Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Abbreviated Remedial Resettlement Action Plan (ARRAP)
Governmental Complex in
Ramtha Municipality
Municipal Services and Social Resilience Project (MSSRP)
This document is prepared based on The Project
Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) December 26, 2013 in line with
OP 4.12 - Involuntary Resettlement OP 4.12, Annex A - Involuntary Resettlement Instruments
Prepared by:
Project Management Unit
February, 2019
2
Contents Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................... 3
1.0 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 4
1.1 Methodology .............................................................................................. 5
2.0 Introduction and Project Description .................................................................................... 7
2.1 The sub-Project of Governmental Complex in Ramtha Municipality ...................................... 9
2.2 Land Ownership ............................................................................................................12
2.3Sub-project Site analysis ..................................................................................................15
3.0 Kiosk Ownership History ....................................................................................................17
4.0 Project Affected Persons PAPs ............................................................................................19
4.1 Project Affected Households (PAHs) ................................................................................20
4.2 Census Survey ...............................................................................................................20
4.4 Valuation of Assets ........................................................................................................21
4.4 The valuation of kiosk assets during the operation period of PAP1 ......................................22
5.0 Resettlement Assistance ......................................................................23
5.1 The compensation packages and resettlement assistance of the current occupants ..............23
5.2 Compensation package of the owner of the original kiosk, PAP1 .........................................24
5.3 Summary of Compensation Packages ...............................................................................25
6.0 Consultations with displaced people about acceptable alternatives ........................................25
7.0 Institutional responsibility for implementation .....................................................................29
8.0 Procedures for Grievance Redress Mechanisms ....................................................................32
9.0 Arrangements for monitoring and implementation ...............................................................33
10.0 Timetable and budget ......................................................................................................37
List of Tables ..........................................................................................................................38
3
Abbreviations
MSSRP Municipal Services and Social Resilience Project ARRAP Abbreviated Remedial Resettlement Action Plan BP Bank Procedures CVDB Cities and Village Development Bank ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment GRM Grievance Redress Mechanism IR/LA Involuntary Resettlement / Land Acquisition LAL Land acquisition Law MOMA Ministry of Municipal Affairs OP Operational Policy PAPs Project Affected Persons PMU Project Management Unit PM Participating Municipality RAP Resettlement Action Plan RPF Resettlement Policy Framework TOR Terms of Reference PAH Project Affected Household
4
1.0 Executive Summary
This Abbreviated Remedial Resettlement Action Plan (ARRAP) is conducted for the
Municipal Services and Social Resilience Project (MSSRP), Ramtha municipality sub-project, in
order to fulfill the requirements of the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) of the MSSRP
and the objectives of World Bank’s (WB) Involuntary Resettlement Policy (OP 4.12). The
overall objectives of the ARRAP are as follows:
1. Involuntary resettlement should be avoided where feasible, or minimized, exploring
all viable alternative project designs.
2. Where it is not feasible to avoid resettlement, resettlement activities should be
conceived and executed as sustainable development programs, providing sufficient
investment resources to enable the persons displaced by the project to share project
benefits. Displaced persons should be meaningfully consulted and should have
opportunities to participate in planning and implementing resettlement programs.
3. Displaced persons should be assisted in their efforts to improve their livelihoods and
standards of living or at least to restore them, in real terms, to pre-displacement
levels or to levels prevailing prior to the beginning of project implementation,
whichever is higher.
This ARRAP is prepared to address the issue of demolishing one kiosk for the purpose of
building a governmental complex in Ramtha municipality. The complex is partially funded by
the MSSRP project FY2018. Five Project Affected Persons (PAPs) were identified as direct
affected people from the removal of the kiosk as part of sub-project implementation. Their
households were also explored for further socioeconomic studies. In-kind and cash
compensations will be provided to the PAPs, in accordance with the details in this document.
The total cash compensation has been set as (8,830) JOD. PAPs will also be compensated with
a transition period allowance and assets transportation allowance for two relocations. PAPs
will be encouraged to apply for temporary jobs as part of the labor-based interventions during
the construction phase of the governmental complex
MSSRP Resettlement Action Plans (RAPs) are prerequisites for implementation of sub-project
activities causing economic or physical displacement. Abbreviated RAPs may be prepared in
the case of less than 200 people are affected, and there is no physical displacement. In all
cases, the RPF and OP 4.12 require compensation measures to be provided before
displacement occurs. These measures include provision of compensation and other assistance
required for relocation - prior to displacement as well as preparation and provision of
resettlement sites with adequate facilities. Taking of land and related assets or denial of
access to assets (e.g., resettlement sites, new homes, related infrastructure, public services,
and moving allowances) may take place only after compensation has been paid to PAPs.
As described in the project RPF, PAPs are defined as people who are directly affected
socially and economically by projects financed by the World Bank. The direct social and
5
economic impacts include, but are not limited to: a) relocation or loss of shelter, b) loss of
assets or access to assets, c) loss of income sources or means of livelihood, whether or not
the affected persons must move to another location, and d) the involuntary restriction or
access to legally designated parks and protected areas that results in adverse impacts on the
livelihood of the affected displaced persons and communities.
This Remedial ARAP has been prepared to address economic displacement impacts
for 5 PAPs as a result of the Ramtha municipality sub-project, the Governmental Complex.
PAPs lost their assets - a demolished kiosk- resulting in loss of income sources and
means of livelihood before compensation has been paid. The Cities and Villages Development
Bank (CVDB) highlighted the importance of conducting a Remedial Resettlement Action Plan
(RRAP) before the demolition during the early site visits. However, the municipality was not
aware that the demolition of kiosk before compensation has been paid would trigger the
World Bank’s Operational Policy 4.12. For such reason, the sub-project was considered non-
compliant and a Remedial ARRAP on a retroactive basis was prepared. According to Jordanian
laws, the removal of the kiosk does not require compensation. This ARRAP provides
supplemental measures over and above Jordanian Law to meet the requirements of the RPF
and the grant agreement between the Government of Jordan and the World Bank, which
governs MSSRP.
This ARRAP identifies all PAPs, provides an overview of their profile and assesses their
socioeconomic conditions. It also highlights the consultations and compensation measures
proposed, and establishes a clear grievance mechanism and the basis for conclusions.
1.1 Methodology
Since the compensation relies on the valuation of assets, a private valuator, who is
certified by the Jordanian Land and Survey Department (LSD), was hired. His report was also
verified by an engineering Consultation Company. The report evaluated the following:
1- The total replacement cost including labor of the kiosk as delivered to the current
occupants on March, 2017. This was done based on the information provided by
the owner of the kiosk. The valuator also contacted the original owner of the kiosk
to identify some missing data.
2- The total replacement cost including labor of the current kiosk. This was done
based on many photos taken before the demolition by the safeguards specialist of
the MSSRP Project Management Unit (PMU). The valuator also considered all
information and discussions provided by the current occupants.
3- Some collected information given by PAPs was also cross-checked in the
evaluation report, which is found in Annex 2.
6
The PMU also conducted several site visits to collect information from PAPs and the Participating Municipality (PM) - Ramtha. These site visits
are listed in Table 1.
Table 1: PMU site visits
# Date Stakeholders:
PMU, PM, WB, AP(s), CVDB
Specialists: community outreach/ safeguards/
Procurement, etc. Visit Reasons Visit Outputs
1 12th of Augest,2018
PMU, CVDB The Deputy MSSRP Project manager
Procurement specialist
Feasibility Study Specialist
The feasibility study
The overall sub-project circumstances
Identifying the presence of the kiosk
The feasibility study.
2 13th of September,2018
PMU, CVDB PMU Safeguards specialist
Feasibility Study Specialist
Safeguards non-compliance of demolishing the kiosk.
Urgent actions: Violation removal request presented by the PM on 16th of Sep.,2018
3 2ndof October,2018
PMU, CVDB PMU Safeguards specialist
PMU Site engineer
Meeting with design office and field visit to the site
Modifications of the design
4 24th of October,2018
PMU, PM, WB, CVDB
The MSSRP Deputy Project manager
PMU Safeguards specialists
Community Outreach specialist
World Bank Representatives
Discuss the RPF violation with the Mayor
7
2.0 Introduction and Project Description
The objective of the Municipal Services and Social Resilience Project (MSSRP) is to
Support Jordanian municipalities affected by the influx of Syrian refugees in delivering
services and employment opportunities for Jordanians and Syrians. The project (MSSRP)
builds on a successful first phase – Emergency Services and Social Resilience Project (ESSRP)
and will help further achieve the original ESSRP Development Objective, while also supporting
the Government’s commitment towards ‘turning the Syrian crisis into a development
opportunity’ and ‘rebuilding Jordanian host communities’. It aims to mitigate drivers of social
tensions caused by the local impact of the influx of Syrian refugees at the municipal level
through strengthening the processes of municipal service delivery.
Project Components:
Component 1: Municipal Grants (estimated US$27 million)
Municipal grants will be provided annually for a total of 21 municipalities. While the focus under ESSRP was on the provision of timely delivery of services as an emergency response, the MSSRP will place higher emphasis on sustainability, responsiveness, and efficiency of services in a way that promotes longer-term resilience1 and mitigates risks to social cohesion at local levels. This will be achieved by: (i) focusing on more inclusive community consultations to ensure that investments better reflect Jordanian and Syrian women’s and men’s needs and priorities; (ii) emphasizing that investments made through sub-projects are aligned with municipal strategic planning over the medium-term; (iii) ensuring predictability of funding to allow for better planning that takes into account the cost of operating and maintaining procured assets and longer-term sustainability and resilience needs; and, (iv) encouraging municipalities to use labor-intensive techniques for public works to support the generation of jobs for Jordanians and Syrian refugees. An Innovation Fund (IF) is introduced under Component 1. The IF will finance demand-driven projects that may be multi-year and may involve inter-municipality collaboration. IF projects shall adhere to the following set of principles: (i) robust and inclusive participatory consultations and planning, (ii) provide innovative solutions to local challenges faced by communities, and (iii) contribute directly to the project’s outcomes. The IF will also encourage municipalities to (iv) leverage resources and expertise by partnering with CBOs, NGOs, and private sector in promoting improved services and employment opportunities for Syrians and Jordanians. A total of 5 additional municipalities which are either type A or Governorate centers will be added as eligible municipalities to compete for the IF, hence, making the total number of MSSRP Participating Municipalities 26. Component 2 – Institutional Support and Project Management (Estimated Amount US$3.0
million)
8
Activities under this component will include: (i) institutional strengthening with Specialists’ support, (ii) capacity building and trainings, and (iii) technical assistance. Under institutional strengthening, local specialists will be hired, to support and strengthen the oversight and monitoring capacity of the PMU and CVDB while providing implementation support to PMs. The 26 PMs will also benefit from customized technical assistance and training to improve the quality and efficiency of their services, focusing on the following key aspects: (i) improved strategic, financial planning, investment/project planning, and safeguards focus, (ii) improved accountability vis-à-vis the communities through the use of citizen outreach and citizen engagement tools with focus on gender-streamlining, (iii) targeting youth and females through inclusive practices and projects in order to strengthen social cohesion between Syrians and Jordanians. Finally, this Component will finance contracts with other organizations for supporting implementation, including contracts with experts in labor-based works investments.
The project is financed through donor contributions to a Multi Donor Trust Fund – the
Municipal Services and Social Resilience Trust Fund: Government of the Netherlands ($6
million), the United Kingdom (DFID) ($15 million), Government of Canada ($12 million) and
USAID ($3 million) - for the equivalent of US$ 32 million .
The implementing agency for the project is Ministry of Municipal Affairs (MOMA)
supported by the Cities and Villages Development Bank (CVDB). A Project Steering Committee
(SC) provides overall strategic direction and oversight to the Project. A Project Management
Unit (PMU) housed in MOMA coordinates and manages overall project implementation.
Executing Agencies (EAs) are the participating municipalities.
9
2.1 The sub-Project of Governmental Complex in Ramtha Municipality
The allocated funds for the first sub-projects Grant Cycle under MSSRP were US$14
million assigned for 21 municipalities under component 1. Ramtha municipality’s allocation
was 667,000 JOD for the FY 2018. Public consultations were held to set the Ramtha priorities
and strategic plans as shown in Figure 1. The need of governmental complex came as the first
priority, through conducting several community sessions with the citizens of Ramtha,
including men, women, youth, people with disabilities and Syrians.
The total sub-project cost will approximately reach 2.3 M (JOD). Ramtha Budget of
2018, 2019, and 2020 will finance a total of 1.65 M (JOD) as shown in figure 2, where the
remaining 667,000 (JOD) is planned to be financed by MSSRP allocation for Ramtha for FY
2018. The Sub-Project Budget is shown in Table 1 .
Figure 1: Public consultations result in Ramtha municipality
10
Figure 2: letter of allocation for the sub-project budget
Table1: The Sub-Project Budget
Funding source Amount (JOD) Number
MSSRP FY2018 668,000 1
PM Budget FY2018 325,750 2
PM Budget FY2019 662,500 3
PM Budget FY2020 662,500 4
2,318,750 Total
According to its design, the government complex consists of 7 floors as shown in
Figure 5. The area of each floor is 1,250 m2. The basement floor is designed to be a
multipurpose hall. The hall was designed for meetings, concerts, or events. It will be the first
one in Ramtha city. Other floors will be rented to different governmental agencies (e.g.
Department of Land and Survey, Directorate of Labor, Health Directorate).
11
Figure 3: Front Perspective of The Complex
The governmental agencies will be gathered in one building to serve the city of
Ramtha, not only the population of the municipality. Ramtha city consists of two
municipalities as shown in figure 4, these two municipalities are participating in the MSSRP.
1- Ramtha Municipality:
a. Alramtha
b. Albouydah
2- Sahel Horan municipality
a. Alturah
b. Alshajarah
c. Emrauah
d. Thunaibah
Figure 4: The City of Ramtha
12
Figure 5: PM letter sent to governmental agencies and their responses
The governmental complex will be a one stage project. The entire building will be
constructed in one bidding contract. During the construction activities, the subproject is
expected to 1) boost local spending into the local economy, 2) create job opportunities for
local residents and 3) generate employment for local unskilled and semi-skilled workers.
Construction activities and associated negative impacts were presented during the
community consultation session held in Ramtha Municipality on 13th of January, 2019, for the
purpose of conducting an ESIA for the same sub-project. The ESIA will cover the sub-project
objectives, environmental and social impacts, analysis of sub-project alternatives,
environmental and social management plan and the mitigation measures of implementing
the sub-project. At the operational stage, the complex will 1) improve the landscape with
green spaces 2) minimize the cost and effort since the existing Governmental agencies are
spread in different locations around the city, and 3) minimize the traffic congestions. The
economic feasibility outcomes are summarized in the ESIA document. The complex will be
socially feasible helping the government to effectively deliver services to the local community,
Jordanians and Syrian refugees. According to the feasibility study, there are eight
governmental entities that are willing to rent offices in the governmental complex with a total
amount of income that will reach 251,650 JDs (almost 366,000$) per year. The municipality,
which is currently renting a building on the main street of Ramtha, will be able to use this rent
in other aspects and useful ways to delivering more services to the community, once the
complex is finished and the municipality starts using its own offices.
2.2 Land Ownership
The land is owned by the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan Treasury / Ministry of
Municipal Affairs shown in figure 9. The land is assigned to build a governmental complex in
13
Ramtha municipality as described in the title deed. However, such ownership needs to be
reassigned every year. Figure 6 shows a letter from CVDB requesting the Ramtha Municipality
to clarify the ownership status of the land. MoMA sent a formal letter to the land and survey
department (LSD) to reassign the land. Figure 7 shows the response of the LSD describing that
the land is already assigned to build a governmental complex in Ramtha municipality since
2011, and the decision was validated again in January, 2019, as the letter indicates.
Figure 6: the title deed of the land
14
Figure 7: correspondences to reassign the sub-project land
15
Figure 8: The Assignment Letter by the department of land and survey
2.3 Sub-project Site analysis
The subproject land is almost located in the middle of Ramtha city with 80 m along
the main street of Alsakhrat Almusharifa as shown in Figure 8. The availability of public
transportation raises the strategic importance of the proposed land, which has been
determined to be the most appropriate land for constructing such a complex. The
municipality owns other lands but those are far away from the center of the city. This specific
site was chosen years ago, since 2011, in order to minimize resettlement to the extent
possible compared to other sites. In addition, people would only need one transportation to
get there minimizing the cost and effort. The existing Governmental agencies are spread in
different locations around the city in which traffic jam could be a serious problem. In addition,
most of the city population works in public sector agencies. Gathering such population in one
place could achieve the social feasibility of the proposed sub-project. The location of the
proposed land is also near very important governmental buildings such as schools, healthcare
16
center and Public Park. The coordinate of the land (32.55905815, 36.00076154) could be used
to observe clearer information about neighboring land properties. Such importance makes
the sub-project socially feasible. Other important information is listed in Figure 4 and Table
2.
Figure 9: the locationof the proposed landusing the Department of Land And Survey website
Table 1: Sub-Project Land Basic Information
Parameter Value
Governorate Irbid governorate
City Al Ramtha
Land number 161
Neighborhood 29
Total Area(m2) 6,186.00
Near the Location 1. Comprehensive health center. 2. Musab bin Omair Secondary School for Boys. 3. Ramtha Health Directorate. 4. Ibn Hazm Elementary School. 5. Public Park.
On Main Street Yes, Alsakhrat Almusharifa St.
17
3.0 Kiosk Ownership History
The subject of this ARRAP is limited to 50 m2 kiosk situated on the proposed sub-
project land of 6,000 m2as shown in Figure 11. There were three owners/operators of the
kiosk since it was first erected on the site in 2011 and the structure underwent several
reconstructions. Such changes are shown in Figures 10, 11 and 12. The kiosk was located on
the main street at the corner of the land to be used for building the governmental complex.
Figure 12 shows some photos of the kiosk taken on October, 2018.
A) B)
Figure 10: Google earth photo in A) 2009 for the land B) the first appearance of the in 9/2012 with area less than 40 m
Figure 11: Google earth photo shows the kiosk in 2/2017 with area 50 m2
18
Figure 12: The kiosk, Kazem cafe.
The development of the kiosk started on 2010 when the Ramtha municipality rented
out a piece of land with total area of 24 m2 to Mr.Jamal Abdel Aziz (52 years old) on 29th of
June, 2010. The contract gave the right to build a Ramadan tent during the holy month. The
goal of this tent was selling locally grown fruit and vegetables. The contract is provided in
Annex 1 .The rental agreement stated that the tenant has to pay a nominal annual amount.
On 23th of February, 2016 Mr. Jamal sold the tent to PAP1 (selling agreement are in Annex
1). No rental payments have been received by the Ramtha municipality since then.
After that, PAP1 used part of the land and rebuilt the skeleton of the kiosk. The
following summarizes PAP1 activities:
1- PAP1 bought the kiosk from Mr. Jamal Abdel Aziz.
2- The kiosk is made of wooden walls, steel tubes, and steel sheet ceiling.
3- PAP1 expanded the kiosk by 16 m2 using same materials with total cost of 1,000
JOD.
4- PAP1 did not sign any agreement/contract with the PM.
5- PAP1 did not pay any monthly rent to the PM.
6- PAP1 rented the kiosk to PAP2 on March, 2017 (rental agreement is in Annex 1)
7- PAP1 is the owner of the “original kiosk”.
Since March, 2017, PAP2 launched internal partnership with his brother PAP3 to
operate the kiosk as a part time job with other two full-time operators. The full-time
operators are PAP3 sons: PAP4 and PAP5. These 4 operators are referred to here as the
“current occupants” who did major modifications to the kiosk. These modifications are listed
in the following sections.
19
Figure 13: Kiosk Ownership History
Ramtha PM sent a formal letter of evacuation to the current occupants on 16thof
September, 2018 (Evacuation notice provided in Annex 1). Ramtha PM demolished the kiosk
on 26th of September, 2018. The current occupants had a 10 days period to evacuate the
kiosk and move their assets, which they indicated was sufficient.
4.0 Project Affected Persons PAPs
Project affected persons (PAPs) are shown in Table 2 and further illustrated in
figure 18. From the discussion above, it is noted that the operation of the kiosk may not be in
conformity with the original leasing conditions.
Table 2: PAPs
# PAPs Name
1 The current owner of the kiosk.
PAP1
2 The current occupants. PAP2, PAP3, PAP4 and PAP5
Total 5
20
Figure 14: PAPs
4.1 Project Affected Households (PAHs)
Project Affected Households (PAHs) are shown in figure 19. There are 4 households
with a total of 19 persons involved. Detailed information can be found in the Census survey
of PAPs in Annex 2, as the PMU conducted socio-economic surveys for each PAP. As described
by the RPF, each person receiving compensation will have a dossier containing:
Individual bio-data information,
Number of people s/he claims as household dependents,
Level of income and of production through an inventory of material assets and
improvements in land, and debts.
4.2 Census Survey
A census survey of each of the 5 PAPs and their households which is found in Annex 2
also covers the requirement of OP 4.12:
In selecting the current occupants of the affected area to establish a basis for
the design of the resettlement program and to exclude subsequent inflows of
people from eligibility for compensation and resettlement assistance;
Draw the standard characteristics of displaced households, including a
description of production systems, labor, and household organization; and
baseline information on livelihoods (including, as relevant, production levels
21
and income derived from both formal and informal economic activities) and
standards of living (including health status) of the displaced population;
Describe the magnitude of the expected loss in total or partial of assets, and
the extent of displacement, physical or economic.
Summary and detailed survey census of all PAPs, are found in Annex 2, as well as the consent
papers and their signed approvals to disclose the ARRAP with all relevant information stated
in the document.
Figure 15: Project Affected Household (PAH)
4.3. Cutoff date
The cut-off date is required to prevent opportunistic influx/rush migration into the
chosen land areas. Cut-off date can be set as the date when the census of affected persons
was first conducted. The date of conducting the first Census Survey was on 6th of November,
2018, and so is considered as the Cut-off date. Mr. Jamal Abdel Aziz was excluded since he
sold the kiosk on 23th of February, 2016, and was no longer impacted by the sub-project
implementation.
4.4 Valuation of Assets
As described by the RPF documents of the MSSRP, Replacement values will be based
on the methodology described earlier, as the private evaluator prepared a detailed report on
evaluation of the demolished kiosk according to a number of photos taken by the MSSRP PMU
team during former visits. This methodology includes, also:
1- Drawings of individual's house [structures] and all its related structures and
support services.
2- Average replacement costs of different types of household buildings and
structures based on information on the quantity and type of materials used for
construction (e.g. bricks, rafters, bundles of straw, doors etc.).
3- Prices of these items collected in different local markets and as provided by the
Ministry of Public Works and Housing.
22
4- Costs for transportation and delivery of these items to acquire/replace land or
building site.
5- Estimates of construction of new buildings including labor required.
The result of the valuator report is summarized in the following table, and it matches
the estimate of the current occupants as shown in the evaluation report Annex 2.
Table 8: Evaluation of destroyed assets provided by the external valuator.
# Assets Cost estimate provided by external valuator JOD
Finish
ing co
st
1 Security glass door 600
2 Signage of the kiosk 270
3 Washbasin and Marble 200
4 External and internal lighting 300
5 false ceiling 400
6 Total 1,770
7 Replacement cost including labor 3,000
8 Total replacement cost including labor
4,770
4.4 The valuation of kiosk assets during the operation period of PAP1
The kiosk was rented by PAP1 to the current occupants in March 2017. Valuation of
the kiosk as delivered to the current occupants on that date is listed in table 9. The private
valuator called PAP1 to determine the full replacement cost of the kiosk at time of rental.
Table 10: valuation of the original kiosk as delivered to current occupants on March, 2017
Assets
1 Steel door The rep
lacemen
t cost in
clud
ing
labo
r pro
vided
by th
e externa
l
valu
ato
r JOD
2,0
00
JO
D
2 wooden walls
3 Plastering and painting
4 Tiles
5 steel sheet ceiling and tubes
6 Two aluminum windows with its protecting steel
nets
7 External and internal lighting
23
5.0 Resettlement Assistance
5.1 The compensation packages and resettlement assistance of the current occupants
According to the project RPF, the current occupants are considered as:
1- Owners of non-Permanent buildings: Entitled to in-kind compensation or cash
compensation at full replacement cost including labor and relocation expenses,
prior to displacement. 2- They are facing “loss of income sources or means of livelihood”. Whether or not
the affected persons must move to another location, it requires that PAPs should
be assisted in their efforts to improve their livelihoods and standards of living or
at least to restore them, in real terms, to pre-displacement levels or to levels
prevailing prior to the beginning of project implementation, whichever is higher.
Suggested ways of compensation include:
a. Compensation for land and reconstruction structure/buildings and
facilities.
b. Compensation for loss in production.
c. Provision for continuance of employment of workers affected from
relocation during the transition period through provision of temporary
premises, or compensation for lost wages.
It is important to highlight the following information:
1- Transition period allowance is considered from the day of kiosk demolition to the
expected date of ARRAP implementation, which is calculated to be 6 months. This is
considered sufficient time for PAPs to find another job.
2- Provision of transport allowance will be provided, both retroactively for transport of
moveable assets before demolition, and at the time when the current occupants can
relocate to the new kiosk location.
3- PAPs will be offered the opportunity for preference in employment opportunities for
the sub-project (loader driver, security guard and construction workers).
4- The Ramtha PM and the PMU were open to discuss different options of
compensation suggested during conducting this ARRAP.
5- After approving the suggested compensation Packages, PMU ensures that:
a- The valuation report was provided to PAPs to review the report and submit
grievances if unsatisfied. The report served as a basis for negotiations with PAPs.
b- PAPs also were given the option of hiring a certified valuator of their choice if
they decide to contest a valuation, but none of them requested that.
The suggested compensation package of the current occupants is listed in table 11.
24
Table 11: Entitlement matrix of the current occupants (tenants)
# Item Period Amount JOD
Total JOD
Type of compensation
1 Compensation for lost assets and livelihood
In kind compensation through provision of new kiosk in complex, with initial occupancy fee waived.
2 Transition period allowance for loss of
business income from old kiosk
6 months 1,0002 6,000 Cash payment
2 assets transport allowance for two
relocations
80 80 Cash payment
4 Additional Measures Of Employment
Employment opportunities for PAPs during construction of complex.
Total 6,080
5.2 Compensation package of the owner of the original kiosk, PAP1
According to the project RPF, PAP1 is considered as:
1- Owner of non-Permanent buildings: Entitled to in-kind compensation or cash
compensation at full replacement cost including labor and relocation expenses,
prior to displacement.
PAP1 will be given the following compensation listed in Table 12.
Table 12: Compensation package of the owner of the original kiosk PAP1.
# Item Period Amount JOD
Total JOD
Type of compensation
1 Transition period
allowance for loss of rental
income
6 months 1253 750 Cash payment
2 Compensation for lost assets
2,000 2,000 Cash payment
3 Additional Measures Of Employment
Employment opportunities for PAPs during construction of
complex.
Total 2,750
2Estimate of monthly income from kiosk provided by PAPs
3Monthly rent as per rental agreement
25
5.3 Summary of Compensation Packages Table 13: Summary of Compensation Packages for all PAPs
# PAPs Name Total Cash Compensation
JOD
Additional Measures Of Employment
Resettlement
1 The current occupants.
PAP2, PAP3, PAP4 and PAP5
6,080 Yes Yes
2 The owner of the original
kiosk.
PAP1 2,750 Yes No
Total 8,830
Other Benefits of the Compensation Package include:
1- Providing legal employment opportunities to the current occupants during and
after the construction of the sub-project.
2- The current occupants will have social security insurance during their work with
the contractors of the sub-project.
3- At the end of the construction activities, PAPs will be able to register the kiosk as
a legal place of earning money. The kiosk will be rented to the current occupants
without initial occupancy fee in which the kiosk will be ready for occupancy.
6.0 Consultations with displaced people about acceptable alternatives
1- The alternatives considered to avoid or minimize resettlement:
Key points highlighted by the Ramtha PM:
1- The governmental complex was given priority number one in the community
consultations conducted earlier which raises the importance of the sub-project.
2- PM does not have any other suitable land, since the land chosen was already
assigned to build a governmental complex in Ramtha.
3- The design of the governmental complex was already completed.
Prior to the demolition, the current occupants were not satisfied with the solution of
demolishing the kiosk without cash compensation for the lost assets mentioned so far, but
then agreed with the solution of compensation of a new kiosk in the governmental complex.
An internal agreement was signed between the current occupants and the PM, after
demolition took place. This agreement is shown in Annex 1. PMU was not a part of this
agreement.
26
Table 16: communications and consultations with PAPs
# Date Stakeholders: PMU, PM, WB, AP(s), CVDB
Reasons outputs
1 16th of September, 2018
PM, and the current occupants
letter of evacuation the current occupants evacuate the kiosk
2 26th of September, 2018.
PM, and The current occupants
Demolition of the kiosk
3 23rd of Dec.,2018
PM, the current occupants
Commitment types that PM could give to the current occupants.
A commitment letter in which the PM agreed to give the current occupants new kiosk without vacancy cost.
4 6th of Nov.,2018
PMU, CVDB, the current occupants
Held an Interview with the current occupants.
The Social and economic studies for PAP3 family. Discuss and identify compensation options with the PAPs.
5 13th of January, 2019
PMU, CVDB, the current occupants.
Completion of any missing information.
The Social and economic studies for PAP3 family. Discuss and identify compensation options with the PAPs described in the previous sections.
6 20th of January, 2019
PMU, Mr. PAP1 Completion of any missing information.
The Social and economic studies for PAP1 family. Discuss and identify compensation options with the PAPs described in the previous sections.
Table 17: Summary of the main outputs of the surveys and interviews with the PAPs
Outcomes Time and Date
Meetings with PAPs
- Assess his social and economic conditions, And prepare a report about the case, with all relevant official documents.
6/11/2018 Tuesday
Interview with PAP3
1
-Determine Affected Households (PAHs) of the PAPs. -Current occupants selected PAP3 as a representative to act and negotiate on their behalf. -Since March, 2017, Mr. Ahmad Abdul-Aziz launched internal partnership with his brother PAP3 to operate the kiosk as a part time job sharing the profit equally with the other two full-time operators; PAP4 and PAP5
13/1/2019 Sunday
Interview with PAP2, PAP3, PAP4, and PAP5
2
27
Outcomes Time and Date
Meetings with PAPs
- PM demolished the kiosk on 26th of September, 2018. The current occupants had a 10 days period to evacuate the kiosk and move their assets. - PAP4 told the team that the process of moving the assets needed just one day using one pickup. - Removal of the kiosk did affect the monthly income of the current occupants as they had no other source of income, except for PAP3 - The net profit of the kiosk was equally divided between the current occupants. - Evaluation of the original kiosk as delivered to current occupants on March, 2017 and improvements that have been added to the building.
- PAP1 is the owner of the original kiosk. -PAP1 was aware that the land was owned by the PM, and proceeded to on-lease it it to another person. - PAP1 bought the kiosk from Mr. Jamal Abdel Aziz. - PAP1 expanded the kiosk by 16 m2 using same materials with total cost of 1,000 JOD. - PAP1 did not sign any agreement/contract with the PM. - PAP1 did not pay any monthly rent to the PM. - PAP1 rented the kiosk to Mr. Ahmad Abdul-Aziz on March, 2017 with an amount of 125 JOD per month.
20/1/2019, Sunday
24/1/2019 Thursday
PAP1 did not allow the PMU member to meet him personally. Information given PAP1 was collected through a phone call.
3
Consultation with PAPs took place in the municipality building on February 4th, 2019.
The purpose of conducting the ARRAP document was briefly explained to them,
compensation packages were discussed with them as well and then approved and signed.
Also, the Independent Evaluation Report was explained to each PAP. They also read all the
information stated in their socioeconomic surveys and signed it for approval. It was explained
to them that their names and the names of their household will be disclosed publicaly on the
World Bank official site, and they signed for approval regarding this issue. No concerns were
raised by the PAPs. PAP3 provided a written document stating that he represents PAPs: 2,4,
and 5.
Minutes of Meeting with the PAPs and their approval on all relevant documents are found in
Annex 2.
28
Figure 16: Meeting with PAPs, and approval of main parts of ARAAP
29
7.0 Institutional responsibility for implementation
This section describes the institutional arrangements for the implementation of the ARRAP.
The small scale and relatively simple nature of the displacement action does not warrant many special
institutional arrangements that may be required in larger sub-projects. Thus, this sub-project will rely
on mechanisms and institutions that are already in place. These are presented below in table 17. The
ARAP work plan is illustrated in Table 18.
Table 18: Institutional responsibility
# Institutions Responsibility
1 PMU, MoMA. preparing and submitting the A-RAP for the WB, which is a remedial plan as the kiosk was already demolished, in our case
2 World Bank Provides technical support and advice as appropriate to enhance the PMU capacity and experience. The ARRAP requires clearance by the WB.
3 MoMA, as the implementing agency
disclosing this ARRAP on WB official website, translate into Arabic and made available to the PAPs
4 MoMA, PMU 1- Ensuring the overall implementation of the ARRAP in a satisfactory manner that would satisfy the WB Guidelines.
2- ensuring financial arrangements
3- Post monitoring and reporting on the overall implementation.
4- Liaising with different institutions and stakeholders who have roles in the implementation of the proposed ARRAP.
5 Ramtha Municipality
1- implementing the suggested compensation and resettlement assistance
2- providing the necessary commitment letter in which PM gives
The current occupants a new kiosk without initial vacancy cost
The current occupants employment opportunities when construction of the sub-project starts
The cash compensation to all PAPs suggested earlier from the Municipality allocation of FY2018.
30
Table 19: ARRAP Work Plan, Expected by End of February, 2019
No. Task description Responsibility start date End date Status Outputs and taken actions
1 Submitting revised copy of the Abbreviated Remedial Resettlement Action Plan to WB for review and clearance for public disclosure
PMU October,2018
24, January,2019
Done 1- Approved compensation scheme. 2- Adequate Census survey.
2 Meeting of displaced persons PAPs.
PMU, PAPs 1, February,2019
4, February,2019
Done 1- Describe the compensation scheme to PAPs.
2- Sign the valuation of assets by PAPs. 3- Complete any missing data. 4- Describe the procedures for grievance
redress to PAPs.
3 Submission of written Grievances, (if any)
PM, PAPs 1, February 2019
NA On-going, as needed.
1- Valuation report, if PAPs opt to hire another one. 2- Meet with Grievance Committee to
review complaint and issue resolution to PAP as needed.
6 Issuing the compensation packages
PMU, PAPs, PM
March 1, 2019
March 30th
Planned Issuing the cash compensation packages
31
No. Task description Responsibility
start date End date Status Outputs and taken actions
8 hiring the current occupants: filling out sub-project vacancies
PMU, PM, AP(s).
As sub-project gets started.
planned
10 The resettlement of PAP(s): giving the new kiosk (The physical relocation).
PM By the end of sub-project construction.
planned Relocation to the new kiosk site.
11 Monitoring and Evaluation PMU, and MOMA.
1, January,2018 31, December,2019
planned Review any complaints submitted to Grievances redress mechanism. Carry out internal monitoring activities as per Table 20 and 21
12 Sub-project Construction Commencement Date
PM and Contractor
May, 2019 May, 2020 planned Sub-project finished and kiosk handed to current occupant PAPs
32
8.0 Procedures for Grievance Redress Mechanisms
To ensure that all PAPs have a safe, reliable, and accountable means for their
grievances to be heard, a specific arrangement is suggested as it is a confined situation in our
case; the kiosk demolition and the appropriate way of compensation of the land and the
assets: a Grievance Committee shall be formed. Members include:
1- MSSRP Project Manager or Deputy
2- PMU Safeguards specialist in CVDB
3- Community Outreach specialist/PMU
4- Representative from Local Development Unit in Ramtha Municipality
5- Representative chosen by PAPs
This GC will be responsible for the following tasks:
- The Committee will receive and register the complaints.
- The Committee will respond to the complainant with a rational justification describing
the process by which the complaint was considered and explain the reasons behind
any decision taken by the Committee.
- The Committee will meet periodically and as required to review the received
complaints.
- The Committee will consider each complaint on a case-by-case basis to determine
whether the case constitutes a valid complaint, if so, the Committee is required to find
a fair and just solution to the claim.
- Decisions will be made by consensus, and properly documented.
- There is already a GRM established for the MSSRP Project. In Ramtha case, it could be
through using different tools such as Ramtha Municipality official website, face book
page, GRM log and direct calls to the mayor and municipal staff and engineers. Those
channels could be used by the PAPs as well, and also through informing the PMU of
any grievances, directly.
33
9.0 Arrangements for monitoring and implementation
The main objective of the monitoring exercise is to enable PMU and other stakeholders
to follow up on the progress of the process and make sure that everything is on track in terms
of deliverable on the required time. Additionally, the monitoring seeks to identify perceptions
and levels of satisfaction of those affected of the activity. Main inputs, output and outcomes
are presented in the following table as the list of deliverables. However, the process is
obviously created to try to find a satisfying solution to the issue. Therefore, the main outcome
is to achieve satisfaction of those affected by the process.
Two forms of monitoring will be undertaken:
- Internal monitoring that will be undertaken by both PMU in MoMA and CVDB, and
Ramtha Municipality. This monitoring will ensure that the ARRAP is being
implemented in a proper and satisfactory way to all stakeholders including the PAPs
and get their feedback on the ARRAP implementation.
WB will also continue to monitor through supervision missions the progress of the A-RAP and
reference their findings in Aide memoires.
When preparing a monitoring plan, it needs to be taken into consideration that everyone
involved in the process of the actual activity to be involved in the monitoring plan as well. This
will be specifically in terms of collecting information required for each indicator. These parties
include, but not limited to the following:
1. PMU staff
2. Mayor
3. Relevant municipality staff
4. M&E
There are two main levels of indicators included in this monitoring exercise:
1. Process level indicators: are those that are represented as deliverable of the
activity .
2. Outcome level indicators: are those indicators identified in the table below.
These indicators will allow decision makers and stakeholders of the activity to find out
whether the process followed has resulted in a satisfying outcome or not. Also it will provide
lessons learned to improve the process in similar future situations. The monitoring work plan
will be based on the compensation and resettlement work plan in terms of process level
indicators. However, the outcome monitoring should start immediately after the
compensation and resettlement activities are completed to capture the highest possible level
of reactions and perceptions around it, while relevant people are still remembering the
process followed.
34
The monitoring plan will track the progress of the implementation plan step by step and ask
questions on the methodologies used and whether or not planned activities were
completed. This is to make sure that relevant stakeholders have sufficient information in
order to help evaluating the process as well as the outcome.
The below table shows the monitoring indicators that will be used to measure the identified
outcome and track the process followed. It is important to note that the table includes the
indicators that will be measured by multiple methodologies/questions using different forms
of collecting data as follows:
1. Extracting information from the PMU/PM records. There will be specific tool for this.
2. Key informant interview with PMU and PMs. There will be specific tool for this.
3. Key informant interview with affected people. There will be specific tool for this.
35
Table 20: monitoring indicators
Indicator Unit of measurement
Frequency Responsibility
Data Source
number of affected people disaggregated by sex
Number Semi-Annually PMU, PM PMU records/interview with PMs and PMU staff
Zone of impact of the demolishing the kiosk
text Semi-Annually PMU, PM PMU records/interview with PMs and PMU staff
size of financial losses disaggregated by sex
Number Semi-Annually PMU, PM PMU records/interview with PMs and PMU staff
Prepare socioeconomic studies including valuation of compensation
yes/No and text
once PMU PMU records/interview relevant PMU staff
Type and design of resettlement plan text once PMU PMU records/interview relevant PMU staff
number of agencies responsible for resettlement activities
Number once PMU PMU records/interview relevant PMU staff
conduct the agreed compensation plan
yes/No and text
In accordance with dates set in table 19 and collect verification data in Table 21.
PMU, PM PMU records/interview with PMs and PMU staff
zone of impact of the resettlement plan
text once PMU, PM PMU records/interview relevant PMU staff
number of people benefiting from the resettlement plan disaggregated by sex
Number once PMU, PM PMU records/interview relevant PMU staff
36
Table 20: monitoring indicators cont.
Indicator Unit of measurement
Frequency Responsibility Data Source
extent to which affected people are satisfied with the process
scale one week after the process completion
PMU, PM
KI interview with all affected people discussing the levels of satisfactions and very important to take it further and discuss reasons of dissatisfaction and other solution methodologies could have been taken into consideration
extent to which affected people are satisfied with the outcome of the process
scale one week after the process completion
PMU, PM
KI interview with all affected people discussing the levels of satisfactions and very important to take it further and discuss reasons of dissatisfaction and other solution that could have been taken into consideration
extent to which municipality is satisfied with the process
scale one week after the process completion
PMU, PM KI interview with relevant people at the municipality to see their take on the process followed and its outcome
extent to which other stakeholders are satisfied about the process and outcome
scale one week after the process completion
PMU, PM interview with relevant stakeholders
Zone of impact according to affected people
text one week after the process completion
PMU, PM KI interview with affected people
the magnitude of the affected loss according to affected people
text one week after the process completion
PMU, PM KI interview with affected people
preferred resettlement alternatives according to affected population
text one week after the process completion
PMU, PM KI interview with affected people
37
10.0 Timetable and budget
Table 21 summarizes the ARRAP Components cost estimation. The sub-components
of direct compensation is only valid, if the PAP(s) don’t take the employment opportunity or
not eligible to sub-project employment vacancies. As discussed so far, the PM assigned one
of the 10 kiosks to the PAP(s) as discussed in the Institutional responsibility section. The PM
will not take any initial vacancy cost form the PAP(s). However, PAP(s) need to sign up yearly-
based contract in which the monthly rent will be charged.
Table 21: ARRAP Components cost estimates
A-RAP Components
A-RAP Subcomponents
The Subcomponents
Cost (JOD) Sources of Funds
Time for Expenditures/
Assignment
Verification
Compensation
Cash compensation
8,830
Component - 1: Municipal Grant
of Ramtha municipality of FY
2018.
Immediately
Copy of Cheque(s)
on files; photos of handover; verification of amounts as per the
ARRAP
Employment Opportunity
Null
Embedded within The sub-project
budget
As subproject launches
Names of PAPs listed
on contractor’s list; copy of agreement
with contractor or written consent.
Personally signed
disclaimer if not
interested in working;
Field verification
on site
Resettlement Program
Free Kiosk4 Null
Immediately after
contractor hands over the
construction of the complex
Rental agreement signed with
Ramtha Municipality
4The initial cost will be null, however monthly rent will be charged.
38
List of Figures
Figure 1: Public consultations result in Ramtha municipality ......................................................... 8
Figure 2: letter of allocation the subproject budget ..................................................................... 9
Figure 3: Front Perspective of The Complex ............................................................................... 10
Figure 4: The City of Ramtha .................................................................................................... 10
Figure 5: PM letter sent to governmental agencies and theirresponses ......................................... 11
Figure 6: correspondences to reassign the subproject land.......................................................... 12
Figure 7: The Assignment Letter by the department of land and survey ........................................ 13
Figure 8: the locationof the proposed land using the Department of Land And Survey website ....... 14
Figure 9: the title deed of the land............................................................................................ 14
Figure 10: Google earth photo in A) 2009 for the land B) the first appearance of the in 9/2012 with
area less than 40 m ................................................................................................................. 16
Figure 11: Google earth photo shows the kiosk in 2/2017 with area 50 m2 ................................... 16
Figure 12: The kiosk, Kazem cafe. ............................................................................................. 16
Figure 13: Kiosk Ownership History........................................................................................... 18
Figure 14: meetings held between PAPs and PMU ...................................................................... 20
Figure 15: PAPs ...................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 16: Project Affected Household (PAHs) ............................................................................ 22
Figure 17: Meeting with PAPS and approval of main parts of ARAAP ............................................ 35
List of Tables
Table 1: Sub-Project Land Basic Information .............................................................................. 15
Table 2: PAPs ......................................................................................................................... 20
Table 3: the area of the kiosk ................................................................................................... 23
Table 4: some basic information about the kiosk ........................................................................ 23
Table 5: Sold or consumed items .............................................................................................. 23
Table 6: list of saved equipment ............................................................................................... 23
Table 7: valuation of destroyed assets provided by the current occupants. ................................... 24
Table 8: valuation of destroyed assets provided by the external valuator. ..................................... 24
Table 9: Valuation information of the kiosk on March, 2017 ........................................................ 25
Table 10: valuation of the original kiosk as delivered to current occupants on March, 2017 ............ 25
Table 11: Compensation package of the current occupants ......................................................... 26
Table 12: Compensation packages of the owner of the original kiosk PAP1. .................................. 28
Table 13: Summary of Compensation Packages for all PAPs ......................................................... 28
Table 14: Benefits gained from the resettlement (the new kiosk in the governmental complex) ...... 30
Table 15: PMU site visit ........................................................................................................... 33
Table 16: communications and consultations with PAPs.............................................................. 34
Table 17: survey outputs and interviews with PAPs .................................................................... 34
Table 18: Institutional responsibility ......................................................................................... 35
Table 19: ARAP Work Plan ....................................................................................................... 36
Table 20: monitoring indicators ................................................................................................ 41
Table 21: A-RAP Components cost estimates ............................................................................. 43