Government of Sierra Leone Bumbuna Hydroelectric Environmental and Social Management Project Updated Resettlement Action Plan August 2010

Transcription

1 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Government of Sierra Leone Bumbuna Hydroelectric Environmental and Social Management Project Updated Resettlement Action Plan August 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RP992 V1 Sierra Leone is presently moving from being a primarily post-conflict nation to one that is on the path towards longer-term growth. The country s economy contracted tremendously during a decade-long conflict. A visible legacy of unrest was the series of power-lines that were cut, removed, and resold, including damages in the Bumbuna hydropower site. Subsequently, in 2004, the Government of Sierra Leone (GoSL) negotiated an agreement with the World Bank (WB) for completion of the Bumbuna Hydroelectric Project (BHP). First proposed in 1970/71, BHP s operation was interrupted and later refinanced as it entered its final phase. This report summarizes the findings of an update of the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) completed in 2004/05 by Electrowatt Ekono. This RAP Audit used results of the 2006/7 shoreline survey, which provided the basis for delineating the directly affected villages, or those whose lands and other assets would be inundated after reservoir impoundment. Following guidelines in the World Bank (WB) operational policy on involuntary resettlement (OP/BP4.12) and cultural property (OP4.11), the RAP Audit process included: (a) a re-identification of project affected persons (PAPs); (b) formulation of a new plan for resettling people and compensating them for losses incurred from flooding; and (c) putting in place a process for carrying out income restoration and community development activities. The audit involved jointly organized groundtruthing, site visits, and intensive consultations between the PIU and BCEOM/Techsult staff. The consultations focused on the extent households and villages were affected by BHP s operations, and on this basis, the approaches that would best address their immediate (short term) and longerterm needs. The RAP Audit has two limitations. First, the number and names of villages differed between official maps, records of the Statistical Department, and what the villagers used (such as in local signs and markers). The RAP Audit team had to adjust and ensure consistency between the map labels and local markers since it was vital that locally used names of villages, especially those that were visited, coincided with those in the topographic map. As a result, it was difficult to verify population census information. Second, due to limited time, there was no follow-up of the 2004 socio-economic survey. Instead, a survey in the next dry season will be combined with the needs assessment for the community development plans. The survey will target households who were previously interviewed to establish panel data and benchmark changes in demographic, socio-economic, and other (e.g. perceptions, political aspects) information. The constrained time period for the RAP audit was necessary because further delays would entail another year before the power plant begins operating. Although the resettlement process is

2 usually carried out over a one year period, the audit was completed only in nine months. In order to do this, it required the cooperation of a number of villagers and local government officials. A consultative process was put in place with the assistance of a dedicated group of specialists in the PIU and the commitment of local leaders, including the Paramount Chiefs of Diang, Kasunku, and Kalansongoia, village leaders, and several non-government organizations who actively participated in various aspects of the audit. The following is a summary of PAPs identification comparing the 2005 RAP and 2008 RAP Audit. Table RAP Finding Categories of PAPs Villages Households Population Category A: Villages that are not 22 affected by impoundment (not flooded) Category B: Villages that would ,786 lose a small part of its land (less than 20%) Category C: Villages that would ,250 lose a considerable part of its land (more than 20% up to 40%) Category D: Villages at a critical elevation and would require to move and will lose a considerable part of its land (more than 50%) Category E: Villages that will be completely submerged and will have to be relocated Category F: Villages outside of the reservoir area or downstream of the dam and that lost land to dam construction. 4 n/a n/a Total 59 n/a n/a The 2005 survey results of 59 settlements (100 respondents) showed that most villages in the project area are small in size and population density. Most households rely on slash-and-burn agriculture as their main source of income (e.g. fruit trees and some upland rice, root crops, palm trees, etc). A few households engage in small-scale fishing along Seli River. Table 2: 2008 RAP Audit Findings Categories of Project Affected Villages Villages Name Chiefdom House Holds Population Category A: Villages that are not affected by impoundment 0 0 0

3 Category B: Villages that lose sacred sites 3 Kadala Kasokira, Gbulia Kalasongoia Diang Category C: Villages that only lose access 3 Kunsulima Mabaray Kamawole Diang Category D: Villages that only lose land Category E: Villages that lose land and access Category F: Villages that lose trees and sacred sites Category G: Villages that lose trees and access 1 Kamathor Kalasongoia Banakoro Diang 5 1 Kasasi Kasunku Kamawayway Diang 6 43 Category H: Villages that lose land, trees, and access 6 Kasawulay, Kayiben, Kamaniki, Fulla Town, Kathanda. & Gbambali Dien Kawunkulu Diang Category I: Villages that lose land, trees and sacred sites 12 Kabendugu Kafogo Kamagbamaa, Kagboray, Kakutan, Kamasaypanya, Kamera, Kasasi, Katene, Kathengben, Kawunkulu, Kayakala, Kasunku Kalasongoia ,414 1,383 Category J: Villages that lose land, trees, sacred sites and houses 1 Kasalobah Kasunku 4 74 Category K: Villages that lose land, trees, sacred sites and access 5 Waia, Kalatia, Kamabareh, Masamandugu. Kathoina Diang Kalasongoia Category L: Villages that lose land, trees, sacred sites, access and houses 4 Matombe, Kamasilon, Kamawone. Gboskoroma Diang

4 Gboskoroma Total ,033 The RAP Audit results indicate that the Project affected communities comprise 38 villages, 599 households, 5,033 population. The following is an updated summary of the PAPs information. There are 41 households (186 people) in five villages Matombe, Kasalobah, Kamawone and Kamasilon, -- that will be relocated. Households in Matombe, Kasolobah, Kamawone and Kamasilon will be moved to new resettlement sites in Katene, Fadugu, Kunsulima and Kabendugu respectively; Matombe, Kamasilon and Kamahone are the only situations where the entire village will be submerged; between them they will lose access to ha of village lands. In addition to housing, there are 95 farm plots which are farmed by 171 farmers covering a total area of 117 ha that will be partially or fully inundated (104 hectares of these lands will be lost but will need 137 ha in replacement due to the lower productivity of dry land compared with wet land). These farm lands are cultivated under shifting rotation, in swamplands or in uplands, all interspersed with economic trees. There are 4,956 commercial value oil palms and 3,715 other economic trees (e.g. banana, kola, orange, mango, lime, pineapple, sisal, tola, etc) recorded. PAPs will be compensated for the value of economic trees lost. Waia, Gbulia and Kadala villages will not lose much farm land but foot paths and sacred sites will be lost. There will be some villages, especially in Diang Chiefdom where access will be restricted. These villages will be given priority, for example, in the construction of footpaths, such as in Waia (whose footpaths will be extensively flooded) followed by other villages. Surveys of these foot paths have already started under the Stabilized Agriculture Program (SAP). There are 48 sacred sites in 21 villages that will be flooded. The costs of ceremonies for transferring these sites, including some gravesites, will be covered in the RAP. In terms of compliance with cultural property, the 2004 EIA showed no evidence of significant historical and cultural sites within the vicinity of the reservoir area and dam. In 2005, a chance find procedure was completed during the construction phase and the survey team found some areas with sacred sites and graveyards. Subsequently, the RAP Audit uncovered more sacred sites and gravesites, all of which were recorded in the list of assets to be compensated. The project will cover the costs of ceremonies aimed at appeasing or pacifying the spirits most of which will be conducted along the Seli River. Income restoration and livelihood related activities will be carried out under two programs -- the Livelihood Assessment and Income Restoration (LAIR) program and the Stabilized Agriculture Program (SAP). The 2005 RAP report provided some descriptions and cost estimates. Since the report, the PIU finalized contracts with two local NGOs -- Organization for Research and Extension of Intermediate Technology (ORIENT) for the LAIR program and the Business Engineering Science Technology (BEST) for the SAP. Both of these NGOs have started operating in the project area and have managed within the short time period to set up its field offices and hire locally-based staff.

5 LAIR and SAP are implemented in two phases (i) short-term (emergency) phase corresponding to the period immediately before and throughout phased impoundment (precommissioning); and (ii) long-term (post-commissioning) phase corresponding to full-scale implementation of livelihood support and sustainable land and water management. The short-term, emergency period was endorsed by the Environmental and Social Advisory Panel (ESAP) to stress the importance of urgent programs that would assist PAPs in transition and adjustment to new housing and new lands. As noted in the ESAP Report (February 2008, p 19): The impoundment period and the subsequent year will be most stressful for the affected people, who will be opening new cultivation and planting trees while their former agricultural resources and cross-river paths are submerged and replaced by a reservoir, with which the people have no experience, and that has not yet had a flush of high productivity. The ESAP endorsed for a period of two years the following short-term LAIR and SAP programs: (i) food support to PAPs to cover the transition period from resettlement to land clearing prior to cultivation; (ii) foot paths construction in identified villages anticipated to be isolated once the river rises; (iii) sustainable agricultural support, through formation of Farmer Field Schools (FFS), in the form of short-duration seeds, farm implements, and start-up poultry; (iv) agribusiness units, linked with FFS formation, to assist PAPs in setting up small scale livelihoods that will allow them to adjust quickly to changes in river flow and height (e.g., boat building; water safety); and (v) life skills programs, including money management, health (water related illnesses; HIV/AIDs) and sanitation, and vocational education. In addition, youth reintegration, focusing on sports and leadership development, complements the adjustment period by establishing social linkages across the three chiefdoms while also targeting an increasing number of unemployed youth. The long-term phase may also cover, if funding is available, implementation of community driven development (CDD) types of projects under what was originally designed in the RAP 2005 under the Upper Seli Community Development Initiative (USCDI). The activities under this program will be finalized after needs assessment, and after extensive consultations with villagers and local leaders. Some USCDI activities extend LAIR and SAP programs to a larger number of communities, covering both upstream and downstream areas. Implementation of the RAP is the responsibility of the Project Implementing Unit (PIU), which was established by MoEP. The PIU set up a Resettlement Unit (RU) and hired a national resettlement consultant to coordinate RAP activities. A Consultant, Société Française d Ingenerie (BCEOM)/Techsult Company Limited, was given the contract to carry out technical aspects of the RAP Audit related to PAPs identification, computation of compensation and distribution of PAPs, preparation of the resettlement sites, village visits and monitoring, etc. Twelve Resettlement Officers (RO) are hired and assigned to the villages in the project area. A Legal Counsel to PAPs provides legal advice throughout the resettlement and compensation process. At the village level, Village Resettlement Committees (VRC) are set up in most affected villages. Those with less than 5 families are joined to adjacent villages. The terms of reference for the VRC stipulate that representatives of vulnerable groups (especially women and young people) are adequately represented. District Resettlement Committees (DRC) are organized and chaired by the Paramount Chiefs to coordinate inter-village activities. The ROs visited each village at least twice a month during the PAPs identification process. The same frequency of visits is expected throughout the 3-year RAP implementation period. At the national level, the PIU organized a Resettlement Advisory Group (RAG) composed of representatives from various stakeholder groups, including government, NGOs, host communities, and vulnerable populations. The RAG provides oversight and refers to policy decisions to facilitate RAP implementation. Lastly, a Witness NGO, the Coalition of Civil Society and Human Rights Activists (CCSHRA), monitors and records specific activities, such

6 as compensation payments or signing of agreements. As part of monitoring and evaluation, an internal (quarterly) monitoring process has been set up. The PIU Resettlement Unit meets weekly to update all those involved in the RAP, LAIR and SAP. Each programme submits a quarterly status report that is shared and reviewed by the PIU, with feedback from the RU team. Two types of monitoring will be used internal and external. Internal monitoring covers reports from the Area Managers and Witness NGO on changes in PAP status; their incomes and livelihoods; grievances or problems encountered or reported; and how these were resolved. The baseline survey (socio-economic survey of 2004) will be used to measure changes in PAP status. However it is not clear if the same respondents as PAPs were interviewed. A new baseline will then be established immediately. It will consist of at least three panel surveys over a period of three to four years. The surveys will inform a set of outcome indicators that the RU can use to track changes in incomes and livelihoods. In addition to the surveys, the RU monitoring team will evaluate the impacts on PAPs of the following: (i) status of resettled households, including social, political and economic adjustments to their host communities; (ii) impacts of the land-for-land swap, such as assessments of whether PAPs were satisfied with replacement land and whether PAPs have managed to recover their original productivity levels; (iii) cash compensation, specifically, money management and inter- and intra-household adjustments arising from cash inflows; and (iv) livelihood restoration and development, in particular, access to income generating opportunities, social services, etc. The other type of monitoring is external. The external review will occur at midpoint (approximately one year after the RAP was implemented), which will constitute the First Review of the RAP Audit. An independent consultant or NGO will be contracted to do this review made up of external and reputable scientists who can contribute knowledge from other RAP programmes. It is expected that the evaluations will begin after one year of RAP implementation. With respect to the legal framework for RAP implementation in Sierra Leone, compliance with the WB s social safeguards policies is consistent with Sierra Leone s Public Lands Act Cap 116. However, as noted in the 2005 RAP, this legislation does not apply to provinces. It will either be expanded for nationwide coverage or amended together with the National Power Authority Act No. 6 of 1982 to allow for compulsory acquisition of land in the provinces. Another legal issue concerns compensation for land since customary laws vary from tribe to tribe, and even within the tribe, may vary by locality. Although Sierra Leone has a national agency for resettlement affairs (National Commission for Social Action or NaCSA), its mandate is limited to coordinating and implementing efforts to resettle people displaced by the war. The Total cost of the RAP is US $ 4,450,272; comprising Resettlement US $ 286,370; Compensation US $ 1,399,250: Community Development US $2,764,652. Total Cost of the Resettlement Action Plan Category Item Activity Units Number Rate Cost 1. Resettlement 1.1 Houses Replacement Houses 41 7, , Survey Community sites Km ,370 Sub-total 286,370 2.Compensation 2.1 Allowance Disturbance H.H , Allowance Moving H.H , Allowance Economic Trees Trees 8, , Allowance Sacred Sites Sites ,800

7 2.5 Allowances Opening new land hectares , Community Compensation Sum 1 1,000,00 1,000, Community Administration & 60,000 60,000 Oversight Sub-total 1,399,250 Total ,685, Support to PAPs 3.1 Assistance Finance & Sum Unit 8,000 Business 3.2 Assistance Short-term Sum Unit 7,000 Emergency Livelihood 3.3 Assistance Short-term Sum Unit 80,000 Emergency Agriculture 3.4 Assistance Footpaths Sum Unit 45, Assistance Food Aid Sum Unit 205, Assistance Technical Assistance Sum Unit 2,419,652 Sub-total 2,764,652 Grand Total 4,450,272