VIE: GMS Southern Coastal Corridor Project

Transcription

1 Social Monitoring Report 2nd Report September 2014 VIE: GMS Southern Coastal Corridor Project Prepared by External Monitor, Romeo Cleto, for the Ministry of Transport of Viet Nam and the Asian Development Bank.

2 NOTE In this report, "$" refers to US dollars. This social monitoring report is a document of the borrower. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of ADB's Board of Directors, Management, or staff, and may be preliminary in nature. In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.

3 Second Monitoring Report GMS Southern Coastal Corridor Project (Loan 2372 and Grant 0095-VIE) Monitoring the Status of Resettlement Implementation Prepared by: Romeo B. Cleto, External Monitor (International Resettlement Specialist) September 2014

4 ABBREVIATIONS ADB - Asian Development Bank AH/AP - Affected household/affected person CARB - Compensation Assistance and Resettlement Board CLFD - Center for Land Fund Development CIPM - Cuu Long Corporation for Investment, Development and Project Management CLFD - Center for Land Fund Development CP - compensation plan DMS - detailed measurement survey EM - external monitor IRP - Income restoration program MOT - Ministry of Transport PDOT - Provincial Department of Transport PPC - Provincial People s Committee PMU-MT - Project Management Unit My Thuan ROW - right-of-way RP - resettlement plan ii

5 CONTENTS I. Background... 1 II. Activities Carried Out... 2 III. Findings... 2 A. Of the EM... 2 B. Results of the survey of randomly selected AHs... 9 C. Specific concerns in the TOR of the EM...11 IV. Conclusion and Program for the Next Monitoring Mission...13 V. Appendices...16 Appendix 1: Objectives of the Service Assignment of the EM...17 Appendix 2: Final Itinerary of Second External Monitoring Mission...19 Appendix 3: Key Persons Met...21 Appendix 4: Survey Questionnaire...23 Appendix 5: Observations and Recommendations...24 Appendix 6: Status of the IRP Demonstration Phase, Ca Mau...33 Appendix 7: Status of the IRP Demonstration Phase, Kien Giang...37 Appendix 8: Tabulated Results of the Survey...41 Appendix 9: Photo-documentation of Site Visits and Interviews...51 iii

6 I. Background 1. On September 3-16, 2014, the external monitor (EM) conducted the second monitoring mission of the GMS Southern Coastal Corridor Project (SCCP 1). The objectives of the second monitoring mission were to find out the status of (a) land acquisition and resettlement, (b) the resolution of issues reported during the first monitoring mission in January 2014, and (c) the implementation of the demonstration phase of the income restoration program (IRP). In connection with looking into the status of the implementation of the demonstration phase of the IRP, the EM also planned to conduct a survey of randomly selected AHs engaged in agriculturerelated activities or models and those engaged in non-agriculture models. 2. It will be recalled that the key findings and recommendations of the first monitoring mission conducted by the EM on January 7-17, 2014 included the following: a. On the status payment of compensation and hand-over of recovered properties. In Nga Bac-Ca Mau Section, 10 affected households (AHs) refused to receive their compensation while 7 refused to handover their project-acquired properties. In Minh Luong Thu Bay Section, specifically in National Highway 63 (from Xeo Ro Bridge at the beginning of Thu Ba Bypass up to the beginning of the Thu Bay Bypass), 36 AHs refused to receive their compensation while 9 refused to handover their projectacquired properties. b. On the status of the complaints of AHs met during the first monitoring mission. Compensation and cash allowances provided to AHs that have already received their monies were generally in conformity with the entitlements in the agreed RPs. However, the EM found lapses in the application of project resettlement principles. The EM interviewed AHs that reportedly handed over their recovered properties ahead of payment of their compensation and allowances; 1 affected person (AP), Mr. Nguyen Chi Tam of Hung Yen Commune, did not yet receive in full his compensation even if the project had taken possession of his affected land already; the rental allowance of 2 APs (Messrs. Tran Ngoc Co and Dahn Nam Vien of Binh An Commune, Chau Thanh District) whose homes were entirely affected in Binh An Commune, Chau Thanh District (Minh Luong Thu Bay Section) were not yet provided them; and 3 APs (Mr. Nguyen Quoc Thang of Town 11, An Minh District, Thu Bay-Nga Bac Section; and Mr. Dahn Nam Vien of Binh An Commune, Chau Thanh District, and Mrs. Dao Thi Chinh, Hung Yen Commune, An Bien District, both in Minh Luong-Thu Bay Section) claimed that the construction of the road impacted the flow of irrigation water to and from their farms. There were other APs met in January 2014 who had complaints. These were Mr. Nguyen Van Sau of Dong Thai Commune who wanted bigger compensation to allow him to be able to buy a replacement plot on which to re-establish his house-cumshop; and Mrs. Pham Thi Thom of Hung Yen Commune, who wanted the project to acquire her entire house because National Highway 63 in An Bien District, would be right at her doorstep, once widened. c. On the status of the implementation of the IRP demonstration phase. The IRP demonstration phase could not be implemented until the first withdrawal of $1 million from supplemental Loan 2988-VIE Grant 0337-VIE was remitted to CIPM s imprest account. 3. The objectives of the second monitoring mission are consistent with the terms of reference of the EM that spells out the general and specific objectives of external monitoring. (See Appendix 1 for the objectives of external monitoring as outlined in the EM s TOR). 1

7 II. Activities Carried Out 4. A kick-off meeting was held in the morning of 3 September 2014 at the CIPM office to discuss the objectives and agree on the itinerary of the second monitoring mission. Other than the EM, in attendance were Mr. Phan Duy Lai, Project Manager of Component 1 SCCP; Mr. Nguyen Ngoc Trac, Deputy Head of Project Management Division No. 6; Mr. Nguyen Danh Nghia, staff Project Management Division No. 6; Mr. Phong, Staff of Project Management Division No. 5; and Mr. Le Minh Chanh, SMEC Resettlement Specialist. On 4-11 September, the EM carried out site visits at various project sites, met with members of the Compensation Assistance and Resettlement Board (CARB) of Ca Mau Province and Kien Giang Province, including members of the IRP management boards of both provinces; and interviewed randomly selected APs. Communities visited in Nga Bac Ca Mau Section were Thoi Binh Commune, Bien Bach Dong Commune, and Tan Bang Commune. In Thu Bay Nga Bac Section, the EM visited Dong Hoa Commune. In the Minh Luong Thu Bay Section, communities visited were Dong Thai Commune, Binh An Commune, and the relocation site in Vinh Hoa Hiep Commune. The EM also visited My Duc Commune in Xa Xia Ha Tien Section. (See Appendix 2 for the Mission Itinerary and Appendix 3 for the list of key persons met). 5. With regards the survey of AHs in the IRP demonstration phase, a team of research assistants hired by the EM, interviewed in the second week of September a sample of 20% of AH participating in agriculture and non-agriculture activities or models in Ca Mau and Kien Gian Provinces. Due to time constraint, the sample AHs were selected, using simple random method with the aid of the master list of AHs that signed up for the demonstration phase, from districts where most the AHs were located in Nga Bac Ca Mau Section, Thu Bay Nga Bac Section, and Minh Luong Thu Bay Section. No AH was selected from Xa Xia Ha Tien Section. In all, a total of 19 AHs were sampled from Ca Mau Province (i.e., 15 in agriculture models, and 4 in non-agriculture models) and 34 AHs were selected from Kien Gian Province (i.e., 26 in agriculture models, and 8 in non-agriculture models). A structured questionnaire was used in the survey. (See Appendix 4 for a copy of the survey questionnaire used). 6. A wrap-up meeting was held on 16 September at the CIPM office where the observations and recommendations of the EM were discussed. In attendance were Messrs. Phan Duy Lai, Nguyen Ngoc Trac, and Le Minh Chanh. The opinions of the CIPM and SMEC consultant regarding the observations and recommendations of the EM were taken into consideration in the preparation of this report. (See Appendix 5 for the observations and recommendations of the mission that were discussed with CIPM and SMEC consultant during the wrap-up meeting). III. Findings A. Of the EM 7. On the status payment of compensation and handover of affected land: Ca Mau Provincial Department of Transport (PDOT) officials, led by Mr. Tran Tu Phuong, Deputy Director of PDOT/Head of Land Clearing Department, informed the EM in a meeting on 4 September that all 17 AHs that had not handed over their affected properties as of the January 2014 monitoring mission (i.e., 10 AHs refused to accept their compensation and cash allowances, while 7 AHs refused to handover their project-acquired properties) subsequently handed their projectaffected properties in April Of the 10 AHs that earlier refused to receive their compensation, 7 have acceded and accepted their compensation money, while 3 have not, represented by APs Nguyễn Văn Tâm and Nguyễn Hoàng Mỹ of Tan Bang Commune, and Ng Trung Trực/Phan Việt Hùng of Thoi Binh Commune (nos. 1, 2, and 3, respectively, in Appendix 4 of the January 2014 Monitoring Report). Moreover, during the monitoring mission wrap 2

8 meeting on 16 September, the EM learned that there were 5 other AHs that have not yet received their compensation money. Four of these 5 AHs have overlapping claims on their affected lands, and the matter is now in the courts for adjudication. Therefore, as of the September 2014 monitoring mission, there are 8 AHs in the Nga Bac - Ca Mau Section that still have to receive their compensation money and allowances. CIPM and SMEC emphasized to the EM that none of these 8 unpaid AHs have been displaced from their homes, although a portion of their plots was handed over to the project so as to allow civil works to proceed. 8. It was also learned during the meeting at Ca Mau PDOT on 4 September that Nguyễn Văn Tâm and Nguyễn Hoàng Mỹ of Tan Bang Commune (2 of the 10 APs reported in January 2014 monitoring mission of not having received their compensation and cash allowances) would get paid in the coming days. PDOT officials explained that they were able to borrow some amount from the Provincial People s Committee (PPC) for this. The officials explained that they had to ensure that the 2 APs would get paid within this month because they were promised their compensation months ago. PDOT officials reported that they have already borrowed VND32 billion from the PPC to pay the compensation and allowances of AHs. The officials also said that they probably need an additional VND32 billion to complete payments for land acquisition and resettlement. 9. The IRP management team of Ca Mau on 6 September brought the EM to the café of AP Mrs. Tran Thi Tuyet of Tan Bang Commune to check on the progress of her chosen IRP activity under the demonstration phase. The EM was surprised to learn, however, that she has an outstanding resettlement complaint waiting for a response from the CLFD and PDOT. She received VND81 million in December 2010 for her structure and farmland. The structure that she lost, which Mrs. Tran Thi Tuyet claimed to be her only place of residence since 1995, was not considered a house by CARB. Thus, Mrs. Tran Thi Tuyet was not provided a plot at Thoi Binh Relocation site or a VND30 million allowance to self-relocate. The AP said that she contested the classification given to her house as a mere farm shack, sending letters to various offices. She eventually gave up when she didn t receive any positive response from district authorities in Thoi Binh Kien Giang PDOT Deputy Director of Land Clearing Department, Mr. Tran Thanh Hong, on 8 September informed the EM that none of the 36 unpaid AHs in Minh Luong Thu Bay Section reported in the January 2014 monitoring mission has so far received their compensation money and cash allowances. Mr. Hong said VND3.4 billion is needed to pay the 36 AHs. Mr. Hong hopes that the amount, to be sourced from the supplementary ADB Loan 2988-VIE, would be forthcoming. Relatedly, 4 of the 9 AHs mentioned in the January 2014 monitoring mission that refused to give up their affected properties even after having accepted their compensation and allowances finally handed over their acquired properties in August The 4 AHs were provided additional compensation for the cost of improvements not included earlier in their compensation plans (CPs). Mr. Hong explained that CARB borrowed VND1 billion from PPC to pay the 4 AHs, and the overdue claims of other AHs. Mr. Hong said that an additional VND5 billion is needed to settle, among other resettlement costs, the additional claims of the 5 remaining AHs that refuse to handover their affected properties. Again, Mr. Hong hopes that funds from the supplementary ADB Loan 2988-VIE would be coming soon. 2 1 It was agreed during the wrap-up meeting that PDOT, assisted by SMEC, would investigate this allegation. 2 It will be recalled in the January 2014 monitoring report that resettlement of the 45 AHs in Minh Luong-Thu Bay Section is complicated by the fact that these households have unsettled claims when government widened National Highway 63 in Under prevailing laws at that time, only improvements (structures and trees) were compensated for; affected land was deemed part of the road right-of-way. Following road improvement, local 3

9 11. One brewing controversy that the EM encountered on 9 September concerns the unit cost for affected roadside land in An Bien District. APs Mr. Nguyen Van Duoc and son, Mr. Huynh Van Doan, are going to be affected by the construction of an intersection in Dong Thai Commune; the frontage of their houses will be removed. (Two years ago, Mr. Duoc and his son demolished their restaurant, located in front of their houses adjacent to National Highway 63, because local authorities forbade them from renovating it; it was inside the road safety corridor. So, the family of Mr. Duoc decided to build a new restaurant adjacent to Mr. Duoc s house. The family has another restaurant behind their houses). The family of Mr. Duoc is complaining about, and is not accepting, the compensation being offered by CARB for their affected properties, especially their land. The family wants the land to be classified as residential land. However, CARB contends that according to the 1993 Land Law, lands adjacent to national roads are classified as garden land. Technically, no buildings should be built within 25 m from the road centerline. The family of Mr. Duoc claims that residential lands at their location cost VND1.4 million per m 2. For garden land, Mr. Hong calculates that Mr. Duoc would get VND500,000/m 2 at the most, inclusive of allowances. Mr. Hong informed Mr. Duoc that the District People s Committee (DPC) would soon hold a dialogue with the AHs from the commune to iron out their complaints and questions. 12. With regards the other side of National Highway 63 (i.e., adjacent to the river) that the government was considering earlier to clear by 3 ~ 5 m from the edge of the present road pavement, Mr. Hong confirmed that the plan has been dropped and would not be pursued any more Mr. Hong confirmed that there were no issues regarding unpaid compensation claims and hand-over of recovered lands in Thu Bay Nga Bac Section. With the exception of AP Mrs. Thi Thu, an ethnic Khmer, in My Duc Commune, Ha Tien Town, there are also no issues regarding unpaid compensation claims and hand-over of recovered lands in Ha Tien Xa Xia Section During the meeting at PDOT in Rach Gia on 8 September, the EM learned that an addendum RP has been prepared to cover the expanded areas that will be cleared in the construction of 6 bridges and 2 intersections at the beginning and at the end of Town No. 3 in Thu Ba Bypass. A total of 272 AHs and 5 institutions/organizations are affected by the change in project scope. The additional resettlement is calculated to cost VND15 billion. The EM was told that PPC has already approved in September 2014 the compensation plans (CPs) of the AHs. Mr. Chann, SMEC resettlement specialist, said that he would submit by 25 September 2014 an electronic copy of the draft addendum RP to the safeguard specialists of ADB for review. After revising the draft addendum RP per comments of the ADB safeguards specialists, SMEC will submit the same to CIPM in October On the status of the complaints of APs met in the first monitoring mission in January 2014: inhabitants rebuilt on open areas of the ROW. Presently, those affected by the SCCP want compensation not just for improvements but also for ROW land on which they rebuilt. 3 It was reported in the January 2014 monitoring mission that a detailed measurement survey (DMS) for the purpose of clearing the riverside of National Highway 63 was conducted by CLFD in November December One hundred fifty seven households stood to be affected by the road clearing. As in the case of the 45 AHs on the other side of National Highway 63, government reportedly acquired the land under prevailing laws when the road was widened in 2000, and compensation was paid for structures and trees. DONRE was said to be reviewing the CPs of the 157 households at the time of the January 2014 monitoring mission. 4 It was reported in the January 2014 that the external monitor finds the demands of Mrs. Thi Thu unrealistic and apparently groundless. First, she likes to be paid for her (garden) land at a unit cost of VND 1.4 million per m 2. Second, she likes government to accept that her affected land includes the 36.6 m 2 that government says is part of the ROW. Third, she likes to receive an interest of 14% for the compensation she refused to accept starting in September 2011 until September 2012, and the prevailing interest (about 6 % at present) thereafter until she decides to receive her compensation. 4

10 a. Incomplete payment of compensation of AP Mr. Nguyen Chi Tam of Hung Yen Commune, An Bien District (Minh Luong-Thu Bay Section): Mr. Hong informed the EM that out of the VND180 million that the project owed Mr. Nguyen Chi Tam for recovered properties, CARB paid VND100 million in August The amount used to pay Mr. Nguyen Chi Tam came from the VND1 billion borrowed by CARB to pay 4 of 9 AHs in Minh Luong Thu Bay section that refused to handover their properties even after having accepted earlier their compensation money. The remaining VND80 million in compensation due to Mr. Nguyen Chi Tam would come from the next withdrawal from supplementary ADB Loan 2988-VIE. b. Non-payment of rental allowance to relocating APs. Two APs 5 that have registered to move to the relocation site at Vinh Hoa Hiep Commune have not yet been paid their rental allowance. These APs are Mr. Tran Ngoc Co and Mr. Dahn Nam Vien; they are ethnic Khmer. Other than the problem on the non-availability of funds to pay the rental allowance of these AHs, the relocation site at Vinh Hoa Hiep Commune is itself a problem. The relocation site is not yet ready for occupancy 6 and the PPC has not yet decided the price of plots at the site. The EM reminded Mr. Hong that the amount of rental allowance due to each AH (reportedly at VND700,000 per month) would continue to add up until the plots of these AHs at the relocation site in Vinh Hoa Hiep Commune are handed over to them. Box 3. Vinh Hoa Hiep Commune Relocation Site View of Vinh Hoa Hiep Commune Relocation Site from project road There are electric poles, but no wires c. Flooding and/or disruption of the flow of irrigation to and from farmlands of 3 APs 7. Mr. Trac of CIPM informed the EM that PDOT and the civil works contractor investigated the alleged flooding and met with the APs. The matter has subsequently been resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned. The resolution of this issue was included in the Semi-Annual Environmental Monitoring Report No. 6 submitted to ADB in August The January 2014 monitoring report erroneously said that there were 3 relocating APs in Binh An Commune, Chau Thanh District (Minh Luong Thu Bay Section) that were entitled to the rental allowance. 6 The EM on 10 September 2014 visited the relocation site at Vinh Hoa Hiep Commune and got the impression that the site was not ready for occupancy. The concrete electric posts already standing are bare with no wires, transformers, and meters. Internal roads and sidewalks are already in place, however, although cogon grass seems to have taken over the place. 7 Three APs in January 2014 complained to the EM alleging that the construction of the project road had altered the flow of irrigation water to and from their farms. These APs were Mr. Nguyen Quoc Thang of Town 11, An Minh District; Mrs. Dao Thi Chinh of Hung Yen Commune, An Bien District; and Mr. Dahn Nam Vien of Binh An Commune, Chau Thanh District. Mrs. Dao Thi Chinh has since then sold her remaining properties and is now living with a son in Ho Chi Minh City. The EM noticed that the once flooded farmland of Mrs. Dao Thi Chinh was now planted to rice. 5

11 d. Relocation of Mr. Nguyen Van Sau. 8 The property of Mr. Nguyen Van Sau is right in the center of Thu Bay intersection at Dong Thai Commune, An Bien District. Mr. Hong informed the EM that VND140 million was paid to Mr. Nguyen Van Sau, in addition to the VND160 million earlier proffered. This was made possible by the change in the classification of the AP s affected land from an agriculture land to residential land. The amount paid to Mr. Nguyen Van Sau came from the VND1 billion borrowed by CARB from the provincial government in August e. The house of Mrs. Pham Thi Thom of Hung Yen Commune, An Bien District. Mr. Hong informed the mission that the house of Mrs. Pham Thi Thom would no longer be affected because National Highway 63 is not going to be widened at her place On the status of the implementation of the IRP demonstration phase: In Ca Mau, Mr. Nguyen Huu Phuoc, Deputy Director of DOLISA, reported during a meeting on 4 September that the implementation of the IRP demonstration phase, which covers a period of 5 months, was delayed by 7 months. Eighty-three households are participating in the IRP demonstration phase, of which 68 households are involved in one of 8 agriculture-related activities (models), and 15 households are involved in non-agriculture models. The agriculture models include pigfarming, prawn farming in combination with rice production, shrimp farming in combination with rice production, eel farming, bống tượng fish farming, sặc rằn fish farming, cattle rearing, and python rearing. Non-agriculture models include variety stores (selling groceries), café, dressmaking (tailoring), motorbike repair, and trading. 17. Trainings for participating AHs have been provided throughout the entire duration of the demonstration phase. For the agriculture models, trainings were conducted for 7 models with 100% of the AHs in attendance. For non-agriculture models, advance training in tailoring and in hair styling, respectively, was provided to 2 participants. Also, the IRP management teams of DARD, DOLISA and Thới Bình District carried out periodic inspections and assigned technical engineers to monitor the IRP implementation and to instruct people on how to respond to any problems encountered in implementing their chosen IRP activities. 18. No trainings were provided to other participants in the non-agriculture models, such as those engaged in coffee shops and operating variety stores, because the AHs are already familiar with their chosen activities even before the IRP. However, 27 members of households eligible to participate in the IRP demonstration phase and who have requested for various traderelated skills trainings (vocational trainings) have been referred to existing government training programs. 19. Overall, Mr. Phuoc says that agricultural models have followed correct technical procedures and are developing well. For non-agricultural models, the earning capability of households has expanded and has become more stable. The average income of each of the households engaged in non-agricultural models is reportedly about VND100 thousand to 150 thousand per day. 8 The family name of the AP was misspelled as San in the January 2014 monitoring report. Mr. Nguyen Van Sau told the EM in January 2014 that he refused the amount of VND160 million offered by government for his property because the amount was not sufficient for him to buy a plot where he wanted to relocate. PDOT staff that accompanied the mission in January informed him that an additional amount of VND140 million for the affected land of the AP was awaiting approval by the PPC. 9 It was mentioned in the January 2014 monitoring report that the planned widening of the section of the highway at her place would affect the porch of Mrs. Pham Thi Thom s house. She was offered VND 74,498,200 for it, including an allowance of VND 2 million for being a woman household head. She refused because the road would practically be at her doorstep; she wanted the project to acquire the entire house. CARB agreed to pay for half of her house, although only the porch would actually be destroyed. 6

12 20. Regarding the use of funds remitted to the IPR management board for the demonstration phase, Mr. Phuoc reported that, of the VND 2,015,348,517 approved budget for the demonstration phase, CIPM has so far remitted VND1,207,000,000. Of this amount, VND 1,020,719,187 was earmarked for IRP activities of 83 households. Some VND 844,342,823 has thus far been spent on the IRP activities of these AHs, while the remaining VND362,657,177 is for the subsequent staggered release of support to AHs that are raising pigs, in addition to VAT (tax). Only 1 month in the operational budget of the IRP management board has so far been released to the province, and Mr. Phuoc is requesting CIPM to release the remaining VND808,348,517 to pay for the expenses of personnel involved in the IRP. 21. Mr. Trac of CIPM explained during the meeting that the IRP management board has to submit first a financial report with supporting documents on the VND1,020,719,187 initially released by CIPM before a second release for the operations of the IRP management board covering another 3 months could be released. The last month (5 th month) in the operational budget of the IRP management board would only be released after the board submits its final report on the implementation of the IRP demonstration phase. Mr. Trac explained that this procedure was in accordance with State Treasury regulations. It was agreed during the meeting that Ca Mau IRP management board would submit its interim financial report by middle of September The IRP demonstration phase is targeted for completion in October Regarding the full implementation of the IRP, Mr. Phuoc informed the EM that it would take the IRP management board 3 months to do a review of the needs and preferences of AHs participating in the IRP full implementation phase. Thus, at the earliest, consultations with the AHs and the finalization of the IRP full implementation plan (with budget) would only be completed by end of December After this, DOLISA and DARD will submit the IRP full implementation plan to PPC for approval. Then, the same will be submitted to CIPM and ADB for concurrence. After CIPM and ADB give their concurrence, a new contract has to be negotiated and agreed between CIPM and the PPC. Only after the contract has been agreed on and signed could the IRP management board of Ca Mau request for the release of funds to start the implementation of the IRP full implementation phase. The EM believes that, under existing procedures, the IRP full implementation phase could only begin in the middle of 2015, at the earliest. This, of course, has implications on the rationale behind the IRP. Moreover, this will also push the completion of the program beyond (See Appendix 6 for an official translation of the report prepared by the Ca Mau IRP Management Board on the status of the implementation of the IRP Demonstration Phase). 23. For Kien Giang Province, Mr. Nguyen Ho Thong, Head of Social Service Division of DOLISA, reported during a meeting on 8 September 2014 that a total of 165 AHs are participating in the IRP demonstration phase. 10 Of this number, 112 AHs are engaged in agriculture models, while 53 AHs are engaged in non-agriculture models. There are 6 agriculture models, namely, raising pigs; rice farming; combination of shrimp and rice farming; raising chickens; raising water buffalo; and raising cattle. There are 10 non-agriculture models, namely, grocery shop; beverage shop; tailor shop; electronic repair shop; motorbike repair shop; barbershop; eatery; fabric painting; selling fresh produce; and junk shop (trading recyclable materials). AHs were provided their animals, seeds, materials, equipment and merchandise starting in February and March 2014, although households involved in rice farming received seeds and fertilizer as early as September and October 2013 to coincide with the farming season. Pigs, cattle, and buffalo were provided to 33 households in Ha Tien town on 19 May In January 2014 monitoring mission, DOLISA reported that a total of 170 AHs signed up for the demonstration phase. Five AHs opted to join the full implementation phase. 7

13 24. Mr. Thong explained that, for the agriculture models, trainings were provided throughout the duration of the IRP demonstration phase. Training for each model consists of 4 sessions. Before handing-over seeds and animals, a training session was held to make sure that farmers had adequate understanding of how to design and prepare animal enclosures, pond, etc. The other 3 training sessions were organized in subsequent months. A local (commune-based) technical engineer monitors each agriculture model and mentors farmers once a week. In addition, the management of DARD conducts monthly visit to the participating AHs and provides technical instruction on how to take care of plants and animals. The local LISA (Labor, Invalid and Social Affairs) office and officials from the Women s Union monitor and mentor households engaged in non-agriculture models. No training was provided to AHs engaged in non-agriculture models, however. Mr. Thong explained that the participating AHs in non-agriculture models were already familiar with their chosen activities even before the start of the IRP. 25. Mr. Thong said that the results of the various models are very encouraging, bringing-in incomes to the participating AHs, with the exception of AHs engaged in water buffalo and cattle rearing because it takes about 18 months before the animals could be sold. Mr. Thong said that the IRP management teams are a bit worried about the participating AHs in Ha Tien. A number of them are ethnic Khmer and they might have difficulty following technical instructions because of language differences. However, a technical engineer who is a member of the District IRP management board at the commune level meets and supports them regularly. With regard AHs in non-agriculture models, Mr. Thong said that they seem to be doing well, each earning an average profit of VND80 to 100 thousand a day. 26. With regards the use of funds remitted to Kien Giang IRP Management Board, Mr. Thong reported that CIPM has so far released VND2,521,000,000 to the province. 11 Of this amount, VND2,485,618,134 has already been spent on the IRP demonstration phase, broken down as follows: (a) support for non-agricultural models, VND461,000,000; (b) support for agricultural models, VND1,083,993,000; (c) administrative cost, VND577,726,184; and (d) training cost, VND362,898,950. Mr. Thong noted that, while the contract of the province with CIPM indicates January-May 2014 as the period for implementing the IRP demonstration phase, funds for the program were released to the province only in February Thus, Mr. Thong said that the province could only start the demonstration phase in March The IRP demonstration phase will end in September DOLISA reportedly submitted to CIPM on 3 September 2014 a financial report for the VND2,485,618,134 that has already been spent on the IRP demonstration phase. Mr. Trac of CIPM and Mr. Chanh, SMEC resettlement specialist, explained that the province s IRP management board could now request for the release of their operational budget to cover 3 more months. Operational budget for the last month (5 th month) would only be remitted to the province upon submission by the IRP management board of its final report on the demonstration phase. Mr. Thong said that the province would submit to CIPM its final report on the IRP demonstration phase on 15 September Regarding the full implementation of the IRP, 636 AHs are estimated to participate. Mr. Thong said that the IRP management teams would visit each of the AHs and re-assess their needs and preferences. The province will submit to CIPM the IRP full implementation plan with 11 In January 2014 monitoring mission, DOLISA estimated that the total funding requirement of the IRP demonstration phase in the province was VND 3,651,000,000, of which VND 2,048,952,550 would be needed to finance the chosen IRP activities of 170 participating AHs, while the rest was for administrative costs and contingencies. 12 With the exception of AHs that signed up for rice farming because they were provided their seeds and fertilizer as early as September and October 2013 to coincide with the farming season. In the original IRP demonstration plan prepared by the province, the IRP demonstration phase was to cover the period August-December

14 budget by end of December The IRP management board hopes that CIPM and ADB would give their approval to the plan in January 2015 and that a new contract to the implement the IRP full implementation would be signed in February (See Appendix 7 for an official translation of the report prepared by the Kien Giang IRP Management Board on the status of the implementation of the IRP Demonstration Phase). 29. The implementation of the IRP demonstration phase in the 2 provinces was delayed by about 7 months primarily because of the delay in the signing of contracts between CIPM and the provincial governments, not to mention the long time it took before funds for the IRP became available. The IRP demonstration phase for both provinces will definitely be over by October However, the start of the full implementation phase may have to wait until the end of the first quarter of Validation of the needs and preferences of AHs, including preparing the IRP full implementation phase proposal, is not expected to be finished before the end Approval by PPC, then by CIPM and ADB, of the IRP full implementation plan will be obtained hopefully within January After this, a new contract between CIPM and the provincial IRP Management Board will have to be negotiated and agreed upon before funds for the IRP implementation could be remitted. 30. Why the validation of the needs and preferences of AHs that are participating in the IRP full implementation phase, in addition to the preparation of the IRP full implementation phase proposal, was not done in parallel with the implementation of the IRP demonstration phase is one question that the EM would like to raise in retrospect. The answer could lie on the fact that this task was not included in the terms of the contract for the IRP demonstration phase. To be sure, even the preparation of the IRP demonstration phase proposal was not covered in the contract signed by CIPM and the management boards of Ca Mau and Kien Giang for the IRP demonstration phase. As a consequence thereof, provincial authorities remain clueless as to how they could retroactively pay their staff that worked in the preparation of the IRP demonstration phase proposal. This same problem will be encountered again, unless the new contract that will be agreed by CIPM and the management boards of Ca Mau and Kien Giang allows for the retroactive payment of services rendered by provincial personnel in the preparation of the IRP full implementation phase proposal. B. Results of the survey of randomly selected AHs 31. Categories of AHs surveyed. 36 (67.9%) of the AHs surveyed lost 10% or more of production lands (i.e., garden or agricultural land), while 16 (30.3%) had to relocate their homes, and 1 had to relocate its independent shop. 32. Basic socioeconomic information of the AHs surveyed. Of the 53 AH heads interviewed, 35 (66.0%) were males, while 18 (34.0%) were women. 33 (62.3%) of the AH heads were aged 59 years and below, while 20 (37.7%) were 60 years and older. Nine (17.0%) of the AH heads had physical disabilities. 33. Prior to land recovery, the main livelihood activity of 41 (77.4%) of the surveyed AH heads was farming, while 4 (7.5%) was into aquaculture (fish and shrimp production), 3 (5.7%) worked in government, and 1 (1.9%) was into business/self employed). Presently (i.e., after land recovery), 22 (41.5%) of the AH heads are into farming, 12 (22.6%) are engaged in aquaculture, 15 (28.3%) are retired and not looking for work, and 2 each (3.8%) are self-employed or working in government. 34. With regards income level, 17 (87.5%) of the 19 AHs surveyed in Nga Bac Ca Mau Section had a monthly household income of VND2,600,001 or higher prior to land recovery, 9

15 while 2 (10.5%) AHs had a monthly household income of VND2,000,000 or lower. The 2 AHs lived below the poverty line. 13 After land recovery, 18 (94.7%) of AHs surveyed in Nga Bac Ca Mau Section have a monthly household income of VND2,600,001 or higher, while 1 (5.3%) AH lives below the poverty line with a monthly household income of VND2,000,000 or lower In Thu Bay Nga Bac Section, 12 (80.0%) of the 15 AHs surveyed had a monthly household income of VND2,080,001 or higher prior to land recovery, while 3 (20.0%) had a monthly household income of VND1,600,001 ~ VND2,080,000. None lived below the poverty line of VND1,600, Presently, (i.e., after land recovery), the number of AHs with a monthly household income of VND2,080,001 or higher is 14 (93.3%), while 1 (6.7%) has a monthly household income of VND1,600,001 ~ VND2,080, In Minh Luong Thu Bay Section, 16 (84.2%) of the 19 AHs surveyed had a monthly household income of VND2,080,001 or higher before land recovery, while 3 (15.8%) had a monthly household income of VND1,600,001 ~ VND2,080,000. Presently, 18 (94.7%) of the AHs surveyed in the road section have a monthly household income of VND2,080,001 or higher, while 1 (5.3%) has a monthly household income below the provincial poverty line of VND1,600, Status of land recovery and handover of acquired lands. All 53 AHs surveyed received their compensation in 2010 to With the exception of 1 AH in Nga Bac Ca Mau Section, the other 52 AH heads surveyed have handed-over completely their acquired (i.e., compensation paid) lands already after receiving their compensation. The 1 AH that still has not completely handed-over its property is affected by the loss of production land and house. The production land has been handed-over to the project, but road construction works have not yet reached the place where the house of the AH is located. Notwithstanding that the AH received its compensation allowances already, project authorities have allowed the household to stay in the acquired property until such time that the area is required by the project. Also, the AH has already built a new house on its remaining land. With regards cash allowances, 3 AHs in Nga Bac Ca Mau Section and 1 AH in Minh Luong Thu Bay have not yet received their allowances, although they already handed over their acquired properties. These AHs have pending complaints that have yet to be resolved IRP activities of sampled AHs. In Nga Bac Ca Mau Section, of the 19 AHs surveyed, 8 chose shrimp-cum-rice farming, while 6 chose pig rearing; 3, retail shop, and 1 each, beverage shop and fish farming. In Thu Bay Nga Bac Section, of the 15 AHs surveyed, 5 each are 13 The average HH size in Nga Bac-Ca Mau Section is 5 persons per March 2011 URP. According to Decision of the Prime Minister 9/2011/QD-TTG: Promulgating standards of poor households, poor households to apply for stage from 2011 to 2015, poverty lines are as follows: VND400,000/person/month (rural), VND500,000/person/month (urban). Near poor: VND 401,000 to VND 520,000/person/month (rural) and VND 501,000 to VND 650,000/person/month (urban). It is assumed in the survey that the sampled AHs live in rural areas. 14 AP Nguyen Thi Xiu of Bien Binh Anch Dong Commune, Thoi Binh District (Nga Bac Ca Mau Section) 15 The average HH size in Thu Bay-Nga Bac Section is 4 persons per June 2012 URP; 3.9 persons in Minh Luong- Thu Bay Section per March 2012 URP; and 4.3 persons in Xa Xia-Ha Tien Section per March 2012 URP. According to Decision of the Prime Minister 9/2011/QD-TTG: Promulgating standards of poor households, poor households to apply for stage from 2011 to 2015, poverty lines are as follows: VND400,000/person/month (rural), VND500,000/person/month (urban). Near poor: VND 401,000 to VND 520,000/person/month (rural) and VND 501,000 to VND 650,000/person/month (urban). It is assumed in the survey that the sampled AHs live in rural areas with an average household size of 4 persons. 16 AP Danh Cong of Binh An Commune, Chau Thanh District (Minh Luong-Thu Bay Section) 17 In Nga Bac Ca Mau Section, these APs are Duong Van Nghia (Tan Binh Anng Commune, Thoi Binh District); Nguyen Viet Nu (Bien Binh Anch Dong Commune, Thoi Binh District); and Truong Minh Thang (Bien Binh Anch Dong Commune, Thoi Binh District). In Minh Luong Thu Bay Section, the AP is Nguyen Phuoc Sang (Hung Yen Commune, An Bien District). 10

16 engaged in shrimp-cum-rice farming and rice farming; 2 each are into pig rearing and retail shops; and 1 in electronic shop. In Minh Luong Thu Bay Section, of the 19 AHs surveyed, 11 are involved in pig rearing; 2 are engaged in retail shops and 1 each are engaged in rice farming and water buffalo rearing. Two other AHs in Minh Luong Thu Bay Section opted to use their VND7 million IRP allocation to buy a refrigerator each. These AHs, headed by elderly APs 18 have reportedly not been able to maximize the use of the refrigerators for productive purposes. 39. Sixteen (84.2%) of the 19 AHs surveyed in Nga Bac Ca Mau Section reported that their chosen IRP activities were going well, while 2 AHs (10.5%) said that their chosen shrimp-cumrice farming model was not going well, and 1 AH (5.3%) was sure that its chosen shrimp-cumrice farming model was bound to fail. In Thu Bay Nga Bac Section, 13 (86.7%) of the 15 AHs surveyed reported that their chosen IRP activities were going well, while 2 AHs (13.3%) said that their IRP activities were not going well. In Minh Luong Thu Bay Section, 16 (84.2%) of the AHs interviewed reported that their IRP activities were going well, while 3 (15.8%) said that their IRP activities were not going well Reasons given by the AHs as to why their chosen IRP activities were not going well are (a) bad seeds; (b) seeds were not delivered on time to coincide with the cropping season; (c) bad weather; (d) lack of determination on the part of the AHs to make the IRP activity succeed; and (e) decline in market price at the time of harvest. The reason given by the only AP (in Nga Bac Ca Mau Section) who said that the chosen shrimp-cum-rice farming IRP activity was bound to fail is bad technology and lack of previous experience. 41. The AHs surveyed, especially those whose chosen IRP activities were not going well, suggested that they ought to be given another round of support. They also mentioned that seeds (inputs) for their shrimp and/or rice farming should be of better quality and that they should be delivered on time to coincide with the cropping season. (See Appendix 8 for the tabulated results of the survey). C. Specific concerns in the TOR of the EM 42. On specific concerns that the EM is tasked to look into, table below provides a summary of the findings of the mission. (Appendix 9 provides a photo-documentation of the site visits of the EM). Resettlement Concerns Public consultation and disclosure activities Awareness of AP of resettlement rights and entitlements, the grievance redress, resettlement process, and Project schedule Status/Comments As in the first monitoring mission, the EM found evidence of notices of public meetings, including project information booklet (PIB), given to the AHs; results of DMS and the draft and approved compensation plans are provided to the AHs. AHs are basically aware of the Project and its entitlements. 18 APs Danh Cong and Thi Hieu of Binh An Commune, Chau Thanh District 19 The 2 APs in Nga Bac Ca Mau whose shrimp-cum-rice farming model were not going well are Tran Thanh Dien and Nguyen Viet Nu, both of of Bien Binh Anch Dong Commune, Thoi Binh District. The 1 AP in Nga Bac Ca Mau Section that claimed that its shrimp-cum-rice farming model was sure to fail is Nguyen Thi Hai of Tan Binh Anng Commune, Thoi Binh District. The 2 APs in Thu Bay Nga Bac whose chosen shrimp-cum-rice farming were not going well are Doan Van Cuong and Danh Thi Hong Hoa, both of Dong Hoa Commune, An Minh District. In Minh Luong Thu Bay Section, the 1 AP whose chosen shrimp-cum-rice farming model was not going well is Nguyen Phuoc Sang of Hung Yen Commune, An Bien District. The other 2 APs that reportedly were not doing well with the IRP support they got are Danh Cong and Thi Hieu of Binh An Commune, Chau Thanh District. 11

17 Resettlement Concerns Establishment of market rates for land and nonland assets Documentation of impacts and payments made (DMS, compensation documents) as per agreed RPs Coordination of resettlement activities with construction schedule Land recovery and transfer procedures Relocation of households, public assets, and sacred structures Quality of preparation of planned relocation sites Level of satisfaction of APs with the provisions and implementation of the RPs Effectiveness and efficiency of grievance redress mechanism (documentation, process, resolution) Status/Comments Compensation rates used were based on market rates. Complaints on compensation rates for affected lands revolve around disagreement on the classification of recovered lands. Land classifications have bearing on the unit rates for compensation of recovered land. DMS was carried out with proper documentation. There are still unresolved complaints regarding compensation and, as a consequence of which, a number of AHs continue to refuse to accept their compensation and allowances and/or refuse to handover their project-acquired properties. Rental allowances have not yet been given to eligible AHs in Kien Giang due to the non-availability of funds for resettlement. The PPC of Ca Mau has already approved the granting of additional rental allowance for 3 months to cover the period of constructing new house for AHs that lost entire houses. Payment of this additional allowance cannot be implemented, however, pending availability of funds, to be sourced out from the supplementary ADB Loan 2988-VIE. The relocation site in Thoi Binh, built under the project, remains empty; none of the 85 that have been awarded plots at the site has so far built a structure. Reports have it that the 85 AHs have already built new houses or are staying in their other houses. The AHs are keen on keeping their plots at the relocation site for future use, however. The relocation site at Vinh Hoa Hiep Commune is not yet ready for occupancy. Two AHs have signified their interest to build at the site. Non-availability of resettlement funds remains to be the main cause in the delay of payment of compensation and in the handover of lands required by the project. AHs who opted to self-relocate seem to have reestablished themselves already. In contrast, the 85 AHs that signed up to shift to Thoi Binh and the 2 AHs that signed up to move to an existing site in Vinh Hoa Hiep Commune, Chau Thanh District, have yet to build their homes in the relocation sites. These AHs seem to have rebuilt new homes elsewhere, but are keen on keeping their plots at the relocation sites. The Thoi Binh relocation site is ready for occupancy. The Vinh Hoa Hiep Commune Relocation site is not yet ready for occupancy. Electric poles are in place but without any electric wires. Internal roads have sidewalks and are paved with concrete cement. AHs that have been paid their compensation are basically satisfied. Complaints or questions from AHs on the DMS and proffered compensation are being acted upon by CARB. CIPM and SMEC should spend more time 12

18 Resettlement Concerns Effectiveness, impacts and sustainability of entitlements and rehabilitation measures/income restoration programs, and the need for further improvement, as required Gender impacts and strategy Capacity of APs to restore/re-establish livelihood and living standards, especially the severely affected, poor and vulnerable households. Assess the assistance and support provided or to be provided to these households Unanticipated impacts or any resettlement impacts caused during construction activities Participation of APs in RP planning, updating and implementation Institutional capacity, internal monitoring and reporting Channeling of government funds for payment of land, non-land assets and allowances to the affected households (if done transparently, efficiently, and effectively) Restoration/improvement of affected public, communal, and community assets Status/Comments doing internal monitoring in the project sites in order that any arising controversies could be addressed immediately. The EM will follow-up the resolution of the case of AP Mrs. Tran Thi Tuyet of Tan Bang Commune and of APs Mr. Nguyen Van Duoc and Mr. Huynh Van Doan of Dong Thai Commune, An Bien District. Preliminary reports on the outcome of the IRP demonstration phase are very promising, especially for the agriculture models. Gender strategy as outlined in the agreed RPs is being followed. Both husband and wife are together in receiving compensation. The women s union is represented in the IRP management teams. Preliminary reports on the outcome of the IRP demonstration phase are very promising, especially for the agriculture models. No new cases has been reported or found during the mission. Resettlement implementation is practically complete. This matter could be looked into during the post resettlement implementation evaluation. CLFD and CARB seem proficient in the conduct of the DMS, in keeping records of the results of the DMS, and in preparing the compensation plans of AHs. With the exception of funds for the IRP demonstration phase, government funds have mainly been used in paying compensation and allowances. AHs are provided their respective compensation plans. Payment of compensation is done in local government offices and in public. This is being done. IV. Conclusion and Program for the Next Monitoring Mission 43. In conclusion, the EM recognizes positive developments towards completing payment of compensation and resolving the impasse in the handover of acquired (i.e., paid for) properties. The main stumbling block at completing payment of compensation and handover of recovered properties is the availability of funds for this purpose. CARB officials in Ca Mau are hoping that the next withdrawal from supplementary ADB Loan 2988-VIE would be able to pay the 8 AHs that have not yet received their compensation and allowances, including the additional 3 months rental approved by PPC for the 85 AH who signed up to get a plot at the Thoi Binh Relocation Site. Relatedly, the matter of the VND2.8 billion interest earned in compensation money deposited in the bank remains to be resolved. CARB of Ca Mau wants to use the amount in paying outstanding resettlement claims It was reported in the January 2014 monitoring mission that the State Audit of Viet Nam disapproved an earlier request by PPC to give to the AHs the bank interests that have accumulated from their respective unclaimed 13