Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report Document Details Document Name Final Report-RAP Completion Report for OPRC Project Document Version Number 1 Document Owner Roads Department Issue Date 7th February 2019 Prepared by Keamogetse Mogae i Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background to the Project............................................................................................. 1 1.2 Description of the Project and Corridor of Impact ....................................................... 1 1.3 Nature, Rationale and Purpose of the study .................................................................. 3 1.3.1 Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................... 3 1.3.2 Rationale and nature of the assignment ............................................................ 3 1.4 Scope of services .......................................................................................................... 3 1.5 Summary of Approach and Method .............................................................................. 4 1.5.1 Desktop review ................................................................................................. 4 1.5.2 Sampling Method – Multi Stage Sampling Technique ..................................... 4 1.5.3 Interviews.......................................................................................................... 5 1.5.4 Field surveys ..................................................................................................... 5 2 COMPLIANCE WITH RAP ............................................................................................................ 6 2.1 Legal and Entitlement Policy Framework .................................................................... 6 2.1.1 Relevant Legislation ......................................................................................... 6 i. Tribal Land Act of 1968 ......................................................................................... 6 ii. Tribal Land (Amendment) Act (Cap.32:02 of 1993)............................................. 6 iii. Environmental Assessment Act of (2011) ............................................................ 6 iv. Monuments and Relics Act 2001 ......................................................................... 7 2.1.2 Relevant Policies ............................................................................................... 7 v. Planning and Environmental Impact Assessment of Road Infrastructure, Guideline No. 5 of September 2001 ..................................................... 7 vi. Ministry of Land Management, Water and Sanitation Services-Compensation Guidelines ..................................................................................................................... 8 a. Land Rights and Entitlements ................................................................................ 8 b. Land Acquisition Procedures ............................................................................... 10 c. Eligibility Criteria for Entitlements ..................................................................... 13 d. Methods of Valuing, and Validating the Census of Affected Assets Section ...... 15 e. Organizational Procedures for Delivery of Entitlement ....................................... 16 vii. World Bank OP 4.12.......................................................................................... 17 2.2 Definition of PAPs and Eligibility Criteria ................................................................. 18 ii Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report 2.2.1 Definition of PAPs .......................................................................................... 18 2.2.2 Eligibility Criteria ........................................................................................... 19 2.3 Description and Results of Public Consultation ......................................................... 20 2.3.1 Review of Consultation Process ..................................................................... 20 2.3.2 Consultation with PAPs .................................................................................. 21 2.3.3 Plans for Continued Participation of PAPs ..................................................... 22 3 OUTCOMES OF RAP IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................... 23 3.1 Project Impacts and Need for Resettlement ................................................................ 23 3.1.1 Census and Survey Results ............................................................................. 23 3.2 Compensation and Remedial Measures ...................................................................... 30 3.2.1 Adequacy of Remedial Measures ................................................................... 31 3.2.2 Cut-off Date versus Compensation ................................................................. 32 3.3 Has RAP Implementation Accounted for Actual Livelihood Impact ......................... 33 3.3.1 Socio-economic conditions of PAPs before RAP implementation ................. 33 3.3.2 Socio-economic conditions of PAPs after RAP implementation .................... 35 3.3.3 Impact of the Project on the Poor and Vulnerable Groups ............................. 36 3.4 Grievance and Redress Mechanism ............................................................................ 37 3.4.1 Grievance Handling Processes ........................................................................ 37 3.4.2 Alternative Grievance Handling Mechanisms ................................................ 38 3.4.3 The Nature of Grievances ............................................................................... 39 3.5 RAP Implementation .................................................................................................. 40 3.5.1 Adequacy of RAP Implementation Budget .................................................... 40 3.5.2 Schedule, Monitoring and Responsibility of Tasks ........................................ 41 3.6 Institutional Arrangements.......................................................................................... 42 3.6.1 Capacity of Implementing Agency ................................................................. 42 3.6.2 Personnel for Delivering Entitlements ............................................................ 43 3.6.3 Plans to Build Institutional Capacity .............................................................. 43 3.7 Constraints, Issues and Delays encountered during the RAP Implementation ........... 43 4 MITIGATION PLAN FOR IDENTIFIED GAPS .......................................................................... 44 5 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................. 45 5.1 Study Limitations and Challenges .............................................................................. 45 iii Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report 5.2 Overall assessment of Completion of Implementation ............................................... 45 5.2.1 Adequacy of Remedial Measures ................................................................... 45 5.2.2 Adequacy of Compensation ............................................................................ 46 5.2.3 Inclusion of Communities and PAPs in the Process ....................................... 46 5.2.4 Access to Grievance Redress Mechanism ...................................................... 46 5.2.5 Adequacy of Institutional Arrangements and Procedures............................... 46 5.2.6 Issuance of amended certificates..................................................................... 47 NB: Some PAPs had registered more than one affected property. ............................. 47 5.2.7 Final Cost Versus Budget for RAP and Justification ...................................... 47 5.2.8 Change in PAPS and Justification .................................................................. 47 5.2.9 Estimate of Total Land Acquisition ................................................................ 48 5.2.10 Overall Assessment of Livelihood Impact .................................................... 48 5.2.11 Assessment of Temporary Impact Related to Construction.......................... 48 5.3 Overall conclusion ...................................................................................................... 49 6 LESSONS LEARNT ...................................................................................................................... 50 List of Tables Table 1: Villages in the Study Area / Affected Villages ......................................................................... 5 Table 2: Comments on adherence of Land Acquisition Procedures ..................................................... 11 Table 3: Eligibility Criteria for Entitlements ........................................................................................ 13 Table 4: Information about Rights and Options.................................................................................... 22 Table 5: Awareness to Engage Valuation Professionals ....................................................................... 22 Table 6: Opportunity to Make Claim for Properties ............................................................................. 22 Table 7: Land use and Number of Affected Plots for Package 1 .......................................................... 23 Table 8: Land use and Number of Affected Plots for Package 2 .......................................................... 24 Table 9: Affected Archaeological Sites for Package 1 ......................................................................... 26 Table 10: Affected Sites of Social Significance for Package 1 ............................................................ 27 Table 11: Affected Archaeological Sites for Package 2 ....................................................................... 27 Table 12: Affected Sites of Social Significance ................................................................................... 27 Table 13: Status of PAPs with respect to road realignment .................................................................. 30 iv Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report Table 14: Main Sources of households'monthly income ...................................................................... 34 Table 15: Monthly household income in the study area, 2018 ............................................................. 34 Table 16: Summary of grievances and how they were addressed......................................................... 39 Table 17: Adequacy of Budget for Package 1 ...................................................................................... 40 Table 18: Adequacy of Budget for Package 2 ...................................................................................... 40 Table 19: Schedule of Tasks ................................................................................................................. 41 Table 20: Comments and Observations for Adherence to Schedule..................................................... 41 Table 21: Constraints, Issues and delays encountered during RAP Implementation............................ 43 Table 22: Mitigation Plan for Identified Gaps ...................................................................................... 44 Table 23: Status of Amended Certificates ............................................................................................ 47 Table 24: Status of PAPs with respect to road realignment .................................................................. 48 List of Figures Figure 1: Road Sections for OPRC Package 1 ........................................................................................ 2 Figure 2: Road Sections for OPRC Package 2 ........................................................................................ 2 Figure 3: Road alignment in Selokolela................................................................................................ 28 Figure 4: Road alignment in Sese ......................................................................................................... 28 Figure 5: Road alignment in Mmakgori ................................................................................................ 29 Figure 6: Road alignment in Tlhareseleele ........................................................................................... 29 Figure 7: Road alignment in Rakhuna .................................................................................................. 29 Figure 8: Adequacy of Compensation .................................................................................................. 31 Figure 9: Livelihood Impacts of RAP ................................................................................................... 35 Figure 10: Household Headship and Source of Income........................................................................ 36 Figure 11: Alternative Grievance Handling Mechanisms ..................................................................... 38 v Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report List of Appendices Appendix 1: Frequencies of data collected Appendix 2: Crosstabulations of data collected Appendix 3: Project Affected Persons Written Consent Form Appendix 4: Assessment Reports Appendix 5: Form I-Notice to Treat Appendix 6: Minutes of meetings with stakeholders Appendix 7: Questionnaire for Project team Appendix 8: Proof of Payment Appendix 9: Inspection Report (Buildings)-Form 2 Appendix 9: Comments Response Sheets vi Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report LIST OF ACRONYMS AIA Archaeological Impact Assessment AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome DEA Department of Environmental Affairs DLUPU District Land Use Planning Unit EA Act Environmental Assessment Act ESIA Environment and Social Impact Assessment GoB Government of Botswana HIV Human Immuno deficiency Virus ITP Integrated Transport Project km Kilometre NDP National Development Plan OPRC Output and Performance Based Road Contracting PAP Project Affected Persons RAP Resettlement Action Plan RD Roads Department RPF Resettlement Policy Framework WB World Bank vii Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background to the Project The Government of Botswana (GoB) has implemented Integrated Transport Project (ITP) which included, as one of the components, piloting of Output and Performance Based Road Contracting (OPRC) on a 336 km road network. The co-funding agreement between GoB and the World Bank (WB) envisaged implementing the project according to the Laws of Botswana and the WB guidelines with respect to Project Affected Persons (PAPs). Roads Department (RD) has implemented two Resettlement Action Plans (RAP) as per requirements of the World Bank. The RAPs were required because the road rehabilitation works involved widening of the road and upgrading some road sections from gravel to bitumen standard. This widening and upgrading of the road required land-take from existing properties in order to meet the desired road design width. These existing properties included: ploughing fields, residential properties, and other assets in the right-of-way of the road within the road network. Owners of the properties were consulted and following consultation, assessment of the properties was done by the Land Board in conjunction with Roads Department upon which a comprehensive report was compiled by Department of Lands, in the Ministry of Land Management, Water and Sanitation Services. Upon agreement of assessed compensation, the owners were compensated either in cash or by providing alternative land to an equal or higher value. In accordance with the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF), an independent evaluation of the implementation of RAPs for Packages 1 and 2 is a requirement. Hence this RAP Completion report for the OPRC Project. The RAPs, the addenda to the RAPs and the RAP completion report are government reports adhering to World Bank OP. 1.2 Description of the Project and Corridor of Impact The OPRC activities were organized in two packages: 1. The OPRC Package 1 constitutes: Road Works _Contract under (OPRC) (Asset Management Contract) for Design Rehabilitation/Improvement, Routine and Periodic Maintenance Works. The Main Road Sections (123.5km) are: Mmankgodi Junc – Kanye – Jwaneng, while Access Roads (52.5 km) are: Kanye road, Moshana road, Selokolela road, Sesung road, Sese road, Lotlhakane West road, Moshupa loop road and Moshupa Kgotla road as in Figure 1. 1 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report Figure 1: Road Sections for OPRC Package 1 2. The OPRC Package 2 constituted: Road Works _Contract under (OPRC) (Asset Management Contract) for Design Rehabilitation/Improvement, Routine and Periodic Maintenance Works. The Main Road Sections (144 km) are: Rakhuna – Tlhareseleele - Pitsane – Phitshane Molopo – Mabule while the Access Roads (15.9 km) are: Rakhuna Kgotla, Tlhareseleele Kgotla, Pitsane Kgotla, Cwaanyaneng Kgotla, Tswagare Kgotla, Mokgomane Kgotla, Sedibeng Kgotla, Phitshane Molopo Kgotla, Leporung Kgotla, Dikhukhung Kgotla, Mmakgori Kgotla, Tshidilamolomo Kgotla and Mabule Kgotla as in Figure 2. Figure 2: Road Sections for OPRC Package 2 2 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report 1.3 Nature, Rationale and Purpose of the study 1.3.1 Purpose of the Study The overall purpose of the study is to undertake an independent evaluation of the Resettlement Action Plans for Packages 1 and 2 in order to determine whether the efforts to restore the living standards of the affected populations have been properly designed and executed. This independent evaluation is a requirement under the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF). As per the RPF, the Roads Department controls the implementation of the OPRC activities throughout the project life span. 1.3.2 Rationale and nature of the assignment 1. The Completion Report of the RAP is intended to document the benefits that the Project Affected Persons (PAPs) and communities along this corridor have received to improve their livelihoods as a direct result of the implementation of the RAP in particular, and the road rehabilitation project in general. 2. The primary aim of this RAP Completion Report is to undertake an independent review of the process and outputs of the resettlement compensation/rehabilitation activities under the project. The completion report highlights the positive and negative impacts the RAP implementation may have had on PAPs and communities along the OPRC road network. It looks at the living condition of those PAPs and communities along the road network before and after the project implementation with specific focus on demographic trends, livelihood structure, pattern of social interaction and community organization, and the existence and functioning of social networks and support systems. 1.4 Scope of services The scope of the exercise is as follows: i. Review RAP and associated implementation reports; ii. Undertake site visits to consult PAPs, Grievance Committees and project team to fulfil the requirements of the assignment; iii. Determine that affected persons have been fully and fairly compensated in accordance with Botswana laws and policies and in compliance with World Bank guidelines and standards, which require that full replacement cost is paid for all assets taken by the project; iv. Ascertain that documentary evidence exists in support of adequate compensation for Project Affected Persons claims or entitlements to the land, structures and other assets v. Review the RAP Grievance Redress Mechanism and how effective it has been during the implementation; vi. Indicators should include, but not be limited to the following: category of property acquisitions, rate of rebuilding new structures, quality of homes, access to public and social services including markets, health, water supply and education, and other economic development opportunities in the RAP area; travel time along the corridor, social interaction 3 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report and organization, and any other indicator pertaining to the individual and community social, economic and physical status and well-being; vii. Prepare partial action plans for redress should there be instances of inadequate compensations or PAPs who were not compensated during RAP implementation and; viii. Compile a consolidated report consisting of partial reports prepared earlier for some sections of the roads. ix. Draw out lessons and provide recommendations for improvements in the future resettlement efforts. 1.5 Summary of Approach and Method 1.5.1 Desktop review Amongst the documents reviewed to guide the study were the following; • Resettlement Policy Framework • Resettlement Action Plans for Packages 1 and 2 • World Bank Safeguard Policies OP 4.12 • Ministry of Lands and Housing Compensation Guidelines, 2010 • Tribal Land Act of 1968 • Tribal Land (Amendment) Act (Cap.32:02 of 1993) • Environmental Assessment Act of (2011) • Monuments and Relics Act, 2001 • Planning and Environmental Impact Assessment of Road Infrastructure, Guideline No. 5 of September 2001 1.5.2 Sampling Method – Multi Stage Sampling Technique Given the nature of the assignment, probability sampling method was considered appropriate. We have adopted Multi Stage Sampling technique for this study whereby we combined clustering and simple random sampling. The total number of PAPs (220) became the population for the study while Packages 1 and 2 became the sampling frame. A total of 14 villages (from both packages) became clusters from which the samples were selected. Within each cluster (village) we have selected a simple random sample of 25%, giving each respondent an equal opportunity of being selected. Out of the 5 villages for Package 1 and 9 villages for Package 2, a total of 60 PAPs were selected. A sample of 25% is considered statistically significant and representative. 4 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report 1.5.3 Interviews A questionnaire (containing both closed and open-ended questions) was designed to guide the interviews with the PAPs. The interviews were conducted with the 60 PAPs that made up the sample. Another questionnaire was designed to guide focus group discussions with the members of the grievance committees. Where the grievance committees did not exist (though they were established at the beginning of the project), the interviews were held with the chiefs as some community members were said to have reported their grievances to the chief in the absence of functional grievance committees. Lastly, face to face interviews with the project team and government institutions (Land Boards, Department of Lands) were conducted. 1.5.4 Field surveys Site visits to all project villages were undertaken first for reconnaissance and later for ground truthing/verification of affected properties. The villages that were visited are as follows; Table 1: Villages in the Study Area / Affected Villages Package 1 Villages Package 2 Villages Lotlhakane West Rakhuna Moshupa Tlhareseleele Moshana Pitsane Selokolela Phitshane Molopo Sesung Leporung Sese Dikhukhung Mmakgori Tshidilamolomo Mabule 5 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report 2 Compliance with RAP 2.1 Legal and Entitlement Policy Framework 2.1.1 Relevant Legislation i. Tribal Land Act of 1968 Under this Act, the Land Board was established as an institution for managing all tribal/customary land. The Land Board grants customary land rights to citizens of Botswana. The Land Board also leases land under common law forms of tenure. Part V of the Act specifically addresses procedures for dealing with the application of expropriation for tribal land required for public purposes. Section 32 of the Tribal Land Act provides that land may be granted to the state for public purposes only if the president determines that the purpose for which it is acquired is in the interest of the public. The President possesses power of the eminent domain for expropriation of land. The president may acquire any real (immovable) property where the acquisition of such is necessary for public purposes. Section 33 (2) of the Tribal Land Act (1968) provides that compensation is payable when land is acquired for a project and the acquiring body is financially responsible for all aspects of the project; this includes payment for compensation to claimants. The displaced person may be granted the right to use other land if available and is entitled to adequate compensation. In accordance with this Act, Roads Department approached Ngwaketse and Rolong Land Boards through respective Sub Land Boards to seek servitudes for their proposed road alignments. The respective land authorities (Sub Land Boards) consequently constituted compensation assessment committees for purposes of assessment and valuation of affected properties. Following approval of the valuation reports, PAPs were compensated in accordance with the compensation guidelines and eligibility requirements. ii. Tribal Land (Amendment) Act (Cap.32:02 of 1993) The Act allows for determination of land use zones in tribal areas. According to the Act, a Land Board shall after due consultation with the District Council determine and define land use zones within a tribal area. The Land Board shall not make grants of land for any use which is in conflict with the use for which land is zoned. Land Boards may determine management plans for use and development of the zones. In both Packages 1 and 2, all the affected properties were in conformity with the zoning requirements of the land authorities (Sub Land Boards). Hence, there were no land use conflicts. iii. Environmental Assessment Act of (2011) The EA Act provides for Environmental Impact Assessments to be used to assess the potential effects of planned development activities; to determine and to provide mitigation measures for effects of such activities as may have a significant adverse impact on the environment; to put in place a monitoring process and evaluation of the environmental impacts of implemented activities; and to provide for matters incidental to the foregoing. Only after the competent authority, the DEA, has approved the Environmental Impact Statement can the project proceed. 6 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report For the undertaking of environmental studies in compliance with the EA Act (2011), the Environmental Assessment Guidelines (2012) have been developed. These guidelines clearly outline the activities to be undertaken during each of the assessment stages, as well as the information and format to be submitted to the DEA for review. In fulfilment of the EA Act, the Roads Department commissioned an EIA for the proposed project. The EIA process considered the pre-construction, construction and post construction impacts and mitigations. The EIA reports for the 2 packages were subsequently prepared and approved by the competent authority (Department of Environmental Affairs) thus paving way for the project. The Environmental Management Plan is currently being implemented through the road construction contractor. iv. Monuments and Relics Act 2001 All archaeological sites and to some extent historic sites are protected under the Monuments and Relics Act (2001). This Act requires that Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) is undertaken for all major development projects and that a Development Permit is obtained from the National Museum before any construction can take place. Section 18 prohibits any alteration, damage or removal from original site of any national monument, relic or recent artefacts. Section 19 of the Act provides for pre-development archaeological impact assessments and mitigation where planned developments are likely to disturb the earth s surface. In adherence to the requirements of this Act, an AIA was undertaken and development permit issued by the competent authority (Department of National Museum and Monuments) thus paving way for construction. 2.1.2 Relevant Policies v. Planning and Environmental Impact Assessment of Road Infrastructure, Guideline No. 5 of September 2001 The guideline is used as a guide in the planning and EIA of linear developments, with particular reference to roads. All road project impacts are included in the assessments, both monetary and non- monetary. All significant impacts are described and discussed in order to optimize the benefits of the roads and minimize the adverse effects. The planning and construction of roads is guided by a 5-year National Development Plan (NDP), outlining projects that are to be undertaken during the period of the plan. The guideline sees consultation as necessary for ensuring that the road network is planned and implemented in an accountable and transparent manner. The EIA process considered the requirements as outlined in this guideline and key amongst them being consultations. Public meetings and invitations for public review were advertised in the print media as required by the EA Act. Proceedings for such meetings are presented in the reports. 7 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report vi. Ministry of Land Management, Water and Sanitation Services- Compensation Guidelines The compensation guidelines are in line with the Tribal Land Act of 1968 and deals with both customary land rights and common law grants. The compensation guidelines were prepared by the Department of Lands in 1977 and revised in 2010. There are three (3) main categories of land in Botswana: customary, freehold and state land. Customary land is administered by the Land Boards and covers over 70% of the total land area. Freehold land is administered by the Department of Lands through the Attorney Generals Chambers which is responsible for all land transactions. Freehold land entitles the landholder to perpetual and exclusive rights to land and constitutes 5% of the total land area in the country. State land is administered by the Department of Lands and makes up 25% of the land area and comprises National Parks and Wildlife Management Areas (19.4%), Forest Reserves (1%) and all urban land (4.6%). a. Land Rights and Entitlements Compensation for tribal land is considered under two categories: • Customary Land Rights • Common Law Land Rights Customary Land Rights Regarding customary land the displaced people are entitled to adequate compensation for the following, where applicable: • The value of any standing crops taken over by the state • The value of any improvements effected to such land, including the value of any clearing or preparation of land for agricultural or other purposes • The costs of resettlement, and • The loss of the right of user of such land NB: The last bullet above refers to where no alternative land is identified or any portion of land taken cannot be replaced. Compensation shall include the value equivalent to loss of right to use that land. From the valuation reports, it is evident that Roads Department adhered to the compensation requirements under customary land rights. It is however noted that there were no standing crops affected and no loss of right of user. Compensations in both Packages 1 and 2 were made to PAPs for: • Agricultural land and associated developments • Developed and undeveloped residential plots • Church land • Grave yard land 8 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report • Fenced kraal land • Affected trees • Infrastructures Common Law Land Rights When dealing with leases, there may be complications arising due to the following factors; • The lease being registered • The lease being mortgaged • Subletting of one or more portions of leased property • The disruption or closure of business operations NB Where there are complications, such cases are referred to the Department of Lands. Acquisition procedures in the case of leased properties are as follows: • The Land Board acquires vacant possession and negotiates the best price. Where the occupier agrees and there is no burden to personal interest, compensation would follow • The Land Board may use its powers under the lease to permit construction of pipelines, power lines, roads, drains etc. for public purposes. Compensation is paid only for direct damage to improvements, nuisance and for any land taken for the above servitudes and cannot be replaced • The Land Board may exercise its right to terminate the lease as provided for in the lease agreement in which case adequate compensation is payable. Other Cases. Where fixed costs which are compensated can in fact be salvaged and transported to the alternative site, then removal costs shall be payable based on the actual costs incurred or 10% of the total compensation sum per affected household, taking the higher value. In the case of existing business operations, the following situations are also covered: • Loss of goodwill • Injurious affection and severance where access or other conditions are changed • The loss sustained by reason of moving to an alternative site (disturbance) There is evidence that Roads Department adhered to the requirements as per common law rights. A case in point is a brick yard business in Moshana where a portion of land was taken and the screen wall destroyed. Another case is a general dealer at Tlhareseleele where only portion of land taken and fence affected. As for both properties there was no loss of goodwill, no injurious and severance as access and other conditions were not changed, the compensation only considered loss of land and damage to the screen walls. 9 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report b. Land Acquisition Procedures When government or a statutory body undertakes a project, which is of national importance and the only land suitable for that project is already occupied, the President shall determine in accordance with Section 32 of the Tribal land Act that it is in the public interest that the land be acquired for the project. When such land is taken, compensation is payable as per Section 32 (2) of the Tribal Land Act. The Acquiring body is responsible for aspects of the project including payment of compensation direct to the claimants. National projects include new airports, power stations, dams, schools, roads, village expansions etc. The compensation guidelines require that the acquiring body informs the relevant Land Board of its intention at least six months prior to commencement of the project, both of which shall consult the affected parties as appropriate and specified in the guidelines. The required consultation shall involve the District Land Use Planning Unit (DLUPU), District Council, as well as Department of Environmental Affairs (formerly National Conservation Strategy Unit). In accordance with the guidelines, the Land Board shall in the case of big projects insist that an Environmental Impact Study be commissioned to assess the project’s implications. The results of the study are to be used as a factor in deciding the nature of the development and enable the Land Board to state the appropriate conditions under which the application may be approved. The identification of amelioration measures to overcome the suggested impacts should be included in a programme for compensation. In the event of acquisition of already occupied tribal land, Regulation 15 of the Tribal Land Regulations of 1970 is invoked. The acquiring authority with the assistance of the Land Board, make reasonable effort to identify and contact all occupiers within the zoned land. If deemed necessary, the Land Board shall request for a kgotla (community) meeting to advise the people of the scheme and their rights. The views of the affected communities are documented to ensure that they are taken into consideration when a decision to implement the project is made. Using an Environmental Impact Study, DLUPU or the National Steering Committee should give an early recommendation, in principle, to the Land Board, which then forms the basis of subsequent detailed recommendations. Once it has been decided to proceed with the project the compensation assessment committee conducts a physical inspection recording all the details of all improvements to the land and any other fixed assets affected within the zoned area. The inspection report is the basis upon which compensation is assessed. The assessment committee invites the various affected occupiers to submit any additional or counter claims for their improvements if they so wish. Some claimants may engage the services of professionals and should be given time to do so. The compensation assessment committee then meets to discuss and agree on the appropriate rates of compensation. 10 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report Compensation rates are reviewed yearly and for improvements they are based on depreciated replacement value. Where only part of the land is required and the part remaining cannot be used by itself because of size, access or negative impact of the project, the assessment report gives full details as the acquiring authority may be required to take the whole land and pay compensation for improvements. The Land Board should consider the compensation assessment and submit its recommendations to the Department of Lands for checking and adjustment where necessary. The Department of Lands then advises the acquiring authority of the approved report. The acquiring authority then immediately releases payment directly to claimants. In the case of emergencies, an order is issued by the Minister of Lands and Housing to the effect that people should vacate their land before compensation is paid with commitment by the acquiring authority for full compensation at a subsequent date with interest. In the event of the applicants being dissatisfied with the compensation assessment, they are advised to appeal to the Minister of Lands and Housing who may then appoint an arbitrator in accordance with section 25 (2) of the Tribal Land Act, Cap. 32:02. The claimants have the right to take the appeal to Court if they so wish. NB Section 40 of the Tribal Land (Amendment) Act of 1993 provides for the establishment of the Land Tribunal to assume the responsibility of the Minister in adjudicating on these appeals. Table 2: Comments on adherence of Land Acquisition Procedures Summary of Land Acquisition Procedures Comments on adherence RD to inform Land Board of intended project Land Boards have confirmed that they were within 6 months. informed (see interaction with Mr. Morokotso of Moshupa Sub Land Board). That was the beginning of their involvement in the project and indeed the entire compensation process was handled by the respective Land Boards. RD and Land Board to consult affected parties This was done even though in some villages there was no representation from the Land Board (for example; Moshupa, Sese, Sesung, Selokolela and Lotlhakane West villages for Package 1). For Package 2, there is no record of participation by either Roads Department or Land Board. Only the EIA consultant and the contractor’s representative were involved. Document views of communities The views of communities were documented for both Packages 1 and 2 in all the affected villages (Appendix 3 of the RAP reports). 11 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report Summary of Land Acquisition Procedures Comments on adherence Constitute grievance redress committees This was done for both packages in all the affected villages (Chapter 14 and Appendix 3 of the RAP reports) Land Board to request RD for an EIA EIA for both packages was prepared and approved by DEA. Constitute compensation assessment committee The Land Board has a standing compensation and conduct physical inspection of affected assessment committee. Physical inspection of properties affected properties was undertaken by the assessment committee led by a valuer. Compensation assessment committee to advise Interactions with Land Board and Department of PAPs on their rights to submit additional or Lands revealed that the committee advised PAPs counter claims of their rights verbally as they do not have a formal notification instrument (see interactions with Department of Lands and Land Board). Advise PAPs of their right to engage valuation Interactions with Land Board and Department of professionals Lands revealed that the committee advised PAPs of their rights verbally as they do not have a formal notification instrument (see interactions with Department of Lands and Land Board). RD also confirmed that communication of the right of PAPs to engage valuation professionals was not documented but those who were not satisfied by Land Board valuations were verbally advised to seek third party assistance (Question 13 of the Project team questionnaire). Submit valuation reports to Department of Lands Even though there is no record of submission of for verification valuation reports from Land Board to Department of Lands, savingrams from Department of Lands to Land Board reveal that there was formal communication from Department of Lands to Land Board about approval of the compensation reports as well as from the Land Board to Roads Department for release of payments to claimants. 12 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report Summary of Land Acquisition Procedures Comments on adherence Inform RD and Land Board of approved valuation Available documents (Savingrams) in the RAP reports reports reveal that there was formal communication from Department of Lands to Land Board about approval of the compensation reports as well as from the Land Board to Roads Department for release of payments to claimants. Release of payments directly to PAPs within 3 Release of payments to some of the PAPs within months of assessment 3 months was not achieved hence the compensation amounts were adjusted upwards by 5% in accordance with the guidelines (see Appendix 4: Assessment reports). Inform claimants of their rights to appeal to Discussion with the Land Board revealed that this Minister of Lands and Housing or Land Tribunal was done verbally when payments were released if not satisfied with the valuation to claimants. c. Eligibility Criteria for Entitlements Table 3: Eligibility Criteria for Entitlements Category of PAP Type of Loss Eligibility Entitlements Compensation at current Market Price Compensation at full Loss of Land Holder of a Title, Lease holder replacement cost value, mobility, allowance and disturbance Building permit, structure drawings, Three neighbor Compensation for Loss of Structure witnesses and Photographs (of missed profit Business Owner informal properties) Loss of business Audited accounts, Account Compensation at income books, Legger Book current market price Compensation at full replacement cost value, mobility, Loss of temporary Lease contract, rental receipts, allowance and structures MOU disturbance 13 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report Category of PAP Type of Loss Eligibility Entitlements Lease contract, rental receipts, Compensation for No loss of land MOU advanced lease Compensation for Loss of rental Lease contract, rental receipts, Business tenant equivalent lease and accommodation MOU lost Loss of good will Goodwill fee, mobility allowance and disturbance Compensation for Loss of land Holder of a title. Leaseholder equivalent lease Residence owners Building permit, structure Compensation at full drawings, Three neighbor Loss of structure replacement cost witnesses and Photographs (of value informal properties) Lease contract, rental receipts, Compensation for MOU advance rent Compensation for Loss of rental equivalent Residence Tenant accommodation Lease contract, rental receipts, accommodation or MOU three months lease, mobility allowance and disturbance Supplementary Comfort and Elderly, Physically challenged, Vulnerable Groups compensation to be security long –term sick settled case by case Assistance in getting title for new land, and Squatters**/ or/ supplementary Loss of use of Land Three neighbor witness encroachers assistance, mobility allowance and disturbance Relocation of Amenities in Right of way Public amenities Relocation Cost amenities (ROW) Compensation for Holder of a title, leaseholder equivalent lease Religious site Loss of structure Compensation at full (Church) Building permit, structure replacement cost drawings value **In this project there were no squatters. 14 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report All affected parties and assets are eligible for compensation, except the following categories: • Improvement carried out after the cut-off-date • Loss of rights when the use of the land is in conflict with the use for which the land is zoned • Loss of improvements when they are in conflict with the land use zoning, unless the affected person can demonstrate that improvements were carried out with the authority of the Land Board or prior to the zoning of the land in question. From the RAP reports and interviews with PAPs, there were no business tenants, residence tenants and squatters who were affected by the project hence there was no consideration for eligibility and entitlements in this regard. However, the project affected business owners such as the hardware at Moshana and general dealer at Tlhareseleele. Evidence from the valuation reports and discussions with Department of Lands and land authorities indicates that these PAPs were compensated appropriately in accordance with their eligibility and entitlement. Similarly, residence and ploughing fileds owners were compensated in compliance with the compensation guidelines taking into consideration the current market rates. This situation also applied to the religious sites which were affected by the project. Furthermore, assistance was given to PAPs to acquire new certificates for their properties by transporting them to the land authorities. Evidence from the list of PAPs who were compensated shows that Botswana Telecommunications Corporation was duly compensated to relocate their infrastructure in line with their entitlements. Lastly, whilst the World Bank provides for supplementary compensation on a case by case basis to vulnerable groups, the compensation guidelines do not have provision for such. Thus, the valuation reports do not have any indication of supplementary compensation to these groups. d. Methods of Valuing, and Validating the Census of Affected Assets Section The census of the affected assets is based on Forms 2.\32 and 5 of the Compensation Guidelines. Aerial photography of the project site, with proper referencing completes the census. The schedule 11 of Form 4 of the Guidelines provides an extensive compensation rates that are renewed on a yearly basis. The rates are based on guides for the most common types of affected assets, but the Committee also exerts its best judgment on a case by case basis, factoring in various other factors. The result of the census is then read out to the affected parties, who are given the chance to add their views to the results before signing the Form 2 (Inspection Report-Buildings) or Form 3 (Inspection Report-Fields), indicating that they were present at the validation of the census or were represented. After the census validation, the Assessment Committee meets to discuss and agree on appropriate rates, which are entered on the assessment forms for each affected asset. Discussions with the Land Board indicated that compensation assessment committee read out the results of the census to affected parties before signing Form 2 or Form 3 as required by the compensation guidelines. Even though interviews with PAPs showed contradictory responses to these questions, what is clear is that PAPs or their representatives signed the requisite forms. 15 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report e. Organizational Procedures for Delivery of Entitlement Once the Compensation Report has been approved, the programme is then implemented by the Department of Lands. Compensations are paid in cash or in kind whenever feasible. Compensation for loss of all assets, displacement and relocation is payable immediately and directly to the Project Affected Persons by the acquiring body. As per section 8.0 of the compensation guidelines, the vacation of acquired land by the affected parties might happen either: • After the payment of compensation package: this may occur immediately after such payment. • Not after the payment of the compensation package: in this case, the occupiers will sign a written agreement with the acquiring authority specifying the date by which occupiers must vacate the acquired land (8.0) • Before the payment of compensation package: in case of emergencies, an order should be issued by the minister to the effect that people should vacate land before compensation is paid. In such instances, a written undertaking must be given by the acquiring body guaranteeing action as per section 6.0 and 7.0 of the compensation guidelines (census and preparation of a compensation report), and the commitment that interest will be paid from the date of taking possession of the land in cash or in kind whenever feasible. Even though vacating the affected piece of land before compensation was not applicable because there was no emergency in terms of the Tribal Land Act, interviewed PAPs indicated that they vacated (made way) the land before compensation to avoid delaying the project commencement. Furthermore, 21 of the interviewed PAPs indicated that the notice to realign the affected plot boundaries was inadequate whilst 30 PAPs felt it was adequate. Only 9 PAPs did not know of the notice. Some of the PAPs were given 5% interest on their compensation amounts because it took longer than 3 months from date of assessment to actual payout period. Evidence from Roads Department in the form of Compensation offer letters also shows that PAPs were given an option to accept monetary compensation or in kind (see Project Affected Person Written Consent Form- Appendix 3). Consultations with the land authorities revealed that quite a number of affected ploughing fields did not have land rights certificates. However, assessment of properties was undertaken after determining the ownership status of such properties with the assistance of the local chiefs. After compensation, realignment of boundaries of all affected properties was done resulting in issuance of amended land rights certificates. Notwithstanding notifications to property owners about availability of certificates, collection rates of the certificates remained low. The land authorities further embarked on an initiative to deliver the certificates to respective villages with the hope that uptake would improve but still there are some that are not collected (see minutes of meeting with Moshupa Sub Land Board-Appendix 6). 16 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report vii. World Bank OP 4.12 The requirements for World Bank OP 4.12 are as follows: Displaced persons- Measures should ensure that the displaced persons are: • Informed about their options and rights pertaining to resettlement • Consulted on, offered choices among, and provided with technically and economically feasible resettlement alternatives • Provided prompt and effective compensation at full replacement cost for loss of assets attributable directly to the project. Remedial actions/measures If the impacts include physical relocation, the World Bank requires that the displaced persons are: • Provided assistance (such as moving allowances) during relocation • Provided with residential housing, or housing sites, or as required, agricultural sites for which a combination of productive potential, locational advantages, and other factors is at least equivalent to the advantages of the old site • Offered support after displacement, for a transition period, based on a reasonable estimate of the time likely to be needed to restore their livelihood and standards of living • Provided with development assistance (such as land preparation, credit facilities, training, or job opportunities) in addition to compensation measures Replacement costs • For agricultural land – it is the pre-project or pre-displacement, whichever is higher, market value of land of equal productive potential or use located in the vicinity of the affected land, plus the cost of any registration and transfer taxes. • For land in urban areas – it is the pre-displacement market value of land of equal size and use, with similar or improved public infrastructure facilities and services and located in the vicinity of the affected land, plus the cost of any registration and transfer taxes. • For houses and other structures – it is the market cost of the materials to build a replacement structure with an area and quality similar to or better than those of the affected structure, plus the cost of transporting building materials to the construction site, plus the cost of any labour and contractors’ fees, plus the cost of registration and transfer taxes. 17 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report Valuation • Valuation does not take into account depreciation of structures and assets • For losses that cannot easily be valued or compensated for in monetary terms e.g. access to public services, customers, and suppliers or to fishing, grazing or forest areas, attempts are made to establish access to equivalent and culturally acceptable resources and earning opportunities. • Where domestic law does not meet the standard of compensation at full replacement cost, compensation under domestic law is supplemented by additional measures necessary to meet the replacement cost standard. Vulnerable groups • Special attention should be paid to vulnerable groups i.e. ✓ Below poverty datum line ✓ The landless ✓ The elderly ✓ Women and children ✓ Indigenous people ✓ Ethnic minorities 2.2 Definition of PAPs and Eligibility Criteria 2.2.1 Definition of PAPs In line with the World Bank Safeguard Policy OP 4.12, any person who suffers loss of or damage to an asset or loss of access to productive resources, as a consequence of the implementation of any of the road projects under the OPRC would be considered a property affected person (PAP). The likely impacted/affected parties can be classified into five groups namely: Individual- an individual who suffers loss of assets or investments, land and property and/or access to natural and/or economical resources as a result of the project activities and to whom compensation is due. Household - a household is affected if one or more of its member’s losses assets or investments, land and property and/or access to natural and/or economical resources as a result of project activities. Vulnerable households - includes those below poverty datum line, the landless on communal land, the elderly, women, children, orphans, those afflicted by HIV/AIDS, and indigenous people. These groups of people are identified through the socio-economic and baseline study. These groups of people are normally marginalized and often do not have a voice. 18 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report Identifying them ensures that special attention would be paid to them by identifying their needs and ensuring that they are not left out in the participatory process of the project activities. Special attention is paid to monitoring them to ensure that their pre-project livelihood is indeed improved and are given technical and financial assistance if they wish to make use of the grievance mechanisms of the project. Host communities - strain on existing infrastructure and services resulting from the increased population resulting from the resettlers. Communities - (when common goods such as schools, meeting places, place of worship are affected). 2.2.2 Eligibility Criteria Any PAP is eligible for compensation and/or resettlement assistance, provided the damage or loss is caused by the project and satisfies the conditions of the cut-off date. Thus, all project affected persons irrespective of their status or whether they have formal titles, legal rights or not, squatters (in this project there are no squatters) or otherwise are eligible for assistance if they occupied the land before the cut-off date. In accordance with the World Bank Safeguard Policy OP 4.12, displaced persons may be classified in one of the following three groups: a) Those that have formal legal rights to land (including customary and traditional rights recognized under the laws of the country) b) Those who do not have formal legal rights to land at the time the census begins but have a claim to such land or assets provided that such claims are recognized under the laws of the country or become recognized through a process identified in the resettlement plan. c) Those who have no recognizable legal right or claim to the land they are occupying. Those covered under a) and b) above are to be provided compensation for the land they lose, and other assistance in accordance with the World Bank Policy. Persons covered under c) are to be provided with resettlement assistance if they occupy the project area prior to a cut-off date. As per the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) the following categories are not eligible for compensation: • Improvement carried out after the cut-off-date • Loss of rights when the use of the land is in conflict with the use for which the land is zoned • Loss of improvements when they are in conflict with the land use zoning, unless the affected person can demonstrate that improvements were carried out with the authority of the land board or prior to the zoning of the land in question. 19 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report 2.3 Description and Results of Public Consultation The Resettlement Action Plan Reports (Packages 1 and 2), contain information on stakeholder engagement and public consultations for the road projects. The purpose of the engagement and consultations were primarily to promote buy in and participation of all involved in the project, to give all affected by the project opportunities to state their concerns and grievances as well as to find common resolutions to emerging issues around the project. Internal and external stakeholders were identified and engaged during the initial stages of the project as well as the ESIA Scoping stage. The second level was the consultations with communities, PAPs, Government officials, VDCs, and NGOs. In total 14 villages were identified as communities to be affected by the project. Public meetings were arranged in identified affected villages as part of the Environment and Social Impact Assessment exercise. Interviews were arranged with PAPs and focused group discussions were conducted with poor household and female headed household representing vulnerable groups. 2.3.1 Review of Consultation Process Stakeholder engagements and public consultations were done as required by law and policies of both the Republic of Botswana and the World Bank Guidelines. The RAP Reports give a detailed account of the content of public meetings at all project affected villages (Appendix 3 from the RAP report). It is evident from the RAP reports that only one round of public meetings was held and this was at the scoping stage of the ESIA study where amongst others, the project was introduced to the communities. No further public meetings were held either to appraise the communities on project progress or give feedback. Nonetheless, the issues that were identified during consultations as per both the ESIA and RAP Reports are as follows: • Employment issues • HIV/AIDS issues • Influx of people and crime • Economic development of the village and recognition • Ground and surface water impacts • Corporate social responsibility initiatives • Borrow pit identification and permitting • Relocation and compensation • Air pollution • Noise pollution • Collision of vehicles with livestock • Destruction of archaeological sites 20 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report • Loss of land and/or relocations • Destruction of property The issues pertaining to loss of land and/or relocations have been addressed through implementation of the Resettlement Action Plans for both Packages 1 and 2. Compensations have been accordingly made for all land and properties that were affected. Issues relating to destruction of property are mainly related to the construction phase and are therefore being addressed by the contractor. The rest of the issues have been addressed by the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment study for this project and the requisite approval has been given by the competent authority. 2.3.2 Consultation with PAPs Land Acquisition Procedures clearly specify that, once it has been decided to proceed with the project the compensation assessment committee conducts a physical inspection recording the details of all improvements to the land and any other fixed assets affected within the zoned area. The inspection report is the basis upon which compensation is assessed. The assessment committee invites the various affected occupiers to submit any additional or counter claims for their improvements if they so wish. Some claimants may engage the services of professionals and should be given time to do so. The compensation assessment committee then meets to discuss and agree on the appropriate rates of compensation. According to the RAP reports (Chapter 11), affected households were interviewed and completed questionnaires. Once the affected assets were identified, an interview with each household was conducted in order to know, among other data, the number of people living in the household and the condition or socio-economic status: Name, Relationship to Household Head, Sex, Age, Education, Still in School, Current Employment Status, etc. Once plots were identified, consultations with PAPs were conducted, both at individual and collective level. The method used in individual interviews was that after meeting with the Chief in each village (who helped to identify the owners), the project team would have a meeting with each of them, asking for data as per the questionnaire on Table 20 for Package 1 and Table 21 for Package 2 of the RAP reports. The survey conducted as part of this study has indicated that a majority of PAPs (43) felt adequately consulted on the project. This reveals that a significant number of PAPs (14) felt that they have not been adequately consulted. However, feedback from the project team shows that a total of 4 meetings were held individually with PAPs. These were during assessment of properties, issuance of compensation offers letters, collection of responses from PAPs on the offer letters and during the issuance of cheques. A closer look at the survey data shows that though the PAPs have been consulted, some detail about the process may either have been unclear or inadequate. When PAPs were asked about whether or not they were informed about their rights and options, a majority (38) answered in the negative (see Table 4 below). 21 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report Table 4: Information about Rights and Options % of PAPs Number of PAPs interviewed Were you informed about your No 38 63.3% options and rights pertaining to compensation and/or resettlement? Yes 22 36.7% An even greater number of PAPs (56) answered in the negative when they were asked if they were informed about the option of engaging valuation professionals to help in determining the value of their properties (see Table 5 below). The explanation given by the project team in this regard is that this was communicated to PAPs verbally and further that those not satisfied with the Land Board valuation were verbally advised to seek third party assistance. These are conflicting views from the PAPs and the Roads Department and given that the views are verbal, it becomes difficult to ascertain which view is correct. Table 5: Awareness to Engage Valuation Professionals % of PAPs Number of PAPs interviewed Were you made aware of your right No 56 93.3% to engage valuation professionals? Yes 4 6.7% A similarly high percentage of PAPs (56) answered in the negative when asked if they were allowed to make a claim for their properties (see Table 6 below). However, there is evidence that PAPs were given an option in writing to choose between monetary compensation and in kind (see Project Affected Person Written Consent Form-Appendix 3). Table 6: Opportunity to Make Claim for Properties % of PAPs Number of PAPs interviewed Were you given an opportunity to No 56 93.3% make a claim for your properties? Yes 4 6.7% In conclusion, these responses are an indication that though PAPs were consulted, they were not given regular updates on the process of compensation. In terms of the consultation process, RD followed a five staged consultation process which is adequate. There was however a concern amongst some PAPs who felt that they were asked to move their fences urgently but since then they have not heard from Roads Department on the commencement date of the project. This is particularly common in areas where road construction has not yet started. 2.3.3 Plans for Continued Participation of PAPs The RAPs for both Package 1 and 2 refer to the importance of continuous and regular engagement between communities, stakeholders and project stakeholders to ensure timeous response to emerging issues. 22 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report From the review of the RAPs for both Package 1 and Package 2, there is no clearly laid out framework/plan for continued participation of the PAPs. Our interactions with the PAPs during survey also revealed that gap as regards their engagements. Consultation took the form of information dissemination in one-way fashion and it only happened at the initial stages of the project with no updates on project progress. The PAPs were also informed when their money for compensation was ready. 3 Outcomes of RAP Implementation 3.1 Project Impacts and Need for Resettlement The process of acquisition was informed by the Land Acquisition Procedures which states that, In the event of acquisition of already occupied tribal land, Regulation 15 of the Tribal Land Regulations of 1970 is invoked. The acquiring authority with the assistance of the Land Board, make reasonable effort to identify and contact all occupiers within the zoned land. If deemed necessary, the Land Board shall request for a kgotla (community) meeting to advise the people of the scheme and their rights. The views of the affected communities are documented to ensure that they are taken into consideration when a decision to implement the project is made. Using an Environmental Impact Study, DLUPU or the National Steering Committee should give an early recommendation, in principle, to the Land Board, which then forms the basis of subsequent detailed recommendations. 3.1.1 Census and Survey Results 3.1.1.1 Number Affected Table 7: Land use and Number of Affected Plots for Package 1 Land use of the Affected Number of the Affected Road Section/Village Plots Plots Ploughing fields 14 Residential Plot 1 AR10-1 AR2 B Lotlhakane West Developed Residential Plots 11 Total 26 Ploughing fields 6 AR2-5 AR1 Moshana Residential plot 1 Total 7 A2-5 AR2 Selokolela Ploughing fields 2 Total 2 Ploughing fields 2 A2-5 AR3 Sesung Kgotla compound 1 Total 3 23 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report Land use of the Affected Number of the Affected Road Section/Village Plots Plots 6 Ploughing fields A2-5 AR4 Sese Residential 2 Total 8 A total number of 46 properties were affected in Package 1. Table 8: Land use and Number of Affected Plots for Package 2 Number of the Affected Road Section/Village Land use of the Affected Plots Plots Commercial 1 Residential 24 Church1 1 B101-1 Rakhuna Ploughing field 11 Piggery 1 Total 38 Commercial 3 Ploughing field 24 School 1 B101-1 Tlhareseleele Church 2 Residential 4 Cemetery2 1 Total 35 Residential plot 3 B101-2 Tlhareseleele Ploughing field 7 Total 10 Residential 13 Ploughing field 2 B101-2 Pitsane Commercial 1 Cemetery 1 Total 17 Ploughing field 12 B101-4 Phitshane Molopo Total 12 1 Some churches were avoided 2 Some cemeteries were avoided 24 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report Number of the Affected Road Section/Village Land use of the Affected Plots Plots Ploughing field 6 Residential Plot 16 B101-4 Leporung Tower 1 Total 23 Ploughing field 3 B101-4 Dikhukhung Total 3 Residential 5 B101-4 Mmakgori Ploughing field 1 Total 6 Ploughing field 16 Residential 2 B101-4 Tshidilamolomo Cattle crush 1 Total 19 Ploughing field 4 Residential 5 B101-4 Mabule School 1 Horticultural plot 1 Total 11 A total of 174 properties were affected in Package 2. 3.1.1.2 Impacts Experienced The World Bank OP 4.12 and Botswana Compensation Guidelines encourage avoidance of resettlement, and in cases where displacement or resettlement is inevitable, compensation should amount to full replacement. In accordance with these instruments, the Department of Roads ensured that no family dwelling, ploughing field or any other property was relocated. This was achieved through road realignment that was mainly meant to reduce intensity of impacts. From the field surveys, it is evident that the main impacts experienced included taking narrow strips of land from either residential plots or ploughing fields. In the process, no serious impacts were experienced in relation to destruction of property save for fences and toilets (Pit latrines). Even though cracking of houses due to road construction works were also highlighted as noticeable impacts, this does not belong to the RAP implementation phase. Other associated impacts, mainly environmental in nature, are well articulated in the Environment and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) report. 25 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report Furthermore, the ESIA report identified archaeological impacts. The mitigation of the identified archaeological impacts is also articulated in the RAP reports for both Packages 1 and 2 as well as the ESIA. Both the ESIA and the Archaeological Impact Assessment Reports have been accordingly cleared by the competent authorities. From the Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) reports for both Packages 1 and 2, 38 archaeological sites and 5 sites of social significance were revealed within the road reserve of Package 1. These sites included abandoned cattle posts and kraals, Early Iron age, Late Iron Age, Early Stone Age, Middle Iron Age, historical cattle posts, fields and villages, Iron smelting dump, Middle Stone Age and Probable grave. In Package 2, 6 archaeological sites and 33 sites of social significance were identified within the road reserve. These included abandoned cattle posts and kraals, cemeteries, abandoned houses, Middle Stone Age and historical buildings. Some of the surface artefacts identified for both packages included ceramics, bone fragments, burned hut rubbles, pieces of glass and metals. The ESIA reports recommended that for all the sites, an archaeological induction of the contractor staff should be done and it was recommended that a watch brief and monitoring program be implemented during construction due to possible occurrence of unidentified graves in the kraals and houses. The archaeological sites which required mitigation were identified and their specific mitigation measures for each site are documented in accordance with DNMM mitigation requirement in the AIA reports. Some of the mitigation measures included systematic sampling of the artefacts, test excavations to salvage a representative sample of the material record and investigation of dating possibilities. The affected sites for Package 1 are as outlined in Table 9 and Table 10. Table 9: Affected Archaeological Sites for Package 1 Type of Archaeological Sites Number of Affected Sites Late Iron Age 18 Early Iron Age 1 Middle Iron Age 4 Early Stone Age 4 Middle Stone Age 2 Historical Village 3 Historical Fields 1 Historical Settlement 3 Historical Cattle Post 1 Iron Smelting dump 1 Total 38 26 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report Table 10: Affected Sites of Social Significance for Package 1 Sites of Social Significance Number of Affected Sites Abandoned cattle post 2 Abandoned kraal 1 Probable grave 1 Traditional kraal and Kgotla 1 Total 5 The affected sites for Package 2 are as outlined in Table 11 and Table 12. Table 11: Affected Archaeological Sites for Package 2 Type of Archaeological Sites Number of Affected Sites Middle Stone Age 4 Historical buildings 2 Total 6 Table 12: Affected Sites of Social Significance Sites of Social Significance Number of Affected Sites Cemeteries 12 Abandoned cattle kraal 6 Abandoned watering well 1 Abandoned house 12 Grave & Abandoned cattle post 1 Abandoned cattle post 1 Total 33 3.1.1.3 Adjustments made during Implementation and Justification The World Bank Operational Guidelines emphasize the need to avoid resettlement and relocation. The feedback from the RAP team and team of engineers showed that the initial road alignment for both Package 1 and Package 2 was going to directly affect many properties with long term impacts of resettlement. Realignment was therefore justified to eliminate and minimise the impact of the road. The road realignment decision was in accordance with the requirements of World Bank OP 4.12 guidelines. This was achieved through the following as outlined in the report: 1. Phase 1: Prior field tours along the initial layout to: • Evaluate the degree of impact. • Identify areas of greatest impact and hot spots. 2. Phase 2: Identify each property affected by the original layout using a GIS tool. 27 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report 3. Phase 3: Give recommendations to the engineers on how to avoid singular impacts and improve the alignment in Package 1 and layout of bypasses in the Phitshane Molopo to Mabule section. 4. Phase 4: Establish criteria for the OPRC packages 1 and 2 project with respect to the road reserve and the cleared strip in accordance with the BRDM and identify built-up areas. 5. Phase 5: Field work and surveys on affected property once the layout has been improved. 6. Phase 6: Identify, evaluate and establish compensations on all property definitely affected. Figure 3: Road alignment in Selokolela Initial alignment in green-white colour, final re-alignment to avoid impacts to two houses. Figure 4: Road alignment in Sese Initial alignment in orange-white colour, final re-alignment to avoid impacts to several houses. 28 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report Figure 5: Road alignment in Mmakgori Current road in white colour, initial alignment in red, final re-alignment to avoid impacts on households in green Figure 6: Road alignment in Tlhareseleele Current road in white colour, initial alignment in red, final re-alignment to avoid impacts to the Primary school in green. Figure 7: Road alignment in Rakhuna Current road in white colours, initial alignment in red, final re-alignment to avoid impacts in green. The addenda to the RAP reports reveal that during the works done on site for the initial project phase, some of the affected properties were undetected due to the absence of any indication of plot ownership or occupancy, drawing or marker posts on site. In some cases, owners of such properties did not present themselves at RAP kgotla meetings or at PAPs consultation meetings. 29 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report After finalization of the main RAP reports, some additional affected properties were identified when PAPs associated with these properties came to present themselves during the compensation exercise. The addenda to the RAP reports indicates the following status with respect to realignment of roads and identification of additional PAPs: Table 13: Status of PAPs with respect to road realignment Packages Original number of Additional number of Total number of Number of affected properties affected properties affected properties PAPs from RAP reports from the addenda compensated Package 1 32 16 48 46 Package 2 127 65 192 174 3.2 Compensation and Remedial Measures It ought to be noted that the World Bank Guidelines emphasize the need to avoid resettlement in projects in which it is involved. As much as is feasible, designs should avoid moving people to give way to projects. In this particular project, displacement was avoided. Evidence from the review of records and ground truthing revealed that narrow strips of land were excised in respect of the affected properties. This then would mean reducing the plot or land size as well as re-fencing of the newly demarcated land area. Interviews with the land authorities, PAPs, members of the grievance committees and chiefs did not reveal any aggrieved person on account of not having been identified as a PAP. The RAP reports also do not mention any person whose property may have been affected but excluded from the list of PAPs. Thus, it can be concluded that all eligible PAPs were identified. The PAPs were categorised taking into consideration the following: a) Those that have formal legal rights to land (including customary and traditional rights recognized under the laws of the country) b) Those who do not have formal legal rights to land at the time the census begins but have a claim to such land or assets provided that such claims are recognized under the laws of the country or become recognized through a process identified in the resettlement plan. c) Those who have no recognizable legal right or claim to the land they are occupying. All compensations have been made. However, there are instances where owners of affected properties could not be identified, thus not being issued with their compensation amount despite the assessment and valuation having been done. There are 3 such cases; 2 at Rakhuna and 1 at Mmakgori. The survey results indicate that 51 PAPs consider the compensation inadequate, only 7 PAPs consider it to be adequate. Furthermore, some of the PAPs (2) were not sure of whether the compensation was adequate or not as shown in Figure 8 below. The PAPs generally felt that the compensation given to them was not commensurate with the land taken from them. They stated that they accepted compensation for three reasons i) that they did not want to be an obstacle to development ii) they were persuaded to accept compensation because the 30 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report land was not theirs but were holding it in trust for the Government and iii) that even if they contested the compensation, the Government would always prevail over them. Figure 8: Adequacy of Compensation Notwithstanding the views of the PAPs above, the valuation reports indicate that compensation considered all elements outlined in the compensation guidelines. This is despite the guidelines having been reviewed as far back as 2010. This disparity was compensated for by application of current rates where applicable as affirmed by the competent authority (Department of Lands) and the Land authorities (see minutes of consultations with these authorities-Appendix 6). Regarding timely payment to PAPs, the schedule of works as outlined in the RAP reports shows that assessment and inventory of affected properties was supposed to have been completed by the 31st October 2015 (Executive summary of RAP report). However, this was not achieved as the last assessments were done as late as 2017. There is also evidence that it took more than the stipulated 3 months period between actual assessment date and payment of compensation. Some of the PAPs had their compensations adjusted upwards by 5% which shows that there was a delay as provided for under the 2010 compensation guidelines. 3.2.1 Adequacy of Remedial Measures As per the World Bank OP 4.12, if the impacts include physical relocation, it is required that the displaced persons are: • Provided assistance (such as moving allowances) during relocation • Provided with residential housing, or housing sites, or as required, agricultural sites for which a combination of productive potential, locational advantages, and other factors is at least equivalent to the advantages of the old site • Offered support after displacement, for a transition period, based on a reasonable estimate of the time likely to be needed to restore their livelihood and standards of living 31 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report • Provided with development assistance (such as land preparation, credit facilities, training, or job opportunities) in addition to compensation measures In the RAP implementation for both Packages 1 and 2, there was no physical relocation. Thus, in terms of remedial measures as outlined by the World Bank guidelines, the above remedial actions were generally not applicable. Since the impacts involved mainly acquiring of narrow strips of land, relocation of fences, transport assistance was extended to the PAPs to assist them in transporting materials. Transport assistance was further availed to PAPs whenever required. As most affected plots had no land rights certificates, Roads Department project team assisted them to apply for and acquire land rights certificates. The remedial measures extended to PAPs are therefore considered adequate given that the impacts experienced were minimal to warrant any additional assistance over and above the compensation as per the compensation guidelines. The interviews with PAPs revealed majority of PAPs were compensated with money and efforts to acquire additional pieces of land to make up for the lost part were generally honored save where there was no available land in proximity to affected properties. 3.2.2 Cut-off Date versus Compensation Eligibility criteria for entitlements stipulate that, all affected parties and assets are eligible for compensation, except the following categories: • Improvement carried out after the cut-off-date • Loss of rights when the use of the land is in conflict with the use for which the land is zoned • Loss of improvements when they are in conflict with the land use zoning, unless the affected person can demonstrate that improvements were carried out with the authority of the land board or prior to the zoning of the land in question. Documentation from the land authorities indicates that PAPs were given cut-off date that was tied to assessment date of the property (See Form I-Notice to Treat-Appendix 5). This date varied from PAP to PAP. After this date PAPs were not allowed to effect any development or improvement on their property. Discussions with both land authorities and PAPs did not reveal incidences of any development/improvement carried out after the cut-off date. The survey did not yield anything in relation to loss of rights when the use of the land is in conflict with the use for which the land is zoned. Similarly, there were no cases of loss of improvements due to conflicting land uses. The compensation guidelines stipulate a period of 3 months from assessment within which payment of compensation should have been effected. There is evidence that it took more than the stipulated 3 months period between actual assessment date and payment of compensation. To compensate for the delay, the compensation guidelines makes provision for 5% upward adjustment to the compensation amount. From the review of valuation reports, there is evidence that compensation for some of the PAPs was adjusted upwards by 5%. 32 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report 3.3 Has RAP Implementation Accounted for Actual Livelihood Impact As per the World Bank OP 4.12, livelihood impacts in resettlement or relocation include among others loss of access to the different public services such as schools, health facilities, sewage lines, water reticulation points, loss of access to markets, loss of access to suppliers or even loss of access to support networks. In the case of these road projects, there was no displacement or resettlement and what that meant is that there were no significant livelihood impacts occasioned by the RAP implementation. 3.3.1 Socio-economic conditions of PAPs before RAP implementation 3.3.1.1 Livelihood structures Means of livelihood within the study area was defined by farming and non-farming activities including small scale and large scale mechanized commercial farming operations as well as subsistence farming. The mixture of farming households in the area was reflected in the range of farming practices and strategies that farmers undertook. Farmers ploughed with both donkeys and tractors and the principal crops grown were maize and sorghum with some beans and melons grown by the smaller farmers. However, most households did not rely solely on farming for household income. The semi subsistence farmers tended to supplement their income through piece work, remittances and social welfare programmes while the more commercial oriented often have small businesses in the settlement. Although this is a highly agrarian society it was observed that farmers in the settlements have not ploughed for several years mainly because of lack of rain. It was also observed among the small-scale farmers that farming is no longer paying and does not provide a living. The livelihood structures amongst the communities along the road network are such that there are no substantial differences between households in respect of access to land and livestock, to wage incomes and remittances, and to welfare payments. From the survey, two categories of households were identifiable ranging from those with moderate income to those with no regular source of income. The various sources of household incomes before the project are shown in Table 14. The table shows that for 2002/03 cash earnings from employment accounted for most of household incomes. Cash earnings contributed the highest amount to gross income, followed by gifts received and own produce consumed. Overall, the gross income before the project in rural areas stood at P1 481.30. From the surveys, the modal household income is in the range P100-P2 500 with the least being in the range P2501-P5000 (Table 15). Generally, it is evident that the impacts from RAP implementation were not significant to result in any changes to the household incomes as household income prior and after RAP implementation fall within the same income range. 33 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report Table 14: Main Sources of households'monthly income Sources of Income (Pula) Rural Areas (2002/03) Business profits 114.50 Cash earnings 650.40 Unearned cash income 132.50 Own produce consumed 162.10 Wages in kind 44.50 Gifts received 296.90 Aid 39.50 School meals 40.90 Gross income 1481.30 Source: CSO, 2004 household income and expenditure survey 2002/03 Table 15: Monthly household income in the study area, 2018 Household Income Bracket Frequency Percent None 5 8.3 100-1000 Pula 36 60.0 1001-2500 Pula 10 16.7 2501-5000 Pula 2 3.3 5001-10000 Pula 3 5.0 Above 10000 Pula 3 5.0 Total 59 98.3 Missing Missing 1 1.7 Total 60 100.0 3.3.1.2 Patterns of social interaction, community organisation and social networks Cooperation was discernible in these communities through pulling together of draught power where donkeys were used, when farmers could not afford mechanised farming. Battering was also common in the communities where livestock and farm harvests could be used as a mode of exchange. In terms of conflicts resolution, mediation was done through the kgotla system where the parties would be persuaded to reach a compromise for the sake of resolving the conflict. Community organisation was evident through community mobilisation during both the social and public events. In the case of these communities it is not multiplicity of institutions, interest groups or set of activities which embodies community organisation. But the factors like interaction, integration and coordinating of existing institutions (VDCs, Farmers committees, Bogosi), if necessary, to meet the changing conditions and the needs of the community. 34 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report The social networks within these communities were found to be still intact with serious support systems. The network consists of mainly the formal organisation structure i.e. family and extended family system that is bound together by the same identity, values and customs. The network was found again to have informal organisational structure broader than the family and largely defined by social interaction and social communication. 3.3.2 Socio-economic conditions of PAPs after RAP implementation The nature of impacts experienced did not in any way alter the livelihood structure, as there were no substantial differences introduced in terms of access to land, livestock or sources of income. There was no alteration in terms of patterns of social interactions as there was no loss of sense of the community and the way they do things. The community continues to works together in terms of conflict resolutions using the existing structures. The project did not introduce any variation to community organization in terms of mobilization or planning thus, the community remains highly organized. Given that there were no resettlements, there was no impacts on the social networks hence both the formal and informal organizational structure remains unbroken. Furthermore, the RAP implementation did not have any livelihood impacts as there was no loss of access to different public services such as schools, health facilities, sewage lines, water reticulation points, loss of access to markets, loss of access to suppliers or even support networks. The Figure 9 below drawn from the survey data bears testimony to the above. 80 70 59 59 59 59 58 59 59 59 59 59 57 60 50 50 40 30 20 9 10 1 2 0 Yes No Figure 9: Livelihood Impacts of RAP 35 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report 3.3.3 Impact of the Project on the Poor and Vulnerable Groups World Bank Safeguard Policy OP 4.12 specifies that vulnerable groups includes those below poverty datum line, the landless on communal land, the elderly, women, children, orphans, those afflicted by HIV/AIDS, and indigenous people. These groups of people are identified through the socio-economic and baseline study. These groups of people are normally marginalized and often do not have a voice. Identifying them ensures that special attention would be paid to them by identifying their needs and ensuring that they are not left out in the participatory process of the project activities. Special attention is paid to monitoring them to ensure that their pre-project livelihood is indeed improved and are given technical and financial assistance if they wish to make use of the grievance mechanisms of the project. The World Bank makes special mention of the vulnerable and the need to put in place special measures for them in terms of resettlement compensation. The Resettlement Plan Report alludes to consultations with vulnerable groups, particularly the report refers to the focused group discussions with poor households and female headed households. The survey also engaged with the poor and vulnerable groups as discussed below. The direct impact of the project on the poor and vulnerable has been evaluated focusing on marital status, gender, age, level of income, disability and household head. Out of the PAPs who are over 65 years of age, 7 are males and 12 are females. In terms of marital status, 12 of the widowed PAPs are females and 5 are males. In terms of household headship and source of income, the PAPs that do not have a source of income (3 PAPs), those that depend on Government grant (2 PAPs) and those that are formally employed (7 PAPs) are all household heads. For the 3 PAPs that depend on Ipelegeng, 2 are household heads while out of the 16 PAPs that depend on pension, 14 are household heads. With regard to dependency on remittances, out of a total of 7 PAPs that depend on remittances, 3 are household heads while amongst the 20 PAPs that depend on farming as a source of income, 15 of them are household heads and 5 are not household heads, as shown in Figure 10. Figure 10: Household Headship and Source of Income 36 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report In terms of registration in Government welfare programmes, a total of nine PAPs indicated that they are currently assisted through welfare programmes as follows; 3 in LIMID, 2 in Poverty Eradication, 3 in destitution programme and 1 in old age pension food ration. When cross tabulating the PAPs who are registered under government welfare programmes and their family members who are also registered under government programmes, 1 PAP who is registered under LIMID is residing with 1 family member who is also registered under LIMID, another PAP who is registered under Poverty eradication programme is residing with a family member who is also registered under Poverty eradication programme. Furthermore, 1 PAP who is a destitute is residing with a family member who is disabled and assisted through disability cash allowance. Even though the survey has identified that within the PAPs, there are vulnerable groups, the impacts of the RAP implementation are insignificant to warrant any special treatment/ additional assistance for these groups. The study has revealed that none of the vulnerable groups has been displaced or their source of income affected. 3.4 Grievance and Redress Mechanism 3.4.1 Grievance Handling Processes As part of the grievance handling mechanism, Grievance Committees were established in all affected communities and/or villages. The mandate of such committees was to receive grievances from affected persons and work with the relevant authorities to resolve such grievances. In all Packages 1 and 2 places covered by this exercise, Grievance Committees were selected at the Kgotla meetings at the commencement of the consultation process for the project. The expectation was that all grievances would be directed to these committees before they are escalated to any other level. The committees were to work in close collaboration with the Roads Department with the latter offering technical or other support to the committees as may be necessary. It has emerged from the consultations with the Grievance Committees that all but one (Mabule) committee never carried out the mandate for which they were elected. A majority of these committees have not held a single meeting and they have never received a single grievance to deal with. The Committee members indicated that their failure to meet was largely on account that the Roads Department did not convene a meeting to explain their role/s. Their expectation was that once they were elected, the Roads Department will meet with them and clarify their roles. When that did not happen, they felt abandoned and never met. In actual fact Grievance Committee members in a majority of areas consistently indicated that the grievances of affected persons were handled by the chiefs. It then became critical that the chiefs be interviewed to find out how they handled grievances of affected persons. A discernible pattern emerged during this survey that the chiefs played a prominent role in handling grievances of affected persons. The chiefs were mostly aware of the Grievance Committees but stated that the committees never functioned. The Chiefs did not refer affected persons to the committees whenever such cases were brought before them. Part of the reason the chiefs did not refer the 37 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report grievances to the Grievance Committees was that they considered it their role as Chiefs to deal with disputes, grievances and complaints coming from their communities. In addressing grievances from affected persons, the chiefs used a variety of strategies depending on the nature of the grievance. The common way of addressing grievances by the Chiefs was that of persuading PAPs to accept compensation to facilitate the speedy roll out of development projects. In this way PAPs will drop their grievances to avoid being viewed as obstacles to progress and development in the village or community. 3.4.2 Alternative Grievance Handling Mechanisms In the absence of functional grievance committees, the PAPs who had grievances pursued them through other mechanisms such as Kgosi, Councillor, District Commissioner, Land Board, Roads Department and Department of Lands. Out of the 47 grievances, 18 were not lodged and 29 were lodged as follows: • District Commissioner 2 (5%) • Councillor 2 (5%) • Grievance committee 2 (5%) • Chief 4 (10%) • Department of Roads 8 (21%) • Land Board 9 (23%) • Department of Lands 2 (5%) Figure 11: Alternative Grievance Handling Mechanisms 38 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report It was revealed during the interviews that some of the grievances were resolved to the satisfaction of the PAPs who lodged them. Those that were not resolved were the ones abandoned by the concerned PAPs. 3.4.3 The Nature of Grievances Affected persons had a number of grievances. Some of the common grievances included: 1) Alteration or variation of initial compensation amounts: The affected persons complained that the initial amounts they signed for as compensation for taking narrow strips of their ploughing field was reduced. The revised compensation amounts were considered too little and the affected PAPs indicated that variation was a breach of the initial agreement. Roads Department has acknowledged that indeed this occurred and explained that there was a typo- graphical error which led to miscalculations (Question 16 on the Questionnaire for project team-Appendix 7). 2) Inadequate compensation amounts: The Chiefs interviewed indicated that people were generally unhappy with the low compensation amounts but the chiefs persuaded them to receive the money as what is important is not compensation but the developments that will come to their communities 3) Disputes over ownership of affected land: These are cases where community members clash over the ownership of affected areas. In these cases, the Land Board and the Chiefs worked together to resolve the grievances. Table 16 below summarizes the nature of grievances and how they were addressed. Table 16: Summary of grievances and how they were addressed Nature of Grievances How the Grievances were Comment on how the addressed Grievances were addressed Alteration or variation of PAPs were addressed by Land The resolution of the matter initial compensation amounts Board at the Kgotla. Minister was adequate given that Roads also addressed the concerned Department has acknowledged PAPs. Counselling provided to that indeed this occurred and the aggrieved PAPs. explained that there was a typo-graphical error which led to miscalculations. Inadequate Compensation Persuasion to receive the In terms of the Compensation amounts money by chiefs. guidelines, the compensations amounts were adequate. Disputes over ownership of The Land Board and the The grievance was adequately affected land Chiefs worked together to addressed as there are no pending disputes over affected 39 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report Nature of Grievances How the Grievances were Comment on how the addressed Grievances were addressed resolve the grievances. pieces of land. The types of grievances that were to be addressed by the grievance committees were never outlined. It is therefore difficult to say whether the grievances channeled to Dikgosi were in line with the mandate of dikgosi or grievance committee. 3.5 RAP Implementation 3.5.1 Adequacy of RAP Implementation Budget The RAP implementation budget as regards compensation of the PAP was as follows; Table 17: Adequacy of Budget for Package 1 Year Budget Expenditure (BWP) Expenditure (US$) Comment on adequacy 2015/16 - - P1 800 976.60 Surplus 2016/17 581 618.00 55 013.03 2017/18 45 145.00 4 371.60 Total P1 800 976.60 626 763.00 59 384.62 Table 18: Adequacy of Budget for Package 2 Year Budget Expenditure (BWP) Expenditure (US$) Comment on adequacy 2015/16 - - P1 916 102.19 Surplus 2016/17 470 124.73 44 522.18 2017/18 649 293.65 62 795.68 Total P1 916 102.19 1 119 418.38 107 317.86 The budget was adequate with a surplus for both Package 1 and 2 for the years 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18 as reflected by Tables 17 and 18. The source of funding was Government of Botswana. 40 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report 3.5.2 Schedule, Monitoring and Responsibility of Tasks 3.5.2.1 Schedule and Responsibilities The RAP reports contain the Schedule, Monitoring and Responsibility of Tasks as follows; Table 19: Schedule of Tasks Period Period Period Quarter Quarter Quarter Major Activities 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Assessment and evaluation of X X Compensation Formation & strengthening of X X project implementation & redress committees Education and awareness X X Creation about RAP procedures and compensation payment Stakeholder Consultation X X X X Approval and payment for X X X X X compensation for both permanent & temporary properties as well as supplemental assistance Grievance redress measures X X X X X X X X Monitoring and Evaluation X X X X X X X Completion Report writing X The schedule above indicates the tasks/activities and the expected duration. Comments and observations for the schedule are as follows; Table 20: Comments and Observations for Adherence to Schedule Activities Comments and Observations Assessment and evaluation of Compensation This activity was undertaken timely and successfully. Formation & strengthening of project The grievance committees were set up implementation & redress committees accordingly as per the legal requirements. However, there is no evidence to suggest any strengthening of the committees for project implementation. Education and awareness Creation about RAP There is no evidence to demonstrate that PAPs procedures and compensation payment and affected communities were educated on RAP procedures and compensation payment. 41 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report Activities Comments and Observations The stakeholder consultation procedures were in place but it would appear that consultations were partially done as the PAPs claimed that they were Stakeholder Consultation not made aware of critical elements of the compensation exercise such as their rights and options. Approval and payment for compensation for both Compensations adequately executed but no permanent & temporary properties as well as supplemental assistance as no physical supplemental assistance displacement was occasioned. The time allocation for this was good but there is no proof that any committee was ever convened Grievance redress measures to address grievances. The committees were never functional. Monitoring and Evaluation See section 3.5.2.2 below Completion Report writing See section 3.5.2.2 below 3.5.2.2 Monitoring and responsibilities According to the Resettlement Action Plan, and in line with the World Bank’s OP 4.12 and the MOT’s 2006 RPF, implementation of RAP activities was to be monitored regularly to ensure those actions proceeded in accordance with provisions in the RAP. The Roads Department was responsible for the internal monitoring of the day to day implementation of the RAP. External monitoring was to be carried out periodically by the Works Department and the DEA. Furthermore, external consultants or NGOs would be hired to evaluate and review the implementation. From our interactions with the Department of Roads officials both in Gaborone and Kanye and the PAPs, it is evident that Department of Roads did carry out internal monitoring while Works Department and DEA carried out the periodic external monitoring. The RAP further required that a consultant be hired to evaluate and review the implementation. The current exercise (Preparation of RAP implementation Completion Report done by individual consultant) thus satisfies this requirement. 3.6 Institutional Arrangements 3.6.1 Capacity of Implementing Agency The Resettlement Action Plan Reports (Package 1 and 2) outline the institutions involved in the project. They are Ministry of Transport and Communications, Ministry of Land Management, Water and Sanitation Services, Department of Roads, Department of Lands, Department of Environmental Affairs, Land Board, Land Tribunal and Compensation Assessment Committee. The Roads Department is the principal implementing agency responsible for the overall coordination and delivery of the project. The other critical institutions that support the Roads Department are the Department of Lands, Land Board and Compensation Assessment Committee. These three above mentioned institutions are responsible for land matters as they relate to the project. The Land Board in particular is responsible for acquisition, transfer and change of land use as it relates to the project. 42 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report The Department of Lands works in conjunction with the Land Board and Compensation Assessment Committee to award compensation as is necessary as per the Compensation Guidelines. The non- revision of the Compensation Guidelines may point to institutional tardiness on the part of the Department of Lands. The assessment committee is of the view that they were made to work under tight schedule because of insufficient project planning by Roads Department. This could have resulted in miscalculation of compensation amounts which was raised by PAPs as one of the major concerns of RAP implementation. There is also evidence to suggest that the institutional capacity on the part of Roads Department to implement the RAP was inadequate as there are indications of lack of follow up action as demonstrated by Grievance Committees which were non- functional. 3.6.2 Personnel for Delivering Entitlements The delivery of entitlements was undertaken by Roads Department. On the positive side it is commendable that they have compensated all the PAPs. However, discussions with PAPs indicated that there were delays as regards payments to some PAPs who were paid very late. Indeed, some payments were adjusted upwards by 5% which shows that they were paid outside stipulated 3 months period. 3.6.3 Plans to Build Institutional Capacity Our discussion with Roads Department has indicated that there are currently no plans to capacitate the department in so far as implementation of RAP is concerned. Currently the department uses engineers as jack of all trades resulting in inadequacy in terms of numerical strength and skills. It is clear that the department has to either employ social scientists or outsource the work to relevant consultants with expertise in dealing with psycho-social, socio economic and livelihoods impacts. 3.7 Constraints, Issues and Delays encountered during the RAP Implementation The following were experienced by the project team during implementation of the RAP: Table 21: Constraints, Issues and delays encountered during RAP Implementation Constraints, Issues and Delays Measures put in place Absentee PAPs (some residing in South Africa) Scheduling meetings at weekends, month ends and public holidays as these were the only times such people could avail themselves. Uncooperative PAPs Persuasion and revisits Rejection of offers by PAPs Held meetings with the PAPs in the presence of village leadership 43 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report Constraints, Issues and Delays Measures put in place Feud over inheritance of affected property by Asked for assistance from family elders, chiefs siblings and District Commissioner Land rights without certificates PAPs were assisted by Roads Department and Land Board to apply and acquire land rights certificates Difficulty in bringing together siblings who co- Coordinated effort owned affected property for purposes of consent. Dispute over land ownership Resolved with the assistance of village chiefs and Land Board 4 Mitigation Plan for Identified Gaps The impact that arose as a result of the RAP implementation was mainly annexation of narrow strips of land from affected properties. As the portions of land excised were minimal to warrant any resettlement, it was therefore necessary that plot boundaries be realigned hence the need for amended certificates. Table 22 depicts low collection rate of amended land rights certificates as the main gap of RAP implementation. It is thus, a requirement for the Land Board and Roads Department to expedite production and issuance of the remaining land rights certificates. This will enable the PAPs to benefit from government assistance programmes such as Integrated Support Programme for Arable Agricultural Development (ISPAAD) as well as installation of any infrastructure in the yard. Table 22: Mitigation Plan for Identified Gaps Gap Mitigation Mitigation/Enhancement Resources Responsibility Time Objective measure/ action Required frame Low To ensure all Deliver certificates (plot to Personnel Land Board 6 months collection PAPs are issued plot) to respective villages. Funds and Roads rate of with amended Publicise meetings about Department amended certificates availability of amended land rights certificates certificates 44 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report 5 Conclusions 5.1 Study Limitations and Challenges The following are the challenges encountered during assessment and preparation of the completion report: • Data collection took more time than was budgeted resulting in extended study schedule. This was as a result of absenteeism of the PAPs despite prior arrangements. • Failure by PAPs to recall certain information about the project and process undertaken due to the length of time that the entire RAP implementation took. • The study duration was inadequate given amount of assessments required and the wide expanse of the project area to be traversed, number of documents to be reviewed and people to be consulted. • PAPs could not make a distinction between RAP and its implementation and the actual road construction as they tended to confuse the impacts of road construction with the impacts of RAP implementation. • In certain instances, there was no documented proof that certain regulatory requirements have been adhered to. Hence, the study had to rely on word of mouth from both the PAPs and the Project team at times giving contradictory account of what transpired. For instance, responses to question on the rights of PAPs to engage valuation professionals elicited different responses from PAPs and project team. In this instance, PAPs generally indicated that they were not informed of their rights whilst the project team responded that PAPs were verbally informed of this right. 5.2 Overall assessment of Completion of Implementation 5.2.1 Adequacy of Remedial Measures Remedial measures as defined by the World Bank are mainly targeted to physical relocation and outlined as follows: • Provided assistance (such as moving allowances) during relocation • Provided with residential housing, or housing sites, or as required, agricultural sites for which a combination of productive potential, locational advantages, and other factors is at least equivalent to the advantages of the old site • Offered support after displacement, for a transition period, based on a reasonable estimate of the time likely to be needed to restore their livelihood and standards of living • Provided with development assistance (such as land preparation, credit facilities, training, or job opportunities) in addition to compensation measures 45 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report Since the impacts involved mainly acquiring of narrow strips of land from the residential plots and ploughing fields and relocation of fences, the above remedial actions were generally not applicable. That notwithstanding, transport assistance was extended to PAPs whenever appropriately required. The PAPs who did not have land rights certificates were also assisted to apply for and acquire such certificates. The remedial measures extended to PAPs are therefore considered adequate given that the impacts experienced were minimal to warrant any additional assistance over and above the monetary compensation. 5.2.2 Adequacy of Compensation The compensation measures extended to the PAPs are considered adequate, notwithstanding the views of the PAPs who deemed them inadequate. Despite the guidelines having been reviewed as far back as 2010, inflationary adjustments were made to make up for this time lag. Compensation considered all elements outlined in the compensation guidelines. Current rates were used where applicable as affirmed by the competent authority (Department of Lands) and the land authorities (Land Boards). In cases where there were delays in making compensations (where the stipulated 3 months period was exceeded), compensations were adjusted upwards by 5% as necessary. 5.2.3 Inclusion of Communities and PAPs in the Process Consultation meetings were held with PAPs at different stages of the process. Despite these commendable efforts, it appears that some detail about the process may either have been unclear or inadequate. This could possibly explain why a significant number of interviewed PAPs strongly believed that consultations were inadequate especially with regards to their rights and options in the compensation assessment process. Despite the seemingly disparate positions by PAPs on one hand and Roads Department on the other regarding disclosure of full details of the process to the PAPs, it can reasonably be concluded that overall, communities and PAPs were meaningfully taken on board in the whole process. 5.2.4 Access to Grievance Redress Mechanism Grievance committees were publicly constituted in the respective villages. The expectation was that aggrieved PAPs would forward grievances related to RAP implementation to these committees for resolution and redress. The assumption was that Roads Department would have outlined the mandate of the committee and procedures for grievance handling to both PAPs and the grievance committee members. However, this was not done and as a result, PAPs forwarded their grievances to village leadership for resolution. The main grievance emanated from perceived low compensation and lack of transparency in the process. Even though PAPs were persuaded to accept compensation, they still remained aggrieved. 5.2.5 Adequacy of Institutional Arrangements and Procedures The execution of the RAP assignment took longer than originally scheduled because of implementation bottlenecks. However, the implementing agency (Roads Department) in conjunction with relevant institutions managed to complete the exercise without much hiccups. This could be partly attributed to well laid out procedures and processes. Nevertheless, the process encountered a few setbacks which had a negative effect on the overall appraisal of project delivery. This included non-revision of the Compensation Guidelines, insufficient project planning which could be 46 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report responsible for miscalculation of compensation amounts and delayed payment of compensations. Furthermore, failure by grievance committees to be functional points to insufficient institutional capacity to effect follow up action. On the whole, whilst the procedures and processes are clearly laid out and fairly adequate, the institutional arrangements need to be capacitated. 5.2.6 Issuance of amended certificates Consultations with the respective Land Boards have indicated that they will need at least 3 months for preparation of the outstanding land rights certificates. Another 3 months will be required for issuance of the amended certificates. Given that collection of finalized certificates has proven to be a challenge, it will now be incumbent upon the project team that once the certificates are ready, the issuance to PAPs is achieved within 3 months to finalise the entire RAP implementation process. The status regarding issuance of amended certificates and the proposed plan for completion is as per Table 23. Table 23: Status of Amended Certificates Certificates Total pending number of Certificates compilation Time required for Time required for certificates Certificates Certificates not (Land preparation of issuance of Section required done collected collected Board) certificates certificates Jan-March 2019 April-June 2019 Rakhuna- Tlhareseleele- Pitsane Section 1&2 104 55 47 8 49 3 months 3 months Phitshane Molopo- Mabule Section 4 75 33 21 12 42 3 months 3 months Lotlhakane West-Sese Package 1 46 13 13 0 33 3 months 3 months Total 225 101 81 20 124 NB: Some PAPs had registered more than one affected property. 5.2.7 Final Cost Versus Budget for RAP and Justification Final cost was actually below the budgeted amount with a surplus. The project was over budgeted. The reasons for these were that budgets were done prior to assessment of properties to be affected mainly to ensure that money was secured in advance. This was important as compensations have to be effected prior to project commencement hence funds must be ready. The budget was therefore basically a thumb suck as opposed to the actual and informed budget. 5.2.8 Change in PAPS and Justification The addenda to the RAP reports reveal that during the works done on site for the initial project phase, some of the affected properties were undetected due to the absence of any indication of plot ownership or occupancy, drawing or marker posts on site. In some cases, owners of such properties did not present themselves at RAP kgotla meetings or at PAPs consultation meetings. After finalization of the main RAP reports, some additional affected properties were identified when PAPs 47 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report associated with these properties came to present themselves during the compensation exercise. The addenda to the RAP reports indicates the following status with respect to realignment of roads and identification of additional PAPs: Table 24: Status of PAPs with respect to road realignment Packages Original number of Additional number of Total number of Number of affected properties affected properties affected properties PAPs from RAP reports from the addenda compensated Package 1 32 16 48 46 Package 2 127 65 192 174 From the addenda, the total number of affected properties was 240. Consultations with RD reduced the number to 220. Initially affected properties were identified through the help of aerial photographs but ground truthing led to changes in the actual number of PAPs. In addition, some of the PAPs were wrongly captured hence more changes to number of PAPs. 5.2.9 Estimate of Total Land Acquisition Total length for Package 1 is 4 928.81 metres and total area is 21 192.91 m2. For Package 2, total length is 15 926.8 metres and total area is 275 724.53 m2. It is worth noting that replacement land was made available where possible to affected properties (residential plot) by the RAP implementation team. Where it was not possible, loss of land was compensated as per Land Board standard procedures. Overall no affected persons were displaced save for the above-mentioned residential plot and less than 10% of the productive assets were affected. 5.2.10 Overall Assessment of Livelihood Impact In the case of the current road projects, there was no displacement or resettlement (save for one residential plot) hence there were no livelihood impacts occasioned by the RAP implementation. There was however perceived reduction in productive capacity of the ploughing fields due to the land portions that were taken to make way for the road. Our observation however, was that the portions that were taken were too negligible to result in reduction in productive capacity. 5.2.11 Assessment of Temporary Impact Related to Construction The focus of the RAP preparation and implementation was not on the construction phase of the project. Temporary impacts related to construction have been addressed through the ESIA. However, the survey revealed there are indeed construction related impacts that are being experienced such as cracking of houses and dust nuisance as well as road accidents. The Contractor should ensure that all construction related impacts are addressed in accordance with the Environmental Management Plan. 48 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report 5.3 Overall conclusion This study has assessed adherence by Roads Department to RAP. This was achieved through assessment of compliance with domestic policies, legislations and procedures as well as World Bank Safeguard Policy objectives. Generally, the implementation of the RAP has complied with the foregoing requirements. However, with regard to the status of RAP implementation, the implementation has not been completed. Notwithstanding the fact that all compensations and entitlements have been delivered to PAPs, it cannot be said that RAP implementation has been completed. Given that there are still 124 outstanding certificates pending preparation by the Land Boards and 20 certificates awaiting collection, it suffices to say that RAP implementation has not been completed. The process of preparation of certificates (compilation of certificates) and the actual issuance of certificates to PAPs will require a period of 6 months to be finalised. RAP implementation will only be completed once all the amended certificates have been issued to the respective PAPs. With regards to the socio-economic status of the PAPs before and after RAP implementation, the study has concluded that the impacts experienced did not change the livelihood structure. There were no considerable differences in terms of access to land, livestock or sources of income. Similarly, patterns of social interactions remained intact. RAP implementation did not have any livelihood impacts as there was no loss of access to different public services such as schools, health facilities, sewage lines, water reticulation points, loss of access to markets, loss of access to suppliers or even support networks. 49 Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final Report 6 Lessons Learnt 1. Dissatisfaction with the compensation process and outcomes The surveys revealed some discomfort with the process of compensation guided by the compensation guidelines from Ministry of Land Management, Water and Sanitation Services. Whist the ministry had wished to review the guidelines on an annual basis, this has not happened in the past 8 years, hence the project proponent relied on the guidelines revised in 2010. Even though the Department of Lands and Land Board are confident that the rates still reflect the current market situation, the use of the unrevised rates has contributed to some dissatisfaction with the compensation amounts received. Furthermore, whilst the guidelines provide for full disclosure to PAPs on the rights and options they have with regard to valuation of their affected properties, it does not appear that the assessment committee lived by this intent. Hence, some PAPs were of the view that the process was not transparent. This is not helped by failure to avail the compensation guidelines to PAPs. The above could have been avoided through the following: a) Timely review of compensation guidelines by the Ministry of Land Management, Water and Sanitation Services. b) PAPs could have been made aware of the valuation process and what goes into the actual computation of compensation amounts. c) Full disclosure to PAPs about their rights and options with regard to compensation assessment and valuation by availing the compensation guidelines to the PAPs. d) Documentation of all processes, rights and options as they pertain to compensation should have been prepared in both official languages and availed to the PAPs. 2. Grievance redress mechanism ineffectual It is evident from the surveys and the resettlement reports that the grievance handling mechanisms for this project were not effective, hence some grievances were lodged with local chiefs despite the existence of Grievance Committees. The World Bank prefers a dedicated, accessible and responsive mechanism for grievance resolution. Thus, the design of the Grievance Redress Mechanism should have incorporated existing traditional conflict resolution process in the project area. 3. Issuance of Amended Land Rights Certificates Issuance of amended land rights certificates remains a stumbling block to RAP completion. This is due to the fact that there is shortage of staff in Land Boards/ Sub Land Boards. Delays in issuance of amended land rights certificates could have been avoided if the Land Boards prepares the certificates immediately after compensation. 50 Frequencies VILLAGE Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent DIKHUKHUNG 1 1.6 1.6 1.6 LEPORUNG 6 9.7 9.7 11.3 LOTLHAKANE WEST 1 1.6 1.6 12.9 MABULE 4 6.5 6.5 19.4 MMAKGORI 2 3.2 3.2 22.6 MOSHANA 1 1.6 1.6 24.2 MOSHUPA 6 9.7 9.7 33.9 PHITSHANE MOLOPO 4 6.5 6.5 40.3 Valid PITSANE 5 8.1 8.1 48.4 RAKHUNA 10 16.1 16.1 64.5 SELOKOLELA 3 4.8 4.8 69.4 SESE 2 3.2 3.2 72.6 SESUNG 1 1.6 1.6 74.2 TLHARESELEELE 12 19.4 19.4 93.5 TSHIDILAMOLOMO 4 6.5 6.5 100.0 Total 62 100.0 100.0 Age of Respondent Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 19-35 years 1 1.6 1.6 1.6 36-60 years 28 45.2 45.2 46.8 Valid 61-65 years 12 19.4 19.4 66.1 Over 65 years 21 33.9 33.9 100.0 Total 62 100.0 100.0 Sex of Respondent Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Male 31 50.0 50.0 50.0 Valid Female 31 50.0 50.0 100.0 Total 62 100.0 100.0 1 Marital Status of Respondent Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Married 25 40.3 40.3 40.3 Single 19 30.6 30.6 71.0 Valid Widowed 18 29.0 29.0 100.0 Total 62 100.0 100.0 Household head Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 11 17.7 17.7 17.7 Valid Yes 51 82.3 82.3 100.0 Total 62 100.0 100.0 Source of Income: Formal employment Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 55 88.7 88.7 88.7 Valid Yes 7 11.3 11.3 100.0 Total 62 100.0 100.0 Source of Income: Self employed Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 55 88.7 88.7 88.7 Valid Yes 7 11.3 11.3 100.0 Total 62 100.0 100.0 Source of Income: Farming Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 40 64.5 64.5 64.5 Valid Yes 22 35.5 35.5 100.0 Total 62 100.0 100.0 2 Source of Income: Remittances Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 54 87.1 87.1 87.1 Valid Yes 8 12.9 12.9 100.0 Total 62 100.0 100.0 Source of Income: Pension Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 45 72.6 72.6 72.6 Valid Yes 17 27.4 27.4 100.0 Total 62 100.0 100.0 Source of Income: Ipelegeng Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 59 95.2 95.2 95.2 Valid Yes 3 4.8 4.8 100.0 Total 62 100.0 100.0 Source of Income: Government Grant Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 60 96.8 96.8 96.8 Valid Yes 2 3.2 3.2 100.0 Total 62 100.0 100.0 Source of Income: None Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 59 95.2 95.2 95.2 Valid Yes 3 4.8 4.8 100.0 Total 62 100.0 100.0 3 Estimated individual monthly income/earnings Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent None 6 9.7 9.8 9.8 100-1000 Pula 42 67.7 68.9 78.7 1001-2500 Pula 6 9.7 9.8 88.5 Valid 2501-5000 Pula 1 1.6 1.6 90.2 5001-10000 Pula 3 4.8 4.9 95.1 Above 10000 Pula 3 4.8 4.9 100.0 Total 61 98.4 100.0 Missing Missing 1 1.6 Total 62 100.0 Estimated household monthly income/earnings Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent None 5 8.1 8.2 8.2 100-1000 Pula 38 61.3 62.3 70.5 1001-2500 Pula 10 16.1 16.4 86.9 Valid 2501-5000 Pula 2 3.2 3.3 90.2 5001-10000 Pula 3 4.8 4.9 95.1 Above 10000 Pula 3 4.8 4.9 100.0 Total 61 98.4 100.0 Missing Missing 1 1.6 Total 62 100.0 Are you registered in any government welfare programmes? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 52 83.9 83.9 83.9 Valid Yes 10 16.1 16.1 100.0 Total 62 100.0 100.0 4 If yes on which welfare programmes? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent LIMID 3 4.8 33.3 33.3 Poverty Eradication 2 3.2 22.2 55.6 Valid Destitution Programme 3 4.8 33.3 88.9 Old age Pension Food Ration 1 1.6 11.1 100.0 Total 9 14.5 100.0 Missing 1 1.6 Missing Not Applicable 52 83.9 Total 53 85.5 Total 62 100.0 Do you have any of your family members who is registered in any government welfare programmes? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 54 87.1 88.5 88.5 Valid Yes 7 11.3 11.5 100.0 Total 61 98.4 100.0 Missing Missing 1 1.6 Total 62 100.0 If yes on which welfare programmes? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent LIMID 1 1.6 14.3 14.3 Poverty Eradication 3 4.8 42.9 57.1 Health Ration 1 1.6 14.3 71.4 Valid Disability Cash Allowance 1 1.6 14.3 85.7 Young Farmers Fund 1 1.6 14.3 100.0 Total 7 11.3 100.0 Missing Not Applicable 55 88.7 Total 62 100.0 Are you aware of road construction project in your area? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 62 100.0 100.0 100.0 5 Who informed you that your land or property might be affected by the project? Kgosi Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 39 62.9 62.9 62.9 Valid Yes 23 37.1 37.1 100.0 Total 62 100.0 100.0 Who informed you that your land or property might be affected by the project? Department of Roads Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 16 25.8 25.8 25.8 Valid Yes 46 74.2 74.2 100.0 Total 62 100.0 100.0 Who informed you that your land or property might be affected by the project? Land Board Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 21 33.9 33.9 33.9 Valid Yes 41 66.1 66.1 100.0 Total 62 100.0 100.0 Who informed you that your land or property might be affected by the project? VDC Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 54 87.1 87.1 87.1 Valid Yes 8 12.9 12.9 100.0 Total 62 100.0 100.0 Who informed you that your land or property might be affected by the project? Member of Parliament Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 55 88.7 88.7 88.7 Valid Yes 7 11.3 11.3 100.0 Total 62 100.0 100.0 Who informed you that your land or property might be affected by the project? Councilors Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 53 85.5 85.5 85.5 Valid Yes 9 14.5 14.5 100.0 Total 62 100.0 100.0 6 Who informed you that your land or property might be affected by the project? Relative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 61 98.4 98.4 98.4 Valid Yes 1 1.6 1.6 100.0 Total 62 100.0 100.0 Who informed you that your land or property might be affected by the project? No One Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 61 98.4 98.4 98.4 Valid Yes 1 1.6 1.6 100.0 Total 62 100.0 100.0 How were you informed that your land or property might be affected by the project? Kgotla meeting Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 24 38.7 39.3 39.3 Valid Yes 37 59.7 60.7 100.0 Total 61 98.4 100.0 Missing Not Applicable 1 1.6 Total 62 100.0 How were you informed that your land or property might be affected by the project? In person Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 28 45.2 45.9 45.9 Valid Yes 33 53.2 54.1 100.0 Total 61 98.4 100.0 Missing Not Applicable 1 1.6 Total 62 100.0 How were you informed that your land or property might be affected by the project? Through some committee Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 60 96.8 98.4 98.4 Valid Yes 1 1.6 1.6 100.0 Total 61 98.4 100.0 Missing Not Applicable 1 1.6 Total 62 100.0 7 How were you informed that your land or property might be affected by the project? Through a letter (Notice Form 1) Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 53 85.5 86.9 86.9 Valid Yes 8 12.9 13.1 100.0 Total 61 98.4 100.0 Missing Not Applicable 1 1.6 Total 62 100.0 How were you informed that your land or property might be affected by the project? Through a phone call Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 57 91.9 93.4 93.4 Valid Yes 4 6.5 6.6 100.0 Total 61 98.4 100.0 Missing Not Applicable 1 1.6 Total 62 100.0 How were you informed that your land or property might be affected by the project? Through a public notice at kgotla Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 58 93.5 95.1 95.1 Valid Yes 3 4.8 4.9 100.0 Total 61 98.4 100.0 Missing Not Applicable 1 1.6 Total 62 100.0 When were you informed that your land or property might be affected by the project? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Before 31 October 2015 40 64.5 69.0 69.0 After 31 October 2015 9 14.5 15.5 84.5 Valid Can't remember 8 12.9 13.8 98.3 Not notified 1 1.6 1.7 100.0 Total 58 93.5 100.0 Missing 3 4.8 Missing Not Applicable 1 1.6 Total 4 6.5 Total 62 100.0 8 In your opinion do you think that you have been adequately consulted? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 16 25.8 27.1 27.1 Valid Yes 43 69.4 72.9 100.0 Total 59 95.2 100.0 Missing Missing 3 4.8 Total 62 100.0 How were you affected by the above project? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Partially displaced (ploughing field, 60 96.8 96.8 96.8 residence, other property) Valid Cracking house 2 3.2 3.2 100.0 Total 62 100.0 100.0 Were you informed about your options and rights pertaining to compensation and/or resettlement? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 40 64.5 64.5 64.5 Valid Yes 22 35.5 35.5 100.0 Total 62 100.0 100.0 Were you made aware of your right to engage valuation professionals? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 58 93.5 93.5 93.5 Valid Yes 4 6.5 6.5 100.0 Total 62 100.0 100.0 Were you given an opportunity to make a claim for your properties? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 58 93.5 93.5 93.5 Valid Yes 4 6.5 6.5 100.0 Total 62 100.0 100.0 9 Were you present or represented at the validation of the assessment findings? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 18 29.0 29.5 29.5 Valid Yes 43 69.4 70.5 100.0 Total 61 98.4 100.0 Missing Not Applicable 1 1.6 Total 62 100.0 Were you made aware of the results of the valuation before signing Form 2 and Form 3? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 31 50.0 50.8 50.8 Yes 29 46.8 47.5 98.4 Valid Can't remember 1 1.6 1.6 100.0 Total 61 98.4 100.0 Missing Not Applicable 1 1.6 Total 62 100.0 Were you invited by the assessment committee to submit any additional or counter claims for your properties? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 58 93.5 93.5 93.5 Valid Yes 4 6.5 6.5 100.0 Total 62 100.0 100.0 How long did it take for you to be compensated? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Less than 6 months 21 33.9 34.4 34.4 6 to 12 months 20 32.3 32.8 67.2 12 to 24 months 17 27.4 27.9 95.1 Valid Over 2 years 2 3.2 3.3 98.4 Not Yet Compensated 1 1.6 1.6 100.0 Total 61 98.4 100.0 Missing Missing 1 1.6 Total 62 100.0 10 Do you consider the time it took for you to be compensated reasonable? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 36 58.1 60.0 60.0 Valid Yes 24 38.7 40.0 100.0 Total 60 96.8 100.0 Missing 1 1.6 Missing Not Applicable 1 1.6 Total 2 3.2 Total 62 100.0 Was the notice given to vacate the acquired land after compensation adequate? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 21 33.9 35.0 35.0 Yes 30 48.4 50.0 85.0 Valid Not notified 9 14.5 15.0 100.0 Total 60 96.8 100.0 Missing Not Applicable 2 3.2 Total 62 100.0 What did you receive as compensation for your affected properties? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent MONEY 60 96.8 96.8 96.8 NOTHING 1 1.6 1.6 98.4 Valid REPAIR OF CRACKS BUT PAINTING 1 1.6 1.6 100.0 INCOMPLETE Total 62 100.0 100.0 Do you consider the compensation adequate? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 52 83.9 85.2 85.2 Yes 7 11.3 11.5 96.7 Valid Do Not Know 1 1.6 1.6 98.4 Not sure 1 1.6 1.6 100.0 Total 61 98.4 100.0 Missing Not Applicable 1 1.6 Total 62 100.0 11 Were you provided with residential housing or housing sites? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid No 1 1.6 100.0 100.0 Missing Not applicable 61 98.4 Total 62 100.0 Were you provided with agricultural sites with the similar productive potential and location advantage/ advantages equivalent of the old site? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid No 8 12.9 100.0 100.0 Missing Not applicable 54 87.1 Total 62 100.0 What assistance were you provided with in addition to compensation? Transport or moving allowance Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid No 62 100.0 100.0 100.0 What assistance were you provided with in addition to compensation? Land prepraration Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid No 62 100.0 100.0 100.0 What assistance were you provided with in addition to compensation? Credit facilities Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid No 62 100.0 100.0 100.0 What assistance were you provided with in addition to compensation? Training Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid No 62 100.0 100.0 100.0 12 What assistance were you provided with in addition to compensation? Job opportunities Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid No 62 100.0 100.0 100.0 What assistance were you provided with in addition to compensation? None of the above Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 5 8.1 8.1 8.1 Valid Yes 57 91.9 91.9 100.0 Total 62 100.0 100.0 What assistance were you provided with in addition to compensation? Not assisted Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 46 74.2 74.2 74.2 Valid Yes 16 25.8 25.8 100.0 Total 62 100.0 100.0 Do you feel the relocation has resulted in the loss of access to public services? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid No 60 96.8 100.0 100.0 Missing Not applicable 2 3.2 Total 62 100.0 Do you feel the relocation has resulted in the loss of customers/market? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid No 60 96.8 100.0 100.0 Missing Not applicable 2 3.2 Total 62 100.0 Do you feel the relocation has resulted in the loss of suppliers? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid No 60 96.8 100.0 100.0 Missing Not applicable 2 3.2 Total 62 100.0 13 Do you feel the relocation has resulted in the loss of fishing? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid No 60 96.8 100.0 100.0 Missing Not applicable 2 3.2 Total 62 100.0 Do you feel the relocation has resulted in the loss of grazing? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 59 95.2 98.3 98.3 Valid Yes 1 1.6 1.7 100.0 Total 60 96.8 100.0 Missing Not applicable 2 3.2 Total 62 100.0 Do you feel the relocation has resulted in the loss of forest areas? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid No 60 96.8 100.0 100.0 Missing Not applicable 2 3.2 Total 62 100.0 Do you feel the relocation has resulted in the loss of weakening of community support networks? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid No 60 96.8 100.0 100.0 Missing Not applicable 2 3.2 Total 62 100.0 Do you feel the relocation has resulted in the loss of erosion of cultural identity and traditional authority? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid No 60 96.8 100.0 100.0 Missing Not applicable 2 3.2 Total 62 100.0 14 Do you feel the relocation has resulted in the loss of redundancy of productive skills in the new environment? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid No 60 96.8 100.0 100.0 Missing Not applicable 2 3.2 Total 62 100.0 Do you feel the relocation has resulted in the loss of increased competition for resources? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid No 60 96.8 100.0 100.0 Missing Not applicable 2 3.2 Total 62 100.0 Do you feel the relocation has resulted in the loss of income? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 58 93.5 96.7 96.7 Valid Yes 2 3.2 3.3 100.0 Total 60 96.8 100.0 Missing Not applicable 2 3.2 Total 62 100.0 Do you feel the relocation has resulted in the reduced production? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 51 82.3 85.0 85.0 Valid Yes 9 14.5 15.0 100.0 Total 60 96.8 100.0 Missing Not applicable 2 3.2 Total 62 100.0 15 Do you feel relocation/displacement has benefited you? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 27 43.5 81.8 81.8 Valid Yes 6 9.7 18.2 100.0 Total 33 53.2 100.0 Missing Not applicable 29 46.8 Total 62 100.0 In your opinion, was effort made to establish access equivalent to what you have lost above? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 25 40.3 92.6 92.6 Valid Yes 2 3.2 7.4 100.0 Total 27 43.5 100.0 Missing Not applicable 35 56.5 Total 62 100.0 Did you have any grievance regarding the project? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 22 35.5 35.5 35.5 Valid Yes 40 64.5 64.5 100.0 Total 62 100.0 100.0 Where did you lodge your complaint/grievance? Magistrate/High court Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid No 41 66.1 100.0 100.0 Missing Not applicable 21 33.9 Total 62 100.0 Where did you lodge your complaint/grievance? Minister of Lands and Housing Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid No 41 66.1 100.0 100.0 Missing Not applicable 21 33.9 Total 62 100.0 16 Where did you lodge your complaint/grievance? Department of Lands Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 39 62.9 95.1 95.1 Valid Yes 2 3.2 4.9 100.0 Total 41 66.1 100.0 Missing Not applicable 21 33.9 Total 62 100.0 Where did you lodge your complaint/grievance? Land Board Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 32 51.6 78.0 78.0 Valid Yes 9 14.5 22.0 100.0 Total 41 66.1 100.0 Missing Not applicable 21 33.9 Total 62 100.0 Where did you lodge your complaint/grievance? Developer/Department of Roads Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 32 51.6 78.0 78.0 Valid Yes 9 14.5 22.0 100.0 Total 41 66.1 100.0 Missing Not applicable 21 33.9 Total 62 100.0 Where did you lodge your complaint/grievance? Chief Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 37 59.7 90.2 90.2 Valid Yes 4 6.5 9.8 100.0 Total 41 66.1 100.0 Missing Not applicable 21 33.9 Total 62 100.0 17 Where did you lodge your complaint/grievance? Grievance committee Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 39 62.9 95.1 95.1 Valid Yes 2 3.2 4.9 100.0 Total 41 66.1 100.0 Missing Not applicable 21 33.9 Total 62 100.0 Where did you lodge your complaint/grievance? Land Tribunal Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid No 41 66.1 100.0 100.0 Missing Not applicable 21 33.9 Total 62 100.0 Where did you lodge your complaint/grievance? Councillor Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 39 62.9 95.1 95.1 Valid Yes 2 3.2 4.9 100.0 Total 41 66.1 100.0 Missing Not applicable 21 33.9 Total 62 100.0 Where did you lodge your complaint/grievance? District Commissioner Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 39 62.9 95.1 95.1 Valid Yes 2 3.2 4.9 100.0 Total 41 66.1 100.0 Missing Not applicable 21 33.9 Total 62 100.0 18 Where did you lodge your complaint/grievance? Not lodged Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 22 35.5 53.7 53.7 Valid Yes 19 30.6 46.3 100.0 Total 41 66.1 100.0 Missing Not applicable 21 33.9 Total 62 100.0 Who ultimately resolved your complaint? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Land Board 2 3.2 10.0 10.0 Developer/Department of Roads 2 3.2 10.0 20.0 Chief 1 1.6 5.0 25.0 Valid Councillor 1 1.6 5.0 30.0 District Commissioner 1 1.6 5.0 35.0 Not resolved 13 21.0 65.0 100.0 Total 20 32.3 100.0 Missing Not applicable 42 67.7 Total 62 100.0 Were you satisfied with the process of addressing your complaint? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 17 27.4 89.5 89.5 Valid Yes 2 3.2 10.5 100.0 Total 19 30.6 100.0 Missing Not applicable 43 69.4 Total 62 100.0 Were you satisfied with the outcome of your complaint? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 18 29.0 94.7 94.7 Valid Yes 1 1.6 5.3 100.0 Total 19 30.6 100.0 Missing Not applicable 43 69.4 Total 62 100.0 19 Do you consider yourself better off after the relocation or compensation? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 17 27.4 27.4 27.4 Yes 6 9.7 9.7 37.1 Valid No change 39 62.9 62.9 100.0 Total 62 100.0 100.0 Do you consider yourself worse off after the relocation or compensation? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 8 12.9 13.1 13.1 Yes 13 21.0 21.3 34.4 Valid No change 40 64.5 65.6 100.0 Total 61 98.4 100.0 Missing Missing 1 1.6 Total 62 100.0 20 CROSS TABULATION TABLES AND CHARTS Age, Marital Status, household headship and gender of respondents Male Female Count % Count % Age of 0-18 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Respondent years 19-35 1 100.0% 0 0.0% years 36-60 14 50.0% 14 50.0% years 61-65 9 75.0% 3 25.0% years Over 65 7 33.3% 14 66.7% years Marital Status Married 17 68.0% 8 32.0% of Respondent Single 9 47.4% 10 52.6% Divorced 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Widowed 5 27.8% 13 72.2% Household head No 1 9.1% 10 90.9% Yes 30 58.8% 21 41.2% Age and Gender of Respondents 100% 100% 90% 80% 75% 70% 67% 60% 50% 50% 50% 40% 33% 30% 25% 20% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0-18 years 19-35 years 36-60 years 61-65 years Over 65 years Males Females 1 Marital Status and Gender of Respondents 100% 90% 80% 72% 68% 70% 60% 53% 47% 50% 40% 32% 28% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0% 0% Married Single Divorced Widowed Males Females Household Headship and Gender of Respondents 100% 91% 90% 80% 70% 59% 60% 50% 41% 40% 30% 20% 9% 10% 0% No Yes Males Females 2 Household Headship, Marital status, Source of Income, Household monthly earnings and member registered in welfare programme Household head No Yes No. of No. of PAPS % PAPS % Marital Status of Respondent Married 7 28% 18 72% Single 2 11% 17 89% Divorced 0 0% 0 0% Widowed 2 11% 16 89% Source of Income: Formal employment No 11 20% 44 80% Yes 0 0% 7 100% Source of Income: Self employed No 10 18% 45 82% Yes 1 14% 6 86% Source of Income: Farming No 6 15% 34 85% Yes 5 23% 17 77% Source of Income: Remittances No 7 13% 47 87% Yes 4 50% 4 50% Source of Income: Pension No 9 20% 36 80% Yes 2 12% 15 88% Source of Income: Ipelegeng No 10 17% 49 83% Yes 1 33% 2 67% Source of Income: Government Grant No 11 18% 49 82% Yes 0 0% 2 100% Source of Income: None No 11 19% 48 81% Yes 0 0% 3 100% Estimated household monthly income/earnings None 0 0% 5 100% 100-1000 8 21% 30 79% Pula 1001-2500 1 10% 9 90% Pula 2501-5000 1 50% 1 50% Pula 5001- 1 33% 2 67% 10000 Pula Above 0 0% 3 100% 10000 Pula Are you registered in any government welfare programmes? No 8 15% 44 85% Yes 3 30% 7 70% Do you have any of your family members who is registered No 10 19% 44 81% in any government welfare programmes? Yes 0 0% 7 100% 3 Household Headship and Marital Status 100% 89% 89% 90% 80% 72% 70% 60% 50% 40% 28% 30% 20% 11% 11% 10% 0% 0% 0% Married Single Divorced Widowed No Yes Household Headship and Source of income None 100% Government Grant 100% Ipelegeng 67% Pension 88% Remittances 50% Farming 77% Self employed 86% Formal employment 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Household head Yes Household head No 4 Household Headship and Household Monthly income 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% None 100-1000 Pula 1001-2500 2501-5000 5001-10000 Above 10000 Pula Pula Pula Pula No Yes Household Headship and Registration on Government Welfare Programmes 100% 90% 85% 80% 70% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 30% 20% 15% 10% 0% No Yes Household head No Household head Yes 5 Household Headship and Family member registered in Government welfare programme 100% 100% 90% 81% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 19% 20% 10% 0% 0% No Yes Household head No Household head Yes Source of income and Individual monthly income Estimated individual monthly income/earnings 100-1000 1001-2500 2501-5000 None Pula Pula Pula 5001-10000 Pula Above 10000 Pula Formal employment No 100% 100% 50% 0% 100% 0% Yes 0% 0% 50% 100% 0% 100% Self employed No 100% 88% 100% 100% 67% 100% Yes 0% 12% 0% 0% 33% 0% Farming No 67% 60% 67% 100% 67% 100% Yes 33% 40% 33% 0% 33% 0% Remittances No 100% 81% 100% 100% 100% 100% Yes 0% 19% 0% 0% 0% 0% Pension No 100% 64% 83% 100% 67% 100% Yes 0% 36% 17% 0% 33% 0% Ipelegeng No 100% 93% 100% 100% 100% 100% Yes 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% Government Grant No 83% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100% Yes 17% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% None No 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Yes 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% None 100-1000 Pula 1001-2500 Pula 2501-5000 Pula 5001-10000 Pula Above 10000 Pula Formal employment Self employed Farming Remittances Pension Ipelegeng Government Grant None Source of income and Registration of Government welfare programme Are you registered in any government welfare programmes? No Yes Count % Count % Formal No 45 86.5% 10 100.0% employment Yes 7 13.5% 0 0.0% Self No 45 86.5% 10 100.0% employed Yes 7 13.5% 0 0.0% Farming No 32 61.5% 8 80.0% Yes 20 38.5% 2 20.0% Remittances No 49 94.2% 5 50.0% Yes 3 5.8% 5 50.0% Pension No 38 73.1% 7 70.0% Yes 14 26.9% 3 30.0% Ipelegeng No 50 96.2% 9 90.0% Yes 2 3.8% 1 10.0% Government No 51 98.1% 9 90.0% Grant Yes 1 1.9% 1 10.0% None No 50 96.2% 9 90.0% Yes 2 3.8% 1 10.0% 7 Awareness to engage valuation professionals and claim for properties Were you given an opportunity to make a claim for your properties? No Yes Count % Count % Were you made aware of your No 55 95% 3 5% right to engage valuation professionals? Yes 3 75% 1 25% Date of compensation and reasonableness of the time Do you consider the time it took for you to be compensated reasonable? No Yes Total How long did it take for Less than 6 Count 5 16 21 you to be months compensated? % 13.9% 66.7% 35.0% 6 to 12 Count 14 6 20 months % 38.9% 25.0% 33.3% 12 to 24 Count 15 2 17 months % 41.7% 8.3% 28.3% Over 2 Count 2 0 2 years % 5.6% 0.0% 3.3% Total Count 36 24 60 % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Gender and Source of Income 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 35.5% 35.5% 32.3% 30.0% 22.6% 22.6% 20.0% 16.1% 12.9% 6.5% 9.7% 3.2% 3.2%6.5% 3.2%3.2% 6.5%3.2% 10.0% 0.0% Formal Employment Farming Pension Government grant Male Female 8 Gender and Estimated individual monthly income/earnings 100.0% 90.0% 80.6% 80.0% 70.0% 56.7% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 16.7% 20.0% 13.3% 6.5% 6.7% 10.0% 3.2% 3.3% 3.3%6.5% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% None 100-1000 Pula 1001-2500 2501-5000 5001-10000 Above 10000 Pula Pula Pula Pula Estimated individual monthly income/earnings Male Female 9 Proceedings of a meeting between Ms Mogae (Individual Consultant) and Mr. Mokope (Department of Lands) Date: 27th August 2018 Venue: Department of Lands Introduction The Individual Consultant, Ms. Mogae introduced herself and outlined the purpose of the visit to the Principal Lands Officer, Mr. Mokope. She outlined that she was assigned by the Department of Roads to conduct an audit of the OPRC road project which was financed by Botswana Government and the World Bank. This was to assess compliance to World Bank guidelines and Botswana Government requirements. For the Department, the purpose was to establish the role of the department or ministry in compensation assessments as well as any performance standards in place. Role of the Lands Department Mr. Mokope, who is in charge of administering the Compensation Guidelines outlined the role of his department as follows: ➢ The department’s role is to administer the compensation guidelines and ensure that they are adhered to. This includes validating what the Land Board has prepared ➢ The actual assessments and computation of figures has been decentralised to Land Boards. ➢ Thus, the guidelines were prepared to guide the Land Board when undertaking assessments and valuations. ➢ The guidelines are prepared by the Department of Lands and approved by Cabinet. They are supposed to be revised annually. However, the guidelines in use currently are for 2010, thus they are overdue for review. ➢ That notwithstanding, the assessment committees of the Land Board (which must have a valuer as one of the members), are at liberty to adjust the rates where necessary especially considering the prevailing market rates. ➢ The guidelines also include an adjustment for the distance from the nearest major centres. ➢ Once approved by the Land Board, the compensation assessment report is forwarded to the Department of Lands for validation. Discussion Mr Mokope indicated that where disputes arise over the compensation amount, this should be mutually discussed and resolved between the claimant and the Land Board, through the assessment committee. Should there be need, the claimant is allowed to engage an independent valuer to do an independent valuation which would form the basis of an arbitration process if necessary. 1 He further indicated that the standard adopted by the department is 1.5 months for validation of the compensation assessment report from the Land Board. Once approved, the department forwards it to the Land Board who in turn communicates with the acquiring authority to release payment to affected persons. Should 3 months elapse between this period, then claimant is entitled to 5% adjustment. 2 Proceedings of a meeting between Ms Mogae (Individual Consultant) and Mr. Pilane (Moshupa Subordinate Land Board) Date: 5th September 2018 Venue: Moshupa Subordinate Land Board Introduction The Individual Consultant, Ms. Mogae introduced herself and outlined the purpose of the visit to the Land Board. She told the Sub Land Board Secretary, Mr. Pilane that she was assigned by the Department of Roads to conduct an audit of the OPRC road project which was financed by Botswana Government and the World Bank. This was to assess compliance to World Bank guidelines and Botswana Government requirements. For the Land Board, the purpose was to establish compliance with Ministry of Lands Compensation Guidelines. Compensation Procedure Mr. Pilane outlined the procedure as follows: ➢ The acquiring authority approached the Land Board and explains the purpose of their project and how it is likely to affect property owners. ➢ The acquiring authority presents a list of potentially affected persons (after initial consultations with the community and those that are likely to be affected) ➢ The acquiring authority then outlines their schedule of activities such as compensation assessments. ➢ The Land Board constitutes an assessment committee and on the agreed dates, starts the physical assessment of properties in the presence of property owners or their representatives ➢ The committee explains the whole procedure to property owners, and this includes their rights and entitlements. These rights include engaging independent valuers so that should there be need for arbitration, then both parties would be ready with their valuation reports. ➢ Rates for valuation are adopted from the Compensation Guidelines with allowance for upward adjustment where necessary ➢ The valuation considers the distance factor ➢ After compiling the valuation report, the committee presents t to the Land Board for endorsement before forwarding to the Department of Lands for approval ➢ The Land Board sits weekly and if there are many properties to be assessed, the assessment is done in batches so that whilst some of the properties are being assessed, others processes are in motion. ➢ Generally, the Land Board takes two weeks to forward the report to Department of Lands. 1 ➢ Once the Department of Lands has approved the valuation report, the Land Board forwards it to the acquiring authority for payment ➢ After payment, the Land Board issues new certificates to affected persons Discussion During discussion, the following emerged: ➢ Most of the affected properties at Package 1 were ploughing fields, and these never had certificates. So, in most of them, they were issued with new certificates. Property owners are officially notified in writing of the availability of certificates. Even at Board meetings, they are informed that certificates would be ready in 5 days. ➢ However, the rate of uptake of certificates is slow since it would appear that people were only interested in the payment. But the Land Board makes efforts to take the certificates to respective villages but still there is low uptake. ➢ The Land Board uses one-on-one notification to affected persons of their rights in the process; no formal letters are written to them in this regard. ➢ We appreciate that the Compensation Guidelines were last revised in 2010, however, this did not disadvantage the affected persons since the valuer is allowed to exercise professional judgement to adjust the rates where necessary. ➢ The guidelines provide for upward adjustment of 5% if payment was delayed by 3 months. This was done for this project ➢ There could have been delays in the whole process. This could be due to lack of prior coordination between Roads Department and the Land Board leading to clash of schedules especially that the Land Board is thin on personnel with regards to valuations. 2 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE PROJECT TEAM 1. Who is the owner of the report between Roads Department and World Bank? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 2. Please clarify the role of Roads Department versus that of World Bank ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 3. What motivated the Completion Report/ What is the rationale and purpose of RAP Completion report? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 4. With a view to determining if compensations were achieved in a timely manner, please clarify whether there was any cut-off date for payment of compensations (the time between assessment and the actual payment/compensation)-Outline the process with regard to time frames. ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 5. What is the basis for the cut-off date for Land Board and that of Roads Department? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 6. How were delays in compensation mitigated/How did you make up for delayed compensation? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 1 7. Outline the constraints, issues and delays encountered during implementation and how they were overcome. ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 8. Kindly provide: a. Offer letters b. Consent letters c. Records of consultations d. Minutes and frequency of meetings 9. How often did the PAP team meet with individual PAPs? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 10. Compensation rates-Please clarify if compensation rates were reviewed post 2010, if rates were adjusted to consider inflation and if indeed there is need for adjustments ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 11. Please clarify whether cut off date for freezing development was adequately announced to the PAPs ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 12. Kindly verify whether all PAPs have received their amended certificates (Number of Certificates issued and the number of pending certificates) ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 13. Please provide proof that due process was followed in informing PAPs of their rights to engage Valuation Professionals 2 14. Please clarify if there were any “PAPs” who were affected by initial road alignment and were later not affected by the re-alignment (Please clarify if this could be one of the reasons why some PAPs feel compensation was inadequate) ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 15. Was there change of PAPs at any point in time? If yes why? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 16. Please clarify how miscalculations occurred that resulted in PAPs feeling compensation was inadequate and therefore felt cheated. ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 17. What measures did Roads Department take to explain to the PAPs as to what led to the reduction of the compensation amounts. ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 18. Please provide the RAP implementation budget for the whole implementation of RAP assignment and specify if the budget was adequate. If it was not adequate please give reasons ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 19. What supplementary assistance was provided to the PAPs by the Project Team? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ THANK YOU. 3 Comments Response Sheet-World Bank Comments on the Draft final Completion Report- Consultancy Services for the Preparation of a Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for Output and Performance based Road Contracts (OPRC) Chapter Page Comments Response number 1. The current draft has satisfactorily Noted. addressed all the RSS comments on the first draft, viz.; (a) the report has been restructured as suggested (b) the nature, purpose and basis for the study have been defined (c) adherence to the RAP was assessed; and, (d) A conclusion section was provided. In addition, the sampling method was discussed. 2. Need for further elaborations The RAP intended to and evidences to support key adhere to OP 4.12 conclusions of the study. The guidelines as regards report now provides categorical remedial measures conclusions on most of the study applicable to resettlement questions. However, the following and displacement impacts. assertions would need to be However, the RAP reports further substantiated with facts indicate that there were no and discussions: relocations of (a) There was no PAPs/properties, there displacement/resettlement impact were no impacts on means and hence there was no need for of livelihood hence there remedial measures viz. (i) was no need for any residential; (ii) livelihood housing or moving development support; and, (iii) assistance nor livelihood moving assistance. (See section support. 3.3 Page 30; Page32.) These are Data supporting the study currently being presented as conclusion that RAP findings of the study whereas implementation did not these should have been already impact significantly on the captured in RAP documents. household incomes and There is therefore a need to first living conditions has been indicate what RAPs originally provided (Item 3.3.1.1 planned or intend to provide, i.e. paragraph 3). whether there was initially a plan The RAP and ESIA to provide housing, livelihood reports have not made any support or moving assistance. conclusion on the need for And if so, then what happened or additional assistance to why was it not provided? On the vulnerable PAPs except other hand, if RAPs had originally for simply outlining World 1 indicated that there was no need Bank requirements for for such remedies, then the such assistance in cases of discussions would be whether resettlement. The survey such plan is consistent with the consultations with PAPs intent of the OP 4.12. did not come out with any Furthermore, regardless of opinion by vulnerable whether or not resettlement and/ groups as to whether or livelihood support were required, not they needed additional the study should be able to support because there was present data on the incomes and no relocation that would livelihood status of PAPs before warrant consideration for and after RAP implementation. special assistance. Data indicating that incomes and living conditions of the PAPs have not deteriorated should support the conclusion that PAPs were not affected. Otherwise, if data indicate that lives have deteriorated, the report should provide explanations as to possible cause of deterioration. (b) There was no need for additional assistance or special treatment to vulnerable PAPs (Section 3.3.3). There is a need to cite any discussions from the RAPs or findings from ESIA that support these claims. The report mentioned that consultations were conducted with the vulnerable PAPs but it did not mention what came out of that consultation or whether the RAPs categorically ruled out extending any additional supports to vulnerable PAPs. (c) The cash compensation were adequate- There is need to substantiate the conclusion that the compensations received by the PAPs were adequate especially given the opposite perception by PAPs. The OP 4.12 provides that valuation of losses must be based on the “replacement cost” principle. The report should show that the rates were indeed equivalent to replacement costs, using data from current market transactions or other primary or 2 secondary sources. 3. Need to provide brief Addressed under Section background on the Amended 4. Land Certificates. The report has determined that the implementation of the RAPs is still incomplete because of the pending issuance of the Amended Land Certificates. This will have implications on the closure of the project or at least the subprojects (i.e. Package 1 and Package 2) as normally projects cannot be declared closed if RAPs are still under implementation. There is therefore a need to describe what is required and what is the significance of (or how critical are) these certificates to the PAPs and to the completion of the RAPs. 4. Lessons Learnt. There is a need Addressed under Section to recast the discussions in the 6. Lessons Learnt section. Lessons learnt should reflect something the project should have done or not done; or, innovations that was employed in response to certain constraints that proved to be effective. For example: (a) The study has found that the GRM arrangement was not implemented or was not utilized by the project. Should have the design of the GRM considered the existing or traditional conflict resolution process in the project area? (b) If there is a perception among the PAPs that the compensations they received were inadequate, how could such have been avoided? (c) Could the delays in issuance of Amended Land Certificates have been avoided? How? 3 5. Suggested edits: Addressed. The report has (a) On P1, the following sentence been edited. should be in the past tense as RD has implemented the RAP- hence the completion report: “ Roads Department (RD) is currently implementing two resettlement Action Plans (RAP) as per requirements of the World Bank.” (b) Correct the word “issuing” to “issuance” in the heading of Section 5.26 to “Issuance of amended certificates” and, in the heading of section 5.26 as well as in the text in Section 5.3. (c) Change the heading in 3.2.2 from “After RAP Implementation” to “Socio-economic conditions of PAPs after RAP implementation”. Include a statement in the conclusion about the current socioeconomic status of the PAPs. (d) The report clearly states that there has been no displacement. However, on p25, p30 and p32 an undeveloped plot is referenced in relation to property relocation. It would appear that there can be no relocation of property on an undeveloped plot, thus please correct the language (i.e. use a word other than relocation to describe the impact on the undeveloped plot). p25: “ in accordance with these instruments, The Department of Roads ensured that no family dwelling, ploughing field or any other property was relocated except for only one undeveloped residential plot in Package 2. “and p30: “ In this particular project, displacement has generally been avoided save for one case where displacement of one undeveloped residential plot occurred.” P32 “ 4 In the RAP implementation for both Packages 1 and 2, there was hardly any physical relocation save for 1 PAP in Tshidilamolomo whose undeveloped plot was taken for the purpose of the project.” (e) Please note that figure 9 on p35 is Figure 9 has always been missing. Kindly insert the version in the report. 5