Final Report - World Bank · 2016. 7. 13. · federal republic of nigeria rural access and mobility project (ramp i, kaduna) cr 4408 abbreviated resettlement action plan (arap) of

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

RURAL ACCESS AND MOBILITY PROJECT (RAMP I, KADUNA)

CR 4408

ABBREVIATED RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN (ARAP)

OF

PROPOSED OPRC ROADS

MOW & T/KADRAMP/C/12/10

LOT N1, N2, S1, S2

Final Report

RP472 v2 P

ublic

Dis

clos

ure

Aut

horiz

edP

ublic

Dis

clos

ure

Aut

horiz

edP

ublic

Dis

clos

ure

Aut

horiz

edP

ublic

Dis

clos

ure

Aut

horiz

edP

ublic

Dis

clos

ure

Aut

horiz

edP

ublic

Dis

clos

ure

Aut

horiz

edP

ublic

Dis

clos

ure

Aut

horiz

edP

ublic

Dis

clos

ure

Aut

horiz

ed

2 | Final Report of Abbreviated Resettlement Action Plan of Lots N1, N2, S1 & S2 OPRC Roads

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................ 12

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................... 45

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. 45

ACRONYMS......................................................................................................................... 67

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 78

CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................... 1213

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND.................................................................. 1213

1.1 Background ......................................................................................................... 1213

1.2 Project Components .......................................................................................... 1213

1.3 Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) OP 4.12. ...................................................... 1415

CHAPTER TWO .............................................................................................................. 1516

2.0 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY....................................................................... 1516

2.1 Objective of the ARAP....................................................................................... 1617

2.2 Scope of Work .................................................................................................... 1617

2.2.1 Major Sub-Activities of the ARAP .............................................................. 1617

CHAPTER THREE ........................................................................................................... 1718

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ................................................................................ 1718

3.1 Overview of the Project Area .......................................................................... 1718

3.2 Land Use in Project Area and Entitlement Matrix ......................................... 2324

3.3 Socio-Economic Survey of the Project Areas.................................................. 2425

3.3.1 Lot N1 Project Route.................................................................................. 2526

3.3.2 Lot N2 Project Route.................................................................................. 2728

3.3.3 Lot S1 Project Route .................................................................................. 3031

3.3.4 Lot S2 Project Route .................................................................................. 3233

CHAPTER FOUR ............................................................................................................. 3536

4.0 POLICY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK.......................................................... 3536

4.1 World Bank Safeguard Policies ......................................................................... 3536

4.2 Nigeria Regulatory Framework......................................................................... 3536

4.2.1 Land Use Act of 1978 amended 1992 ....................................................... 3536

4.2.2 Forestry Law Cap 55, 1994 ........................................................................ 3637

4.3 Comparison between Land Use Act and World Bank OP 4.12....................... 3637

CHAPTER FIVE ............................................................................................................... 3738

5.0 COMPENSATION FRAMEWORK ........................................................................... 3738

5.1 Introduction........................................................................................................ 3738


5.2 Entitlement Policy ............................................................................................. 3738

5.3 Eligibility Criteria for Affected Persons .......................................................... 3839

5.4 Proof of Eligibility.............................................................................................. 3839

5.5 Notification ........................................................................................................ 3839

5.6 Method of Valuation for compensation ........................................................... 3940

5.7 Payment of Compensation ................................................................................ 3940

5.8 Entitlement Matrix ............................................................................................ 3940

CHAPTER SIX ................................................................................................................. 4142

6.0 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT AND RESPONSIBILITIES ................................. 4243

6.1 Overview of Institutional Responsibilities ...................................................... 4243

6.2 Institutional Arrangement ................................................................................ 4243

6.3 Grievances and Appeals Procedure ................................................................. 4344

6.4 Likely Grievances and Disputes........................................................................ 4344

6.5 Grievance Redress Mechanisms........................................................................ 4445

6.5.1 Informal Grievance and Dispute Resolution Method .............................. 4445

6.5.2 The Complaint Procedure .......................................................................... 4445

6.5.3 Formal Methods of Grievance Resolution ................................................ 4546

CHAPTER SEVEN ............................................................................................................ 4748

7.0 MONITORING AND EVALUATION........................................................................ 4748

7.1 Implementation Schedule ................................................................................. 4849

7.2 Capacity and Training Needs ............................................................................ 4950

CHAPTER EIGHT ............................................................................................................ 5051

8.0 PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ................................................... 5051

8.1 Introduction........................................................................................................ 5051

8.2 Consultation Objective ..................................................................................... 5051

8.3 Consultation Strategy ........................................................................................ 5051

8.4 Overview of Public Consultations programme ............................................... 5152

8.4.1 LOT N1 ......................................................................................................... 5152

8.4.2 LOT N2 ......................................................................................................... 5253

8.4.3 LOT S1 .......................................................................................................... 5657

8.4.4 LOT S2 .......................................................................................................... 5758

CHAPTER NINE .............................................................................................................. 5960

9.0 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 5960

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 6061

ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................ 6263

Annex 1: Register of Project Affected People (PAPs) .............................................. 6263

Annex 2: Photo Gallery................................................................................................ 8182


Annex 3: Survey Instrument/Sample Questionnaire ................................................ 8384

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2. 1: Reconnaisance Survey along Angwan Kadi and Birnin Yero Communities on project route R 2-10 ............................................................... 1516

Figure 3. 1: Map of Nigeria Showing the Project State - Kaduna State .................... 1718

Figure 3. 2: Map showing the Selected Roads in Lot N1...................................... 1819

Figure 3. 3: Map showing the Selected Roads in Lot N2...................................... 1819

Figure 3. 4: Map showing the Selected Roads in Lot S1 ...................................... 2122

Figure 3. 5: Map showing the Selected Roads in Lot S2 ...................................... 2122

Figure 3. 6: Food crops and economic trees in project areas ............................... 2324

Figure 3. 7: ETF School project inaccessible due to poor road.............................. 2324

Figure 3. 8: Form of settlement in the project areas ........................................ 2425

Figure 3. 9: Consultation with women at Angwan Kadi Market on R2-10 Lot N2......... 2829

Figure 8. 1: Consultation & Interviews with Elders and Community Heads at Dundubus5152

Figure 8. 2: Sections of Youths during a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) at Mainasara and Doka respectively................................................................... 5253

Figure 8. 3: Consultation with women in Kwarakwara and Children returning from farm........................................................................................................ 5354

Figure 8. 4: Identified major source of enterprise empowerment for the women folk in Tami .................................................................................. 5354

Figure 8. 5: Consultation with the women and youths selling refreshments in Tami after the days work ....................................................................... 5354

Figure 8. 6: Consultation with PAPs and Community Head at Birnin Yero ................ 5455

Figure 8. 7: Consultation with Community Heads at Tami and Kwarakwara respectively........................................................................................................ 5556

Figure 8. 8: Consultation with the PAPs at Sako and Takanai............................... 5758

Figure 8. 9: Lot S 2 Kushe 1 & 11 Community women, youths and men commuting to the market................................................................................ 5859

Figure 8. 10: Consultation with the PAPs at kushe I and Community Head at Kushe II . 5859

Figure 8. 11: Consultation with Kushe 11 women in Lot S2 ................................. 5960

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Feeder Roads in Lot N1 and Lot N2 of Kaduna North…………………………………….18

Table 3.2: Feeder Roads in Lot S1 and Lot S2 of Kaduna South……………………………………..20

Table 3.3a: Gender Distribution of PAPs in Lot N1…………………………………………………………23

Table 3.3b: Age Distribution of PAPs in Lot N1………………………………………………………………23

Table 3.3c: Marital Status of PAPs in Lot N1………………………………………………………………….23

Table 3.3d: Educational Attainment of PAPs in Lot N1………………………………………………….23

Table 3.3e: Occupation of PAPs in Lot N1………………………………………………………………………24

Table 3.3f: Income Earning Category of PAPs per month in Lot N1……………………………..24

Table 3.3g: Common Health Conditions amongst PAPs Household Members in Lot N1..25

Table 3.4a: Gender Distribution of PAPs in Lot N2………………………………………………………..26


Table 3.4b: Age Distribution of PAPs in Lot N2………………………………………………………………26

Table 3.4c: Marital Status of PAPs in Lot N2………………………………………………………………….26

Table 3.4d: Educational Attainment of PAPs in Lot N1………………………………………………….27

Table 3.4e: Occupation of PAPs in Lot N2……………………………………………………………………….27

Table 3.4f: Income Earning Category of PAPs per month in Lot N2……………………………….28

Table 3.4g: Common Health Conditions amongst PAPs Household Members in Lot N2….28

Table 3.5a: Gender Distribution of PAPs in Lot S1………………………………………………………….28

Table 3.5b: Age Distribution of PAPs in Lot S1……………………………………………………………….29

Table 3.5c: Marital Status of PAPs in Lot S1…………………………………………………………………..29

Table 3.5d: Educational Attainment of PAPs in Lot S1…………………………………………………..29

Table 3.5e: Occupation of PAPs in Lot S1……………………………………………………………………...29

Table 3.5f: Income Earning Category of PAPs per month in Lot S1……………………………….30

Table 3.5g: Common Health Conditions amongst PAPs Household Members in Lot S1….30

Table 3.6a: Gender Distribution of PAPs in Lot S2…………………………………………………………30

Table 3.6b: Age Distribution of PAPs in Lot S2………………………………………………………………30

Table 3.6c: Marital Status of PAPs in Lot S2………………………………………………………………….31

Table 3.6d: Educational Attainment of PAPs in Lot S2………………………………………………….31

Table 3.6e: Occupation of PAPs in Lot S2………………………………………………………………………32

Table 3.6f: Income Earning Category of PAPs per month in Lot S2……………………………..32

Table 3.6g: Common Health Conditions amongst PAPs Household Members in Lot S2..32

Table 4.1: Comparison of Nigerian Land Use Act (1978) and World Bank’s OP 4.12…….34

Table 5.1: Entitlement Matrix……………………………………………………………………………………….37

Table 5.2: Valuation of Compensation Cost for Project Affected Persons………………….37

Table 6.1: Institutional Arrangement and Responsibilities for ARAP………………………….39

Table 7.1: Timetable for Abbreviated Resettlement Action Plan ……………………………..45

Table 7.2: Recommended Training and Awareness……………………………………………………..46

Table 8.1: List of Participants at the Public Consultation in Lot N1………………………….48

Table 8.2: List of Participants at the Public Consultation in Lot N2………………………….50

Table 8.3: List of Participants at the Public Consultation in Lot S1………………………….53

Table 8.4: List of Participants at the Public Consultation in Lot S2………………………….54


ACRONYMS

AIT ARAP Implementation Team

ARAP Abbreviated Resettlement Action Plan

CBO Community Based Organisation

CLO Community Liaison Officer

DaLA Damage and Loss Assessment

DBO Design Build and Operate

EMP Environment Management Plan

ESMP Environmental and Social Management Plan

FGD Focus Group Discussion

FMARD Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

FSLC First School Leaving Certificate

GCE General Certificate in Education

IDA International Development Authority

KADRAMP Kaduna State Rural Access and Mobility Project

LGA Local Government Area

LRC Local Resettlement Committee

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation


NGOs Non Governmental Organizations

OP Operational Policy

OPRC Output Performance Based Road Contracts

PAPs Project Affected Persons

RAMP Rural Access and Mobility Project

RAP Resettlement Action Plan

RPF Resettlement Plan Framework

RTTP Rural Travel and Transport Programme

SPIU State Project Implementation Unit

WASC West African School Certificate

WB World Bank

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES 1 Introduction

The World Bank in response to the Federal Government of Nigeria request through

the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD) for assistance

in support of the Government policy on Rural Travel and Transport (RTTP) provided

funds through its International Development Association (IDA), the Rural Access and

Mobility Projects (RAMP) are seen as a major way of achieving this.

The RAMP is aimed at improving and enhancing accessibility and mobility in rural

areas. Accessibility and mobility are critical issues in the lives of the rural

population, considering that majority of them are Agriculturalists. Movement of

their agricultural inputs and outputs (produce) is hinged on accessibility and

mobility. Kaduna State is one of the States in the Federation to benefit from the

project. In Kaduna, the RAMP is coordinated by the State Project Coordinating Unit

(SPIU) under the Kaduna State Ministry of Works and Transport.

In the course of implementing the OPRC Roads, a number of environmental and

social safeguards policies will be triggered inclusive of which are Involuntary

Resettlement OP 4.12. However under the World Bank Safeguard Policy, on


involuntary resettlement, a project is classified as full Resettlement Action Plan

(RAP) when the number of people to be displaced involuntarily is from 200 and

above and/or when the land take involves 10 percent of the total holding. On the

contrary, if the number of people to be displaced or affected is less than 200, and

land take is less than 10 percent of the total holding, it advocates for Abbreviated

Resettlement Action Plan (ARAP).

The outcome showed that there will be minor impacts, and permanent land-take is

less than 10 percent of the total land holdings and therefore an ARAP with

economic rehabilitation will be prepared.

This ARAP would provide a plan, assistance and/or rehabilitation of PAP so that

their losses would be compensated and their standard of living will at least, be

restored to pre-project levels. The ARAP also provides for economic rehabilitation

measures so that income earning potentials of individuals is restored to sustain

their livelihoods.

ES 2 Scope of Work

The scope of work underlying this ARAP is the identification of project impacts and

affected population through the following:

• Use of thematic maps;

• Census that enumerates project affected persons (PAPs) and registers them

according to location;

• An inventory and categorization of the PAPs and assets to be affected;

• Socio-economic assessment of PAPs;

• Analysis of surveys and studies to establish compensation parameters, to design

appropriate income restoration and sustainable development initiatives;

• Identify baseline monitoring indicators; and

• Consultation with affected populations regarding mitigation of impacts and

development opportunities.

ES 3 Approach and Methodology of Social Assessment

Prior to implementation of the resettlement activities, baseline data is collected

and potential impacts are identified and analyzed. Mitigation measures are then

put in place to address negative impacts and compensatory plans are designed and

recommended. Other Key instruments include Public Consultation, focus group

discussions and detailed field visit and collection of data using household survey

Field visits were conducted across the communities of the project affected area of

influence. An inventory of the PAPs was taken as well as the baseline information

of the project areas.


ES 4 Impacts of the Project

The impacts of the road project as it concerns the social aspect are categorized

into positive and negative impacts. Whereas the positive impacts are more, the

negative impacts are minimal and were found to be those that the project can

through compensation and stakeholder collaboration with the affected project

communities address as appropriate.

Positive Impacts include

• Easy access to market and business;

• Reduction in the rate of accidents due to poor road;

• Improve condition of living due to easy movement of input and output by

farmers and business people;

• Reduction in travel time per kilometer

Negative Impacts includes:

• Temporary disturbance to access to business and movement;

• Land take resulting from minor road realignment in some places;

• Destruction of economic trees;

• Temporary Reduction in income and livelihoods;

Negative impacts are neutralized via involuntary resettlement plan.

ES 5 Entitlement Matrix

The entitlement matrix shows the categories of applicable losses and impacts as

well as the eligibility conditions and nature of entitlement. This is presented in

table below:

CATEGORY TYPE OF LOSS APPLICABLE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA ENTITLEMENTS


Loss of farm land

Yes Evidence of ownership Must be supported by evidence of census undertaken during the survey

Compensation at full replacement cost value

Farmers

Loss of agricultural crops

Yes Lease contract, rental receipts, MOU Must be supported by evidence of census undertaken during the survey

Compensation at current market price of produce

Loss of economic tree

Yes Evidence of census before cut off data Must be supported by evidence of census undertaken during the survey

Compensation at full replacement cost value

Economic tree owners

Loss of income Yes Apply to fruit bearing trees

Compensation of value of sales of fruit (where applicable) at one period

Loss the entire structure

No Not applicable No compensation required Housing

Loss of part of the structure

No Not applicable No compensation required

Aesthetic and cultural property

Burial ground, shrine, monument


ES 6 Indicative Budget for ARAP Implementation

The total indicative budget for the ARAP implementation is Twenty One million,

Eight Hundred and Ninety-two Thousand, Thirty-Six Naira, Seventy-Six Kobo Only (N

21, 892,036.76). This is comprised as shown in the table below:

Estimated Cost (Naira) Cost Item

N1 N2 S1 S2

Period of

Expenditure

Compensation of PAPs

3,807,931.60 2,811,920 941,000 941,000 Before Construction Phase

ARAP Capacity building

1,050,000 1,050,000 1,050,000 1,050,000 Before Construction Phase

Monitoring & Evaluation

1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 Before & during construction

Sub-Total 6,657,931.60 5,661,920 3,791,000

3,791,000

Contingency (10% of Sub-Total)

665,793.16 566,192 379,100 379,100

Total 7,323,724.76 6,228,112 4,170,100 4,170,100

Overall Total 21, 892,036.76

ES 7 Implementation and Responsibility

It is expected that the implementation of the ARAP will be completed before the

commencement of construction works. The timetable for the implementation of

the Abbreviated Resettlement Action Plan and responsibilities is presented in the

table below.


ROAD PROJECT CYCLE

PHASE ACTIVITIES DATE RESPONSIBILITIES

PLANNING

Scoping and

Screening

� Initial site visit & consultations.

� Identification of Resettlement and Social issues

� Application of safeguard policies

� Categorization

� Action plan

� Screening Report

� WB No-Objection

December 2010

Consultant; Supervision by KADRAMP- SPIU

Preparation of ARAP

and consultations

� Draft ARAP

� Consultations

� WB No-Objection

May 2011 Consultant; Supervision by KADRAMP -SPIU

Disclosure � Disclosure of ARAP locally & to WB Info Shop

July 2011 KADRAMP –SPIU

World Bank

DESIGN

Finalization and

Incorporation

� Final version of ARAP

� Incorporation of ARAP into contract documents

� WB No-Objection

August 2011 Consultant; Supervision by

KADRAMP –SPIU

EXECUTION Implementation and Monitoring

Construction Work

� Implementation

� Monitoring & reporting on environmental and social mitigation measures

� Monitoring and reporting of Resettlement and livelihood issues

August 2011

September 2011

September 2011

Contractors Supervision by KADRAMP -SPIU/ M&E and the community

OPERATIONS (POST-IMPLEMENTATION)

Operations and maintenance

� Maintenance

� Monitoring and reporting of Resettlement and social livelihood issues

Contractors Supervision by KADRAMP-SPIU/ and the community


CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1 Background

Nigeria with a land area of 924,000 sq. km, has an estimated population of 139.8 million, growing at a rate of 2.7 percent annually, is the most populous country in Africa and the largest in West Africa. The country is mostly dominated by rural population (around 70 percent) with agriculture as their main income. In the past years, Nigeria experienced strong economic growth, with agriculture a major contributor to the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Nigeria’s rural transport infrastructure has been identified as a crucial component for the economic development of the country by linking the rural communities to the urban areas. Most of the rural roads are in poor condition, and impose significant cost to the national economy especially to the agricultural activities due to increased vehicle operating costs and travel times.

The World Bank in response to the Federal Government of Nigeria’s request, through the

Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD) for assistance in support of

the Government policy on Rural Travel and Transport (RTTP) provided funds through its

International Development Association (IDA). The Rural Access and Mobility Projects

(RAMP) are seen as a major way of achieving this. The RAMP is aimed at improving and

enhancing accessibility and mobility in rural areas. Accessibility and mobility are critical

issues in the lives of the rural population, considering that majority of them are

Agriculturalists. Movement of their agricultural inputs and outputs (produce) is hinged on

accessibility and mobility. Kaduna State is one of the States in the Federation to benefit

from the project. In Kaduna, the RAMP is coordinated by the State Project Coordinating

Unit (SPIU) under the Kaduna State Ministry of Works and Transport.

1.2 Project Components

RAMP has two components, Component A: Upgrading, Rehabilitation and Maintenance of

Transport Infrastructure; and Component B: Institutional Strengthening, Reforms and

Capacity Building. The activities within each one of these two components are detailed

below:

A) Component A: Upgrading, Rehabilitation and Maintenance of Transport Infrastructure

The rural transport infrastructure component of the project will support the upgrading,

rehabilitation and maintenance of about 427 km (subject to ongoing design work) of rural

roads selected from the top prioritized intervention areas and about 132 river crossings

spread across the entire state. Depending on traffic volume and other considerations,

about 142 km of roads (or one third of the total length) will be upgraded to bituminous

surface dressed standards while the rest or about 285 km will be to gravel wearing course

standards.

There will be two sub-components within Component A:


a. Improvement and maintenance of roads within six intervention areas of the state

through long term output and performance based contracting (OPRC), and

b. Construction and rehabilitation of selected river crossings across the entire state.

This component demands for an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) to ensure an

environmentally sustainable project.

Component A which involves civil works is made up of Output Performance based Road

Contracts (A1) and River crossing (A2).

The Output Performance based Road Contracts (OPRC) makes up 60% and is aimed at

improving and/or upgrading the existing rural feeder roads and tracks. On the other hand,

the River Crossing makes up 40% of this component and is aimed at rehabilitating rivers

crossings, culverts, etc.

There are two categories of roads under OPRC; the existing paved roads which are

degraded and require re-sealing, and existing unpaved roads and tracks which would be

upgraded to gravel/laterite surface dressed roads.

B) Component B: Institutional Strengthening, Reforms and Capacity Building.

This component will focus on:

a. Supporting project implementation by providing the necessary goods, materials and

equipment and by ensuring the existence of the appropriate project management

capacity and skills at both the federal and the state levels;

b. Strengthening the capacity of the public sector to manage road network, a sub-

component that would cover rationalization of the current establishment and

enhancement of skills in strategic planning, program and project scheduling,

designing, implementation and maintenance in relation to rural road

infrastructure;

c. Development and implementation of institutional reforms with a view to enhancing

efficiency in resource allocation, procurement, and quality control responsibilities

at the State Government level;

d. Other cross cutting issues such as awareness creation and related work on road

safety, gender and Human Immuno-deficiency Virus (HIV) and Acquired Immune-

deficiency Syndrome (AIDS); and

e. Preparation of state funded follow-on RAMP project.

The overall project development outcome is to improve accessibility and mobility to and

among the rural communities in Kaduna State. A total number of forty (40) rural feeder

roads have been selected and subdivided into 4 lots with 2 lots each in southern and

northern parts of Kaduna.

In some places, the road rehabilitation and expansion will require acquisition of land,

destruction of farm crops within the right of way (ROW) and falling of economic trees to

achieve the required span width. More so, some of the roads directly pass through villages


where there is insufficient space for widening which may result in the demolition of

houses. This triggers the World Bank operational policy (OP) 4.12 (Involuntary

Resettlement).

However, the scoping survey reveals that less than 10 percent of total land hold will be

taken and it anticipates that PAPs will be less than 200. Therefore, a full RAP will not be

required; rather the right instrument to be used is the Abbreviated Resettlement Action

Plan (ARAP).

1.3 Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) OP 4.12.

This is triggered when project activities cause physical displacement, restriction or access

to source of livelihood and land acquisition. During civil works, major and minor impacts

tend to cause displacement of population, productive assets and buildings. In the advent

of major impacts (if affected people will be physically displaced and more than 10% of

their productive assets are lost or more than 200 people are to be displaced), while a full

RAP would be prepared for minor impacts (that is, if affected people are not physically

displaced and less than 10% of their productive assets are lost or fewer than 200 people

are to be displaced), an Abbreviated Resettlement Plan (ARP) would be approved

This ARAP is prepared in compliance with all Federal, State and Local laws of Nigeria and

especially the World Bank Safeguard Policy OP/BP 4.12.

The core requirements of the World Bank Safeguards Policy OP / BP 4.12 – Involuntary

Resettlement - which is addressed in the ARAP are as follows:

• Avoid or minimize involuntary resettlement where feasible, exploring all viable

alternative project designs.

• Assist project affected persons in improving their former living standards, income

earning capacity, and production levels, or at least in restoring them back to the

former status

• Encourage community participation in planning and implementing resettlement.

• Provide assistance to affected people regardless of the legality of land tenure.

In this project minor impacts are anticipated, therefore it would be appropriate to

prepare an Abbreviated Resettlement Plan (ARAP).


CHAPTER TWO

2.0 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

Resettlement planning is necessary whenever displacement or relocation occurs as part of

project activities in order to mitigate adverse impacts. The methodology for this study

included;

• Harmonization of project schedule and scope with the client;

• Collection of relevant documents and literature materials;

• Reconnaissance survey of the local government areas and communities where

project will take place to scope and identify the magnitude of impacts;

• Staff organization and training;

• Review of various documents including:

o RAMP ESMF Report,

o Project Appraisal Document (PAD)

o World Bank safeguard policy on involuntary resettlement, and

o Baseline socio-economic survey of the project areas

• Public Consultation and focus group discussions: This was continuous and a

major thrust throughout the project, for identifying PAPs, informing the

communities about the proposed project, eliciting their concerns and possible

mitigation measures to proposed impacts.

Figure 2. 1: Reconnaisance Survey along Angwan Kadi and Birnin Yero Communities on project route R 2-10


2.1 Objective of the ARAP

This ARAP aims to provide the detailed compensation process to mitigate any negative

impact as a result of the RAMP project activities that may result in the loss of assets or

acquisition of lands or disruption to means of livelihood. Specifically, this ARAP has the

following objectives:

• Identify all affected persons and making inventory/census of all of them

• Identify the most vulnerable ones along the corridors who could be affected

• Assist to define ways of assisting all affected persons in their efforts to improve

their livelihoods and standards of living or at least to restore them, in real

terms, to at least pre-displacement levels

• Identify and spell out institutional roles and responsibilities for implementing

the ARAP

• Identify measures for strengthening organizational capacity/capability

• Provide mechanism for redressing and resolving all grievances

• Develop a social monitoring plan under the projects to ensure that all social

issues are managed effectively.

2.2 Scope of Work

The scope of work underlying this ARAP is the identification of project impacts and

affected population through the following:

• Thematic maps;

• Census that enumerates project affected persons (PAPs) and registers them

according to location;

• An inventory and categorization of the PAPs and assets to be affected

• Socio-economic assessment of PAPs

• Analysis of surveys and studies to establish compensation parameters, to design

appropriate income restoration and sustainable development initiatives;

• Identify baseline monitoring indicators

• Consultation with affected populations regarding mitigation of impacts and

development opportunities.

2.2.1 Major Sub-Activities of the ARAP

In the preparation of the ARAP, stakeholders were sensitized of the project. The following

were carried out:

• Census and socioeconomic survey of the PAPs and Households;

• Consultations and discussions with the communities including PAPs;

• Categorization and valuation of assets to be affected;

• Preparation of an entitlement matrix detailing the PAPs names, affected assets

and costs;

• Preparation of a budget and time table for the ARAP implementation.

• Establishing a mechanism for Grievance resolution.


CHAPTER THREE

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT

3.1 Overview of the Project Area

Kaduna State lies between latitude 90 02′N – 110 32′N and longitude 60 15’E – 80 50′E. With a

lot of rock outcrops which vary in height up to 1370m above sea level and an undulating

landscape. Kaduna State has a dense network of drainages with Rivers Kaduna and Gurara

being the two major rivers. The state shares boundaries with Zamfara ,Katsina and Kano

states to the North, to the East, it is bounded by Plateau and Bauchi States, to the South,

it is bounded by the Federal capital Territory as well as Nassarawa state, and to the West,

it is bounded by Niger state as shown in figure 3.1 below.

Figure 3. 1: Map of Nigeria Showing the Project State - Kaduna State

Under the RAMP road Project in the State, Forty (40) rural feeder roads have been

selected and subdivided into four (4) Lots namely; Lot N1, Lot N2, Lot S1 & Lot S2.

The LOT N1 & LOT N2 of the RAMP project are located in the Northern part of the State with 9 and 8 roads in each LOT respectively; while LOT S1 & LOT S2 are located in the Southern Part of the State with 11 and 13 roads in each Lot respectively as shown in the figures and tables below.


Figure 3. 2: Map showing the Selected Roads in Lot N1

Figure 3. 3: Map showing the Selected Roads in Lot N2


Table 3.1: Feeder Roads in Lot N1 and Lot N2 of Kaduna North



Figure 3. 4: Map showing the Selected Roads in Lot S1

Figure 3. 5: Map showing the Selected Roads in Lot S2


Table 3.2: Feeder Roads in Lot S1 and Lot S2 of Kaduna South


3.2 Land Use in Project Area and Entitlement Matrix

The land use of the Project site is prominently for agricultural purposes: crop planting and

livestock rearing. Therefore farmlands and economic produce (trees, food and cash crops)

will be the assets most likely to be compensated for. This deems it fit to acknowledge that

all PAPs are considerably subsistence farmers (as a primary occupation).

The project areas in the northern lots have the soil that is good for production of yam and

maize; while in the well watered southern lots, the rich darker soils are used for

cultivating cereals, cassava, rice and the famous Southern Kaduna ginger.

Figure 3. 6: Food crops and economic trees in project areas

The settlement form is dispersed. A farming compound typically comprises two or three

closely related households, such as father with married sons or married brothers. Each

household within a compound is an independent economic unit which farms separately and

has its own cluster of houses, kitchen areas, grain-drying platform, granaries and livestock

enclosures. Most structures are of mud-brick with thatched roof or galvanized corrugate

metal sheets. There are school structures, primary health care centres built in some of

the project areas but are inaccessible because of the poor condition of the roads.

Figure 3. 7: ETF School project inaccessible due to poor road

Rural electrification poles were cited in some areas and some millennium development project for boreholes in some farmlands.


Figure 3. 8: Form of settlement in the project areas

There are no houses or major structures to be affected by the road project. The identified PAPs are therefore entitled to compensation for loss of land, economic trees and agricultural economic trees by farmers and loss of income by traders. Their compensation will be at full replacement/ market cost value of assets for the farmers and income compensation for the duration of the ‘disturbance’. These are in line with information reported in the ARAP report except the exclusion of the Market men and women at Angwan Kadi who are bound to be affected by the project, as they will be required to evacuate that part of the road during construction and will therefore loose income for that period of time.

3.3 Socio-Economic Survey of the Project Areas

A socio-economic survey was conducted within the four Lots of the RAMP Project sites.

Data was collected on the existing socioeconomic attributes of the respondents in the

project locations.

The Socio-economic survey for the project areas was conducted between 8th December

2010 and 10th March 2011. This was further re-evaluated between the periods 4th October -

7th October 2011. The socio-economic survey was premised on PAPs, with a view to

determining their existing socio-economic conditions, and how the project impact may

affect them. Specifically, the following thematic socio-economic indicators were

examined:

• Gender

• Age Distribution

• Marital Status

• Level of Education

• Nature of trade/Occupation of PAPs

• Income category

• Health Status


3.3.1 Lot N1 Project Route

Table 3.3a: Gender Distribution of PAPs in Lot N1

LOCATION OF PAPS No of PAPs (63) MALE (%) FEMALE (%) TOTAL (%)

Ungwan Liman 20 100 0 100

Madaka 2 100 0 100

Ungwan Kanawa 4 100 0 100

Gangara 20 100 0 100

Doka 10 100 0 100

Ungwan Danbada 7 100 0 100

The table above illustrates that all PAPs are males; this may be connected with the fact

that the ownership of farms and crops culturally belong to the Household heads who from

the survey were all identified as males. The females and children identified during the

survey are dependants of the male Household heads and are thus indirectly affected by

the Project. There are 63 PAPs in this Project Location.

Table 3.3b: Age Distribution of PAPs in Lot N1

Age

0-15 16-30 31-45 46-60 >60

Location

No % No % No % No % No %

Total (no)

Ungwan Liman 0 0 0 0 8 12.5 10 77.5 2 66.6 20 Madaka 0 0 0 0 1 4.2 1 7.5 0 0 2 Gangara 0 0 0 0 2 8.3 1 7.5 1 33.4 4 Ungwan Kanawa 0 0 0 0 1 4.2 1 7.5 0 0 2 Doka 0 0 0 0 10 41.6 0 0 0 0 10 Ungwan Danbada 0 0 0 0 7 29.2 0 0 0 0 7 Total 0 0 0 0 29 100 13 100 3 100 45 Distribution as ratio of sum of PAPs

0% 0% 64.4% 28.9% 6.7% 100%

Table 3.3b above indicates the age distribution of PAPs in the affected project areas.

64.4% of the PAPs identified are within 31-45 years old, 28.9% fall within 46-60 years while

the elderly persons of 60 years and above constitute 6.7% of PAPs.

Table 3.3c: Marital Status of PAPs in Lot N1

PROJECT AREA MARRIED % (Monogamy)

MARRIED % (Polygamy)

SINGLE %

Ungwan Liman 0.47 0.43 0

Madaka 0 0.07 0

Ungwan Kanawa 11.8 0.07 0

Gangara 11.8 0 0

Doka 17.6 0.25 0

Ungwan Danbada 11.8 0.17 0

Total 0.38 0.62 0

The result of the survey shows that all identified PAPs are married; hence there is no

unmarried PAP as indicated in Table 3.3c above. 62% of PAPs are married with at least two

wives while 38% of PAPs are married to one wife.

Table 3.3d: Educational Attainment of PAPs in Lot N1


PROJECT AREA None (%) Pri (%) Sec (%) Post (%) Total

Ungwan Liman 0.45 0.38 0.17 0 1.0

Madaka 0 100 0 0 1.0

Ungwan Kanawa 0.25 0.75 0 0 1.0

Gangara 0.50 0.50 0 0 1.0

Doka 0.60 0.40 0 0 1.0

Ungwan Danbada 0.40 0.55 0.05 0 1.0

Key

None No formal education

Pri Attended Primary education

Sec Attended secondary education

Post Attended post secondary education

Table 3.3d above indicates the educational attainment of PAPs. In Ungwan Kanawa project

area, primary education is the highest qualification for 75% of PAPs while 25% others did

not have any form of formal education. In Gangara, 50% of PAPs had primary education

only while the remaining 50% did not have any formal education. In Doka, 60% have no

formal education and 40% had primary education while in Ungwan Danbada project area

40% had no formal education and 55% had primary education.

Overall, it is evident that majority of PAPs across the project areas did not have the basic

education. This implies that PAPs belong to the class of illiterates and may be

disadvantaged in terms of employment or ability to earn alternative means of livelihood.

Table 3.3e: Occupation of PAPs in Lot N1

Description of Means of Livelihood (figures in percent)

Location Farming Hunting Tea seller Civil Servants Others

Total

Ungwan Liman 0.97 0 0.3 0 0 1.0

Madaka 1.0 0 0 0 0 1.0

Ungwan Kanawa 0.98 0 0 0 0.02 1.0

Gangara 0.98 0.02 0 0 0 1.0

Doka 1.0 0 0 0 0 1.0

Ungwan Danbada 1.0 0 0 0 0 1.0

From the survey and as presented in table 3.3e above, Farming is the major form of

occupation in all the communities in Lot N1.

Table 3.3f: Income Earning Category of PAPs per month in Lot N1

Ungwan Liman

Madaka Ungwan Kanawa

Gangara Doka Ungwan Danbada

Mean %

Income Category (In Naira)

% % % % % % %

0-4999 0.46 0.38 0.50 0.48 0.56 0.36 0.45

5,000 – 9,999 0.50 0.59 0.50 0.52 0.44 0.64 0.54

10,000 – 20,000 0.04 0.03 0 0 0 0 0.01

Above 20,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%


Table 3.3f above depicts the income capacity of PAPs in the project areas. On the average

45% of PAPs fall within an income less than N5000 per month while 54% earn between

N5000 to N10, 000 per month. The result across board shows that no PAP earns as much as

N20, 000 per month, while only 0.1% of PAPs earn income above N10, 000 monthly.

The trend in income distribution in the project area projects that PAPs are low income

earners. This is evident by the nature of their subsistence farming occupation.

Table 3.3g: Common Health Conditions amongst PAPs Household Members in Lot N1

Table 3.3g above depicts that the most prevailing and re-occurring sicknesses amongst

most PAPs households is malaria. It defines that the probability of a member of the PAPs

household falling ill to malaria at any given time is 45% for PAPs in Ungwan Liman,

Madaka, Gangara and Doka. While the least probability for the occurrence of malaria is

12% in Ungwan Kanawa. The chance of occurrence for typhoid is also high in the project

areas. Incidences of meningitis and cholera seem to be prevalent and high amongst PAPs

from Ungwan Liman.

3.3.2 Lot N2 Project Route

There are 100 PAPs in this project Area. The table below illustrates that there are more

males PAPS and are dominated in Birnin Yero community.

There are 10 female PAPs mainly market women who came with their children to the

Tashar Sabon Birni (Rigachikun) area where the R2-10 road begins. The female PAPs are

engage in trade of foodstuffs and livestock.

Sicknesses and Health Conditions Experienced by a Member of

Household in the last 2 Years

Location

Malaria Typhoid Leprosy Meningitis TB Cholera

Ungwan Limani 0.45 0.3 0 0.1 0 0.12

Madaka 0.45 0.45 0 0.02 0 0

Ungwan Kanawa 0.12 0.1 0 0.04 0 0.02

Gangara 0.45 0 0 0 0 0.045

Doka 0.45 0.45 0 0.02 0 0

Ungwan Danbada 0.15 0.1 0 0.04 0 0.02


Figure 3. 9: Consultation with women at Angwan Kadi Market on R2-10 Lot N2

Table 3.4a: Gender Distribution of PAPs in Lot N2

LOCATION OF PAPS No of PAPs (100) MALE (%) FEMALE (%) TOTAL

Angwan Kadi 19 47.4 52.6 100

Labar 9 100 0 100

Dadin Kowa 4 100 0 100

Masache 3 100 0 100

Kwarakwara 16 100 0 100

Tami 17 100 0 100

Ungwan Madauchi 2 100 0 100

Birnin Yero 30 100 0 100

Table 3.4b: Age Distribution of PAPs in Lot N2

Age

0-15 16-30 31-45 46-60 >60

Location


Total (no)

Angwan Kadi 0 0 0 0 10 52.6 9 47.4 0 0 19

Labar 0 0 0 0 6 66.7 3 33.3 0 0 9

Dadin Kowa 0 0 0 0 1 25 2 50 1 25 4

Masache 0 0 0 0 2 66.7 1 33.3 0 0 3

Kwarakwara 0 0 0 0 10 62.5 4 25 2 12.5 16

Tami 0 0 0 0 10 58.8 6 35.2 1 6 17

Ungwan Madauchi

0 0 0 0 1 50 1 50 0 0 2

Birnin Yero 0 0 0 0 20 66.7 8 26.7 2 6.6 30

Column Total 0 0 60 34 6 100 Distribution as ratio of sum of PAPs

0% 0% 60% 34.% 6% 100%

Table 3.4b above indicates the age distribution of PAPs in the affected project areas. 60%

of the PAPs identified are within 31-45 years old, 34% fall within 46-60 years while the

elderly persons of 60 years and above constitute 6% of PAPs.

Table 3.4c: Marital Status of PAPs in Lot N2



SINGLE %

Angwan Kadi 15.7 84.2 0

Labar 0.46 0.44 0


Dadin Kowa 0 0.07 0

Masache 11.8 0.07 0

Kwarakwara 11.8 0.06 0

Tami 17.6 0.25 0

Ungwan Madauchi 11.8 0.17 0

Birnin Yero 0.40 0.50 0

Total 0.38 0.65 0




Table 3.4d: Educational Attainment of PAPs in Lot N1


Angwan Kadi 0.45 0.50 0.05 0 1.0

Labar 0.40 0.36 0.24 0 1.0

Dadin Kowa 0.25 0.75 0 0 1.0

Masache 0 100 0 0 1.0

Kwarakwara 0.50 0.50 0 0 1.0

Tami 0.45 0.38 0.17 0 1.0

Ungwan Madauchi 0.60 0.40 0 0 1.0

Birnin Yero 0.40 0.55 0.05 0 1.0

Key





Table 3.4d above indicates the educational attainment of PAPs. All PAPs in Masache are

Primary School leavers. Only PAPs from Labar (24%), Tami (17%) and Birnin Yero (0.5%)

have any form of Secondary education while Kwarakwara have an equal number of PAPs

(50% each) with primary or no form of education.

Table 3.4e: Occupation of PAPs in Lot N2



Total

Angwan Kadi 0 0 0 0 1.0 1.0

Labar 0.97 0 0.3 0 0

Dadin Kowa 1.0 0 0 0 0 1.0

Masache 0.98 0.02 0 0 0 1.0

Kwarakwara 0.98 0 0 0 0.02 1.0

Tami 0.98 0.02 0 0 0 1.0

Ungwan Madauchi 1.0 0 0 0 0 1.0

Birnin Yero 1.0 0 0 0 0 1.0


occupation in the communities in Lot N2 while all PAPs are traders dealing in foodstuff and

livestock sales.


Table 3.4f: Income Earning Category of PAPs per month in Lot N2

Angwan Kadi

Labar Dadin Kowa

Masache Kwara kwara

Tami Ungwan

Madauchi

Birnin

Yero

Mean

%

Income Category (In Naira)

% % % % % % % % %

0-4999 0 0.50 0.45 0.50 0.48 0.52 0.42 0.36 0.46

5,000 – 9,999 0 0.46 0.53 0.50 0.52 0.48 0.55 0.60 0.52

10,000 – 20,000 1.0 0.04 0.02 0 0 0 0.03 0.04 0.14

Above 20,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 100 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%



N5000 to N10, 000 per month. The results across board shows that no PAP earns as much

as N20, 000 per month, while 14% of PAPs earn income above N10, 000 monthly.



Table 3.4g: Common Health Conditions amongst PAPs Household Members in Lot N2


most PAPs households is malaria while typhoid seem to be prevalent in Dadin Kowa, Tami

and Ungwan Madauchi.

3.3.3 Lot S1 Project Route

Table 3.5a: Gender Distribution of PAPs in Lot S1


Takanai 4 100 0 100

Sako 7 100 0 100



Location


Labar 0.40 0.3 0 0.1 0 0.12

Dadin Kowa 0.45 0.45 0 0.02 0 0

Masache 0.13 0.1 0 0.04 0 0.02

Kwarakwara 0.42 0 0 0 0 0.045

Tami 0.45 0.43 0 0.02 0 0

Ungwan Madauchi 0.45 0.40 0 0.02 0 0

Birnin Yero 0.15 0.1 0 0.04 0 0.02


There are 11 PAPs in this project Area. The table above illustrates that all PAPs are males

4 of which are in Takanai and 7 in Sako.

Table 3.5b: Age Distribution of PAPs in Lot S1

Age

0-15 16-30 31-45 46-60 >60

Location


Total (no)

Takanai 0 0 0 0 3 75 1 25 0 0 4 Sako 0 0 0 0 2 28.6 4 57.1 1 14.3 7 Column Total

0 0 0 0 5 100 5 100 1 100 11

Distribution as ratio of sum of PAPs

0% 0% 45.45% 45.45% 9.01% 100%


45.45% of the PAPs identified are within 31-45 years old & 46-60 years while the elderly

persons of 60 years and above constitute 9.01% of PAPs.

Table 3.5c: Marital Status of PAPs in Lot S1



SINGLE %

Takanai 0.60 0.32 0

Sako 0.39 0.40 0

Total 0.64 0.36 0




Table 3.5d: Educational Attainment of PAPs in Lot S1


Takanai 0.30 0.20 0.40 0.10 1.0

Sako 0.25 0.65 0.10 0 1.0

Key





Table 3.5d above indicates the educational attainment of PAPs. 40% of the PAPs at

Takania have secondary formal education while 65% of the PAPs at Sako have Primary

formal education. 30% of the identified PAPs at Takania have no formal education while

25% of the PAPs at Sako also have no formal education.

Table 3.5e: Occupation of PAPs in Lot S1



Location Farming Hunting Tea seller Civil Servants Others Total

Takanai 0.97 0 0.3 0 0 1.0

Sako 1.0 0 0 0 0 1.0


occupation in all the communities in Lot S1.

Table 3.5f: Income Earning Category of PAPs per month in Lot S1

Takanai Sako Mean % Income Category

(In Naira)

% % %

0-4999 0.46 0.38 0.42

5,000 – 9,999 0.50 0.59 0.55

10,000 – 20,000 0.04 0.03 0.035

Above 20,000 0 0 0

Total 100% 100% 100%







Table 3.5g: Common Health Conditions amongst PAPs Household Members in Lot S1


most PAPs households is malaria while typhoid seem to be prevalent in Sako.

3.3.4 Lot S2 Project Route

Table 3.6a: Gender Distribution of PAPs in Lot S2


Kudiri Kagarko 1 100 0 100

Kushe 1 13 100 0 100

Kushe II 6 100 0 100

Gora Kachia 1 0 100 100

There are 21 PAPs in this project Area. The table above illustrates that the only female

PAP was in Gora Kachia while all other PAPs are males of which 13 are from Kushe I, 6 are

from Kushe II and Kudiri Kagarko has only 1 respondent.



Location


Takanai 0.45 0.3 0 0.1 0 0.12

Sako 0.45 0.45 0 0.02 0 0


Table 3.6b: Age Distribution of PAPs in Lot S2

Age

0-15 16-30 31-45 46-60 >60

Location


Total (no)

Kudiri Kagarko

0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 1

Kushe 1 0 0 0 0 10 77 3 23 0 0 13 Kushe II 0 0 0 0 5 83 1 17 0 0 6 Gora Kachia 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 1 Column Total

0 0 0 0 16 100 5 100 0 0 21

Distribution as ratio of sum of PAPs

0% 0% 76.2% 23.8% 0% 100%


76.2% of the PAPs identified are within 31-45 years old and the remaining 23.8% are within

46-60 years.

Table 3.6c: Marital Status of PAPs in Lot S2



SINGLE %

Kudiri Kagarko 0.53 0.43 0

Kushe 1 0.51 0.49 0

Kushe II 11.8 0.07 0

Gora Kachia 0.20 0 0

Total 0.54 0.46 0




Table 3.6d: Educational Attainment of PAPs in Lot S2


Kudiri Kagarko 0.48 0.38 0.14 0 1.0

Kushe 1 0.25 0.70 0.05 0 1.0

Kushe II 0.25 0.75 0 0 1.0

Gora Kachia 0 1.0 0 0 1.0

Key





Table 3.6d above indicates the educational attainment of PAPs. The result shows that the

highest ratio (48%) of PAPs in Kudiri Kagarko did not have any formal education while 38%

and 14% represent PAPs whose highest form of education are primary and secondary school

respectively. For Kushe I, 25% of the PAPs did not have any formal education , while 70%

and 5% had primary and secondary education as highest qualifications respectively.


For Kushe II project area, primary education is the highest qualification for about 75% of

PAPs while 25% others did not have any form of formal education. In Gora Kachia, primary

education is the highest form of education for 100% of PAPs in the project area.

Table 3.6e: Occupation of PAPs in Lot S2



Total

Takanai 0.97 0 0.3 0 0 1.0

Sako 1.0 0 0 0 0 1.0


occupation in all the communities in Lot S2.

Table 3.6f: Income Earning Category of PAPs per month in Lot S2

Kudiri

Kagarko

Kushe 1 Kushe II Gora Kachia Mean % Income

Category

(In Naira) % % % % %

0-4999 0.46 0.38 0.50 0.48 0.46

5,000 – 9,999 0.50 0.59 0.50 0.52 0.53

10,000 – 20,000 0.04 0.03 0 0 0.01

Above 20,000 0 0 0 0 0

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%







Table 3.6g: Common Health Conditions amongst PAPs Household Members in Lot S2



Location


Kudiri Kagarko 0.45 0.3 0 0.1 0 0.12

Kushe 1 0.45 0.45 0 0.02 0 0

Kushe II 0.20 0.1 0 0.04 0 0.02

Gora Kachia 0.45 0 0 0 0 0.045



most PAPs households is malaria while typhoid seem to be prevalent in Kushe I.

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 POLICY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

The following policy and regulatory frameworks guided the preparation of this ARAP:

4.1 World Bank Safeguard Policies

The World Bank Group is made up of two unique development institutions owned by 187

member countries: the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and

the International Development Association (IDA).

Each institution plays a different but collaborative role in advancing the vision of inclusive

and sustainable globalization. The IBRD aims to reduce poverty in middle-income and

creditworthy poorer countries, while IDA focuses on the world's poorest countries.

Their work is complemented by that of the International Finance Corporation (IFC),

Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) and the International Centre for the

Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).

The relevant policy on ARAP is set out in the World Bank’s OP 4.12 (Involuntary

Resettlement). OP 4.12 applies whenever property must be acquired, or its use modified,

for a project, and that acquisition or modification results in the loss of income, residence

or access to resources, whether permanent or temporary and whether the occupation is

legal or illegal.

With respect to this ARAP, the OP 4.12 is applied.

4.2 Nigeria Regulatory Framework

4.2.1 Land Use Act of 1978 amended 1992

The land-use Act of 1978 states that it is “in the public interest that the rights of all

Nigerians to use and enjoy land in Nigeria in sufficient quality to enable them to provide

for the sustenance of themselves and their families” through assured, protected and

preserved environmental amenities. In the event of use of land for public interest, the Act

specifies as follows:


o That the government should resettle and/or compensate occupants of land with

Certificate of Occupancy (C of O); or

o Issue notice to occupiers of land prior to displacement of land for public project.

4.2.2 Forestry Law Cap 55, 1994

The Forestry Act 1958 which was amended as the Forestry Law CAP 55 (1994) prohibits any

act that may lead to the destruction of or cause injury to any forest produce, forest

growth or forestry property in Nigeria. The law prescribes the administrative framework

for the management, utilization and protection of forestry resources in Nigeria.

4.3 Comparison between Land Use Act and World Bank OP 4.12

Table 4.1: Comparison of Nigerian Land Use Act (1978) and World Bank’s OP 4.12

CATEGORY NIGERIAN LAND USE ACT WORLD BANK

Land Owners Cash compensation based upon

market value

Recommends land-for-land

compensation, or cash

compensation at replacement cost.

Land Tenants Entitled to compensation based

on the amount of rights they hold

upon land.

Entitled to some form of

compensation subject to the legal

recognition of their occupancy.

Land Users Not entitled to compensation for

land; entitled for compensation

for crops

Entitled for compensation for crops

and September be entitled for land

replacement and income loss

compensation for minimal of the

pre-project level.

Owners of Non

permanent Buildings

Cash compensation based on

prevailing market value

Entitled to in-kind compensation or

cash compensation at full

replacement cost including labour

and relocation expenses, prior to

displacement.

Owners of permanent

Buildings

Cash compensation based on

prevailing market value

Entitled to in-kind compensation or

cash compensation at full

replacement cost including labour

and relocation expenses, prior to

displacement.

This ARAP for the road project will be aligned with the World Bank Operational Policy (OP

4.12) which indicates best practices to rehabilitation of livelihoods of people affected by

the implementation of the project. Hence, where there are gaps between the Land Use

Act (1978) and the World Bank Policy (OP 4.12), in regard to compensation of PAPs, the

World Bank’s Policy will apply since it is to fund the project.


CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 COMPENSATION FRAMEWORK

5.1 Introduction

Valuation of assets to be affected by the implementation of the project was conducted

using a general principle adopted in the formulation of the compensation valuation which

follows the World Bank’s Policy that lost income and asset will be valued at their full

replacement cost such that the PAPs should experience no net loss.

The asset valuation was conducted by a qualified economist based on the current market

prices in the concerned state of project influence.

5.2 Entitlement Policy

Since the project entails the rehabilitation of existing feeder road network, we do not

anticipate new land take except for pockets of alignment anticipated to evolve.

Therefore, land take will be small and will not lead to full resettlement of persons. The

ARAP policy will therefore, focus on compensation of PAPs.

The study also established that there will be no physical displacement of households. This

means that incidences of relocation will not occur; hence giving of assistance to persons

for movement is not anticipated.


5.3 Eligibility Criteria for Affected Persons

Any person who will suffer loss or damage to an asset, farmland, crop, trade or loss of

access to productive resources, as a result of the project will be considered eligible for

compensation and/ or resettlement assistance.

The cut-off date for being eligible for compensation and/ or assistance was the 10th March

2011, which is the last day during which the inventory of PAPs was completed.

PAPs include:

• Those who have formal legal rights of land (including customary and traditional

rights recognized under the laws of the country.

• Those who do not have formal rights to land at the time the census begins but have

a claim to such land or assets and become recognized during the survey; and

• Those who have no recognizable legal rights or claim to the land they are

occupying.

However only PAPs enumerated during the baseline survey shall be eligible for any form of

compensation. Any other person that lay claim to, or occupy a property or plant any kind

of tree on the ROW of the road after the cut of date is not eligible for compensation.

5.4 Proof of Eligibility

The SPIU will consider various forms of evidences as proof of eligibility as stated in the

RPF, to cover the following:

• Identification by household head or head of clan justifying that the claimer is the

true PAP whose name and identity was documented

• In the case of land, there must be an evidence of ownership of land or a letter with

postal stamp and signed by a recognized community leader stating that the person

is/was an occupant of the property (with description) which was enumerated.

However only PAPs enumerated during the baseline survey shall be eligible for the

compensation.

5.5 Notification

All properties affected by the proposed civil works have been valued and assessed

according to laid down procedure.

Owners of affected properties have been notified in several ways. These included one on

one notification during the socio-economic survey, and also during public consultation. A

compensation valuation of all affected properties was carried out to assess

commensurable values.


5.6 Method of Valuation for compensation

The method has been briefly described below:

• Replacement Cost Method

Current Market value of asset within the project area was used to determine the

compensation rate for Economic Trees and land. This was determined via market survey of

land per square meter and the market prices of the affected Trees in the project areas.

In the case of economic tree the DaLA methodology was applied. DaLA method is an

initiative of the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR). DaLA method

is used in this study to determine compensation for economic trees because of its

robustness and advantage over the traditional method of assessing the cost of an economic

tree. DaLA method states that market value of yield per tree for the current season

(agricultural season) and cost of re-planting and nursery should be used to determine the

compensation rate for the economic tree while the Traditional Method equates the capital

of the existing structure/ tree to the cost of reinstating the structure/ tree on the same

plot at the current labour, material and other incident costs.

• Land Resettlement

The World Bank OP 4.12 requires that displaced owners of land be provided with an area

of land equivalent to their displaced land. It states that land restoration should be in a

location that has similar value as the one displaced to the project. However, land

resettlement will not occur since land take is small and will not warrant a physical

displacement of persons.

Also importantly, the issue of land take by the project has been addressed and agreed

upon by the stakeholders during the public consultation that compensation be given to

PAPs for their land resources.

5.7 Payment of Compensation

Payment of compensation will be made by the Resettlement and Compensation

Committee. This committee will include members of the SPIU and selected community

leaders from the affected locations. Compensation benefits shall be settled before the

construction phase of the project.

5.8 Entitlement Matrix

The entitlement matrix shows the categories of applicable losses and impacts as well as

the eligibility conditions and nature of entitlement. This is presented in Table 5.1 below.

Table 5.1: Entitlement Matrix

Category Type of Loss Applicable Eligibility Criteria Entitlements


Loss of farm land

Yes Evidence of ownership

Must be supported by evidence of

census undertaken during the

survey

Compensation at full

replacement cost value

Farmers Loss of agricultural

crops

Yes Lease contract, rental receipts,

MOU



survey

Compensation at current

market price of produce

Loss of economic

tree

Yes Evidence of census before cut off

data



survey

Compensation at full

replacement cost value +

Economic tree

owners

Loss of income Yes Apply to fruit bearing trees Compensation of value of

sales of fruit (where

applicable) at one period

Loss the entire

structure

No Not applicable No compensation required Housing

Loss of part of the

structure


Aesthetic and

cultural

property

Burial ground,

shrine, monument


Based on the Entitlement Matrix and Valuation procedures, the full compensation

valuation was done and the breakdown of the costing by categories is given in Table 5.2

below:

Table 5.2: Valuation of Compensation Cost for Project Affected Persons

LOT N1

LOCATION NO OF PAPS COMPENSATION

FOR FARM LANDS

COMPENSATION FOR

ECONOMIC TREE

TOTAL

Madaka 2 226,320 78,000 304,320

Ungwan

Kanawa 4 179,400 117,000 296,400

Gangara 20 1,174,891.60 624,000 1,798,891.6

Ungwan Limani 20 276,000 413,000 689,000

Doka 10 267,720 52,000 319,720

Ungwan

Danbaba 7 165,600 234,000 399,600

Total 63 2,289,931.60 1,518,000 3,807,931.60

LOT N2

LOCATION NO OF

PAPS

COMPENSATION

FOR FARM LANDS

COMPENSATION

FOR ECONOMIC

TREE

COMPENSATION

FOR LOSS OF

INCOME

TOTAL

Angwan Kadi 19 0 0 218,400 218,400

Labar 9 405,720 208,000 0 613,720


Dadin Kowa 4 57,960 52,000 0 109,960

Masache 3 63,480 78,000 0 141,480

Kwarakwara 16 231,840 156,000 0 387,840

Tami 17 184,960 130,000 0 314,960

Ungwan Madauchi 2 93,840 91,000 0 184,840

Birnin Yero 30 554,720 286,000 0 840,720

Total 100 1,592,520 1,001,000 218,400 2,811,920

LOT S1


FOR FARM LANDS

COMPENSATION FOR

ECONOMIC TREE

TOTAL

Takanai 4 226,320 104,000 330,320

Sako 7 532,680 78,000 610,680

Total 11 759,000 182,000 941,000

LOT S2


FOR FARM LANDS

COMPENSATION FOR

ECONOMIC TREE

TOTAL

Kudiri Kagarko 1 480,240 624,000 1,104,240

Kushe 1 13 215,280.00 195,000 410,280

Kushe II 6 215,280.00 156,000 371,280

Gora Kachia 1 82,800.00 78,000 160,800

Total 21 993,600 975,000 2,046,600

Attached at Annex 1 is a detailed list of cost compensation for individual PAPs.

CHAPTER SIX


6.0 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT AND RESPONSIBILITIES

6.1 Overview of Institutional Responsibilities

A key element of any resettlement plan implementation and management is the

appropriate institutional framework that will ensure the timely establishment and

functioning of the team or agency mandated to implement the plan.

The major institutions that are involved in the Resettlement process are the Kaduna Rural

Access and Mobility project (KADRAMP), the World Bank, Local NGOs/CBOs and the ARAP

Implementation Team (AIT) which comprises:

• The RAMP Project Coordinator , SPIU

• The Development Communication Officer, SPIU

• SPIU M&E officer

• SPIU Environmental and Social Officer

• SPIU Legal Adviser (Ministry of Justice)

• Representative of the Project Financial Management Unit

• Representative of Kaduna State Ministry of Lands, Survey and Country Planning.

Four local NGOs (one for each of Lot) with experience in social and sustainable

development programs are proposed to be recruited by AIT to assist in implementing this

ARAP and to help in assuring the social acceptability and sustainability of the programs.

The RAMP EMP Lead will facilitate the training of the NGOs on resettlement policy and

practices. They will be locally based and have sufficient manpower and leadership.

These NGOs will:

• Counsel the Project Affected Persons;

• Encourage productive utilization of compensation packages;

• Assist the PAPs to organize CBOs and cooperatives who can represent the PAPs during any negotiations and grievance hearings

6.2 Institutional Arrangement

The roles and responsibilities of the institutions regarding Resettlement Implementation

and Grievance redress are as per Table 6.1.

Table 6.1: Institutional Arrangement and Responsibilities for ARAP

S/No Stakeholders/

Institutions

Responsibilities

1 KADRAMP • Establishment of Local Resettlement Committee (LRC).

• Ensuring that the project conforms to World Bank safeguard policies, including implementation of the Abbreviated Resettlement Action Plan (ARAP), as required.

• Engaging the services of contractors and consultants to carryout preparation and implementation of ARAP and subsequent engaging the service of external monitors for the ARAP implementation.

• Approval of payments to consultants for ARAP activities carried out under the project.

• Internal monitoring and evaluation of ARAP activities.


• Preparation of quarterly and annual progress reports on ARAP implementation.

• Submission of Reports to KADRAMP, and World Bank for review.

2 World Bank • Overall responsibility of ensuring that the OP 4.12 is complied with in the ARAP.

• Responsible for the final review, clearance and approval of the ARAP.

3 Monitoring and Evaluation Officer from the KADRAMP

• Ensure that there are sufficient resources (time, money and people) to supervise the implementation of compensation

• Ensure that any changes during implementation process that have significant

environmental or social impact are communicated to the KADRAMP in time and advice

on actions to be taken and costs involved.

• Ensure that the SPIU is sufficiently informed on monitoring results.

4 Local Resettlement Committees (LRCs)

• Being responsible for guiding compensation and resettlement activities in Local areas.

• Form a survey team to carry out Detailed Measurement Survey (DMS) for affected PAPs and assets; finalize DMS and Entitlement forms for each PAP.

• Checking the unit prices of compensation as used in RP, suggestions for adjusting the unit prices in conformation with market prices/replacement costs (if required) to Project Implementation Unit for approval.

• In co-ordination with KADRAMP, organize meetings with PAPs, communal authorities disseminate copies of Resettlement Information Booklet (RIB) and entitlement forms.

• Based on the policy and proposed process/mechanism in ARAP, the LRCs prepare the detailed implementation plan (quarterly) and the together with KADRAMP pay entitlements to PAPs and implement for other activities in a timely manner.

• Settling the complaints and grievances raised by complainants and suggest solutions for the outstanding issues to responsible institutions for improving of the ARAP implementation.

• Organize seminars to disseminate the ARAP report to relevant stakeholders, communities, etc.

• Assisting local people in overcoming the difficulties during the implementation period.

5 Project Affected Persons (PAPs)

• Giving their own opinions and, or support on alternative project designs during Focused Group Discussion,

• Support Community- based developmental project.

6.3 Grievances and Appeals Procedure

The objectives of the grievance and disputes settlement mechanism are to:

• prevent the resort to adhoc self-help steps and violence on the part of the

affected local population as a means of resolving grievances/disputes arising

from implementation of the ARAP and the project in general;

• provide an accessible platform and simple procedures for the effective and

peaceful settlements of grievances and disputes in the implementation of the

ARAP;

• avoid as much as possible the need to have recourse to litigation and or

external intervention in the settlement of grievance/disputes; and

• to accomplish a speedy, inexpensive and mutually satisfactory resolution of

disputes.

6.4 Likely Grievances and Disputes

Drawing from documented types of dispute in the environment, interaction in relation to

characteristics of the study area, grievances and dispute may emanate from any of the

following circumstances:


• Disagreements/complaints over identification of lands, structures and other

resources eligible for compensation;

• Disagreements/complaints over/on plan to pay cash compensation based on the

Kaduna State Government rates;

• Disagreements/complaints regarding the compensation entitlements of non-

indigenous population of the project area;

• Disagreements/complaints over under-payments by officials administering

compensation money payment or cost of relocation.

• Disagreements/complaints over misapplication/administration of compensation

money; and

• Disagreements/complaints relating to project’s employment, training and

recruitment policies and procedures.

6.5 Grievance Redress Mechanisms

A Grievance Redress Committee will be set up by KADRAMP to address complaints from

ARAP implementation. This committee will be directly under the KADRAMP-SPIU and its

members will include legal and accounts representatives of KADRAMP, and the legal expert

from the ministry shall be the secretary. The functions of the Grievance Redress

Committee are:

• Provide support to PAPs on problems arising from loss of private properties and

business area.

• Record the grievance of the PAPs, categorize and prioritize the grievances that

need to be resolved by the committee; and

• Report to the aggrieved parties about the developments regarding their

grievances and the decision of the project authorities.

The main objective of this procedure will be to provide a mechanism to mediate conflict

and cut down on lengthy litigation, which often delays such infrastructural projects. It will

also provide people who might have objections or concerns about their assistance, a public

forum to raise their objections and through conflict resolution, address these issues

adequately.

Mechanisms for disputes resolution can be broadly categorized as formal and informal. The

formal method is adjucatory, while the informal method involves the settlement of

disputes by simple and amicable/interactive means. The ARAP proposes to adopt the

informal mechanism for the resolution of all grievances and disputes.

6.5.1 Informal Grievance and Dispute Resolution Method

The ARAP informal grievance and dispute resolution method will revolve around the

mediation and conciliation procedures. These processes and procedures are suitable to the

project area rural population. Given their literacy level, the simplicity and transparency of

these procedures will serve them well.

6.5.2 The Complaint Procedure

The complaint procedure shall be simple, open and transparent. There shall be simple

complaint/grievance forms for use in recording and documenting complaints from

complainants. In all cases, the grievance form shall contain the details about the

complainant, the nature of complain, department/authority of the person against whom


the complaint/grievance is made, the remedy/correction sought, the time-frame and the

officer/unit responsible for the resolution of the dispute.

Complaints, which may be oral or written can be made or forwarded to the Projects

Grievance Resolution Officer through the Community Liaison Officer (CLO). Where an

illiterate complainant makes an oral complaint, the CLO shall record same in writing into

the complaint form and explain same to the understanding of the complainant before

forwarding the form to the Project’s Grievance Resolution Officer or other appropriate

officer(s)/departments/committee responsible for the resolution of the

complaint/dispute.

The Project Grievance Resolution Officer shall upon receipt of any complaint invite the

complainant, listen and interact amicably with the complainant and arrive at an honest

and reasonable resolution of the grievance/disputes if the dispute falls within the scope of

his authority.

Where the Grievance Resolution Officer is unable to resolve the dispute or where the

complaint is beyond his scope of authority, he shall immediately refer the complaint to

the Project Development Communication Officer who shall hear and address the

complaint or resolve the dispute.

6.5.3 Formal Methods of Grievance Resolution

It is hoped that most disputes will be amicably resolved through the informal process for

dispute resolution. In the event that the informal process is unable to resolve a particular

dispute for whatever reason, the complainant can make use of the formal methods of

dispute resolution as provided below:

(1) First Order Mechanism

This level deals essentially with written complaints/petitions addressed to the Project’s

Development Communication Officer, either by the Project Grievance Resolution Officer

or by a complainant who is not satisfied with the decision of the Project Grievance

Resolution Officer.

Where such formal complaints are received, the Project’s Development Communication

Officer shall, after evaluating the facts and supporting evidence on the complaint respond

promptly and appropriately in not more than one week from the date when the

complaint/dispute was first received.

In the event that the Projects Development Communication Officer considers a dispute to

be complex or potentially sensitive, he shall not hesitate to seek the immediate assistance

and intervention of traditional leadership, respected/responsible community members, or

the local government council to resolve the complaint/dispute.

Where the complaint borders on monetary or other claims that require the approval or

ratification of the Project Management, the Development Communication Officer shall

promptly seek for approval.

(2) Second Order Mechanism

Complaints/disputes that cannot be successfully settled by the Development

Communication Officer, at the first order process, may be referred to the Second Order

mechanism for resolution. The Second Order mechanism requires the establishment of a

RAMP project Grievance/Disputes Resolution Committee, saddled with the responsibility of


mediating and resolving all complaints/disputes formally referred to it. The Committee

shall comprise the following persons:

a) 2 representative of Kaduna State Government (SPIU top management staff)

b) 1 representative from each of the host communities

c) 2 representatives from the Farmers union (if available)

d) 3 representatives of women

e) 1 representative of the non-indigenous population

f) 1 representative from the Local Government Councils

g) 1 representative from NGO community

h) 1 representative each of the contractors and

i) 1 representative of the consultant

j) 1 representative of Kaduna State Ministry of Lands, Survey and Country Planning.

The committee will provide ample opportunity to redress complaints informally, in

addition to the existing formal administrative and legal procedures. However, the major

grievances that might require mitigation include:

• PAPs not listed;

• Losses not identified correctly;

• Inadequate assistance;

• Dispute about ownership;

• Delay in disbursement of assistance and improper distribution of assistance.

Recommendations made by this Committee for the resolution of complaints/disputes shall

be accepted and promptly implemented by the project proponent.

(3) Third Order Mechanism

This involves the reference of a complaint/dispute to the courts for judicial resolution. An

aggrieved person who is not satisfied with decision of the Project’s Disputes Resolution

Committee may proceed to a court of competent jurisdiction for resolution. Where

litigation is pending, the Project shall suspend the processing of claims or consideration of

any issue relating to claims before the court until the matter is finally disposed off.

The ARAP shall at all times prefer the resolution of disputes using all other methods and

recourse to the court shall be only after the exhaustion of all the informal mechanisms.


CHAPTER SEVEN

7.0 MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) are standard requirements of any management plan

including Resettlement Action Plans. Monitoring is an on-going activity to track project

progress against planned tasks. It is essentially used to provide regular oversight of the

implementation of an activity in terms of input delivery, work schedules, targeted

outputs, etc. through routine data gathering, analysis and reporting.

The WB’s safeguard policy (OP 4.12) states that the project sponsor is responsible for

adequate Monitoring &Evaluation (M&E) of the activities set forth in the resettlement

plan. Monitoring will provide both a warning system for the project sponsor and a channel

for the affected persons to make known their needs and their reactions to resettlement

execution.

The implementation of the ARAP will be regularly supervised and monitored by the

Monitoring and Evaluation officer in coordination with the Environmental and Social

Development Officer.

The M&E activities and programs should be adequately funded and staffed. In-house

monitoring may need to be supplemented by independent external monitors to ensure

complete and objective information.

The objectives of the ARAP monitoring activities are to:

• Ensure that actions and commitments described in the ARAP are completed in a

timely and efficient manner;

• Confirm that eligible PAPs receive their compensation entitlements in full and

within agreed timeframes;

• Monitor effectiveness of completed actions in enhancing or restoring affected

peoples’ living standards and income levels;

• Check that any grievances expressed by PAP are followed through and that,

where necessary, appropriate corrective action is implemented;

A Three tier monitoring framework is recommended for the KADRAMP ARAP Project, these

are:

• Field Level Monitoring by field social and livelihoods facilitators

• Internal Monitoring undertaken by KADRAMP SPIU


• External monitoring by a third party independent resettlement specialist

and/or a local NGO supported by KADRAMP SPIU.

The three components of the monitoring plan are: Performance Monitoring, Impact

Monitoring and Completion Audit. Each type of monitoring will require the use of suitable

indicators.

a) Performance monitoring Indicators will include:

• Timely disbursement of compensation;

• Appropriate disbursement of compensation to eligible persons and communities

• Accurate quantum of disbursement to eligible persons and communities

b) Impact monitoring indicators will include:

• Short, medium and long term benefits of the resettlement activities.

• Short, medium and long term changes in livelihood and income of persons and

communities receiving compensation packages

• Sustainability of compensation and enhancement packages.

c) The completion audit ideally should be conducted by a suitably qualified external

consultant, the purpose of which is essentially to determine if the proponents efforts to

restore the living standards of affected people has been well conceived and executed.

7.1 Implementation Schedule

The timetable for the implementation of the Abbreviated Resettlement Action Plan is

presented in Table 7.1. It is expected that the implementation of the ARAP programme

will be completed by October 2011 to permit for commencement of construction work in

November 2011.

Table 7.1 : Timetable for Abbreviated Resettlement Action Plan

ROAD PROJECT CYCLE

PHASE ACTIVITIES DATE RESPONSIBILITIES

PLANNING

Scoping and

Screening

� Initial site visit & consultations.

� Identification of Resettlement and Social issues

� Application of safeguard policies

� Categorization

� Action plan

� Screening Report

� WB No-Objection

December 2010

Consultant; Supervision by KADRAMP- SPIU

Preparation of ARAP

and consultations

� Draft ARAP

� Consultations

� WB No-Objection

May 2011 Consultant; Supervision by KADRAMP -SPIU

Disclosure � Disclosure of ARAP locally & to WB Info Shop

October 2011 KADRAMP –SPIU

World Bank

DESIGN

Finalization and

Incorporation

� Final version of ARAP

� Incorporation of ARAP into contract documents

� WB No-Objection

October/ November 2011

Consultant; Supervision by

KADRAMP –SPIU


EXECUTION Implementation and monitoring

Construction Work

� Implementation

� Monitoring & reporting on environmental and social mitigation measures

� Monitoring and reporting of Resettlement and livelihood issues

November 2011

November ‘11

November ‘11

Contractors Supervision by KADRAMP -SPIU/ M&E and the community

OPERATIONS (POST-IMPLEMENTATION)

Operations and maintenance

� Maintenance

� Monitoring and reporting of Resettlement and social livelihood issues

Contractors Supervision by KADRAMP-SPIU/ and the community

7.2 Capacity and Training Needs

Based on the assessment of the institutional capacities of the KADRAMP for the

implementation of the ARAP, it is recommended that KADRAMP Contract technical

assistance to provide training and operational support to the project implementation unit

(SPIU) and other agencies involved in the ARAP implementation. The training needs are

identified as per Table 7.2.

Table 7.2: Recommended Training and Awareness

Item Description Course Content Target Estimated Amount(N)

Involuntary Resettlement and Rehabilitation

1. Principles of Resettlement Action Plan

2. Monitoring & Evaluation of ARAP Implementation

3. Conflict Management and Resolution in ARAP

1. SPIU-KADRAMP 2. Conflict

redress/management committee members

700,000 Training & Awareness

Sensitization and Awareness on ARAP process

3. Community representative officers

4. SPIU-KADRAMP Officer

350,000

Sub-Total 1,050,000


CHAPTER EIGHT

8.0 PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

8.1 Introduction

Consultation is defined by the World Bank (1996) as ‘the soliciting of people’s views on a

proposed action and engaging them in a dialogue.’ It is an interactive Two-Way flow of

information, ideas and opinions between stakeholders and project proponent. It is

pertinent as a process of informing the community of the need for sitting a project in their

domain, the scope and the need for the community to own and safeguard the project as

beneficiaries and stakeholders. It also affords an opportunity for input and feedback

information, aimed at strengthening the development project and avoiding negative

impacts or mitigating them where they cannot be avoided.

Therefore, the consultation process and outcome was seen by the consultant as both an

early and mandatory exercise in terms of the objective of project sustainability and as the

best strategy to achieving the overall scope of the activities of the project.

8.2 Consultation Objective

Key objectives of the consultations held during the socio-economic survey:

• To provide information/explanations on the proposed project activities

• To seek participation of the host communities

• To identify stakeholder interests and concerns

• To create avenues for addressing stakeholders concerns and integrating them into

the project design, operations and management

• To enhance the project by learning from the expertise and experience of

individuals, professionals, communities and organizations within the project area.

8.3 Consultation Strategy

The Public Consultation process for the project began during the early stage of

reconnaissance level-survey. The consultant had familiarization meetings with the

proponent and the various stakeholders including the project communities. The consultant

also received assistance of the KADRAMP with the provision of its staff which enhanced


locating the project communities and interaction with the leaders and potential project

affected persons (PAPs).

8.4 Overview of Public Consultations programme

8.4.1 LOT N1

A familiarization visitation was made between December 5th and 7th to the various

institutions and concerned stakeholders and the community leaders, and the outcome

was:

• Scheduling of meeting dates which was to incorporate a larger audience from the

various stakeholders.

• Organization of locations for the public consultations

• Awareness creation on the intention to carry on a census of all affected property

and persons.

The second–level of the public consultation held at various project areas including Ungwan

Liman, Madaka, Ungwan Kanawa, Doka, Ungwan Danbaba, Dudunbus and Gangara. These

are the locations where ARAP activities were anticipated. Concerns and queries raised

across the areas were the same, indicating the homogenous characteristics of the project

area and of the effects of the rehabilitation work.

Figure 8. 1: Consultation & Interviews with Elders and Community Heads at Dundubus

Table 8.1 below is the list of attendance at the public consultations in Lot N1.

Table 8.1: List of Participants at the Public Consultation in Lot N1


Figure 8. 2: Sections of Youths during a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) at Mainasara and Doka respectively

8.4.2 LOT N2

A familiarization visitation was made to the various institutions and concerned

stakeholders and the community leaders.

The second –level of the public consultation held at various project areas including

Angwan kadi, Labar, Dadin Kowa, Masache, Kwarakwara, Tami, Ungwan Madauchi and

Birnin Yero. These are the locations where ARAP activities were anticipated.

S/N NAMES LOCATION

1 Ayuba Saidu (Mai-Ungwa) Madaka

2 Umaru Salis Madaka

3 Ishaya Danbawa (Mai-Ungwa) Ung. Kanawa

4 Yohana Danbawa Ung. Kanawa

5 Magaji Danbawa Ung. Kanawa

6 Iliya Kasim Ung. Kanawa

7 Alhaji Maigwalasa (Village Head) Gangara Maigwalasa

8 Abubakar Suleiman (Sarki) Gangara

9 Abdulkadir Sani Gangara

10 Bala Muhammed Doka

11 Samaila Ibrahim Doka

12 Audu Bako Doka

13 Baba Yalwa Kazuga Doka

14 Ibrahim Yalwa Doka

15 Tsalha Gambo Doka

16 Alh. Rabiu Hussaini Doka

17 Liman Yakubu Doka

18 Abdulkadir Dangude Doka

19 Musa Alhassan Doka

20 Yusufu Umaru Ungwan Danbaba

21 Liman Muhammadu Ungwan Danbaba

22 Shuaibu Adamu Ungwan Danbaba

23 Labaran Auwal (Youth Leader) Mainasara

24 Ibrahim Auwal Mainasara

25 Balarabe Jaafaru Ungwan Liman

26 Babangida Sarkin Loadi Ungwan Liman

27 Alh. Bello Tanimu Ungwan Liman

28 Alh. Garba Tanimu Ungwan Liman


Concerns and queries raised across the areas were the same, indicating the homogenous

characteristics of the project area and of the effects of the rehabilitation work.

Figure 8. 3: Consultation with women in Kwarakwara and Children returning from farm

Figure 8. 4: Identified major source of enterprise empowerment for the women folk in Tami

Figure 8. 5: Consultation with the women and youths selling refreshments in Tami after the days work


Figure 8. 6: Consultation with PAPs and Community Head at Birnin Yero

The list of attendance at the public consultations is found in Table 8.2 below.

Table 8.2: List of Participants at the Public Consultation in Lot N2

S/N NAMES LOCATION

1. Shugaba Diyo lawal Angwan Kadi

2. Maitaimakiya Binta Ahmadu Angwan Kadi

3. Ma’aji Hafsatu Usman Angwan Kadi

4. Aishatu Sale Angwan Kadi

5. Bakisu Muhammad Angwan Kadi

6. Hajjana Lawal Angwan Kadi

7. Ladi Musa Angwan Kadi

8. Fatamah Yakubo Angwan Kadi

9. Hajiya Marka Angwan Kadi

10. Rabi Isiya Angwan Kadi

11. Sarki Kasuwa Umaru Muhammadu Angwan Kadi

12. Ibrahim Dandama Angwan Kadi

13. Lawal Sule Angwan Kadi

14. Abdullahi Usman Angwan Kadi

15. Ya’u Idris Angwan Kadi

16. Sale Abdullahi Angwan Kadi

17. Abubakar Yahaya Angwan Kadi

18. Abubakar Yusuf Angwan Kadi

19. Sale Dalwa Angwan Kadi

20. Yuguda Abdulkadir Labar

21. Abdulaziz Abdulkadir Labar

22. Danasabe Abdulkadir Labar

23. Rufai Muazu Dikko Labar

24. Mal. Umaru Yusuf Labar

25. Idris Haruna Labar

26. Alh. Wada Dalhatu Labar

27. Abubakar Tijjani Labar

28. Sanusi ijjani Labar

29. Alh. Sanai Musa Dadin – Kowa

30. Alh. Rabiu Ibrahim Dadin – Kowa

31. Mamman Tanimu (Tsoho) Dadin – Kowa

32. Alh. Lawal Ibrahim Dadin – Kowa

33. Alh. Musa Saidu Masache

34. Yahaya Saidu Masache


35. Abubakar Ibrahim Masache

36. Aminu Abubakar Kwarakwara

37. Inuwa Mohammed Kwarakwara

38. Abdulkarim Idris Kwarakwara

39. Aliyu Abdullahi Kwarakwara

40. Lawal Saidu Kwarakwara

41. Haruna Saidu Kwarakwara

42. Bashir Ibrahim Kwarakwara

43. Yau Dankurma Tami

44. Marafa Aliyu Tami

45. Khalamu Musa Tami

46. Dantala Abdulhamid Adamu Tami

47. Ibrahim Abdullahi Tami

48. Muaru Ahmadu Tami

49. Sanusi Suleiman Ungwan Madauchi

50. Aminu Suleiman Ungwan Madauchi

51. Mal. Yayo Birnin Yero

52. Alh. Iliyasu Birnin Yero

53. Mal. Muazu Birnin Yero

54. Aliyu Shuaibu Birnin Yero

55. Shuaibu Muhammad Birnin Yero

56. Auwal Abdullahi Birnin Yero

57. Hudu Umar Birnin Yero

58. Alh. Musa Birnin Yero

59. Urwatu Musa Birnin Yero

60. Maniru Gambo Birnin Yero

Figure 8. 7: Consultation with Community Heads at Tami and Kwarakwara respectively

They following concerns were raised:

• That the government should inform PAPs on time when the

road project operation will take place to enable them remove

their farm produce and market wares as applicable;

• That the project authority should ensure that compensation

benefits reach the actual PAPs.

Recommended Action: It is recommended as follows:

• That a workable time be given to PAPs for early

evacuation of assets/belongings,


• That a notification board indicating the period of

work on each phase of the road is provided by the

contractor,

• That the resettlement committee should ensure

transparency in dispensing compensation benefits,

and

• That contractor should show professional standards

and social responsibility during road rehabilitation by

providing temporary access way so that communities

and commuters are not hindered from going about

their normal businesses.

• That contractor should put in place appropriate

safeguard measures and signal words to prevent

public intrusion into construction work areas.

• That site specific Environmental Management Plan is

prepared by the contractors to mitigate

environmental impacts.

It is noteworthy that all the recommended actions were based on decisions

reached between the project team, PAPs and the representatives of the

communities. Some of the concerns which were outside of the competencies of the

project were well explained at the public consultation.

Significantly the proposed project is envisaged by respondents to have positive

potential to significantly improve the quality of transportation services and

efficiency in the area with attendant socio- environmental benefits such as:

• Reduced travel times

• Reduction in man-hour loss due to poor motorable road ;

• Improvement in micro and macro economy;

• Improved public mass transportation along the corridor; and

• Job creation and reduction in unemployment which in turn will reduce social strife in the States.

8.4.3 LOT S1



The second –level of the public consultation held at various project areas including

Takanai and Sako. These are the locations where ARAP activities were anticipated.


Figure 8. 8: Consultation with the PAPs at Sako and Takanai


Table 8.3: List of Participants at the Public Consultation in Lot S1

S/N NAMES LOCATION

1 Irimiya Gora Takanai

2 John Takanai

3 Sheyin Takanai

4 David Takanai

5 Hosea Auta Sako

6 Rekita Aboi Sako

7 Zango Dogo Sako

8 Tinat Akau Sako

9 Donatus H. Usman Sako

10 Timothy Yohanna Sako

11 Dominic Kafai Sako

8.4.4 LOT S2



The second –level of the public consultation held at various project areas including Kudiri

Kagarko, Kushe 1, Kushe II and Gora Kachia; the locations where resettlement is

anticipated.



Figure 8. 9: Lot S 2 Kushe 1 & 11 Community women, youths and men commuting to the market.

Table 8.4: List of Participants at the Public Consultation in Lot S2

Figure 8. 10: Consultation with the PAPs at kushe I and Community Head at Kushe II

S/N NAMES LOCATION

1 Audu Abubakar (Village Head) Kudiri Kagarko

2 Sani Maimadara Kushe 1

3 Alh. Adamu Idrisu Kushe 1

4 Alh. Aminu Suleiman Kushe 1

5 Liman Suleiman Abubakar Kushe 1

6 Shaffiu Audu Kushe 1

7 Yakubu Goma Kushe 1

8 Musa Kogi Kushe 1

9 Dauda Kundi Kushe 1

10 Sani Kundi Kushe 1

11 Bashir Umar Kushe 1

12 Salihu Ibrahim Kushe 1

13 Isa Maikifi Kushe 1

14 Saleh Saleh Kushe 1

15 Abba Brother Kushe II

16 Sani Maichibi Kushe II

17 Ladan Waziri Kushe II

18 Dankarami (Sarki) Kushe II

19 Suleiman Kaura Kushe II

20 Maikanti Kaura Kushe II

21 Hajiya Hadiza Gora Kachia


Figure 8. 11: Consultation with Kushe 11 women in Lot S2

CHAPTER NINE

9.0 CONCLUSION

Upon social considerations, forty (40) rural feeder roads were selected for rehabilitation

under the Rural Access and Mobility Project (RAMP) road project. These roads, with a

total length of 427 km, are located in the rural areas of the Northern and Southern Parts

of Kaduna depicted as Lots N1, N2, S1 and S2.

In line with the World Bank Safeguard Policy O.P 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement, this

Abbreviated Resettlement Action Plan is drawn up to address the impacts of this project

on persons and assets within the identified locations.


One hundred and ninety five (195) persons were identified as Project Affected persons

during the survey. The various heads and representatives of each community were

consulted and focus group discussions held with affected persons.

The foremost affected assets are extension of farmlands within the Right of Way and

economic trees. The other loss, though minimal, is loss of income to market men and

women due to limited access to market during the construction phase of project. It is

established that there will be no physical displacement of households or structures.

The PAPs are predominantly males and this is linked to the fact that the major affected

assets are farmlands and the tradition in the communities is that farmlands are owned by

the head of families who in this case were all identified as fathers or sons.

Amongst the PAPs are also ten (11) females, of which ten (10) are market women and fall

within the Loss of Income group and one (1) female will be compensated for loss of

economic tree.

After the valuation of lost income and assets, the total indicative budget for the ARAP

implementation amounts to Twenty One million, Eight Hundred and Ninety-two Thousand,

Thirty-Six Naira, Seventy-Six Kobo Only (N 21, 892,036.76).

Timely implementation of the ARAP will restore the values of lost assets to the PAPs and

kick start the rehabilitation works. It will also create synergy between the communities

and agricultural sectors of the state in improving the Livelihood of the PAPs and

community.

The rural road rehabilitation exercise exerts a positive impact on the communities

including women and children who need good access roads to markets, other communities,

schools and service health centers.

The proposed project is envisaged by respondents to have positive potential to

significantly improve the quality of transportation services and efficiency in the area with

attendant socio- environmental benefits such as reduced travel times, reduction in man-

hour loss due to poor motorable road; Improvement in micro and macro economy;

Improved public mass transportation along the corridor; and Job creation and reduction in

unemployment which in turn will reduce social strife in the States.

REFERENCES

Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) for the Rural Access and Mobility

Project (RAMP), Phase 1. World Bank 2006

Land Use Act (1978), Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) (2008): for Rural Access and Mobility Project Phase

1 Kaduna State

World Bank (2000), Resettlement and Rehabilitation Guidebook, Washington DC

Canter, L. W. (1996): Environmental Impact Assessment. Second Edition, New York, USA:

McGraw Hill.


Carney, D. (1998). Implementing the Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Approach, London, UK:

Overseas Development Institute.

E&P Forum/UNEP (1996): Environmental Management in oil and gas exploration and

production. An overview of issues and management approaches, Oxford, UK.

EnvironQuest (2008) Emergency Infrastructure Project Supplemental Component (EIP-SC)

Urban Works Rehabilitation and Resettlement Action Plan

Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette (2007) Legal Notice on Publication of the

details of the breakdown of the National and State Provisional Totals, National Population

Commission 2006 Census, No. 24, Vol. 94, Lagos-15th May, 2007.

FME (Federal Ministry of Environment) (1991): National Guidelines and Standards for

Industrial Effluents, Gaseous Emissions and Hazardous Wastes Management in Nigeria.

Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) (2008) for Rural Access and

Mobility Project Phase 1 Kaduna State

SIEP (2000): Social Impact Assessment Guidelines, HSE Manual, Volume 3. Hazards and

Effects Management Tools and Techniques, Shell International Exploration and Production

B.V. The Hague.

The World Bank Participation Handbook, The World Bank, Washington DC.

World Bank Operational Manual 2001, Annex A OP 401 and 412.

MBANI Development (2011) – Baseline Study for Social and Poverty Impact of OPRC Roads

in Kaduna State.

ANNEXES

Annex 1: Register of Project Affected People (PAPs)

LOT N1

Code No Name of PAP Location Farm Land (FL) Economic Tree (ET) Total

Dimension (D) Value of Farm Land (D* 40)

No Affected

Annual Yield per Tree

Replanting & Nursery per Tree ET Amount

Compensation Per PAP

Pictures

R1201 Umaru Salis 3,000 120,000 4 10,000 3,000 52,000 172,000

R1202 Ayuba Saidu Madaka 2,658 106,320 2 10,000 3,000 26,000 132,320

Sub-Total Madaka 226,320 6 78,000

R1203 Iliya Kasim 1,000 40,000 4 10,000 3,000 52,000 92,000

R1204 Ishaya Danbawa 1,000 40,000 1 10,000 3,000 13000 53,000

R1205 Yohana Danbawa 1,485 59,400 3 10,000 3,000 39,000 98,400

R1206 Magaji Danbawa

Ungwa Kanawa

1,000 40,000 1 10,000 3,000 13000 53,000

Sub-Total Ungwa Kanawa 4,485 179,400 9 117,000

R12607 Abubakar Suleiman 3121 124,840 4 10,000 3,000 52,000 176,840

R12608 Abdulkadir Sani

Gangara

3,020 120,800 8 10,000 3,000 104,000 224,800


R12609 Alh. Abubakar Suleiman 3,867.19 154,687.60

5 10,000.00 15,000.00

65,000.00 219,687.60

R12610 Alh. Shuaibu A'ba 1,518.75 60,750.00

3 10,000.00 9,000.00

39,000.00 99,750.00

R12611 Alh. Isa Mai Aljana 1,307.81 52,312.40

3 10,000.00 9,000.00

39,000.00 91,312.40

R12612 Ahmed Suleiman 843.75 33,750.00

1 10,000.00 3,000.00

13,000.00 46,750.00

R12613 Ado Dan Koli 703.13 28,125.20

1 10,000.00 3,000.00

13,000.00 41,125.20

R12614 Dan Iya Kurma 1,898.44 75,937.60

3 10,000.00 9,000.00

39,000.00 114,937.60

R12615 Alh. Yahuza Idigi 646.88 25,875.20

1 10,000.00 3,000.00

13,000.00 38,875.20

R12616 Bature Dangote 956.25 38,250.00

1 10,000.00 3,000.00

13,000.00 51,250.00

R12617 Aliyu Idris 253.13 10,125.20

1 10,000.00 3,000.00

13,000.00 23,125.20

R12618 Tukur Uban Samari

1,476.56 59,062.40

2 10,000.00 6,000.00

26,000.00 85,062.40


R12619 Saadu Ali Fari 1,926.56 77,062.40

3 10,000.00 9,000.00

39,000.00 116,062.40

R12620 Bature Dangote 2,109.38 84,375.20

4 10,000.00 12,000.00

52,000.00 136,375.20

R12621 Animal Track 660.94 26,437.60 1 10,000.00

3,000.00

13,000.00

39,437.60

R12622 Alh. Auta Agidan 829.69 33,187.60

1 10,000.00 3,000.00

13,000.00 46,187.60

R12623 Sani Ahmadu Mai Makani 604.69 24,187.60

1 10,000.00 3,000.00

13,000.00 37,187.60

R12624 Dayabu Maikifi 984.38 39,375.20

1 10,000.00 3,000.00

13,000.00 52,375.20

R12625 Usman Safiyanu 1,659.38 66,375.20

3 10,000.00 9,000.00

39,000.00 105,375.20

R12626 Idris Mai dara Hamza

Gangara

984.38 39,375.20

1 10,000.00 3,000.00

13,000.00 52,375.20

Sub-Total Gangara 1,174,891.60 624,000

R12727 Balarabe Jafaaru 450 18,000 3 10,000 3,000 39,000 57,000

R12728 Babangida S. Loadi

Ungwa Liman

320 12,800 1 10,000 3,000 13000 25,800


R12729 Bello Tanimu 350 14,000 2 10,000 3,000 26,000 40,000

R12730 Garba Tanimu 250 10,000 2 10,000 3,000 23000 33,000

R12731 Yaro Tanimu 400 16,000 3 10,000 3,000 39000 55,000

R12732 Habibu Aliyu 300 12,000 3 10,000 3,000 39,000 51,000

R12733 Aiybo Garba 331 13,240 2 10,000 3,000 26,000 39,240

R12734 Tanimu Waziri

350

14,000 3 10,000 3,000 39,000 53,000

R12735 Lawal Aliyu 300 12,000 1 10,000 3,000 13000 25,000

R12736 Dogara Bello 400 16,000 2 10,000 3,000 26000 42,000

R12737 Bashari Aliyu

350 14,000 2 10,000 3,000 26000 40,000


R12738 Idi Tanimu 370 14,800 3 10,000 3,000 39,000 14,800

R12739 Garba Tanimu 300 12,000 4 10,000 3,000 52,000 64,000

R12740 Audu Aliyu 350 14,000 1 10,000 3,000 13000 27,000

R12741 Jibrin Ibrahim

359 14,360 3 10,000 3,000 39000 53,360

R12742 Saleh Aliyu 300 12,000 2 10,000 3,000 26,000 36,000

R12743 Haruna Aliyu 400 16,000 1 10,000 3,000 13,000 29,000

R12744 Suleiman Suleiman 300 12,000 1 10,000 3,000 13,000 25,000

R12745 Dauda Adamu 420 16,800 2 10,000 3,000 26,000 42,800

R12746 Lukeman Suleiman

300 12,000 2 10,000 3,000 26,000 28,000

Sub-Total Ungwa Liman 276,000 43 413,000


R12747 Bala Mohammed 600 24,000 1 10,000 3,000 13,000 27,000

R12748 Samaila Ibrahim 700 28,000 NA NA NA 0 28,000

R12749 Audu Bako 600 24,000 NA NA NA 0 24,000

R12750 Baba Yalwa Kazuga 500 20,000 1 10,000 3,000 13,000 33,000

R12751 Ibrahim Yalwa 900 36,000 NA NA NA 0 36,000

R12752 Tsalha Gambo 650 26,000 NA NA NA 0 26,000

R12753 Rabiu Hussaini 943 37,720 NA NA NA 0 37,720

R12754 Liman Yakubu 400 16,000 1 10,000 3,000 13,000 29,000

R12755 Abdulkadir Dangude

Doka

550 22,000 NA NA NA 0 22,000


R12756 Musa Alhassan

850 34,000 1 10,000 3,000 13,000 43,000

Sub-Total 267,720 4 52,000

R12757 Adamu Yau 600 24,000 2 10,000 3,000 26,000 50,000

R12758 Yusufu Umaru

Ungwan Danbaba

400 16,000 2 10,000 3,000 26,000 36,000

R12759 Liman Muhammadu 550 22,000 3 10,000 3,000 39,000 61,000

R12760 Shuaibu Adamu 450 18,000 3 10,000 3,000 39,000 57,000

R12761 Kasimu Nuhu 600 24,000 4 10,000 3,000 52,000 76,000

R12762 Tukur Abdullahi 940 37,600 2 10,000 3,000 26,000 63,600

R12763 Ayuba Musa

600 24,000 2 10,000 3,000 26,000 50,000

Sub Total 165,600 18 234,000

Total 2,410,680


LOT N2

Code No Name of PAP Location Farm Land (FL) Economic Tree (ET)/ Income Loss Total

Dimension (D) Value of Farm Land (D* 40)

No Affected


Replanting & Nursery per Tree

ET / Income loss Amount


Pictures

R2.5L-01 Shugaba Diyo lawal 0 0 0 0 0 16,800 16,800

R2.5-L02 Maitaimakiya Binta Ahmadu 0 0 0 0 0

16,800 16,800

R2.5-L03 Ma’aji Hafsatu Usman 0 0 0 0 0 16,800 16,800

R2.5-L04 Aishatu Sale 0 0 0 0 0 16,800 16,800

R2.5-L05 Bakisu Muhammad 0 0 0 0 0 16,800 16,800

R2.5-L06 Hajjana Lawal 0 0 0 0 0 16,800 16,800

R2.5-L07 Ladi Musa 0 0 0 0 0 16,800 16,800

R2.5-L08 Fatamah Yakubo 0 0 0 0 0 16,800 16,800

R2.5-L09 Hajiya Marka 0 0 0 0 0 16,800 16,800

R2.5-L10 Rabi Isiya 0 0 0 0 0 16,800 16,800

R2.5-L11 Sarki Kasuwa Umaru Muhammadu 0 0 0 0 0

16,800 16,800

R2.5-L12 Ibrahim Dandama 0 0 0 0 0 16,800 16,800

R2.5-L13 Lawal Sule 0 0 0 0 0 16,800 16,800

R2.5-L14 Abdullahi Usman 0 0 0 0 0 16,800 16,800

R2.5-L15 Ya’u Idris 0 0 0 0 0 16,800 16,800

R2.5-L16 Sale Abdullahi 0 0 0 0 0 16,800 16,800

R2.5-L17 Abubakar Yahaya 0 0 0 0 0 16,800 16,800

R2.5-L18 Abubakar Yusuf 0 0 0 0 0 16,800 16,800

R2.5-L19 Sale Dalwa Angwan Kadi 0 0 0 0 0 16,800 16,800

Sub-Total Angwan Kadi 0 0 0 0 0 218,400

R2.5-01 Yuguda Abdulkadir 1,293 51,720 1 10,000 3,000 13,000 64,720

R2.5-02 Abdulaziz Abdulkadir

Labar

1,000 40,000 3 30,000 9,000 39,000 79,000


R2.5-03

Danasabe Abdulkadir 1,000 40,000 2 20,000 6,000 26,000 66,000

R2.5-04

Rufai Muazu Dikko 1,250 50,000 2 20,000 6,000 26,000 66,000

R2.5-05

Mal. Umaru Yusuf 1,000 40,000 2 20,000 6,000 26,000 66,000

R2.5-06

Idris Haruna 1,350 54,000 - N/A N/A N/A 54,000

R2.5-07

Alh. Wada Dalhatu 1,000 40,000 2 20,000 6,000 26,000 66,000

R2.5-08

Abubakar Tijjani 750 30,000 4 40,000 12,000 52,000 82,000

R2.5-09

Sanusi Tijjani

1,500 60,000 - N/A N/A N/A 60,000

Sub-Total Labar 10143 405,720 16 208,000

R2.5-DK01 Alh. Sanai Musa 449 17,960 - N/A N/A N/A 17,960

R2.5-DK02

Alh. Rabiu Ibrahim

350 14,000 3 30,000 9,000 39,000 53,000

R2.5-DK03

Mamman Tanimu

(Tsoho)

Dadin Kowa

450 18,000 - N/A N/A N/A 18,000


R2.5-DK04

Alh. Lawal Ibrahim

200 8,000 1 10,000 3,000 13,000 21,000

Sub-Total Dadin Kowa 1,449 57,960 4 52,000

R2.5-M01

Alh. Musa Saidu 600 24,000 1 10,000 3,000 13,000 37,000

R2.5-M02

Yahaya Saidu Masache 400 16,000 2 20,000 6,000 26,000 48,000

R2.5-M03

Abubakar Ibrahim

587 23,480 3 30,000 9,000 39,000 62,480

Sub-Total Masache 1587 63,480 6 78,000

R2.10-01 Aminu Abubakar 450

18,000.00 1 10,000 3,000 13,000 31,000

R2.10-02

Inuwa Mohammed 350

14,000.00 - NA NA NA 14,000

R2.10-03 Abdulkarim Idris 380

15,200.00 2 20,000 6,000 26,000 41,200

R2.10-04

Aliyu Abdullahi 400

16,000.00

NA

NA

NA 16,000

R2.10-05

Lawal Saidu

390

15,600.00

1 10,000 3,000 13,000 28,600

R2.10-06

Haruna Saidu

Kwarakwara

300

12,000.00 1 10,000 3,000 13,000 25,000


R2.10-07

Bashir Ibrahim

330

13,200.00

-

NA NA NA

13,200

R2.10-08

Hadi Shittu

420

16,800.00

-

NA NA NA

16,800

R2.10-09

Shuaibu Musa

350

14,000.00

1 10,000 3,000 13,000 27,000

R2.10-10

Nasiru Adamu

350

14,000.00

1 10,000 3,000 13,000 27,000

R2.10-11

Usman Adamu 346

13,840.00 2 20,000 6,000 26,000 39,840

R2.10-12

Yahaya Yusuf 410

16,400.00

-

NA NA NA

16,400

R2.10-13

Yunusa Samila 400

16,000.00

-

NA NA NA

16,000

R2.10-14

Aribi Musa 300

12,000.00 1 10,000 3,000 13,000 25,000

R2.10-15

Khalifa Garba 300

12,800.00 1 10,000 3,000 13,000 25,800

R2.10-16

Samaila Yunusa

300

12,000.00 1 10,000 3,000 13,000 25,000

Sub-Total Kwarakwara 5796 231,840.00 12 156,000

R2.10-T01 Yau Dankurma

300

12,000.00 NA

NA NA NA

12,000


R2.10-T02 Marafa Aliyu 220

8,800.00 2 20,000 6,000 26,000 34,800

R2.10-T03 Khalamu Musa 310

12,400.00 NA NA NA NA 12,400

R2.10-T04

Dantala Abdulhamid Adamu 450

18,000.00 NA

NA

NA

NA 18,000

R2.10-T05

Ibrahim Abdullahi 293

11,720.00 1 10,000 3,000 13,000 24,720

R2.10-T06

Muaru Ahmadu 220

8,800.00 2 20,000 6,000 26,000 34,800

R2.10-T07

Umaru Wada 250

10,000.00 1 10,000 3,000 13,000 23,000

R2.10-T08

Abdullahi Aliyu 260

10,400.00 NA

NA

NA

NA 10,400

R2.10-T09

Kabiru Saidu 245

9,800.00 1 10,000 3,000 13,000 22,800

R2.10-T10

Dahiru Saidu 300

12,000.00

NA

NA

NA

NA 12,000

R2.10-T11

Alh. Saleh

Tami

270

10,800.00

NA

NA

NA

NA 10,800


R2.10-T12

Iliya Usman 370

14,800.00 2 20,000 6,000 26,000 40,800

R2.10-T13

Waziri Dari Saidu 250

10,000.00

NA

NA

NA

NA 10,000

R2.10-T14

Iliya Usman 250

10,000.00

NA

NA

NA

NA 10,000

R2.10-T15

Awalu Musa 245

9,800.00

NA

NA

NA

NA 9,800

R2.10-T16

Jaafaru Barau 240

9,600.00

NA

NA

NA

NA 9,600

R2.10-T17

Danlami Mukailu

150

6,000.00

1 10,000 3,000 13,000 19,000

Sub-Total Tami 4623 184,920.00 10 130,000

R2.25-01 Sanusi Suleiman 1,000

40,000 4 40,000 12,000 52,000 92,000

R2.25-02

Aminu Suleiman

Ung. Madauchi

1346

53,840 3 30,000 9,000 39,000 92,840

Sub-Total Ung. Madauchi 2346 93,840 7 91,000

R2.25-BY01

Mal. Yayo

Birnin Yero

500

20,000.00 1 10,000 3,000 13,000 33,000


R2.25-BY02

Alh. Iliyasu 450

18,000.00

NA NA NA NA 18,000

R2.25-BY03

Mal. Muazu 500

20,000.00

NA NA NA NA 20,000

R2.25-BY04

Aliyu Shuaibu 400

16,000.00 2 20,000 6,000 26,000 42,000

R2.25-BY05

Shuaibu Muhammad 480

19,200.00

NA NA NA NA 19,200

R2.25-BY06

Alh. Rayyanu 500

20,000.00

NA NA NA NA 20,000

R2.25-BY07

Mal. Yusuf 450

18,000.00

NA NA NA NA 18,000

R2.25-BY08

Alh. Lawal Garkuwa 500

20,000.00 1 10,000 3,000 13,000 33,000

R2.25-BY09

Mal. Iliyasu 306

12,240.00 1 10,000 3,000 13,000 25,240

R2.25-BY10

Alh. Shehu Dan-auta 400

16,000.00 NA NA NA NA 16,000

R2.25-BY11

Murtala Ahamadu

350

14,000.00 2 20,000 6,000 26,000 40,000


R2.25-BY12

Buhari Dunkule 450

18,000.00 NA NA NA NA 18,000

R2.25-BY13

Haruna Abubakar 350

14,000.00 1 10,000 3,000 13,000 27,000

R2.25-BY14

Alh. Musa 456

18,240.00

NA NA NA NA 18,240

R2.25-BY15

Auwal Abdullahi

450

18,000.00

NA NA NA NA 18,000

R2.25-BY16

Hudu Umar

450

18,000.00 2 20,000 6,000 26,000 44,000

R2.25-BY17

Alh. Musa 500

20,000.00 1 10,000 3,000 13,000 33,000

R2.25-BY18 Urwatu Musa 400 16,000.00 NA NA NA NA 16,000

R2.25-BY19

Maniru Gambo 450

18,000.00

NA NA NA NA 18,000

R2.25-BY20

Murtala Shehu 600

24,000.00

NA NA NA NA 24,000

R2.25-BY21

Danjuma Shehu 450

18,000.00

NA NA NA 0 18,000

R2.25-BY22

Kabiru Shehu

400

16,000.00

NA NA NA NA 16,000


R2.25-BY23

Shauibu Umar 500

20,000.00 2 20,000 6,000 26,000 46,000

R2.25-BY24

Zakariyya Saidu 500

20,000.00

NA NA NA NA 20,000

R2.25-BY25

Mustafah Shaaibu

400

16,000.00 NA

NA NA NA 16,000

R2.25-BY26 Mal. Yusi 426 17,040.00 1 10,000 3,000 13,000 30,040

R2.25-BY27

Maarazu Rabiu Mohammadu

500

20,000.00 2 20,000 6,000 26,000 46,000

R2.25-BY28

Yusuf Mohammadu 500

20,000.00 2 20,000 6,000 26,000 46,000

R2.25-BY29

Mohammadu Inusa 500

20,000.00 2 20,000 6,000 26,000 46,000

R2.25-BY30

Muazu Yakubu

500

20,000.00 2 20,000 6,000 26,000 46,000

Sub-Total Birnin Yero 13,868 554,720.00 22 286,000

LOT S1

Code No Name of PAP Location Farm Land (FL) Economic Tree (ET) Total

Dimension (D) Value of Farm Land (D* 40) # Affected


Replanting & Nursery per Tree ET Amount


Pictures

R3.9a-01 Irimiya Gora Takanai 1,408 56,320.00 2 20,000 6,000 26,000 82,320


R3.9a-02

John Aboi 750

30,000.00 1 10,000 3,000 13,000 43,000

R3.9a-03

Sheyin Vincent 1,500

60,000.00 2 20,000 6,000 26,000 86,000

R3.9a-04

David Bonkyock

2,000

80,000.00 3 30,000 9,000 39,000 119,000

Sub-Total Takanai 5,658 226,320.00 8 104,000

R3.9b-01 Hosea Auta 1,200 48,000.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A 48,000

R3.9b-02 Rekita Aboi 1,750 70,000.00 1 10,000 3,000 13,000 83,000

R3.9b-03 Zango Dogo 2,117 84,680.00 1 10,000 3,000 13,000 97,680

R3.9b-04 Tinat Akau 2,500 100,000.00 2 20,000 6,000 26,000 126,000

R3.9b-05 Donatus H. Usman 2,000 80,000.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A 80,000

R3.9b-06 Timothy Yohanna 2,500 100,000.00 2 20,000 6,000 26,000 126,000

R3.9b-07 Dominic Kafai

Sako

1,250 50,000.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A 50,000

Sub-Total Sako 13,317 532,680.00 6 78,000

LOT S2

Code No Name of PAP Location Farm Land (FL) Economic Tree (ET)

Dimension

(D) Value of Farm Land (D* 40)

No Affected


Replanting & Nursery ET Amount Total

Pictures

R4.1-01

Audu Abubakar

(Village Head)

Kudiri Kagarko 12,006

480,240 48 480,000 144,000 624,000 1,104,240

Sub-Total Kudiri Kagarko 12,006 480,240 48 624,000

R4.13-01

Sani Maimadara

Kushe 1 500

20,000.00 1 10,000 3,000 13,000 33,000


R4.13-02

Alh. Adamu Idrisu 550

22,000.00

1 10,000 3,000 13,000 35,000

R4.13-03

Alh. Aminu Suleiman 450

18,000.00

1 10,000 3,000 13,000 31,000

R4.13-04

Liman Suleiman Abubakar 482

19,280.00 2 20,000 6,000 26,000 45,280

R4.13-05

Shaffiu Audu 400

16,000.00

NA NA NA NA 16,000

R4.13-06

Yakubu Goma

400

16,000.00

NA NA NA NA

16,000

R4.13-07

Musa Kogi

400

16,000.00

NA NA NA NA

16,000

R4.13-08

Dauda Kundi

350

14,000.00 2 20,000 6,000 26,000 40,000

R4.13-09

Sani Kundi

400

16,000.00 2 20,000 6,000 26,000 42,000

R4.13-10

Bashir Umar 350

14,000.00 NA NA NA NA 14,000

R4.13-11 Salihu Ibrahim 350 14,000.00 2 20,000 6,000 26,000 40,000

R4.13-12 Isa Maikifi 400 16,000.00 2 20,000 6,000 26,000 42,000

R4.13-13

Saleh Saleh

350

14,000.00 2 20,000 6,000 26,000 40,000


Sub-Total Kushe 1 5,382 215,280.00 15 195,000

R4.13-K2-01

Abba Brother 1,000

40,000.00 2 20,000 6,000 26,000 66,000

R4.13-K2-02

Sani Maichibi 1,000 40,000.00 2 20,000 6,000 26,000 66,000

R4.13-K2-03

Ladan Waziri 1,000 40,000.00 2 20,000 6,000 26,000 66,000

R4.13-K2-04

Dankarami (Sarki) 1,000 40,000.00 2 20,000 6,000 26,000 66,000

R4.13-K2-05

Suleiman Kaura 600

24,000.00 NA NA NA NA 24,000

R4.13-K2-06

Maikanti Kaura

Kushe II

782 31,280.00 4

40,000 12,000 52,000 83,280

Sub-Total Kushe II 5,382 215,280.00 12 156,000

R4.17-01

Hajiya Hadiza

Gora Kachia 2070

82,800.00 6 60,000 18,000 78,000 160,800

Sub-Total Gora Kachia 2,070 82,800.00 6 78,000

Note

• Value of Land is given by dimension x N40 per m2

• Current Market value of land per m2 in the project area is N40.

• Dimension refers to the coverage of Land taken per PAP


Annex 2: Photo Gallery

Consultation with Youth Forum at Makarauta Questionnaire Administration at Makaurata Interview with Village Head( Alhaji Maigwalasa at Tudun Kudi

Maize Harvesting in a Farm at Tudun Kudi Participants at Consultation in Dundubus Consultation with Hunters at Gangara Maingwalasa

Children with food awaiting farmers/ workers return Consultation with an Authority at Kushe II Mrs. Ogungbuyi with Women folk at Kushe II


Samaila Mahmud - Community Leader,Birnin Yero Abdullahi Aliyu-Head of Community Tami Abdukarim Idris (R)-head of Community at Kwarakwara

State of the road at kwarakwara Activities of Children along the Project Routes

Ugwa Gwari Primary School along Lot N2 Activities of Women along the Project Routes

Annex 3: Survey Instrument/Sample Questionnaire

KDSG-RAMP-SPIU

MINISTRY OF WORKS AND TRANSPORT, KADUNA PROPOSED OPRC ROADS CORRIDOR PROJECT –

Questionnaire for the Preparation of Environmental Management Plan and Resettlement Action Plan

Preamble: The Kaduna State Government aims to improve and enhance accessibility and mobility in rural areas through the Rural Access and Mobility Project (RAMP). No doubt, accessibility and mobility are critical issues in the lives of the rural population, consideringnthat majority of them are agriculturalists. Movement of their agricultural inputs and outputs (produce) is hinged on accessibility and mobility. This questionnaire which is expected to take about 20 minutes to complete is aimed at eliciting your view/opinion on the social and environmental implications of the proposed road access and improvement of activities in your area. Your input would assist in the preparation of an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and an Abbreviated Resettlement Action Plan (ARAP) that would enable the State Government to manage the various project activities under OPRC along this corridor…………………………………………….. in a manner that guarantees socio-environmental sustainability of the project. As we thank you, rest assured that your responses shall be kept confidential. My name is ………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… DATE:…………………………………………………………… Questionnaire No:………………………………………………………. LGA:……………………………………………………………………… Please simply tick (x) or write in brief detail where appropriate SECTION A: BIO-DATA

1. Name: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2. Phone Number: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3. Address (optional): …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4. Age (years): �18 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 65

5. Sex: Male Female

6. What is your religion: Christian Muslim Pagan Others

7. Marital Status: Single Married Separated/Divorcee

8. No. of children:Non 1-2 3-4 5-6 Above 6

9. Level of education: ( ) No formal educ. ( ) Primary ( ) Secondary ( ) Tertiary ( )

Others (specify) …………………………………………………………….

10. What do you do for a living (your primary occupation/nature of business)? ( ) Self-employed ( ) Civil Servant ( ) NGOs/CBOs ( ) Student ( ) Others (specify)………………………………………………


KDSG-RAMP-SPIU

MINISTRY OF WORKS AND TRANSPORT, KADUNA PROPOSED OPRC ROADS CORRIDOR PROJECT –

Questionnaire for the Preparation of Environmental Management Plan and Resettlement Action Plan

1 Scale/Value of business 1. Small scale (value holdings/products/equipment less than �50,000.00

2. Medium scale (value of holdings/pr/products/equipment �50,000.00 - �100,000.00)

3. Large scale (value of holdings/pr/products/equipment over �100,000.00)

2 Project affected persons (PAP) type

1. Farming 2. Animal/Livestock Rearing 3. Hunting 4. Shops/kiosks 5. Artisans/Craftsmen 6. Residence 7. Others (specify).

3 Type of material used for residence/shop/stall

1. Steel 2. Mud 3. Plywood 4. Wood 5. Corrugated Iron sheet 6. Thatched 7. Other (specify)

4 Is business activity/venue/equipment movable or immovable?

1. Movable 2. Immovable

5 How long have you been in this business and location?

6 Are you assisted by any other person(s) in day-to-day running of this business?

1. Yes 2. No

7 If yes, how many people? (Enumerator: please confirm)

8 Are they salaried? 1. Yes 2. No

9 Employees’ Profile

Employee Length of service

Salary (hr/day/wk/mo)

Comment

10 Average monthly/annual turnover on business. What is the average monthly/annual turnover from your business?

11 What is the average monthly/annual income/profit from your business?

12 How many days a week do you work here?

13 How many hours in a day on the average do you work here?

14 Land tenure and business premises ownership Who owns this land, residence, shop/premise/structure?

1. Self 2. Family 3. Individual landlord 4. Local Government 5. State Government 6. Other (specify)

Section 3: Relocation and Resettlement Issues

15 Would you like to relocate your business to another place

1. Yes 2. No


16 If yes, where would you like to relocate to?

17 If you had to be relocated, where would you prefer to relocate? (Please list your relocation preferences in order of priority, ranking the most preferred relocation as 1st , the next one 2nd, etc.)

1. 2. 3.

18 If you were to relocate, what would be your fears/concerns.

1. 2. 3.

19 If you were to relocate, how can you be assisted to minimize the effects of relocation on you?

Section 4: Social Networking – Group/ Association Membership

20 Do you belong to any group association/association

1. Yes 2. No

21 If yes, name the group/association

1. 2. 3.

22 What do you benefit from the group/association?

1. 2. 3.

23 If respondent does not belong to any group/association, Enumerator ask - Why don’t you belong to any group or association?

1. 2. 3.

24 If you need financial assistance urgently, where would go to get it?

1. 2.

25 What additional comment would you like to make aside what we have discussed so far?

Section 5: Socio-Demographic Information

26 Age of respondent

27 Sex of respondent

28 Ethnic background

29 State of origin if not Kaduna

30 Nationality (if not Nigerian)

31 Highest level of educational attainment

1. No formal educ. 2. Primary 3.Secondary 4. Post-secondary 5. Vocational/others (specify)

32 Name of respondent ………………………………………………………………………………….

33 Respondent’s contact telephone number ……………………………………………………………………

34 Name of owner (if respondent is not the owner) ………………………………………………………….

35 Name of business

Section 6: Identification Information

36 Photograph taken? 1. Yes 2. No

37 If yes, digital no.

38 I.D card provided? 1. Yes 2. No

39 If yes, I.D card no.

40 Size of land occupied (m2/dimension)


Section 7: Enumerator’s assessment

41 Do you feel the respondent made an effort to tell the truth?

1. Yes 2. No

42 Were other people present during the interview?

1. Yes 2. No

43 How would you characterize the communication between yourself and the respondent?

1. Poor 2. Fair 3. Good

44 Language of the interview: 1. English 2. Pidgin English 3. Hausa 4. Other languages (specify)

45 What is your average income in Naira per month?

a. 10,000-15,000 b. 16,000-30,000 c. 30,000-60,000 d. � 60,000


Documents

Final Report - World Bank · 2016. 7. 13. · federal republic of nigeria rural access and mobility project (ramp i, kaduna) cr 4408 abbreviated resettlement action plan (arap) of