complaints directly to the SC as well as the contractors. This however, is in contradiction to the design of the process. 140. A critical point where APs were lacking in awareness is regarding the kind of grievances which were not considered as caused by project activities. For example, damages to any structures that have been built after the STDP construction commenced were not considered eligible for any redress.
Receiving complaints
People’s representatives:
political, religious,
community, environmental
PCRM CEA monitoring in relation to EMP
Enforcement
GRC
STDP/RO
Com
plai
nts
by in
divi
dual
s/gr
oups
/ in
stitu
tions
Public Administration,
other state agencies incl. police, CEA,
GSMB STDP/RDA –Design related
Contractor: Contractual obligations
Supervision Consultants
Hearing/investigation and solution
Cause deemed not STDP. Process ends
39
Action stage: 141. Neither PCRM or the SC was expected to be accessed directly by the complaints. While there are number of entry points at different levels and locations, the very fact that there was no widely publicized, designated point of entry is a weakness in the process. The capacity of the GRC was insufficient to act as the primary point of entry, as is reflected by the relatively low number of complaints being routed via the GRC (Table 8). While the existence of multiple points of entry has provided greater access to APs, it has also diffused effectiveness and has had an adverse impact on the timeliness of complaints entering the next stage of the process. This is also because the various institutions acting as entry points have had different levels of knowledge about the formal process and complaints have sometimes been sent to many institutions before they reach the SC. There is evidence to show that these institutions follow a grievance forwarding path that is inherently linked to that particular institutional format rather than the STDP process. Table 8: Construction related Complaints documented Supervision
Consultants data (July 2008)
GRC data (Dec 2008)
ADB section ( Galle and Kurundugaha RO divisions)
6,748 252
JBIC section (Dodangoda and Bandaragama RO Divisions)
664 189
Total 7,412 441 Source: Supervision consultants and GRC progress reports 142. In addition to the time taken for complaints to enter the formal process, time issues come into play in investigation of the complaint, decision on the cause, decision on the solution, and finally its implementation. There is significant evidence, both from institutional documentation as well as AP interviews, that the process has taken much longer than was acceptable to the affected parties. Complaints regarding foreseen disruptions such as blasting, vibrations, dust, night work and complaints regarding severe impacts such as earth slips have received faster redress. Complaints that have taken longer to investigate and decide on solutions include those that were unforeseen, either in extent or in particular location, where the cause was not clearly established hence the responsibility cannot be assigned, and most critically, disruptions that were seen as unavoidable in construction project of this scale. 143. The decision regarding the solution was strongly biased towards technical knowledge and representation of institutions with a stake, and contractual obligations in the construction and solution. Because it was necessary to establish that the damages and disruption had been triggered by the STDP construction, there was a further bias in favour of technocratic decisions, rather than stakeholder negotiations. There was no provision for formal participation by the complainant in the provision of the solution. Within the design the AP has a designated space for discussion only via the GRC, and with the Regional Office in a less structured manner. Informally however, the SC in particular maintains that a substantial degree of AP participation occurred, out of necessity, to find solutions. This participation however, was limited to the field investigation and was very much at the discretion of the officers involved and the resourcefulness of the APs.
40
144. Overall, the participation of the complainant and provision of feedback regarding the solution is insufficiently designed. It is to a large extent made the responsibility of the investigating officers.
“The engineer of the RDA office came to inspect and said that the canal is too small and it should be replaced with a bigger one. Nothing has happened after that.”
- Male, age 48 145. The decision for implementation was routed via the PCRM and SC who informed the appropriate institution, the contractor or RDA. The PCRM and SC also monitor the progress of implementation. Outside the PCRM, there was no monitoring of the effectiveness and timeliness of solutions provided. The AP was informed that the complaint was received and an action is proposed but without any indications of the timeframe for the solution. There was no formal process to inform the agency through which the complaint was received, such as the GRC, whether an action has been taken or not. Outcome 146. The enforcement of the solutions agreed for construction related complaints varied significantly across type of complaint and type of solution. Enforcement was high and timely where compensation was to be awarded to foreseen construction related damages which had clear standards for identification of entitlements. Where case specific design related solutions were required, the enforcement and timing of enforcement was mixed. Some solutions (eg, additional culverts, underpasses) were enforced, while others such as providing accurate information on interchange development (eg. at the Kurundugahahathekma site for displaced commercial properties32) are yet to be enforced. Some solutions will not be enforced until the construction has been completed. While the delay, or non-enforcement is justified from a project cost point of view, serious issue relating to ‘fairness and equity’ arises when looked at from the point of view of the AP. 147. The mixed record of enforcement is reflected in the monitoring data. The monitoring registers tracks the location, nature of the complaint/problem and ‘action’ that has been taken/proposed. The ‘action’ column includes the current status such as “to be investigated”, “to be tested by GSMB”, “matter for RDA, Engineer” as well as ‘Resolved’. Resolved does not necessarily mean the problem has been solved from the AP’s point of view. It resolved within the responsibilities of the GRM, which include deciding that the cause was not the STDP, or that the damage will be attended to once the construction is completed. 148. Overall however the existence of the PCRM has helped make the construction related grievance process more effective and equitable as it has been oriented towards looking at the source of complaints and solutions in a holistic and institutional manner. This approach facilitated broad based enforcement rather than piecemeal ones which is the case when individual grievances are provided individual solutions. The effectiveness of PCRM also derives from its participants as it contains representatives of from the top-level management of STDP, the Contractors and the Supervision Consultants.
32 See section III A 3
41
3. Efficiency
149. The cost to the AP is not in terms of accessing the grievance related institutions, but in terms of continuing to live within the environment disrupted by construction activities. However the method of compensating for damage (eg: providing allowances for vacating their property during construction periods) has created a situation where payments are made but the expected result is not occurring – and APs continue to occupy areas designated as unsafe. From the STDP’s point of view, the potential cost of construction being held up is phenomenally high, approximately Rs.1.5 million per day33. In comparison to such costs due to delay, paying compensation and/or enforcing solutions to construction related complaints is very much more cost efficient. F. STDP GRM: Strengths and areas for improvement
1. Summary Review of STDP GRM
150. The institutions and actors assessed in the preceding section make up the STDP GRM. This section looks at the overall GRM of the STDP. 151. The STDP GRM has evolved rather than been set up as a coherent whole. The RIP sets out the GRC as the only institution with a direct grievance redress mandate. All other institutions which make up the STDP GRM were given, or took on, their functions during implementation (see Table 9). 152. The RIP states that “(t)he fundamental object of formation of GRC is to resolve disputes at the grassroots level to avoid lengthy and costly judicial process.” The objective does not, however, indicate for whose benefit the time consuming and costly judicial process is being avoided. Neither does it make particular mention of the process needing to be fair and equitable, or feasible. The review finds that the overall STDP GRM has a strong project orientation and is implicitly aimed at reducing time, cost and bureaucratic delay that is associated with the “normal” systems in use. 153. To the extent that the STDP GRM was in place to reduce delays in the implementation of STDP, it has partially achieved its objective. The project was originally delayed by almost two years due to AP grievances regarding the trace which had no formal entry point into the STDP GRM and therefore entered the lengthy legal and donor systems. Thereafter, most grievances have been resolved by providing solutions via the different institutions in place to handle them. Where there have been delays to project implementation due to unresolved AP grievances (for example because the AP has not vacated the land or is obstructing construction activity) have generally been due to small-scale, localised or individual cases, rather than a large-scale problems. 154. However, from the APs’ perspective, the STDP GRM has achieved mixed results. For example, through the LARC, STDP put in place compensation standards that were higher than that prescribed by the Sri Lankan law as contained in the LAA only about 17% of those who used the LARC said they were satisfied with the process and outcome, compared to 47% who
33 Presentation on ‘Introduction to Expressways and Problems in Constructing Expressways in Sri Lanka’, January 2009, STDP
42
said they were dissatisfied 34 . Interviews with APs indicate that, particularly in relation to compensation, many felt that the compensation and other assistance were not in line with the extent of their loss and ‘sacrifice’ they were forced to make. Some of these perceptions were created due to the process, as much as the outcome of the grievance redress. Table 9: Design and functioning of the institutions that made up the STDP GRM Institution
Is the design set out in RIP? Was it operationalised?
(as of Oct 2008)
Grievance Redress Committees (GRC) Yes. The only institution with a specialised grievance redress
mandate. Composition was
later revised
Yes; original 4 committees; restructured 22 committees
Land Acquisition and Resettlement Committees (LARC)
Yes, but not with a direct grievance redress mandate. Also
supported by a Cabinet Memorandum
Yes; 22 committees
Super LARC committee
No, set up under a Cabinet Memorandum in April 2003
Yes; 1 committee
Resettlement Unit of the STDP/RDA Yes, but not with a direct grievance redress mandate.
Known as the Land Acquisition and Resettlement Division
(LARD) in RIP
Yes 4 units: 2 per STDP
regional office
Resettlement Officers (RO) Yes
Yes; 4 officers
Resettlement Assistants (RA) Yes, but not with a direct grievance redress mandate. Tasks / responsibilities were
expanded in operationalisation.
Yes, initially 55, currently 8 and 4 Social Impact Monitoring Officers
Community Resettlement Workers and Social Mobilisers
Yes, but not with a direct grievance redress mandate.
No
Women’s Support Officers (WSO) Yes, but not with a direct grievance redress mandate.
No
Community Consultative Groups (CCG) Yes, but not with a direct grievance redress mandate.
No
Public Coordination Review Meeting (PCRM) No
Yes - 1 committee
Supervision Consultants No, its role in relation to potential AP grievances is not recognised
in the RIP
Yes – currently 3 teams
Source: CEPA consolidation 155. Overall, the STDP experience highlights the difficulties of looking for an objective way to judge whether a particular GRM has been effective. The STDP experience suggests that there are two competing ways to judge whether a GRM has been effective – from the project perspective and from the APs perspective. Discussions with officials engaged in the GRM indicate that in implementation they have tried to strike a balance, by providing a sympathetic hearing to the AP but also by trying to find a solution that is “reasonable” from the project perspective.
34 Independent External Monitoring of the Resettlement Activities of the STDP, Household Survey Database., 2006/07
43
2. Strengths and areas for improvement
156. This section draws out the themes which the review identifies as key issues of the STDP GRM. Most issues display features of strengths as well as having areas for improvement. Building on this, the final chapter will summarise the key lessons, including recommendations where relevant. 157. Anticipating grievances and flexibility to absorb the unexpected: Foreseeing grievances enables steps to be taken to prevent them as well as put in place institutions to manage the grievances that do occur. In the light of the acknowledged weakness of the valuation system of the LAA, the STDP anticipated compensation related grievances, and instituted the LARC to specifically to address this weakness and thereby minimise the potential for compensation related grievances. 158. However, as the land acquisition process got underway, it became clear that the specified grievance redress institution for the STDP – the GRC - was insufficient to deal with the number and variety of grievances generated by project activities. It also become clear that despite the LARC being designed to reduce the potential for compensation related grievances, such grievances did occur. As the GRC was not mandated to consider compensation related grievances, an institution that handled the grievances arising from the LARC process had to be initiated. In response, the GRCs was restructured to be more localised and visible, and the Super LARC was developed as a higher level review for LARC disagreements. In addition, new institutions such as the PCRM were put in place to manage and monitor grievances relating to construction impacts, as the number and variety of complaints in this regard was severely under-estimated. 159. Overall, the RIP and the design of the STDP GRM underestimated the size and scope of grievances that a project in the nature of the STDP would generate. As the primary institution managing the resettlement, the Resettlement Units of the STDP Regional Offices were faced with an increasing workload relating to managing grievances. Correspondingly, the STDP head office also had to take on a greater than planned role in grievance management. 160. A clear strength, however, of the STDP GRM were the substantial revisions made to the planned mechanisms and the absorption of grievous management functions by project management cells which were initially not directly tasked with such functions. This flexibility and restructuring ensured continued relevance of the GRM through the project life. 161. Despite changes, however, there were some types of grievances which did not enter the STDP GRM. These have been considered beyond the threshold of a ‘reasonable grievance,’ that is not considered to be of sufficiently high intensity, or not considered a grievance because no solution is seen by the APs as possible. For example, grievances relating to provision of inaccurate information, impacts of decisions taken due to such information, ‘undignified treatment’ by officials, though frequently expressed by APs, rarely been made into formal complaints in the GRC. Grievances arising from the very structure of the compensation – eg. low base of compensation for paddy lands, payment of compensation by instalments – also have no space within the STDP GRM. A further category that often gets left out are communities who are not considered to be within the direct impact zone of the STDP, such as downstream farmers.
44
162. Embedding the Project GRM within the existing public administration context: The STDP GRM was closely linked to, and followed the procedures of, the public administration system, as many of the institutions (eg. GRC, LARC) were chaired by and contained as members, public officers such as the Divisional Secretary. This structure generated advantages for the affected persons such as increased access, higher level of trust in the system, and greater integration of solutions to the existing context. While some institutions such as the LARC and GRC were used for the first time in Sri Lanka, the fact that they were located in the office of the DS, a familiar environment that APs had often accessed before, reduced the novelty and encouraged their use. There is also a high level of confidence in the DS as the institution that will remain after the ‘project’ offices have been disbanded. Hence, APs frequently requested that solution/documents provided, for example by the private contractor, be ratified by the authority of the DS or other state sector institution such as the RDA. 163. From the point of view of the public administration, particularly the Divisional Secretaries, the STDP GRM had a number of shortcomings. From the official point of view lack of standardized solutions, deviations from the public administration norms of problem solving and grievance redress, eroded public confidence and the authority of the office. 164. Lack of standardisation of solutions arose from two sources. The ‘project’ orientation leads to special provisions that are not in line with the regulations and guidelines adhered to by the DS in normal circumstances. The DS is forced to justify to the residents why a variation exists in the solving of similar problems within the Divisional Secretariat. Secondly, particularly in the case of the GRC, the lack of guidelines on how solutions should be arrived at created variation between decisions given by across GRCs. The officers were unable to follow the accepted method of operation for State officers which is to refer to circulars and state instructions when dealing with public issues. Within these guidelines, individual officers can use their discretion.
“Availability of a structure would have been a good thing. As there are several stakeholders in the GRC committee, it would facilitate moving towards an acceptable solution. Guidelines will allow for the committee to solve problems creatively while retaining a basic standard. Otherwise the decisions given for a same issue might be different from DS to DS. Guideline should include the process of implementation of the solution agreed upon and feedback. At the District Secretary’s level the monthly coordinating meeting is where officials of government institutions in the area gather and discuss issues. But in this project, we have very limited power to solve problems. If there is a special circular, we can engage on them”.
- KPI with Divisional Secretary 165. While issues of ‘same problem, different solution’ existed when operationalising the LARC as well, the existence of structured allowances for particular loss categories, the need to get authorisation if the compensation for land and structures were 25% more than the LAA compensation, enabled a higher level of standardisation to which the public administrators could refer to. 166. When an institution is created to deal with project-specific grievances, there is a need for capacity building of officials serving in these institutions, such as, at a minimum, relating to the type of grievances that can be entertained by the institution and the bounds of any solution that can be provided by it. Further capacity building relating to good practice in grievance redressal for example in ensuring quality participation by APs, should also be considered by
45
project implementers. The STDP has begun this process in relation to the GRC but officials serving in other institutions, such as the LARC, would also have benefited from greater capacity building. 167. The very different design and experience of the GRC and the LARC also highlight the importance of authority, including resources allocations, to implement the solutions and feedback on status. For public administrators such as the DS, ‘project’ based deviations, inability to implement decisions taken under their leadership has adverse impacts when lack of confidence builds up among the public and other spheres of service and authority are also affected. For the public however, embedding the project institutions within the existing public administration has increased access, their trust in the process, and is their preferred context to provide solutions due the institutional sustainability and state authority. 168. Multiple institutions and entry points to the GRM: APs with grievances relating to the STDP accessed a range national and project specific institutions for hearing and redress. APs who went outside the STDP project specific GRM, accessed the legal system, the public administration system, such as the CEA, the DS office, the police and elected political representatives, community leaders and NGOs. With the exception of the legal system, by and large, these institutions acted as entry points to the STDP GRM rather than institutions to provide grievance redress. Figure 6 illustrates the varying methods that complaints enter the STDP project management. In the role of overall coordinator of STDP GRM, complaints are routed to the relevant institution for solving. 169. Despite challenges of coordination, project officials were of the opinion that multiple entry points which include conventional points as well as project specific points was a feature that needed to be maintained. However, there could have been wider, and more timely, awareness provided to APs regarding the different institutions available and the most suitable place to complaint to. This was particularly lacking at the pre-project stage when APs had grievances regarding trace and related land acquisition. It can be observed that over time, there was a natural move by APs to the more streamlined access points as they learnt the system better, and were thereby able to better target their complaints. 170. At the time of review (Dec 2008), the STDP GRM had evolved and comprised of a network of institutions, some with a direct grievance redress mandate, others that took up related tasks as an extension of their direct mandate. The portfolio of institutions include (i) those designed to address specific types of grievances for specific time periods, combined with (ii) institutions that exist through the life of the project and is open to all types of grievances. The portfolio structure has increased the effectiveness and efficiency of the STDP GRM. 171. The role of overall coordination: Grievances relating to STDP were managed through multiple entry points as well as multiple institutions (Figure 6). This called for strong overall coordination. While the overall responsibility was taken by the STDP project office, the main role of coordination was played by the Regional Offices. 172. However, insufficient overall coordination was a weakness in the STDP GRM. Though the STDP Project Office and Regional Offices act as the overall coordinator. But this role has been prescribed to them only in terms of specific institutions such as the LARC and the GRC. However, an overall method of co-ordination, and a prescribed flow for complaints through the system toward a solution and feedback to the complaint on status of solution is not within the design of the STDP GRM. These functions are carried out by the Regional Office due to the overall responsibility and field presence. At the central level too the STDP has taken a number
46
of steps to increase the efficiency of the GRM. Restructuring of the GRC, the setting up of the PCRM, progress meetings, small scale evaluations of the GRC, workshops for capacity building and problems solving, are some of the steps by the STDP central office in its role as the executing agency. Coordination of all complaints was also hampered by the lack well planned data base which can be adapted for the specific needs of the users. Figure 6: Entry into the management of grievance by the STDP project management
Source: visualised by STDP-RDA at Resource Persons Workshop held on March 2, 2009
Community leaders
STDP Head Office
STDP Regional Office
Contractor
Supervision Consultants
Public Administration (DS, GN)
Peoples’ representatives
CEA
Police
Donors
Ministry of Highways
Entry points STDP Project management
Movement of complaint
AP
STDP picks up at the necessary level
Public demonstration
Media
47
173. Monitoring and evaluation: Monitoring has mainly taken place at the level of individual institution within the GRM. Data has often been racked in hard copy registers, which are not easily standardised or shared. The focus on also mainly on documenting merely that a complaint was received, and that a meeting/hearing was held, without adequate documentation or monitoring of the process by which the solution was reached, the details of the solution and whether the solution was enforced. This is a reflection of weakness in the planning and design stage of the GRM monitoring. 174. In the case of LARC for example, a format for recording the decision was only introduced part way through the process and is not available for every AP/lot. The register of APs who accessed the Super LARC cannot be easily linked to the MIS or any other database of APs as it is does not contain any comparable data. There is very little systematic data on how resettlement site related grievances were processed and managed. The lack of monitoring of the enforcement of the GRC decisions and feedback to the complainant is a serious shortcoming in the GRC design as well as implementation. The lack of information regarding enforcement of GRC recommendations makes it extremely difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of the institution. 175. However, despite shortcomings in the M&E, there is evidence to show that the STDP GRM is capable of identifying weaknesses and introducing changes. For example, the restructuring of the GRC was carried out due to the low number of APs accessing the institution as originally designed. The LARC allowances and methods of deciding entitlements were changed to reflect recurring issues with APs. Other changes have also been introduced, notably in relation to managing construction related grievances, which was insufficiently designed at the start of the construction process and required many revisions, some of which are ongoing, to effectively manage the problems. V. LESSONS TO TAKE FORWARD AND RECOMMENDATIONS
176. The experience of STDP GRM provides some potential lessons for implementers of other large infrastructure projects. This review of the STDP GRM sought to identify main lessens learnt and where relevant corresponding recommendations. These have been verified with resource persons of the STDP and the public administration35 with the objective of these lessons forming the basis of a manual to be developed to assist project implementers to design and implement GRMs in future infrastructure projects Overall orientation: • There is a natural tendency in a GRM created by a project to be oriented in favour of the
project. The STDP experience indicates that when the orientation is too much in favour of the project, the solutions tend to be sub-optimal from the APs perspective, and sometimes eventually, for the project as well. The features of a good GRM suggested by implementers of the GRM provide sound guide lines to minimise this situation: “A solution needs to balance
o sympathetic hearing without being excessively biased towards APs o solution requested by the AP and a feasible/reasonable solution
35 See CEPA: Documentation of the Resource Persons Workshop dated March 20, 2009
48
o specifics with a standard36” • All GRM institutions should have authority to take decisions in line with their mandate
and should be backed by sufficient resources to implement the decision. • Key aspects that need to be addressed in order to ensure effectiveness of solutions
provided by the GRM are consistency, adequacy and timeliness. The STDP experience shows that APs are dissatisfied with an institution when other APs receive a different solution to the same problem, when the solution is not adequate (for example when construction related damages are only partially resolved until the end of the construction period), and delays in implementing an agreed solution.
• The existence of a Project GRM should not exclude or discourage access to the legal system, as this a fundamental right of all citizens.
Foreseeing and acknowledging grievances: • Before the commencement of any project, there is a need to foresee the types of
grievances the project is likely to generate. The STDP experience shows that different stages and processes of the project generate very different types and depths of grievances. Maximising prior identification is an essential first step in order to design an appropriate mechanism and minimise the creation of grievances.
• In the case of STDP, grievances relating to the early stages of land acquisition, ie trace related, were not effectively resolved and resulted in substantial delays and enormous costs to the project, while the APs were also left unhappy about the outcome. In future scenarios where pre-project grievances are possible / likely, there is a need to foresee such grievances and take adequate steps, for example through information and awareness creation, to mitigate the creation of such grievances. Despite post-project grievances not been experienced as yet by the STDP, discussions at the resource persons workshop indicated that there is a need to consider this category as well in the design of the GRM.
• Some grievances are routinely filtered out of the GRM because the solutions for these grievances are not within the world view of the GRM implementers. For example, low-compensation for paddy farmers, problems of farmers downstream from the STDP construction. In the case when an AP makes a complaint relating to such grievance, they tend to stagnate within the GRM without reaching any solution for a prolonged period of time – which is a disincentive for other aggrieved APs to seek redress though the project.
Embedding Project GRM in existing public administration: • The STDP GRM is largely based on using existing institutions, particularly the public
officers, which is a cost-efficient and AP-friendly approach. Importantly, it helps to give legitimacy to the project GRM, which in turn can increase its effectiveness. Project GRM institutions should be closely linked to, and follow the procedures of the public administration system. Project GRM should not contradict existing systems. Internal coherence should be maintained throughout.
• As capacities of the existing public administration is considerably stretched, secretarial, coordination support to the individual institutions should be provided by the project if the project objectives of a speedy and cost efficient GRM are to be met.
• Lack of sufficiently developed guidelines providing mandate and limits to authority, the principles on which decision making and procedures are based, links to other institutions and types of grievances, is a critical gap that needs to be avoided in future GRMs. These
36 See Box 3 in this review.
49
guidelines need to be complemented by capacity building of the members and officers of the GRM.
Multiple layers and multiple entry points • Any large project should ideally have multiple institutions in its GRM, which include both
institutions which are customised to a particular type of grievance and others which are open to all types of grievances. Where there is likely to be large number of grievances generated, for example in relation to compensation payments in the STDP, customised institutions such as the LARC/Super LARC should be designed. Over and above such customised institutions, there should be an overall, catch-all type of institution with a broad mandate, which is active from the start to the end of the project, to address unforeseen and/or specific grievances, such as the GRC in the case of STDP.
• Because APs are drawn from a spread, both geographically and also backgrounds in terms of education and income groups, in order to ensure accessibility, multiple entry points for complaints to enter the GRM is critical. Entry points should include ‘natural points’ consisting of persons/officials/institutions that people are used to accessing for problems and complaints. However, such multiple entry points need to be backed by a system of filtering the complaints to the right institution in a timely manner – which can only happen with adequate awareness among the relevant officials about the GRM and effective overall co-ordination.
• Multiple entry points and multiple institutions within a GRM create high degree of complexity which necessitates careful designing and coordinating. A gap in the STDP GRM is flowcharts showing institutional relationships as well as processes within a given institution which would have facilitated the management of the GRM.
M and E • In order to ensure effectiveness and continued relevance of the GRM, the institutions need
to have adequate communication and feedback systems in place. The first step is an acknowledgement, to the AP and the forwarding institution, that a complaint was received.
• As important is the need to provide formal feedback, again both to the AP and the forwarding institution, about the solution agreed and the status of implementing that solution. The lack of such feedback can generate additional grievances while also undermining the validity and acceptance of the GRM.
• The role of inaccurate information in grievance creation needs to be well understood by project implementers. Lack of information and inaccurate information was a primary trigger of the trace related grievances. This source continued during the resettlement process particularly in the case of resettlement sites. The APs have a right to relevant and accurate information to enable decision making. The implementers need to provide the necessary information and any changes have to be communicated in a timely manner.
50
REFERENCES
Asian Development Bank, 2005, Final Report of the Special Project Facilitator on STDP, ADB
Asian Development Bank,1999. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors on a Proposed Loan to the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka for the Southern Transport Development project. Asian Development Bank.
Augustinus, Rumansara and Suresh, Nanwani., 2006. Accountability Mechanisms of Multilateral Development Banks and Fixing Problem Projects [online]. Japan: University of Tokyo. Available from http://park.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/cois/event/Outreach-TokyoUniversity-19Oct06.pdf
Bank Information Center , 2006. A Fact-finding Report on Status of Resettlement Implementation Plan.
Centre for Poverty Analysis, 2007. End of Phase 3: Final Report. Independent External Monitoring of Resettlement Activities of the Southern Transport Development Project. Colombo: Centre for Poverty Analysis.
Chakra Network – Sri Lanka, 2007. Review of Institutional Aspects in Land Acquisition and Resettlement Activities of the Southern Transport Development Project, Background paper prepared for CEPA.
Government of India, Policy Guidelines on Grievance Redress Mechanism. Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances, http://pgportal.gov.in/policy.html
Government of Sri Lanka, 2001, National Involuntary Resettlement Policy
Government of Sri Lanka, Ministry of Justice and Law Reforms, Alternative Dispute Resolution, www.justiceministry.gov.lk
Hasan, I et al., 2008. Earthquake and Tsunami Emergency Support project (ETESP) Grievance Mechanism. Asian Development Bank.
Law and Society Trust, 2005, Housing Rights and Forced Evictions, LST Review, Volume 15, Issue 213, July 2005
Mahendran, Lavanya, 2005, Conflicting priorities and hard decisions – Evaluating the reasoning of Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court in the Mundy case, in LST Review, Volume 15, Issue 213. Ministry of Highways, 2005. Mahajana Gatalu Visadeema Kamitu Prathisanvidhanaya (Restructuring the GRCs), circular reference no: RDA/LARC/STDP/AP/GRC/33, issued by the Secretary to Ministry of Highways, 2005. NGO Forum on ADB and Center for Environmental Justice, 2006, A Fact-finding Report by Bank Information Center. Office of the Special Project Facilitator, 2005. Consultation Phase of the ADB Accountability Mechanism: Listening to Communities Affected by ADB-Assisted Projects, Annual Report 2005 http://www.adb.org/Documents/Others/IN36-06.pdf
51
Pathiragoda, D., 2007. The Wrath of Gods: Monitoring report of the ADB and JBIC funded Southern Transport Development project, SRI LANKA. Colombo: Center for Environmental Justice.
Report of the Conflict Management Consultant, Complaints relating to the Southern Transport Development Project brought by the Joint Organisation of the Affected Communities on Colombo-Matara Highway, 2005, http://www.adb.org/SPF/Documents/conflict-management-report.pdf
The Office of the Compliance Advisor/Ombudsman, 2008. A Guide to Designing and Implementing Grievance Mechanisms for Development Projects. Washington. The World Bank Group.
Weerathunga, N., 2008. Complaints Handling Activities in Sri Lanka: Assessment of the Local Context, Conflict Management Training and Orientation Sessions on the ADB Accountability Mechanism.
52
ANNEXES
53
Annex 1: TOR
54
55
56
Annex 2: Data Sources
Primary Documents
Complaints from APs received by CEPA during the period of Independent External Monitoring
Environmental Management Plan for Southern Transport Development Project, dated May 2007.
GRC files, STDP Regional Office, Galle
Lists of Public Complaints – STDP prepared by Kumagai Gumi Co. Ltd.
Minutes of Public Complaints Resolving and Monitoring Meeting of Package 1 of the JBIC section, dated 31.07.2008
Progress Reports of Grievance Redress Committees, prepared by Consultant GRC and Deputy Director (Environment and Social) - STDP
Report of Grievance Redress Committee prepared by Environment and Social Division of STDP, undated
Road Development Authority, 2002. Resettlement Implementation Plan Southern Transport Development Project. Sri Lanka. Road development Authority.
Road Development Authority, 2005. Environmental Management Plan for Southern Transport Development Project. FINNROAD.
Road Development Authority, 2007. Environmental Management Plan for Southern Transport Development Project. FINNROAD.
Summary of Action of Settlement, Summary of Public Complaints and Summery of Complaints Received prepared by Supervision Consultants
Circulars and Acts
Government of Sri Lanka Land Acquisition Act (LAA) No 60 of 1961 and subsequent amendments
Role of the Secretary of Grievance Redress Committees prepared by Secretary, Ministry of Highways and Road Development, dated 29.08.2005
Restructuring of Grievance Redress Committees prepared by Secretary, Ministry of Highways and Road Development, dated 25.08.2005
Strengthening Public Complaint Resolving Monitoring System (PCRM) prepared by Project Director of STDP, dated 17.10.2007
Road Development Authority, October 2002. Resettlement Implementation Plan (RIP)
Cabinet Paper on Super LARC, April 2003
57
Ministry of Lands, June 2003. National Involuntary Resettlement Policy (NIRP)
Key Person Interviews and small group discussions
Agrarian officers and field officers, Agrarian Services Centre, Elpitiya
Agricultural Research and Production Assistants, Agrarian Services Centre, Pilana
Civil Engineer, Supervision Consultant in ADB Section
Deputy Director (Environmental & Social) – STDP
Divisional Secretary & President to the GRC - Karandeniya Divisional Secretariat
Environmental Specialist, Supervision Consultant in ADB Section
Former Consultant, Grievance Redress Committee
Past President, Gama Surakeeme Sanvidanaya - Galanigama
Project Director – STDP
Resettlement Officer - Kurundugahahathekma Resettlement Division
SIMO & Secretary to the GRC - Kurundugahahathekma Resettlement Division
Walawatta Welfare Society - Walawatta, Narawala
CEPA, “Validation of Review Findings and Guide Development Workshop: Documentation of Workshop” dated 20TH March 2009 A Review of the Southern Transport Development Project (STDP) Grievance Redress Mechanisms, held at, Taj Samudra Hotel, Colombo on 2nd March 2009
Telephone Interviews
President, Joint Organisation of the Affected Communities on Colombo-Matara Highway (JOACMH)
Treasurer, Joint Organisation of the Affected Communities on Colombo-Matara Highway (JOACMH)
Treasurer, Affected Property Owners’ Committee
Household interviews Compensation issues including court cases, 6 households
Construction issues, 4 households
58
From IEM of Resettlement Activities under Southern Transport Development Project
Centre for Poverty Analysis, 2007. End of Phase 3: Final Report. Independent External Monitoring of Resettlement Activities of the Southern Transport Development Project. Colombo: Centre for Poverty Analysis.
Centre for Poverty Analysis, 2008. (Draft) Final Report. Independent External Monitoring of Resettlement Activities of the Southern Transport Development Project. Colombo: Centre for Poverty Analysis.
Centre for Poverty Analysis, 2008.Case Study Series - Experiences from the Southern Transport Development Project. Independent External Monitoring of Resettlement Activities of the Southern Transport Development Project. Colombo: Centre for Poverty Analysis.
Data base of 522 households and 32 resettlement sites, 2006/2007
Data base relating to construction related impacts, gender and vulnerability, replacing common facilities and resources, delays in compensation payment. 2006 – 2008.
Relevant KPIs:
Director of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Division in Central Environmental Authority (CEA)
Director, Central Environmental Authority - Galle Region
Government Valuer and member of LARC, Southern Regional Office, Matara
59
Annex 3: Review Questions
Individual Institutions within the STDP GRM The review questions relating to individual institutions within the STDP GRM are set out below: Relevance: • What is the rationale for setting up the institution under the STDP/ in the resettlement plan? • Were the objectives stated, clear? • Was the institution appropriate (composition, legitimacy, resources) in relation to it
objective? Is the institution legitimate, does it have the mandate and authority to arrive at enforceable decisions?
Effectiveness: The extent to which the institutions are implemented in a way that meets their objectives and the design will be reviewed broken down by the stages of the process. Initiation (triggering the complaint process) stage: The process from grievance creation to the AP’s decision to access a formal redress mechanism/institution. Issues to consider are: • What types of grievances are entertained? • Can the complaints be made, process initiated, as the problem occurs? • Is the mandate/role, access points, eligibility criteria (ie. who can complain) of the institution
well publicized, clear/understandable? • Is the target group aware of the availability of this institution? • What are the admission criteria, who can complain? Action stage: the hearing, investigation, negotiating a resolution takes place during this stage. Issues to consider are: • Does accessibility in terms of time, place, atmosphere and cost, take into account different
AP groups such as income, gender, age, knowledge base? • Are grievances processed and are the solutions provided in a timely manner? • Was the solution/decision arrived at via consensus among the different institutional
representatives, different view points / stakeholders, knowledge groups? • What role do the problem solving methods play? Are people aware of the fact that different
methods exist? • Is there a monitoring / tracking / documentation of status of complaints?
Outcome: The final resolution should bring the process to an end. If the outcome is not acceptable to the AP, the AP could move to a higher level in the STDP mechanism or to another mechanism within the portfolio of GRMs. The outcomes are considered in terms of: • Were the decisions enforced? Directly or via another institution? Were there problems?
Why? • Is the solution fair, equitable? • Are similar solutions being provided for similar problems? Are solutions based on a
standard? What is the principle behind the standard? Who/what puts such standards in place and what gives them legitimacy?
• Is it accepted by the AP • Are the solutions responsive/proportionate to the magnitude of the grievance? • Is the process and outcomes, implementation/enforcement of decisions documented? Are
there registry systems in place? Are the documents accessible to APs?
60
Efficiency: The optimal use of available resources to meet the desired outcome will be considered in terms of: • Cost efficient for AP: is the cost preventing them entering or staying in the process? Is the
cost proportionate to the benefit? • Cost efficient for the implementing institution: is it comparative to costs/budgets for similar
tasks? is the cost preventing the process from taking place as planned? • Time efficient: is the time taken in line with the grievance and ultimate resolution? What is
the cost of AP and officer time when linked to activities forgone? • Is the effort needed in working through the multiple stages of the process preventing APs
from entering or staying in the process?
STDP GRM The review questions relating to the STDP specific grievance redress mechanism are set out below.
Relevance: What is the rationale for setting up a GRM under the resettlement plan? Is the STDP mechanism appropriate to the grievances generated by STDP? Is the portfolio as a whole capable of providing redress for all grievances triggered by STDP? How relevant was the STDP mechanism, or were other mechanisms accessible to AP equally or more relevant?
Effectiveness: Did the STDP GRM achieve its objectives? What did it achieve? What other mechanisms in the portfolio did APs use and why? Does this depend on questions of accessibility, types of grievances, methods of resolution?
Multiple levels in process: Do APs have the space and opportunity to appeal to a higher level or different institution if they are dissatisfied with a solution provided? To what extent can APs move across different institutions within the GRM?
Overall coordination: Is there coherence to the GRM as a whole? Are there central providers of information to the APs as well as to project implementers regarding the usage of different institutions?
Monitoring and evaluation: Is there M&E systems in place to ensure continued relevance and effectiveness of the GRM?