Project Completion Note for resettlement related obligations under the Republic of Tajikistan Energy Loss Reduction Project (P089244) (ELRP)and related Additional Financing (P122141) (AF-ELRP) IDA Credit 4093-TJ and IDA Grant H757-TJ 1. An Implementation Completion and Results Report (ICR) had been prepared for the Republic of Tajikistan Energy Loss Reduction Project (P089244) (ELRP) and related Additional Financing (P122141) (AF-ELRP) (the Project) in 2015. After Project closing, resettlement oversight and monitoring by the World Bank (Bank) continued in relation to the relocation of communities from the vicinity of the dam and operations work areas. This completion note (Note) documents the Republic of Tajikistan’s (Recipient) compliance with its resettlement-related obligations as set out in the legal agreements for the Project and related monitoring undertaken by the Bank and serves as official closure of Bank oversight of the Project. This Note, which has been prepared by the Bank’s Project Team, provides an overview of (i) the development of the Rogun Hydropower Plant (Rogun HPP) and its relationship to the Project; (ii) the resettlement-related obligations of the Recipient under the legal agreements for the Project; and (iii) present findings of the Bank’s team from monitoring the Recipient’s compliance with said resettlement-related obligations. 2. The findings of the Bank’s recent monitoring, as described below and further detailed in the final Recipient’s Resettlement Audit (December 20, 2018), show that the Recipient has met its resettlement-related obligations as set out in the legal agreements for the Project and provided the entitlements as listed in the Resettlement Policy Framework and Resettlement Action Plan prepared under the Project (see Annex 1). BACKGROUND ON ROGUN HPP AND THE PROJECT 3. Background on Rogun HPP and the Project. The Rogun HPP was designed in the 1970s. Construction of the Rogun HPP began in 1982 but halted with the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the ensuing civil disturbances in Tajikistan. In 1993 the existing Rogun HPP coffer dam was washed away and the tunnels constructed in the 1980s were damaged. When Tajikistan began to consider resuming work on the development of Rogun HPP in 2008, questions were raised about its safety, downstream impact, and economic and financial viability. In this context, the Government of Tajikistan requested support from the Bank to provide technical assistance to support the preparation of the Rogun HPP, and the Bank has responded favorably through the Project. 4. The objectives of the Project were to assist in reducing the commercial losses in the electricity and gas systems, and to lay the foundation for the improvement of the financial viability of the electricity and gas utilities in a socially responsible manner. As stated in the PAD for the ELRP (P089244): “The proposed Project would not trigger any of the ten Safeguards policies of the Bank/IDA, since the project would be implemented on existing electricity and gas networks. The Project is rated Environmental Category Rating C.” The development objectives for the ELRP-AF were “(i) to assist in reducing the commercial losses in the electricity and gas systems; and to lay the foundation for the improvement of the financial viability of the electricity and gas utilities in a socially responsible manner; and (ii) to assist in the viability assessment of the proposed Rogun Hydroelectric Project in Tajikistan.” 5. The scope of the technical assistance component of the ELRP was expanded through the Additional Financing with the inclusion of support to the Recipient in the preparation of the technical, environmental and social assessment studies for the proposed Rogun HPP, namely a) the Techno- economic Assessment Study (TEAS) to assess the overall design, operations and economics of the proposed Rogun HPP; and b) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Study (ESIA). Although no physical investments were financed under the Project, the environmental and social risk was deemed to higher due to the inclusion of the assessment of the proposed Rogun HEP, for which GoRT had requested Bank support, and, as such, the environmental category of ELRP was upgraded from “C” to “A”. A key safeguards issue associated with the Rogun HPP was the resettlement of 63 villages from the reservoir area. 6. Resettlement in the vicinity of the dam site had begun prior to World Bank involvement. With the Bank involvement under the Project, it was required that such resettlement activities were stopped until the resettlement instruments being supported under the Project were prepared and disclosed, all in line with the resettlement-related obligations of the Project legal agreements (see next section). The World Bank required the Recipient to prepare a Resettlement Audit of households that had already undergone relocation to identify measures to bring the resettlement initiated prior to the assessment studies (and the Bank’s involvement) into conformity with international good practice (i.e. principles of the World Bank’s Operational Policy (OP) on Involuntary Resettlement 4.12). Resettlement in the vicinity of the Rogun dam is defined as the relocation of the following seven villages: i. The villages of Kishrog, Mirog, Tagi Agba, Talkhakchashma, Tagi Kamar, and Sech, which were located in the so-called "risk zone". This included four communities within the construction site of Rogun dam (Tagi Agba, Talkhakchashma, Tagi Kamar, and Sech), and two downstream of the dam (Kishrog and Mirog), and ii. The village of Chorsada, which was located 12 km upstream of the dam and outside the construction area, but at an elevation of 1100 meters above sea level (masl). This is the only village in the vicinity of the dam that would be submerged in the first stage of reservoir filling when the reservoir reaches a level of 1100 masl. 7. Similarly, some of the relocation of the residents from the reservoir area had also already happened prior to the Bank’s involvement under the Project. Namely, resettlement commenced during the Soviet period with part of the reservoir area residents already moved to new housing provided by the Government of Tajikistan in the cities of Rogun, Obigarm and other parts of Tajikistan. The resettlement of such villages and cities had not taken place in a phased manner with the result that some of the villages relocated households belonged to later submergence zones whereas in early submergence zones many households remained in their original sites. During negotiations for ELRP-AF, the Bank agreed with the Recipient that no further resettlement would take place in the reservoir area until completion of these studies and preparation of a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP). However, it was agreed that resettlement of families within the vicinity of dam site who were at risk from construction activities, and families which had already been partly relocated, could continue. Resettlement of any other family where these conditions did not apply would not be undertaken until completion of ESIA, RPF and RAP. To reflect this background, the FA included the covenants listed below. 8. Upon Bank involvement under the Project, resettlement activities were stopped until the resettlement instruments were prepared and disclosed, as per the obligation in the Project legal agreements (see next section). Differently from resettlement in the vicinity of the dam site, the Bank is not responsible, as per the Project legal agreements, for monitoring the resettlement activities within the reservoir area, which are anticipated to cause major social impacts. Preliminary estimates suggest that around 42,000 people may be affected. 9. The Bank did not finance works or any infrastructure activities for Rogun HPP itself under the Project or any other Bank-supported investment project. RESETTLEMENT-RELATED COVENANTS IN THE LEGAL AGREEMENTS FOR ELRP AND AF-ELRP 10. Section D.2 of Schedule 2 to the Financing Agreement for the ELRP-AF, dated March 16, 2012 requires the Recipient to: 2 “[…] (i) ensure no relocation of residents from the proposed Rogun dam future reservoir area, unless and until the Recipient shall have prepared, disclosed and published a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF), Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) and Resettlement Audit Report, all satisfactory to the Association, and as required under ESIA; (ii) make best efforts to avoid relocation of residents in the vicinity of the Rogun dam site until the documents referred to in (i) above shall have been prepared; and, (iii) in case continued resettlement of remaining residents in the vicinity of the Rogun dam site takes place, the Recipient shall carry out such resettlement with due care and in accordance with the Recipient’s applicable legal and institutional framework, as well as with the international good practices (including but not limited to adequate grievance mechanism) in a manner acceptable to the Bank”. 11. The Development Financing Agreement for the ELRP, dated September 8, 2005, as amended on January 26, 2011, included a similar provision (Section 3.08). SAFEGUARDS DOCUMENTS 12. Safeguard Documents. The Project supported, inter alia, the preparation of environmental and social studies under Part C, namely: (i) an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for Rogun Hydro Power Plant; (ii) a Resettlement Policy Framework for Rogun Hydro Power Plan; (iii) a Resettlement Action Plan Stage 11; and (iv) a Household-Level Resettlement Audit (Intermediate Resettlement Audit)2. The Intermediate Resettlement Audit covered resettlement undertaken prior to World Bank engagement in the vicinity of the dam, which was not covered under the Resettlement Action Plan. All these documents were prepared, disclosed, and published in a manner acceptable to the World Bank’s further to its review thereof. 13. The ESIA provided a number of overview mechanisms, namely: planning of resettlement activities, the Grievance Redress Mechanism, and Witness NGO. 14. The ESIA included an Environmental and Social Management Plan whose objectives included: a. Define the responsibilities of Project proponents, contractors and other stakeholders, and effectively communicate environmental issues among them. b. Facilitate the implementation of the mitigation measures identified, including recommended studies and plans, by providing the instructions on how to handle the issues, identifying the responsible parties, and providing an implementation schedule. c. Define a monitoring mechanism and identify monitoring parameters to ensure that all mitigation measures are completely and effectively implemented. d. Identify resources required to implement the ESMP and outline corresponding financing arrangements. 15. The Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) was developed specifically for Rogun HPP, which is not being funded by the Project or any other investment project financed by the Bank. Additionally, the RPF is meant to guide the preparation of future Resettlement Action Plans, if and when needed. 16. The main aim of the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) was to specify the entitlements, compensation and other assistance that should be provided to PAPs in order for the resettlement to meet World 1 Stage 1 refers to resettlement of six villages (Kishrog, Mirog, Tagi Agba, Talkhakchashma, Tagi Kamar, and Sech) in the vicinity of the proposed Rogun dam site and one village (Chorsada) lying at approximately 1100 meters above sea level 2 Household Level Resettlement Audit conducted desk review of all resettled households and interviewed a sample of affected households. 3 Bank standards as it is deemed to constitute international best practice. The RPF Entitlement Matrix was applied to the RAP which resulted in a matrix of entitlements. (see Annex 1) The scope of the RAP covered: resettlement of six villages in the vicinity of the proposed Rogun dam site and one village lying at approximately 1100m asl - referred to as Stage 1 resettlement - was taking place. As per the Project legal agreements, this resettlement, prior to the completion of this Resettlement Action Plan (RAP), was to take place in accordance with Tajik national law and international good practice, i.e. OP 4.12. The application of the RAP would ensure that the resettlement was in accordance with the World Bank’s policy on Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12). Separately, a Resettlement Audit informed retroactive measures that would be required to make any resettlement already undertaken prior to application of the RAP consistent with the RAP. The RAP was developed in accordance with the World Bank’s safeguard policies. The main field work for the preparation of the RAP was done in 2011, and the bulk of the information presented dates from then, with some update being done in 2013 and some additional information added reflecting the situation up to June 2014. 17. The objective of the Intermediate Resettlement Audit was to identify any retroactive support and/or compensation payments required for those affected, in order to meet entitlements listed in the project Resettlement Action Plan. The desk review of compensation provided details on when and in what form payments had been made, and whether they comply with applicable Tajik requirements and the entitlement matrix within the project RAP. This audit then identified any retroactive measures that would be required to bring on-going, and past Rogun HPP, resettlement into compliance with the principles of OP 4.12. 18. Panel of Experts (POE): In April 2011, two Panel of Experts (an Environmental and Social Panel of Experts, and an Engineering/Dam Safety Panel of Experts) were contracted to review Project related documents, provide technical inputs, and advise on various aspects of the future development of the Rogun HPP. The POE reviewed and commented on the aforesaid four draft safeguards documents, and their comments were taken into account in the final versions of the documents. The POE report dated November 5-4, 2012, reviewed the revised RAP and concluded the overall quality to be good and according to World Bank Operational Policy (OP) 4.12 standards and requirements. The POE also rated Rogun’s citizen engagement and disclosure as satisfactory. The POE report dated July 2013 found the Resettlement Audit and Resettlement Policy Framework satisfactory and acceptable to international good practice. 19. Implementation Completion and Results Report (Report No. ICR00003310), dated June 19, 2015, stated: “The rating for Safeguards was Satisfactory over the project implementation period. The Recipient and the implementing agencies were in compliance with the agreed safeguard policies both under the original Grant and the Additional Financing.” 20. Final Resettlement Audit. A final Resettlement Audit of the resettlement in the vicinity of the Rogun dam site was prepared by Baker Tilly - Tajikistan to determine whether or not said resettlement process was conducted by the Recipient with due care, in line with national legal obligations and international good practices, i.e. it met Bank standards under the Bank Policy on Involuntary Resettlement. Household level surveys were conducted and data gathered to compare pre- and post- resettlement standard of living and livelihoods restoration. The final Resettlement Audit prepared by the Recipient was finalized in XX, 2018. Notably, the Recipient also prepared an Intermediate Audit, which was approved and disclosed by the Bank in December 2014. 21. Disclosure of the RPF and RAP: The RPF, covering principles and institutional arrangements that would apply to resettlement activities both in the vicinity and the reservoir of the Rogun HPP, was approved by the World Bank and publicly disclosed in World Bank InfoShop on February 8, 2012. The RAP was finalized on December 2014 and received World Bank No Objection for disclosure March 2015. A finalized Intermediate Household Audit, dated December 2014, assessed resettlement relocation activities that had occurred prior to World Bank involvement to identify 4 any gaps and provide any mediation recommendations to ensure international good practice. In addition, a Livelihoods Restoration Plan was finalized on January 30, 2015. Information centers were established in Sicharog and Hakimi Jamoats to cover villages in the vicinity of the dam prior to resettlement and in relocation Jamoats of of Rudaki, Tursunzade, Dangara, Darband and Rogun (covering Yoligarmova and Novi Saidon). Here copies of the final versions of the RAP in Russian, Tajik and English were available to the general public, as well as copies of posters, diagrams, flyers, and other relevant information. Additionally, the Rogun Resettlement Unit website, accessible to local and international audiences, includes more information of the Project in Tajik, Russian and English. MONITORING 22. Monitoring. According to World Bank OP 4.12, (paragraph 24) “The borrower is responsible for adequate monitoring and evaluation of the activities set forth in the resettlement instrument.” Monitoring included: • Progress Monitoring which involved continuous monitoring of the work carried out, covering all aspects of the resettlement process. This included, but was not limited to: selection of necessary resettlement sites, infrastructure at these sites (i.e. roads, electricity, water supply, health services, and schools), house plot allocation, construction of houses, and number of households relocated. The primary purpose of this monitoring was to verify that work was completed on schedule, and that the quality of the work met expectations and standards. • Outcome Monitoring and Resettlement Monitoring had the objective to evaluate the results of the resettlement process, with regards to Standard of Living and Livelihood Restoration. Outcome Monitoring was scheduled to occur approximately six months after completing relocation and will continue for a minimum of three years, or until it has been demonstrated that resettled households have been able to restore, or improve, their livelihood to pre-relocation levels. • A Witness NGO was hired in order to provide an independent observer to witness the relocation, compensation, and resettlement process throughout the duration of the project in order to verify compliance of RAP implementation. RESETTLEMENT IN THE VICINITY OF THE ROGUN DAM SITE – KEY FINDINGS (Section D.2. (iii) of Schedule 2 of the Financing Agreement for the ELRP-AF and Section 3.08(iii) of the Development Financing Agreement for the ELRP) 23. Bank Monitoring: Bank Policy on Involuntary Resettlement (previous OP 4.12) requires under its paragraph 24 that “the Bank regularly supervise resettlement implementation to determine compliance with the resettlement instrument.” The Bank has conducted regular supervision missions, which began during Project preparation, throughout implementation, and continued after Project Closing Date to ensure adequate Project completion, as per Bank Policy on Investment Project Financing and Bank Policy on Involuntary Resettlement. According to Bank Directive on Involuntary Resettlement (BP 4.12 paragraph 16) “a project is not considered complete--and Bank supervision continues--until the resettlement measures set out in the relevant resettlement instrument have been implemented.” During Project preparation and implementation, no less than 22 missions were conducted. At least 14 technical and monitoring supervision missions were conducted by Bank social specialists after the Project Closing Date in relation to continued resettlement of remaining residents in the vicinity of the Rogun dam site. Bank monitoring missions visited original villages and new settlements, assessed associated infrastructure of new settlement sites, interviewed affected persons and community representatives and reviewed the GRM (see further details of key findings below). The most recent supervision/monitoring missions verified that resettlement activities in the vicinity of the Rogun dam site have been completed in a manner that meets Recipient’s applicable legal and institutional framework, as well as with the international good practices, i.e. Bank resettlement policy in effect at the time of Project approval. 5 KEY OBSERVATIONS 24. Resettlement Completion: Following guidelines and standards established in the RAP, the Rogun RU completed relocation of all communities, households, and families living in the vicinity of the dam site in July 2017. Relocation sites were chosen by each family. Rural sites included establishing a new community on a vacant, government-owned area identified by the families. The RU then worked with government agencies to transfer land for use in the resettlement process. All facilities (i.e. schools and medical points) and infrastructure in new locations were completed and functioning as of September 2017. No residents remain in the former communities and all remaining structures, which were not transported to the new locations, have been dismantled to prevent squatters from occupying vacant areas, use area for dam construction operations and/or prepare area for reservoir inundation. According to the final Resettlement Audit findings, all households received compensation at full replacement cost; an amount which the asset owner agreed covered replacement cost. 25. Family Land Allocation Benefit. As is typical in Tajikistan, multiple families often reside within one household. When an adult child marries, the wife moves in with the husband’s family. Prior to project resettlement, multiple families lived within a household, contributing to the household income and shared the burden of household expenses. During the resettlement of the villages in the vicinity of the dam, households were compensated at full replacement cost for lost land plot(s), household, as well as other impacted structures and assets. During the resettlement process, land allocation was fast-tracked so that families within a household that did not have a land plot, or structural assets, were granted a land plot on which to begin building a new home for their family. Because of changes in living patterns, livelihood restoration comparisons between pre- and post- resettlement cannot be calculated at a household level. Household members not previously engaged in income generation, and who opted to live with their newly created families and independent of their parent’s household in a new location, have had to develop ways in which to start generating an income. The RU has, and will continue, to give project affected people priority access to jobs and other livelihood activities. 26. Standard of Living: Social indicators by which to evaluate changes in standard of living include, but are not limited to: land plot allocation, housing compensation, quality and supply reliability of clean drinking water, availability and supply reliability of electricity, distance traveled for health services, quality of medical services, distance traveled to schools as well as quality and grade levels available, number of household members employed, other economic activities and sources of cash income. Findings of the final Resettlement Audit regarding social indicators demonstrate that the Resettlement Unit has successfully improved the standard of living of those households that had been relocated. (see Annex 2) 27. Livelihood Restoration: No impact is expected on livelihoods for households that relocated within their existing district. Prior to resettlement, households often utilized land around their houses for subsistence farming, with some households using additional land for farming. Most households kept livestock in pasture land that was widely available. After resettlement, pasture land is readily available in the rural communities and therefore those who relocated within Novi Saidon and Yoligarmova will not experience negative changes to livelihood. Good agricultural land is being made available for those who relocated to the peri-urban areas of Tursunzade and Rudaki, which includes an existing irrigation system. The peri-urban areas, however, have less pasture land available. Over 40 percent of impacted adults, mostly men, have sought training in new farming techniques. Additionally, those moving from rural to peri-urban areas considered this an opportunity to no longer work in agriculture, expecting that peri-urban areas will offer better employment opportunities, and provide better opportunities in the future for their children. The final Resettlement Audit noted that more than 180 women, who had previously only worked within the household, are now involved in social work, small businesses, crop production, and seasonal work outside of the household. 6 28. Major challenges faced throughout Tajikistan, and not a result of resettlement, include skills gaps for jobs that now demand “new economy skills”, insufficient formal sector jobs creation, low levels of education among the adult population, especially among the female population, and changes in Russian regulations for migrant workers which affected livelihoods of Tajik households relying on migrant work and remittances. According to the Livelihood Restoration Plan, for many individuals impacted by relocation, the main sources of income (i.e. employment in Rogun City, local schools, or remittances) were not permanently disrupted or discontinued as a result of relocation. All of those who lost jobs in the original villages (schools and health centers) were provided with new jobs in their new locations. 29. The Rogun RU is committed to assisting affected persons in livelihood restoration (LR) for all persons impacted by the Rogun HPP, as spelled out in the “Livelihood Restoration Plan for Stage 1” finalized in January 2015. Although the plan was created for resettlement in the vicinity of the dam, the principles and process from this plan will serve as a basis for implementing LR activities in subsequent resettlement phases, which the RU expects to last for a period of 16 years. The Rogun RU understands that LR will continue beyond the physical relocation of households and families. 30. Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM): A three step GRM was put in place to address complaints, comments, or inquiries. Every affected person has the right to lodge a complaint when dissatisfied with any aspect of the resettlement process. The GRM relies on RU utilizing existing grievance procedures within a rais (neighborhood) or jamoat (community). The existing system is known and familiar to the local population, and is easily accessible. If local mechanisms do not resolve a grievance, the claimant can seek redress in the court of law for a final decision from an impartial third-party. (see Annex 3) CONCLUSION The Recipient complied with its commitments under Section D.2.(i) of Schedule 2 of the Financing Agreement (FA) for the Project by halting relocation of households from the reservoir area until a Resettlement Policy Framework, Resettlement Action Plan and Intermediate Resettlement Audit had been prepared, disclosed and published. The aforesaid instruments were all approved by the Bank as follows: The Resettlement Policy Framework and Resettlement Action Plan were approved August 2014 and the Intermediate Audit approved December 2014. The Recipient also prepared a Livelihood Restoration Plan which was approved January 2015. These safeguard instruments were all disclosed and published (please see paragraph 20 for further details). The Recipient has also complied with its commitments under Section D.2.(ii) and (iii) of Schedule 2 of the FA since it made best efforts to avoid resettlement of families within the vicinity of dam site. Still, it was understood and agreed that those families within the vicinity of the dam site who were at risk from construction activities (and flooding), and families which had already been partly relocated, could continue to be resettled, with due care, in line with national law and international best practice and in a manner acceptable to the Bank. The Government has carried out the relocation of the 6 villages in the vicinity of the dam in line with the aforesaid legal obligations, and in line with the instruments mentioned above. 7 ANNEX 1: Resettlement Entitlements Matrix Housing and • Cash compensation for house, and other structures, at replacement cost. Structures • Valuation undertaken no more than 12 months prior to payment of compensation. • HH allowed to salvage materials from original house and structures. Vulnerable • Jamoat organizes provision of labor. Groups and • Relocation assistance (i.e. packing and unpacking) and assistance Female-Headed salvaging materials. Households • Jamoat monitors the construction of the house. • Households with disabled persons will have houses built so as to facilitate mobility Land/ House • HH receive house plot at resettlement site which, due to productivity, Plot location, and other factors, is equivalent to land taken, and is acceptable to HH.3 • HH receive land user rights, and other necessary documents, at no extra cost to HH. Families • All families, regardless of previous plot ownership, will receive a land plot with land user rights certificates and other documents at no extra cost. Agricultural • Replacement of agricultural land, (including dekhan farm and Land presidential land etc., as per the land code) whose productivity, location, and other factors are equivalent to the land taken and is acceptable to the PAPs. • RU to support PAPs in preparing and submitting applications for agricultural land. All fees for application of agricultural land to be waived. • HHs receive land user rights certificates and other necessary documents for agricultural land at no extra cost to the HH. • Agricultural land to be available to PAPs prior to physical displacement Pasture Land • Replacement of pasture and/or hay land to be provided prior to physical displacement. Transport • Free transport for HHs. All movable assets, including salvaged Allowance materials from original house transported at project’s cost. Crop Loss • Cash for lost agricultural crops at market rate for 1 year. Cash worked out based on average yearly production of the crop lost. Fruit Trees • Cash for fruit trees based on actual number of fruit trees per HH and annual harvest per tree for the number of years until harvest will be replaced by new trees planted at the new site. Other Trees • For mature trees: Right to use the timber of all trees owned by HH, or cash compensation for the value of timber. Cash for seedlings for planting new trees. • For immature trees: Right to use the timber of all trees and cash for seedlings for planting new trees. 3 If plot size, productivity, location, or other factors is not equivalent, HH receive additional cash compensation to cover loss. 8 Community/ •Replacement of all social, cultural and economic infrastructures at new Public Assets sites by project. • Reconstruction of all social, economic and cultural infrastructure, for example water supply, health centers, education facilities, markets, roads and paths, electricity lines, etc. • Connection to utilities without cost to the PAP. Graveyards • Relocation. Livelihoods - • Rogun Employment continues • Civil servants (i.e. teachers, health workers) transferred to same institutions in new settlement district or jamoat. • Persons who lose their job due to relocation and who are looking for a new job will be paid the minimum salary for a period of up to 3 months, with the additional possibility to get training for alternative activities for a period of up to another 6 months, during which the same amount will be paid. This also applies to persons who had a different income stream and/or are seeking employment now. Other Participation in livelihood restoration activities (see Section 6.3 for Livelihoods details). Categories of support will include: • Upgrading skills: for example, improved agricultural practices, financial literacy, business development, etc. • Provision of new skills: for example - sewing, baking, carpentry, driving, financial literacy, business development, entrepreneurship, etc. • Job placement: for job opportunities at Rogun, for job opportunities in other industries/areas. • Support for livelihoods: for example, micro-credit, low-cost loans, seed grants for entrepreneurs, entrepreneurship training (for indirect opportunities at Rogun and other industries). • Preferential Credit of TJS 3'000 (TJS 1,500 to be repaid in three years) provided to each family. Vulnerable PAPs As above with specialized attention to: Livelihoods • Groups at risk of being excluded from livelihood restoration activities (even when they will lose livelihoods) • Individuals who may require customized approaches to livelihood programs such as the disabled and the elderly. • Priority consideration for project related employment. Other Assistance • Witness NGO will be selected to monitor the compensation and resettlement process to ensure that the RAP is implemented properly. • Legal counsel will be provided for PAPs, upon request, at no cost to the PAPs. 9 ANNEX 2: Social Indicators: Pre- and Post- Resettlement4 ROGUN Education Level Electricity Roads Vicinity of • 3% had higher education All households had access to electricity prior to • Gravel and soil Dam Site • 10 % secondary education relocation, however there was availability • No pedestrian walkway • Females had only primary education limitations throughout all of TJ and not limited to the Rogun HPP region. Limitations were lifted in 2017. All relocated households have access electricity without limitations. ORIGINAL # HH # families Avg Moved to School Water • Medical COMMUNITY house size5 Aligalaboni6 Rudaki • Traveled 3 km to • 2x/week – Aligalaboni Bolo up medical team to grade 9 from district • Traveled 10 km to center village of Chorsada for grade Komsomolabad 10+ (20 to 26 km away) Chorsada 147 260 8 Rudaki • 1 secondary for 200 • Drinking water from All communities students Vahsh river and traveled to Obi • Clay, no foundation untreated spring Garm, a distance of • Students mostly from water 10 to 15 km Chorsada • Irrigation spring • Nearest communities water and river 5 to 15 km along temporary canals Mirog 5 62 3.98 A total of 4 • Primary school for 20 • Drinking water from households students untreated spring 4 table created by the Bank’s Social team based on data from the final Resettlement Audit Report 5 Constitution states standard of 12 square meters/ person 6 Aligalaboni consisted of 14 households and was not originally identified as a resettlement community in the vicinity of the dam. However, Aligalaboni households requested to be relocated with Chorsada as many households had family members in Chorsada and they wanted to maintain the family network connections. Rogun accepted this request and included Aligalaboni in the relocation of Chorsada households. 10 from Mirog • Distance traveled < • Temporary and Kishrog 200 m irrigation canals Kishrog 33 3.98 moved to • travel to Tagikamar – • Drinking water from Tursunzade 15 km for secondary untreated spring while the • Temporary remaining irrigation canals households moved to Yoligarmoba. Sech 6 11 8 Tursunzade travel to Tagikamar for • Drinking water from Primary and Secondary untreated spring – 1.5 km • Temporary irrigation canals Tagi Agba 6 18 11.55 Tursunzade travel to Tagikamar for • Drinking water from Primary and Secondary untreated spring – 6 km • Temporary irrigation canals Tagi Kamar 39 78 8.95 Tursunzade Primary and Secondary • Drinking water from • 180 students untreated spring • Clay walls, no • Temporary foundation irrigation canals Talkhakchashma 53 98 8 Tursunzade • Primary school for 20 • Drinking water from students untreated spring • Attend Tagikamar • Temporary after Primary – 5 km irrigation canals TOTAL 289 • 1263 male • 1255 female • 899 under 18 year old • 1619 over 18 year old • 162 pensioners • 85 unemployed 16 disable 11 POST Pre-move village Avg House School Infrastructure Water Medical RESETTLEMENT Size COMMUNITY (square meters) TURSUNZADE • Sech 15 • 1176 students • Asphalt roads • Clean drinking 1 medical point for (peri-urban): • Tagi Agba • Grades 1 -11 • Separate water from 25 patients per day Toichi Jamoat and • Tagi Kamar • Maximum pedestrian artesian wells Jamoat J Rohmon • Talkhakchashma distance traveled walkway • Irritation network • Partial - Mirog = 300 m • Tray curvettes access via chute • Partial - Kishrog for drainage nets RUDAKI (peri- • Chorsada • Asphalt roads • Clean drinking urban) • Aligalaboni ? • Separate water from Teppai Samarkandi • 640 students pedestrian artesian wells 1 medical point for • Grades 1 -11 walkway • All HH connected 25 patients per day • Maximum to well supply distance traveled = 300 m Moinkach Jamoat • 320 students 1 medical point for Rohati • Grades 1 -11 25 patients per day • Maximum distance traveled = 300 m ROGUN7 • Asphalt roads “Water User • Separate Associations” pedestrian formed – maintain walkway water supply • Tray curvettes network Yoligarmoba • Kishrog 15.09 • 320 students for drainage • Access to clean 1 medical point for (rural) • Mirog • Grades 1 -11 water 25 patients per day • Maximum • All HH connected distance traveled to water supply = 300 m 7 Those who resettled to the neighborhoods of Novi Saidon and Yoligarmoba, HH moved a distance of 1 to 10 m. RU considered this an “internal resettlement” inside Rogun. As a result, the RU did not consider these HH needing assistance with adaptation or livelihoods restoration as employment remained the same. 12 POST Pre-move village Avg House School Infrastructure Water Medical RESETTLEMENT Size COMMUNITY (square meters) Novi Saidon • Tagi Kamar 19.31 • 320 students • Spring water 1 medical point for (rural) • Tagi Alba • Grades 1 -11 intake 25 patients per day • Maximum • All HH connected distance traveled to water supply = 300 m 13 ANNEX 3: Grievance Redress Mechanism(GRM) As the Rogun Resettlement Unit (RU) built a GRM system utilizing existing systems, it is expected to continue functioning for all persons impacted by Rogun HPP, including those relocated during Stage 1 and Stage 2 resettlement. Principles guiding the implementation of the Grievance Mechanism are as follows: • The RU promotes the existence and use of the GRM by disseminating information to PAPs using a range of media and community-level. • PAPs have numerous, and accessible, ways to raise grievances including 24-hour telephone line, letter, in person, or through an intermediary. Intermediaries may include, but not limited to, civil society organizations and community leaders of PAPs choosing. • To the extent possible, complainants are guaranteed confidentiality. • Complainants can submit complaints anonymously (ie. suggestions boxes, telephone, or unsigned letter), if necessary. • All complainants receive, if requested, legal counsel to provide them with advice regarding their complaint. The Rogun RU is responsible for covering PAP’s legal costs. • Complainants are provided with prompt feedback on the status of their complaints, within a time- frame specified below. • All complaints are documented and records maintained in both paper and electronic form. RU retains documents related to complaints, conducts follow up, and regularly reports on status of complaints. • The RU provides frequent, no less than quarterly, feedback to the PAPs. • Complainants are free to use the court system at any point in the grievance process. The present practice is for RU to immediately resolve any complaint brought to their attention. Complaints can be received at RU offices, Head of the Directorate during available scheduled days to receive citizens. In addition, a 24-hour telephone line is open to receive complaints and issues. If the RU cannot resolve the complaint the following steps can be taken by the claimant (or representative of claimant): Step 1 – Rais and RU: Grievances are lodged at the village level, with the village head (rais). Together with staff of the RU the grievance is investigated as necessary to determine the details of the complaint. The village head, together with staff of the RU, have 14 days in which to investigate and resolve the complaint. Village elders and a Mahalla8 member may also be called upon to assist with resolution. If a resolution satisfactory to all parties is not resolved within 14 days, the complainant will be directed to Step 2 – District Jamoat. Step 2 – District Jamoat: The complainant can request the District Jamoat9 Head to address and resolve the complaint, with RU assistance if requested. The jamoat representative is from the same jamoat as the claimant. Depending upon the complexity of the complaint, a committee may be convened to assist with resolution. Committee members may include (as relevant to the nature of the complaint): • Jamoat Head or Jamoat representative • Legal Counsel for PAPs10 • Representative for Land tenure, Geodesy and Mapping • Representative of Rogun HPP • Representative of State Committee of Investments • Vulnerable Group representative • Women’s Council representative • PAP representative, among others. 8 Mahalla = neighborhood 9 Jamoat = community 10 PAP Legal Council costs are paid by Rogun Hydropower The District Jamoat and RU have 30 days in which to resolve complaint in manner that is satisfactory to affected parties. Should the complainant not be satisfied with the outcome of Step 2, and still wish to lodge a complaint, the complainant will be directed to Step 3 - the Legal Court. Step 3 – Law Court: It is the intent of the GRM for disputes to be resolved in previous steps, at local level. Seeking redress in the court of law serves as an independent, third party to provide an unbiased decision. Step 3 constitutes the final decision for complaint resolution. GRM Reporting: All resolutions are documented and the results shared with the complainant at each step. A journal of complaints and registration of claims by PAPs exists at the Department of Resettlement within the RU. Grievances and requests covered issues such as agricultural land allocations, house plots for young families, employment, vocational training, cleaning of irrigation ditches and construction of metal overpasses on street irrigation ditches. Noted during 2017 mission grievances in Rudaki focused on requests for land for their children while Tursunzade Grievances focused on construction aspects such as a cover over the irrigation channel in order to enter plot by car. Over 20 percent of complainants making complaints since 2016 were women. 15