taj: carec regional road corridor improvement project · 2014-09-29 · republic of tajikistan:...

Updated Short Resettlement Plan September 2010

TAJ: CAREC Regional Road Corridor Improvement Project Prepared by Cardno ACIL Pty Ltd, Australia for the Ministry of Transport and the Asian Development Bank.

Republic of Tajikistan: CAREC Regional Road Corridor Improvement Project

USRP-3

ADB Loan No. 2359-TAJ CAREC Regional Road Corridor

Improvement Project

Updated Short

Resettlement Plan - 3

September 2010

Prepared by Cardno Emerging Markets (Australia) Pty Ltd 14 Ayni Street, Room 310 Dushanbe 734042 Tajikistan

For Ministry of Transport and Communication

Republic of Tajikistan


USRP-3

Contents

Abbreviations

A. Background 1

B. Updated SRP 2

C. Second Updating 4

D. Final Updating 4 Information Disclosure and Consultation 19

E. Implementation Plan 20

F Monitoring and Evaluation 21 1. Monitoring Objectives 21 2. Independent Monitoring 21

Tables Table 1: Resettlement Entitlement Matrix 5 Table 2: Summary of Resettlement Requirements 6 Table 3: Costs Estimate for Compensation of Affected Households 7 Table 4: Comparison of ADB Policy with Tajikistan Land Code 9 Table 5: Cost Estimations 10 Table 6: Implementation Schedule 11 Table 7: Updated AP Compensation Matrix for Package 1: Sayron to Karamik 12 Table 8 AP Compensation Payment List with Hukumat Chairman’s Letter:Package-1 16

Annexures Annex-1: Request Letter sent by Chairman, Jirgital District (Package-1) 26 Annex-1A: Compensation Payment List attached to Chairman’s letter (Package-1) 27 Annex-2: Payment List Prepared and Certified by MBTI for Package-1 29 Annex-3: List of the Resettlement Rates Used by MBTI 33 Annex-4: Revised Resettlement List (Translation) Package 2 34 Annex-5: Revised Resettlement List Package-2 36 Annex-6: Questionnaire used in Independent Monitoring 38


USRP-3

Currency Equivalents (as of 14 September 2010)

Currency Unit – Somoni (TJS) US$ 100=TJS 438

Abbreviations

ADB Asian Development Bank AP Affected Person CSC Construction Supervision Consultant Hukumat Local Government for Rayon MBTI Inter District Technical Inventory Bureau MOTC Ministry of Transport and Communication PIU Project Implementation Unit ROW Right-of-way Rayon Local level administration unit SRP Short Resettlement Plan USD United Stated Dollars

USRP-2 Updated Short Resettlement Plan - 2 USRP-3 Updated Short Resettlement Plan - 3


URSP-3 1

A. Background

1. The CAREC Regional Road Corridor Improvement Project includes the rehabilitation of the 114 km road section of the national road to Kyrgyz border. The development of 25 km road section from Nimich to Sayron, and the 89 km section from Sayron to Karamik (herein after referred to as the Project) comprise the project area. The Project aims to foster regional and international cooperation and sustainable economic growth in Tajikistan by increasing the efficiency and safety of transport between Dushanbe and Rasht valley in the north-east road corridor linking the capital Dushanbe to the Kyrgyz border

2. The objectives of the Project are to (i) reduce poverty and promote sustainable economic growth in the area, and (ii) improve regional trade and cooperation. These objectives will be achieved (i) in the short-term by construction related activity, and (ii) in the long-term by the improvement of transport efficiency through reduction of transport costs to road users and improved access to markets and social services in the area.

3. The Project will rehabilitate the Dushanbe-Kyrgyz border road from Nimich through Jirgatal to border post at Karamik. The construction of the road has been awarded as two contracts, the first being the rehabilitation of the 25 km road sector between Nimich and Sayron (Package 2) and the second the 89 km road sector from Sayron to Karamik (Package 1) in a corridor varying in width between 3 to 8 m to a maximum width of 13 m in urban areas

4. The Executing Agency for this project is the Ministry of Transport and Communication (MOTC). The Project Implementation Unit (PIU) established under the Ministry will function as the implementing agency while the Construction Supervision Consultant (CSC) will perform the duties of the Engineer on behalf of the PIU.

5. The Loan Agreement for the Project was signed by the MOTC and ADB on 03rd November 2007. Accordingly, the MOTC allocated specific funds for ‘Land Acquisition and Resettlement’

6. The road rehabilitation works of the Project will have only limited resettlement impacts. Accordingly, a Short Resettlement Plan (SRP) for the Project was prepared in June 2007 under TA 4784-TAJ, based on preliminary design information, general findings of survey data, field visits, secondary socio-economic data and consultation with local people and authorities. Relevant details of this SRP are summarized below:

i. All construction activities will take place on the existing established right-of-way (ROW).

ii. 7 households were identified in a short section of the alignment (within Tajikabad Rayon) that may be seriously affected, out of a total of 27 households that would be affected in some way by widening of the road reserve to accommodate drainage and pedestrian requirements.

iii. Paragraph 16 confirms that the SRP is based on preliminary design information which will have to be updated before the signing of contract awards, and that if anything the detailed design will more likely lead to a reduction of resettlement impacts.

iv. ‘Policy Framework and Entitlements’, ‘Institutional Arrangements’, ‘Consultation and Grievance Redress’, ‘Monitoring Arrangements’ and


URSP-3 2

‘Financial and Implementation Schedule’ are detailed in the report, and are not repeated in this updated report.

7. As part of the SRP process, and in addition to stakeholder meetings and consultations, a pamphlet in Tajik summarizing compensation eligibility and entitlement provisions has been distributed to all affected households.

8. The construction work of Package 2: the 25 km section from Nimich to Sayron, has been completed and all compensation payments for the affected persons (APs) in this section have also been completed. Independent Monitoring on compensation payments for Package 2 APs was conducted by the Construction Supervision Consultants (CSC) and a summary report is included as Section E of this updated SRP.

9. The project section under consideration, Package 1: Sayron to Karamik (248 -337 km), (Figure-1) is a conventional civil works contract based on prepared design drawings and a Bill of Quantities (BOQ).

10. Tenders for Package 1 construction were received on 2nd May 2008. The lowest conforming bid price received for Package 1 was USD 44,500,172.48. Following the two part Technical Qualification Assessment and Financial Evaluation process, ADB approval to negotiate with China Railway (WUJU) Corporation (CRWC) for Package 1 was received on 06th August 2008. Negotiations to reduce the bid value to within available loan provisions included joint inspection of Site by MOTC and CRWC. After negotiations to reduce the scope of work and bid price to USD 29,691,372.66, a recommendation to award this contract to CRBC was submitted to the ADB on 15th August 2008.

11. Package 1 site inspections during the tender negotiation process indicated that the final road alignment could be accommodated within the existing right-of-way (ROW) without significant resettlement impacts, and reduced costs.

12. Earth work of Package-1 has been mostly completed and the List of APs entitled to compensation payments (Resettlement List) has been finalized. The Resettlement List for the section has been forwarded by the PIU to the Ministry of Finance for effecting the payments.

B. Updated SRP

13. An Updated Short Resettlement Plan (August 2008) was prepared in August, 2008 fulfilling the requirement in paragraph 69 of the RRP.


URSP-3 3

Figure 1: Road Section Map


URSP-3 4

C. Second Updating

14. As a requirement of the first Updated SRP (August 2008) the short resettlement plan was again updated in August, 2009 to include all the APs identified and confirmed, subsequent to finalization of the ROW of Package 2, and current costs. At this time the road design for Package 1 was not completed and therefore the list of APs could not be finalized.

15. Package 2 of the CAREC Regional Road Corridor Improvement Project comprised the rehabilitation of a 25 km section of the national road from Nimich to Sayron in which the civil works included widening of the existing road alignment, reconstruction of road pavement and drainage structures, rehabilitation and replacement of bridges, and installation of road safety devices and traffic signs.

16. This Second Updated Short Resettlement Plan (USRP-2:Aug 2009)), was prepared to accommodate the changes in the resettlement list and thereby the APs and compensation costs, which have been brought about by the alterations to the road designs in Package 2. The design alterations had been made with due consideration to reduce land take as much as possible. USRP-2 was prepared using the final designs, verification of affected properties and APs through participatory surveys, and consultation of local people and local authorities. The main focus of USRP-2 was on Package 2 as the updating and verification of APs and affected properties in Package 1 was in progress.

D. Final Updating

17. The design for the Package 1 having being completed in December 2009 the preparation of the Resettlement List for compensation payments was finalized in July 2010. The finalized list included 26 house owners. This final updating of the short resettlement plan has been carried out to include all the APs identified and confirmed by the finalized Resettlement List for Package 1, as required by the first Updated SRP (August 2008).

18. In this updated short resettlement plan (USRP-3) the following relevant tables from the Updated SRP of August 2008 is included for reference and comparison.

i. Table 1 : Resettlement Entitlement Matrix

ii. Table 2 : Summary of Resettlement Requirements

iii. Table 3 : Cost Estimate for Compensation of Affected Households

iv. Table 4 : Comparison of ADB Policy with Tajikistan Land Code

v. Table 5 : Cost Estimations

vi. Table 6 : Implementation Schedule

Tables 3 and 5 were recommended to be progressively updated as implementation of the project progresses. And now, as the design for the full road section of Package 1 has been finalized these tables have been updated and are presented as AP Compensation Matrix (Table 7) and AP Compensation Payment List (Table 8).


URSP-3 5

Table 1: Resettlement Entitlement Matrix

Loss Type Application AF AF No. Entitlement Implementation Issues

Land Use Loss of

building

premises

partly

encroaching

in ROW

Building

owner

27 HH Under Tajik Law, there is

no cash compensation

provided. Entitlement for

rehabilitation is based on

provision of an equivalent

new plot of land.

Based on AP consultation, 7 seriously

affected HH were offered alternate land

plots as compensation for area of land lost,

on the basis that the existing land would be

given over in its entirety. Only 1 affected

HH wanted to be relocated and requested

a replacement plot. An alternate plot

acceptable to the resettling HH has been

allocated. All 6 other affected HH elected

to remain on their existing, but reduced

plots adjacent to the ROW, and waived

rights of entitlement for allocation of a new

plot.

Houses Within and

next to ROW

Owner 7 HHs Full cash compensation at

replacement cost free of

depreciation, transaction

costs/taxes and salvaged

materials(285

Somoni/sqm.) Payment

was agreed on the basis of

compensation for the total

area of the building, not

just the area affected.

PIU within MOTC will assign one officer in

charge of resettlement and will be directly

responsible to co-ordinate the planning,

implementation, financing and reporting of

resettlement for the project. The Tajikabad

Rayon and its 3 Jomoat governments will

take the primary responsibility for the

resettlement consultation, implementation

and timely delivery of entitlements.

Structures

(sheds or part

thereof)

Within and

next to ROW

Owner 24 HHS Full cash compensation at

replacement cost fee of

depreciation, transaction

costs/taxes and salvaged

materials (100

Somoni/sqm.) Payment

agreed on the same basis

as housing.

Tree losses

(poplar or

willow trees)

Within and

next to ROW

Owner 6 HHs Full cash compensation

based on wood value

(50 Somoni/tree)

Transitional

living/transport

allowance

Relocating Owner 7 HHs

(all 7

HHs

will be

entitled)

500 Somoni/HH

Vulnerable

HH support

1 female-

headed HH

losing a

house

Owner 1 HH 500 Somoni/HH

Note: (i) Compensation rates are the replacement values which were confirmed based on consultation with APs, but they will be finalized at DMS stage by a special agency according to the Land Code.(ii) Other impacts so far unidentified may occur during implementation. This entitlement matrix and description of compensation entitlements will be revised and updated accordingly.


URSP-3 6

Table 2: Summary of Resettlement Requirements

Village Karasagir Kapali &

Kaldarien

Mazarishing Mullokenja Navobod Kichikizi Total

Section length (m) 1,100 1,600 2,100 1,000 1,000 400

ROW Existing Existing Existing Existing Existing Existing

Engineering work Widening Widening Widening Widening Widening Widening

Affected HHs 1 11 7 4 2 2 27

Affected persons 6 94 78 25 13 12 228

Residential house

(m2/HHs)

50/1 245/3 400/2 144/1 0 0 839/7

Simple structured sheds

(m2/HHs)

0 358/9 272/7 179/4 90/2 105/2 1004/24

Poplars and willow

(trees/HHs) 10/1 22/2 12/1 18/2 62/6

Source: design institute and census survey of affected households, 2007.


URSP-3 7

Table 3: Costs Estimate for Compensation of Affected Households

HH Name of Owner Location/ Village Area of Land Plot Floor Areas of House

Make of

Rate

Amount TJS

sq.m. sq.m. House/ Shed

TJS/sq.m.

Total Total Affected (based on total house)

Shed Area

Total House Area

Affected Area

(Type)

A B C

1 Tuichiev Mahmadjon Karasagir 1500 50 0 50 45 B 285 100 14250

2 Boimotov Jumabek Kapali 1300 10 10 C 100 1000

3 Hasanov Muhabbatshoh

Kapali 1000 90 90 C 100 9000

4 Safarov Mizrob Kapali 1300 105 0 105 50 B 285 29925

5 Vahobov Ilyos Kapali 2000 90 0 90 50 B 285 25650

6 Mahmadov Sulton Kapali 1500 15 15 C 100 1500

7 Sharipov Nurullo Kapali 1200 65 65 C 100 6500

8 Zaripov Shokir Kapali 1500 45 45 C 100 4500

9 Ismoilov Mahmadruzi Kapali 1500 15 15 C 100 1500

10 Tavakkalov Khasval Kapali 2000 6 6 C 100 600

11 Saburova Sumbul Kapali 2000 32 32 C 100 3200

12 Rajabov Mumin Kaldarien 1200 130 80 50 32 B,C 285 100 17450

13 Junaidov Hikmat Mazori-Shing 800 358 38 320 80 B,C 285 100 95000


URSP-3 8

14 Korsakov Majoizkhon Mazori-Shing 1200 120 40 80 80 B,C 285 100 26800

15 Abdurakhmonova Fotima

Mazori-Shing 1200 15 15 C 100 1500

16 Mahmadov Faiziddin Mazori-Shing 1200 15 15 C 100 1500

17 Rajabov Suhrob Mazori-Shing 1800 80 80 C 100 8000

18 Sharipov Zarif Mazori-Shing 1200 20 20 C 100 2000

19 Salomov Jamshed Mazori-Shing 1000 64 64 C 100 6400

20 Hasharov Ainiddin* Mulokenja 1000 194 50 144 112 B,C 285 100 46040

21 Saidkhojaev Dovudkhon

Mulokenja 1200 35 35 C 100 3500

22 Homidov Yusuf Mulokenja 1500 70 70 C 100 7000

23 Sharipov Sharof Mulokenja 1400 24 24 C 100 2400

24 Ismoilov Saivali Navobod 1500 20 20 C 100 2000

25 Shukhieva Amrbi Navobod 1500 70 70 C 100 7000

26 Mansurov Ilyos Kichikyzy 1200 65 65 C 100 6500

27 Sharipov Jalol Kichikyzy 1200 40 40 C 100 4000

TOTAL: 1843 1004 839 449 334,715

Type A = Brick; Type B = Mud, C = Shed

Notes: * indicates that a new plot is to be allocated to Hasarov Ainiddin


Page 9 URSP-3

Table 4: Comparison of ADB Policy with Tajikistan Land Code

ADB Policy Requirements

Tajikistan Land Code (LC) Provisions

Reconciliation Provisions

The APs are to be informed and consulted on resettlement/ compensation options.

The LC does not provide for consultation In this project APs were consulted on options. The SRP will be disclosed to them.

If displacement of population is unavoidable, it should be minimized by exploring all viable options.

The LC discourages acquisition of agricultural land when more marginal land is available, at infrastructure planning stage.

The project only rehabilitates existing ROW with minor widening around Tajikabad.

Compensation/rehabilitation costs are to be fully included in project budgets.

The provision of the local law is silent on cost of social preparation and livelihood programs

The RP will detail all costs related to the compensation/rehabilitation program.

Lack of formal legal title to the land by some affected groups should not be a bar to compensation or rehabilitation.

The LA has no similar provision. The AF so affected will receive assistance with provision of building materials in lieu of land-use loss rehabilitation allowance.

Beside compensation at replacement cost for land, houses, crops, trees and businesses, ADB policy provides for rehabilitation provisions for severely affected and vulnerable APs and transport/transition livelihood costs.

The LC provides for compensation on the basis of equivalent land plot allocation for land, and compensation at replacement cost for structures, crops, trees and for business income but does not cover the rehabilitation of severely affected AFs and vulnerable people nor provides for transport/transition costs.

Special assistances for the 7 seriously affected HHs are included in the SRP. Alternate land plots have been offered to the 7 seriously affected HH’s, bit only 1 HH has requested such an allocation for relocation purposes.


Page 10 URSP-3

Table 5: Cost Estimations*

Item Unit Quantity

Requirements Demolishing of Residential houses sq. meter 839

Demolishing of simple structured sheds sq. meter 1004

Cutting of poplar and willow trees tree 62

Transitional and transport subsidy to seriously affected HHs

whose residential houses will be affected.(whilst only 1 hh

to be relocated, allowance has been made for 3 additional

HH’s to recive this allowance if repairs require temporary

relocation)

HH 4

Special support to a seriously affected and female-headed

HH

HH 1

Budget 1. Basic Cost

1.1. Compensation for structures and trees

Residential houses/shop (285 Somoni/㎡) Somoni 239,315

Sheds (100 Somoni/㎡) Somoni 95,400

Poplar and willow trees (50 Somoni/tree) Somoni 3,100

1.2 Income rehabilitation and subsides

For transitional living and disturbance (500/HH) Somoni 3,500

For vulnerable HH (500 Somoni/HH) Somoni 500

1.3 Provisions for living infrastructures and for planting

seedling

Living infrastructures Somoni 10,000

Seedlings Somoni 80

Sub-total (basic cost) Somoni 351,895

2. Management, M&E and contingency

Management (10% of basic cost) Somoni 35,190

M&E (5% of basic cost)) Somoni 17,595

Contingency (10% of basic cost) Somoni 35,190

Sub-total Somoni 87,975

Total cost Somoni 439,987

Total cost US$ 127,870

*: To be decided upon final design.


Page 11 URSP-3

Table 6: Implementation Schedule

Milestone events Timing Responsibility Note

Preparation of SRP Part of Project Design Consultant

Project Approval Prior to Loan Approval MOTC/ADB

Consultation of local authority,

community and households

Field work stage for DMS

and project design

Design institute

PIU, Local authority

Finalize compensation

rates and procedures

determined

Updating of the resettlement

plan based on available

design and submit to ADB for

approval

Prior to award of contracts PIU

Approval of contract awards After updated RP has been

approved ADB

Approval of contract

awards

Official notice to affected

community and HHs

2 months before project

construction work

PIU and Local Land

Committee

Written notice, including

compensation procedures

and rates, and grievance

redress process

Visit of affected HHs for

feedback

Within 0.5 month after

official notice PIU

Through Rayon and

Jomoat

Agreement with affected HHs 0.5 month after official

notice

PIU and affected

HHs

With assistance from

Rayon and Jamoat

authority

Payment of compensation and

structure removal before civil

works

1 month after agreement

and completion within 0.5

month

PIU and affected

HHs


Rayon and Jamoat

authority

Handing over of fully prepared

plots under land x land

compensation arrangements.

As soon as possible after

official note Hukumat

As requested by

individual HH’s

Payment of compensation for

house repair

As soon as possible after

official note

PIU and individual

HHs

Rebuilding or repairing

structures on the original plots Before civil works Affected HHs


Rayon and Jamoat

authority

Resettlement in new

locations-optional Before civil works

Affected HHs and

local government

Complaint and Grievances As required (continuous)

Payment of compensation for

house repair

Immediately after

construction

PIU and individual

HHs

Impact monitoring As the above occurs Independent agency

appointed by PIU

Covered by the overall

social and poverty impact

monitoring

Full completion of the

compensation rehabilitation

program

MOTC/PIU/Hukumat

Approval of contractors

mobilization in the field and

hand over of ROW

PIU/Consultant Progressive handover of

the site


Page 12 URSP-3

Table 7: Updated AP Compensation Matrix for Package 1: Sayron to Karamik

“Approved”

By Jirgital Local Authority Chairman A. Abdurahmonov

12 07.2010

List of Households from Pildoni Yarash Village Affected by Resettlement

No Name Household Location Property to be removed Dimension Unit rate (somoni)

Total amount (somoni)

Pildon Jamoat

1. Mihtoj Kholov Yarash village Cowshed 3,0 x 16,0=48m2 239,1 11477 2. Hondala Faizidinov Yarash village Clay fence 70,0 x 2,0 x 0,35 = 49,0 m3 114,0 5586 3. Bahridin Mirzoev Pildoni Miyena village Clay fence 75,0 x 1,8 x 0,35 = 47,3 m3 114,0 5387 4. Dodarbek Aminov Pildoni Bolo village Clay fence 30,0 x 1,8 x 0,35 = 18,9 m3 114,0 2155 5. K. Odinaev Pildon village Clay fence (cemetery) 80,0x 1,8 x 0,35 = 50,4 m3 114,0 5746 6. Hanon Mahmajonov Pildoni Chingak village Fence 50,0 x 1,8 x 0,35 = 31,5 m3 114,0 3591 TOTAL 33942

MBTI Head R. Jenaliev Construction Dept. Head A. Sainazarov Head of MNDRA D. Safarov District Chief Architect M. Jaborov PIU M. Mirzoev


Page 13 URSP-3

Table 7 contd….

“Approved” By Jirgital Local Authority Chairman

B. Abdurahmonov 112 07.2010

List of Households from Zankon Village Affected by Resettlement


Total amount

(somoni)

Jirgitol Jamoat

1. M. Sadirov Zankon village Shed 11,0 x 7,0 x 77,0 m2 81,0 x 2,0 x 0,35 = 56,7 m3

239,0 114,0

18411 6464

2. K. Toirov Zankon village Clay fence 5,10 x 4,0 = 20,4 m2 239,1 4877 3. T. Uzbekov Zankon village Clay fence 3,0 x 6,2 = 18,6 m2 239,1 4447 4. Davlati Hasan Zankon village Clay fence 58,0 x 2,0 x 0,35 = 40,6 m3 114,0 4628 5. M. Kosimov Zankon village Clay fence 45,0 x 2,0 x 0,35 = 31,5 m3 114,0 3591 6. M. Ashurov Zankon village Clay fence 61,2 x 2,0 x 0,35 = 42,8 m3 114,0 4884 7. K. Ziyevidinov Zankon village Clay fence 23,0 x 2,0 x 0,35 = 16,1 m3 114,0 1835 8. I. Soloev Zankon village Clay fence 58,0 x 2,0 x 0,35 = 40,6 m3 114,0 4828 9. Husein Davlatov Zankon village Clay fence 45,1 x 2,0 x 0,35 = 31,6 m3 114,0 3605 TOTAL 57370



Page 14 URSP-3

Table 7 contd….

“Approved”

By Jirgital Local Authority Chairman C. Abdurahmonov

112 07.2010

List of Households from Kushagba Village Affected by Resettlement

No Name Household Location Property to be removed Dimension M2

Unit rate (somoni) Total amount

(somoni)

Surhob Jamoat

1. F. Zainidinov Kushagba village Clay fence 23,0 x 1,8 x 0,35 = 14,49 114,0 1651 2. R. Kululova Kushagba village Clay fence 9,0 x 1,8 x 0,35 = 5,67 114,0 646 TOTAL 2097



Page 15 URSP-3

Table 7 contd….

“Approved” By Jirgital Local Authority Chairman

D. Abdurahmonov 112 07.2010

List of Households from Dombrachi Affected by Resettlement


Total amount (somoni)

Kashot Jamoat

1. Loik Hudoinazarov Domrachi village Shed 18,5 x 8,0 = 148,0 m2 114,0 16872 2. Ayez Zulpukaarov Domrachi village Cowshed 10,0 x 3,0 = 30m2 239,1 7173 3. Zoir Zulpukaarov Domrachi village Shelter 40,0 x 3,0 = 120,0 114,0 13680 4. Mukaram Rustamova Domrachi village Cowshed 15,0 x 4,0 =60,0 239,1 14346 5. Melik Muzaev Domrachi village Cowshed 15,0 x 4,0 =60,0 239,1 14346 6. Ahtam Zulpukaarov Domrachi village Shelter 20,0 x 5,0 = 100,0 114,0 11400 7. Gaierbek Mahmudov Domrachi village House, Shed 22,0 x 9,0 = 198,0

9,0 x 5,0 = 45,0 239,1 114,0

47341 5130

8. Halima Samieva Domrachi village House 13,0 x 9,0 = 117,0 239,1 27974 9. Hoshvaht Joroev Domrachi village Storehouse, Shed 11,0 x 3,0 = 33,0 114,0 3762 TOTAL 162024


Source: PIU .2010. Resettlement List for Package 1


Page 16 URSP-3

Table 8 AP Compensation Payment List with Hukumat Chairman’s Letter: Package-1

REPUBLIC OF TAJIKISTAN CHAIRMAN OF JIRGITAL DISTRICT

Jirgital District, 10, Somoni Str. Tel: 22-404, 22-767 “12” 07 2010 No. 684

To the Ministry of Transport and Communication of

The Republic of Tajikistan

Cc: to PIU Director Mr. N. Hakimov

The Jirgital Local Authority highly values the Dushanbe – Kyrgyz Border Road Construction and hope that the construction will be completed within specified completion time. Meanwhile, there is a need for resettlement of some people from the roadside (Phase 3, Package 2 Km.248-336). In this connection we kindly request you to transfer Tajik Somoni 255,433 (two hundred fifty five thousand four hundred thirty three) to the account of Amonotbank, Branch #19. The supporting documents (receipts) will be provided to you upon distribution of money to the people. Sincerely Yours, Jirgital District Chairman A. I. Abdurahmanov


Page 17 URSP-3

Table 8 contd….

“Approved”

By Jirgital Local Authority Chairman E. Abdurahmonov

112 07.2010

List of People Affected by Resettlement No Name Amount/somoni

Pildon – Yarash village 1. Mihtoj Kholov 11477,0 2. Handala Fayzidiniv 5586,0 3. Bahridin Mirzoev 5387,0 4. Dodarbek Aminov 2155,0 5. K. Odinaev 5746,0 6. Hanon Mahmajonov 3591,0 Sub-Total: 33942

Zankon village 1. Mahmasho Sadirov 24875 2. Kurbon Toirov 4877 3. Toir Uzbekov 4447 4. Hasan Davlatov 4628 5. M. Kosimov 3591 6. Mahbut Ashurov 4884 7. K. Ziyevidinov 1835 8. Idibek Soloev 4628 9. Husein Davlatov 3605 Sub-Total: 57370

Kushagba village 1. F. Zainidiniv 1651,0 2. R. Kululova 446,0 Sub-Total: 2097

Dombrachi village 1. Loik Hudainazarov 16872,0 2. Aeyz Zulpukaarov 7173,0 3. Zoir Zulpukaarov 13680,0 4. Malik Murzaev 14346,0 5. Mukarama Zulpukaarova 14346,0 6. Ahtam Zulpukaarov 11400,0 7. Gairbek Mahmudov 47341,0 8. Halima Samieva 27974,0 9. Hoshvaht Joroev 3762,0 Sub-Total: 162024

Total: 255433

MBTI Head R. Jenaliev

Construction Dept. Head Z. Davlyatov MTL Specialist M. Mirzoev District Chief Architect M. Jaborov

19. The list of APs whose property is affected by road construction activities (Resettlement List) was prepared by a survey team headed by the M Mirzoev, Resettlement Officer of PIU and included representatives from Inter District Technical Inventory Bureau (MBTI), District Chief Architect, Road Maintenance Administration, Jirgital Hukumat and Deputy Resident Engineer (of CSC). The properties affected were identified with reference to the finalized design for the road rehabilitation. As expected, there is a substantial increase from the number of affected properties estimated during the preparation of the first SRP1.

1 Ministry of Transport and Communication. 2007.Final report Vol IIB-Short Resettlement Plan

Regional Road Corridor Improvement Project. Republic of Tajikistan. Dushanbe


Page 18 URSP-3

20. The compensation payments totaling Somoni 255,433 has been computed and certified by the following officers:

R Jenaliev, Head of MBTI,

Z Davlyatov, Chief of Construction Department, Jirgatal

M Jaborov District Chief Architect, Jirgatal

D Safarov, Head, MNDRA

The rates used by MBTI for calculating the individual AP payments are presented in Annex-3.

21. Of the 26 affected properties 2 houses were to be moved back from the road while the impact on the other properties was limited to demolition of a part of the boundary wall and/or animal shelters. The two houses, though not within the ROW, have been recommended to be moved away from the road edge mainly for safety reasons. One of the affected house owners, Mr Garibek Mhmudov of Dombrachi village, has already demolished the house (Figure 2) and is in the process of constructing a new house. As this house is still under construction he and his family has taken temporary residence in a subterranean storeroom meant for storing the potato crop (vide Figure 3).

Figure 2: Demolished house Figure 3: New house & Present abode

22. The other house owner 70 year old Ms Halima Samieva is being looked after by her two sons who inhabit the same house. They are in the process of building a new house (Figure 5) but have not demolished the house at the road verge and are still living in it..

Figure 4: House to be demolished Figure 5: New House being built


Page 19 URSP-3

Information Disclosure and Consultation

23. Consultations with the APs were conducted to verify their satisfaction and agreement to the compensation payment computation and disbursement process. The APs were shown the compensation payment matrix which included the dimensions of the affected property, rates used in calculation and the final payment. Notwithstanding that all the APs consulted were in agreement with the computation of the payments they were seeking immediate payment. Thus, it is essential that the APs are compensated immediately, especially the two APs whose houses have been or are to be demolished.

24. The total cost of compensation payments prepared by MBTI and submitted to PIU by the Chairman of the Jirgital Local Authority for package 1 is Somoni 255,433 (Table 8). PIU has submitted this request to the Ministry of Finance who will transfer funds to the Chairman. The payments are expected to commence by 01 October 2010.

25. During the consultations it was revealed that an AP had a complaint with regard to non inclusion of a part of his affected property in computing the compensation payments and the Resettlement Officer of PIU was informed for further investigation. Complaints regarding high dust levels and road closures were directed to the Deputy Resident Engineer and people were informed about the public complaints registering and resolving process.


Page 20 URSP-3

E. Implementation Plan

Activity 2010

Responsibility Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Package 1

Transfer of funds to Jirgital rayon

Ministry of Finance

Payments to APs Chairman/ Jirgital rayon

Commence Resettlement Monitoring

PIU

Submit Monitoring Reports to ADB

PIU

Package 11

Resettlement monitoring PIU

External monitoring CSC

Submit monitoring reports to ADB

CSC/PIU

CSC – Construction Supervision Consultant PIU – Project Implementation Unit

CSC PIU

PIU


Page 21 URSP-3

F Monitoring and Evaluation

26. As the impacts of the road rehabilitation activities on the APs and properties are limited simple process monitoring has been recommended to check the adequacy and timeliness of compensation paid to APs. PIU would utilize allocations under the Land Acquisition and Resettlement budget for internal monitoring and evaluation. Quarterly reports on progress of resettlement monitoring will be submitted to the ADB by the PIU.

1. Monitoring Objectives

27. The purpose of internal monitoring is to maintain supervision responsibility of the resettlement organs as specified in the SRP during implementation, and ensure that the project can be constructed smoothly and APs’ entitlements are accounted for. Internal monitoring will be performed by PIU.

28. A Resettlement Monitoring Framework for internal simple process monitoring was prepared by the consultant on behalf of the PIU and was included in the USRP-2. The frame work includes the objectives of monitoring, the process of monitoring, roles and responsibilities and the methodology to be employed in carrying out the monitoring, monitoring indicators and frequency, resources available and the expected outcome of the monitoring.

29. SRP has also recommended Independent Monitoring by the CSC and this monitoring was conducted during August, 2010 for Package 2. Independent ex-post evaluation survey to assess the achievement of resettlement objectives, the changes in living standards and livelihoods and the restoration of the economic and social base of the APs in Package 1 will be conducted after compensation payments as per the Resettlement List is effected.

2. Independent Monitoring

30. AP consultations were carried out during the Independent Monitoring of Package 2 compensation payments by the CSC. The monitoring incorporated a questionnaire survey to obtain information on the key indicators of resettlement progress. This ex-post evaluation of resettlement was conducted to assess the effectiveness, impact and sustainability of resettlement entitlements; and to learn strategic lessons for future policy formulation and planning.

2.1 Monitoring Procedure

31. As stated in the Second Updated Short Resettlement plan (USRP-2: Aug 2009), PIU had revised the Resettlement List for Package 2 and the payments were affected as per the new list (Annex-4 and 5) which also was approved by the MBTI. The Independent Monitoring was conducted in consultation with the APs in this revised Resettlement List (Annex -4).

32. A questionnaire (Annex-6) developed to include the monitoring indicators given below was used in the monitoring survey which included consultations with all the APs.

2.2 Monitoring Indicators

33. The indicators used in the External Monitoring and Evaluation and given below, are in


Page 22 URSP-3

accordance with the ADB Handbook on Resettlement2.

Basic information on AP households in relation to Location, Gender of household head, Occupations and employment patterns and Income sources and levels;

Restoration of livelihoods: Adequacy of compensation payment to replace lost assets, re-establishment of enterprises and production;

Level of AP satisfaction: on time delivery of compensation payments, APs assessment of the extent to which their own living standards and livelihoods have been restored, APs knowledge about grievance procedures and conflict resolution procedures;

Effectiveness of Resettlement Planning: correctness of enumeration of APs and their assets, the time frame and budget;

Other Impacts: unintended environmental impacts, unintended impacts on employment;

2.3 Monitoring Methodology

34. The revised Resettlement List which contained the details of APs, affected properties and payments and the receipts signed by the payees were employed in the evaluation.

35. In consulting the APs every effort was taken to allow for informal discussion although a questionnaire was used. The monitoring team consisted of a field assistant from the area, interpreter and the consultant.

36. In total 42 affected house owners were consulted. Of these only two were women and in both cases the income earners were the children living in the house. Where the affected house owner was out of the country the spouses were consulted.

37. The receipts signed by the APs were tallied with the Resettlement List and these figures were shown to the APs to verify that there had been no deduction in payments. AP comments and opinions on the compensation payments and its impact and also the impact of the road development were analyzed against the indicators listed above.

2.4 Findings

38. A summary of the responses are tabulated below as table 9.

2 2010. Asian Development Bank. Handbook on Resettlement: A Guide to Good Practice


Page 23 URSP-3

Table 9: AP Response Summary

Indicative Query Response Summary

Did you receive compensation for your affected

property?

Received- 100%

Did not receive -

Have you built new structures to replace the demolished

Yes - 66%

Not built- 34%

Are the newly built structures/buildings of the same dimensions as the demolished/damaged structures?

Small - 19%

Same - 38%

Better - 9%

Was the payment received on time?

On time - 100%

Late - -

Was that payment adequate to rebuild the damaged/demolished structures?

Adequate - 62%

Inadequate - 9%

Do not know - 29%

Was your income/livelihood connected to the demolished/damaged structures?

Connected - -

Not connected - 100%

If so was your income affected by the demolition of the structures?

Affected -

Not affected - 100 100%

Has the new structures/buildings assisted in

restoring your income levels?

Yes -

No -

Not relevant - 100%

Has your livelihood/income levels been affected by the road development project?

Yes - 19%

No - 81%

Not known - -

Has the road development affected you in any other way

Yes - 5%

No - 93%

No idea - 2%


Page 24 URSP-3

39. The AP responses revealed the following:

The assets that were damaged due to the road construction activities were mostly boundary walls (71%) while 23% included boundary walls and animal shelters/sheds. One AP had his tool shed damaged in addition to the boundary while 02 shop fronts opening out from the boundary wall were also damaged.

All APs had received compensation payments and there were no deductions from the payments computed by MBTI and forwarded to Ministry of Finance through the PIU/ Ministry of Transport and Communications;

Although the payments were timely 34% of the APs had not built replacement structures;

In most cases the payment was adequate to build structures that were similar in size and quality to those damaged. APs who responded that the payment was inadequate were those who had built structures that were far superior in quality and size to the demolished structures.

All the APs were of the opinion that their income was not adversely affected by the damage to their structures. Even the two APs whose shop fronts were damaged said their income was affected only for a short period during the construction of the damaged shops. However, it was reported that the cemetery where the fence was demolished was damaged by cattle during the interim period between demolition and construction of a new fence.

The majority of the APs responded that there were no other adverse impacts from the road project. However, 12% of the APs said their cultivations were affected as the side drains did not provide for diversion of water to their small cultivated plots.

All APs were of the opinion that the road project had a number of benefits which included reduced generation of dust, less damage to vehicles, better access to markets and more income generation opportunities. Except for 03 APs all others said the road project would facilitate their travel.

2.5 Suggestions

40. Planning should include other uses of road infrastructure such as use of side drain water for cultivation purposes.

41. Compensation payments should include compensation for temporary loss of income of APs such as the shop owners whose shop income was affected.

Are there positive benefits of the road development?

Yes - 100%

No - -

No idea - -

Do you think you should have been given more assistance by the road project?

Yes - 100%

No - -

No idea - -


Page 25 URSP-3

Annexures


Page 26 URSP-3

Annex-1: Request Letter sent by Chairman, Jirgital District (Package-1)


Page 27 URSP-3

Annex-1A: Compensation Payment List attached to Chairman’s letter (Package-1)


Page 28 URSP-3

Annex-1A contd…


Page 29 URSP-3

Annex-2: Payment List Prepared and Certified by MBTI for Package-1


Page 30 URSP-3

Annex-2 contd…


Page 31 URSP-3

Annex-2 contd…


Page 32 URSP-3

Annex-2 contd…


Page 33 URSP-3

Annex-3: List of the Resettlement Rates Used by MBTI

Unit rates for Resettlement Director of Inter-district Technical Inventory Bureau A.Sodikov

Source: MBTI, Jirgital

No Description of works Measure unit Unit rate (Somoni) Justification

1. Wattle and daub residential house

m2 239.1 Manual on Estimating

2. Nonresidential premise m2 Standards Part 1 & 2

Shed, shelter, storehouse m2 239.1 Order on indices

3. Clay fence m3 114 dated 10.03.2005

4. Wooden fence m2 12.96 113/13

5. Poplar cm 2.0 calculation

6. Willow cm 2.0 --//--

7. Mulberry pcs/t 60 --//--

8. Peach pcs/t 60 --//--

9. Walnut pcs/t 60 --//--

10. Apple pcs/t 120 --//--

11. Pears and other fruit trees pcs/t 120 --//--


Page 34 URSP-3

Annex-4: Revised Resettlement List (Translation) Package 2

“Approved”

Chairman of Jojikobod District

_______________Fozilov M.

“________” _______ 2009

Phase III Package 2 Dushanbe – Kyrgyz Border Road, 217km – 242 km

Resettlement of People

No NAME AMOUNT

KAPALI

2 Safarov Abdulvohid Toshmatovich 1231,0

3 Odinaev Mahmadtohir Fathudinovich 18655,0

5 Safarov Mirzo Sangakovich 1368,0

7 Sharipov Bakhtoyer Mahmadiyerovich 3440,0

Sub-Total: 24694,0

MAZORI SHING

1 Salimova Kizdarhon Karimovna 6490,0

2 Sharipov Zarif 6150,0

3 Mahmuddov Tojiddin Khomidovich 10993,0

4 Abdurahmonov Mansur Majidovich 4332,0

5 Rajabov Mumin Mulojonovich 2052,0

6 Salomov Dilshod Mahmadovich 5130,0

7 Maksudova Azizpocho Rajabovna 3703,0

8 Junaydov Hikmatullo 3192,0

9 Mahmadov Yusufjon Mahmadjonovich 3518,0

10 Odinaeva Gulandom Hudoyerovna 2850,0

11 Salomov Handulo Gafurovich 5084,0

Sub-Total: 53602,0

MULLOKENJA

24 Saidhodjarva Davlatpocho Faromarzovna 1824,0

25 Sadirov Mahmadsoleh Davlatyerovich 3921,0

26 Sadirov Mahmadnabi Davlatyerovich 19896,0

27 Shoev Umar Mahmadhojaevich 9791,0

28 Satorov Subhudin Gaforovich 15061,0

29 Abdurahmonov Akmal Karimdodovich 11400,0

30 Davlatova Shahrihon Shodievna 7182,0

31 Izzatova Nahtiya 5472,0

32 Saidhojaev Dovuthon Faromarzovich 14694,0

33 Falomarzov Ashuja 9620,0

34 Saidhojaev Emom Askarovich 21519,0

35 Shodiev Karim 600,0

Sub-Total: 120980,0

NAVOBOD

36 Rasulov Mahmadi Sharifovich 5738,0

37 Ismoilov Abdullo Saidvalievich 13495,0

38 Mirzoeva Oisha Jalolovna 14415,0

39 Sharipov Ayub 36972,0

40 Shohmahmadov Tohir Sharipovich 7873,0

41 Ismoilov Sunat Saidvalievich 14127,0

42 Gafurova Aftobhon 13495,0

43 Rasulov Sulaymon Muhidinivich 4104,0

44 Rasulov Rahmon Muhidinivich 16312,0


Page 35 URSP-3

45 Ismoilov Mahmadali Saidvalievich 6384,0

46 Ismoilov Sayvali 6042,0

Sub-Total: 138957,0

KICHIKIZI

49 Davlatov Adhamjon 6384,0

50 Taibov Ismon 6498,0

51 Salimova Rafoat Kirgizovna 18126,0

52 Maksudov Kamar Muzafarovich 14478,0

Sub-Total: 45486,0

TOTAL: 384059,0

1. Eshonov Kh. - Chief of District Construction Department

2. Sharipov K - MBTI

3. Sharipov B. Chief Accountant of Road Maintenance Department

4. Shifoev L. - Kalai Labi Ob Jamoat Chairman

5. Toshev N. Shagadoev Jamoat Chairman

6. Ramazonov Z. Nushor Jamoat Chairman


Page 36 URSP-3

Annex-5: Revised Resettlement List Package-2


Page 37 URSP-3

Annex-5 contd…


Page 38 URSP-3

Annex-6: Questionnaire used in Independent Monitoring

Questionnaire for Monitoring Impact of Road Development Project on Affected Persons (APs)

Information of AP Village……………………………….. 1. Name : ……………………………………………………………………………………. 2. Address: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3. Occupation/Income source : ………………………………………………………….. 4. Details of family members :

Age Employed (Y/N) In school (Y/N)

Spouse

Child

Child

Child

Child

General Information on Project Impact

1. What were the structures/buildings that had to be demolished for road development activities? .................................................................

…………………………………………………………..

2. Did you receive compensation for your affected property? Yes/No 3. Have you built new structures/buildings to replace those demolished/damaged?

Yes/No 4. Are the newly built structures/buildings of the same dimensions as the

demolished/damaged structures? Smaller/Same Size/Larger 5. Was the payment received on time? Yes/No, ………...later 6. Was that payment adequate to rebuild the damaged/demolished structures? Yes/No,

required …………….Somoni

7. Was your income/livelihood connected to the demolished/damaged structures? No/Yes(how)……..

8. If so was your income affected by the demolition of the structures? No/ Yes (how)……………….


Page 39 URSP-3

9. Has the new structures/buildings assisted in restoring your income levels? Yes/No(why)………………….

10. Has your livelihood/income levels been affected by the road development project? No/Yes (how)…………………………………. …………………………………..

11. Has the road development affected you in any other way (access, social relationships etc.)? …………………………………………………

……………………………………………….. 12. Are there positive benefits of the road development? No/Yes 13. If Yes what are these? ……………………………………….

……………………………………….

14. Do you think you should have been given more assistance by the road project? No/Yes(describe)…………………………….

………………………………. 15. In what way? ……………………………………..

………………………………………….

taj: carec regional road corridor improvement project · 2014-09-29 · republic of tajikistan:...

Documents