INFRASTRUCTURE IMPLEMENTATION UNIT MINISTRY OF …...Tubman Boulevard to the Coca Cola Factory in...

Resettlement Action Plan Coca Cola Factory – Red Light

Revised August 8, 2018

REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA

INFRASTRUCTURE IMPLEMENTATION UNIT

MINISTRY OF PUBLIC WORKS

P. O. BOX 9011

SOUTH, LYNCH STREET

MONROVIA

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Resettlement Action Plan for Redlight to Coca Cola Factory Page 1

Table of Contents

Acronyms & Abbreviation ........................................................................ 4

List of Figures ........................................................................................... 5

List of Tables ............................................................................................ 5

Chapter One: Introduction, Description of Project and Project Area.... 6

1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 6

1.2 Project Location, Description and Components .................................................................... 9

1.3 Objectives of the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) ............................................................. 11

Chapter Two: Socioeconomic and Census Studies ............................. 12

2.1 Socio-economic Studies ......................................................................................................... 12

2.2 Household Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 12

2.3 Census within the 2.1km (Coca Cola Factory – Red-light Intersections).............................. 13

2.3.1 Outcome of Census Exercise and Magnitude of Expected Impacts ........................ 13

2.3.1.1Private Properties ............................................................................................................. 14

2.3.1.2 Public Properties ............................................................................................................. 15

2.3.1.3Formal and Informal Businesses ................................................................................... 16

2.3.1.4 Vulnerable Groups...................................................................................................... 16

2.3.1.5 Tenants and Landlords .................................................................................................. 17

2.4 Other Studies ........................................................................................................................... 17

2.4.1 Land Tenure and Land Transfer System ...................................................................... 17

2.4.2 Patterns of Social Interactions in Affected Communities ........................................... 18

Chapter Three: Policy, Regulatory and Institutional Framework ........ 19

3.1 Liberian Legal Framework ...................................................................................................... 19

3.1.1 Land Right Policy of Liberia (2013) ............................................................................... 19

3.1.2 The Liberian Constitution 1986 ...................................................................................... 19

3.1.3 Aborigines Law of 1956 ................................................................................................... 19

3.1.4 Property law of 1976 ........................................................................................................ 20

3.1.5 Revised Rules & Regulations Governing the Hinterland of Liberia (2001) ............. 20

3.2 World Bank Operational Policy 4.12-Involuntary Resettlement ........................................ 21

3.2.1 Policy Objectives .................................................................................................................. 21


3.2.2 Impacts Covered .............................................................................................................. 21

3.3 Comparison of Liberian Legislations with World Bank Resettlement Policy ................... 22

3.4 Institutional Framework ........................................................................................................... 23

3.4.1 Ministry of Public Works .................................................................................................. 23

3.4.2 Environmental Potential Agency (EPA) ........................................................................ 24

3.4.4 Ministry of Finance and Development Planning (MFDP) ........................................... 24

3.4.5 Liberia Revenue Authority (LRA) ................................................................................... 24

3.4.6 General Auditing Commission (GAC) ........................................................................... 24

3.5 Institutional Capacity and Role ............................................................................................... 24

Chapter Four: Entitlement and Eligibility .............................................. 26

4.1 Entitlement................................................................................................................................. 26

4.2 Eligibility .................................................................................................................................... 28

4.2.1 Definition of PAPs ............................................................................................................ 28

4.2.2 Criteria for Determining Eligibility ................................................................................... 28

4.2.3 Cut-off Date ....................................................................................................................... 29

Chapter Five: Valuation and Compensation for Losses ...................... 30

5.1 Valuation Methodologies ......................................................................................................... 30

5.1.1 Private Structure ............................................................................................................... 30

5.1.2 Public Structures .............................................................................................................. 31

5.1.3 Businesses ........................................................................................................................ 31

Chapter six: Resettlement Measures .................................................... 32

6.1 Description of Compensation Packages and Impacts Covered ........................................ 32

6.2Magnitude Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 33

Chapter Seven: Public Participation and Consultation........................ 34

7.1 Consultation with Stakeholders .............................................................................................. 34

7.2 Consultation Strategy .............................................................................................................. 34

7.2.1 Focus Groups Discussion ............................................................................................... 34

7.2.2 Informal Interview ............................................................................................................. 35

7.2.3 Summary Views Expressed ............................................................................................ 35

7.3 Resettlement Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 35

7.3.1 Alternatives Offered ........................................................................................................ 35

7.3.2 Choices Related to Compensation and Resettlement Assistance ...................... 36


7.4 Provision for updating Information on PAPs .............................................................................. 37

7.5 Grievance Redress Mechanism andProcedures ................................................................. 37

7.5.1 Project Level Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM) ................................................ 37

7.5.2 IIU/MPW Level Grievance Redress Mechanism ......................................................... 38

7.6 Grievance Procedures ............................................................................................................. 39

Chapter Eight: Organizational Responsibilities for RAP

Implementation ....................................................................................... 40

8.1 Roles and Responsibilities of the Implementing Institutions ............................................. 40

Chapter Nine: RAP Implementation Schedule ...................................... 41

9.1 Objective of the RAP Preparation and Implementation Timeline ..................................... 41

9.2 Implementation Phases ........................................................................................................... 41

9.2.1 Phase I ............................................................................................................................... 42

9.2.2 Phase II ................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Chapter Ten: Cost and Budget .............................................................. 42

10.1 Items Cover by the Budget ................................................................................................. 42

Chapter 11: Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................ 45

11.1 Monitoring .............................................................................................................................. 45

11.2 Evaluation .............................................................................................................................. 46

Annexures ............................................................................................... 47

Annex 1: Affected Properties ............................................................................................................... 48

Annex 2:Affected Businesses .............................................................................................................. 49


Acronyms & Abbreviation

DPs Displaced Persons

EMP Environmental Management Plan

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

FRTUL Federation of Road Transport Union of Liberia

GAC General Auditing Commission

GoL Government of Liberia

GRM Grievance Redress Mechanism

IIU Infrastructure Implementation Unit

IIU/MPW Infrastructure Implementation Unit/Ministry of Public Works

IOL Inventory of Losses

LMA Liberia Marketing Association

LMU Liberia Motorcycle Union

LRA Liberia Revenue Authority

LRRRC Liberia Refugees Resettlement and Reintegration Commission

MFDP Ministry of Finance and Development Planning

MLME Ministry of Lands, Mines and Energy

MPW Ministry of Public Works

NGOs Non-governmental Organizations

OPRC Output and Performance-Based Road Contract

PAA Project Affected Area

PAHs Project Affected Households

PAPs Project Affected Persons

PCC Paynesville City Corporation

PFMU Project Financial Management Unit

PRS Poverty Reduction Strategy

RAP Resettlement Action Plan

RoW Right-of-Way

RPF Resettlement Policy Framework

WB World Bank


List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Map of the Project Area ............................................................................................ 9

List of Tables

Table 2.1: Household Characteristics by Gender ......................................................................12

Table 2.2: Educational Status ...................................................................................................12

Table2.3: Livelihood Activities ...................................................................................................13

Table2.4: Private Properties Affected by Type and by Compensation Amount ..........................14

Table 2.5: Public Properties to be affected ................................................................................15

Table 2.6: Categories of Vulnerable People ..............................................................................17

Table3.1: Comparison of OP 4.12 Requirements with Liberian Legal Framework .....................22

Table 4.1: Entitlement Matrix .....................................................................................................26

Table 5.1: Unit Rates of Structure Types..................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 5.2: Private Properties to be Impacted ............................................................................30

Table 5.3: Public Structures ......................................................................................................31

Table 6.1: Compensation packages by category of impacts on various assets .........................32

Table 6.2: Magnitude of Impacts by Categories of Impacts .......................................................33

Table 9.1: Tentative implementation schedule ..........................................................................41

Table 10.1:The RAP Budget .....................................................................................................43

Table 11.1: RAP Monitoring Indicators ......................................................................................45


Chapter One: Introduction, Description of Project and Project Area

1.1 Introduction

The Government of Liberia (GoL) seeks financing from the World Bank to rehabilitate and expand

the section of road spanning from 100m from ELWA intersection towards SD Cooper road on

Tubman Boulevard to the Coca Cola Factory in Paynesville (totaling 6.1 km). Paynesville is a

municipality located in the eastern suburb of Monrovia. As part of its city beautification plan, the

GoL in collaboration with the Paynesville City Corporation has cleared the road between SD

Cooper Road and Coca Cola Factory Corridor in 2008 and had established 75fts Row for the

entire corridor. However, the GoL, following clearing of the corridor, has not been successful in

enforcing and maintaining the 75fts RoW. Formal and informal businesses have encroached into

the RoW and have been carrying out commercial and livelihoods activities within the RoW for the

last 9 years.

In response to the GoL request, the Liberian Road Asset Management Project (LIBRAMP) is

planning to rehabilitate and expand the carriage way, to a dual carriage, from Parker Paint

intersection to Redlight with the section from Coca Cola factory to Parker Paint intersection

remaining a single carriage.. Detailed design for the proposed project is in progress. Output and

Performance Base Road Contract (OPRC) for approximately the 6.1km of road section from SD

Cooper intersection to Coca Cola Factory is the approach that the project is adopting.

Civil works under the project will be implemented in two phases. Phase I of the project, covering

2.1km distance from Coca Cola Factory to Red-light intersection, will be implemented starting

February, 2018. Phase II of the project, covering the remainder 4.1km distance from Red-light to

SD Cooper intersection will be implemented starting January, 2019.

Under phase I of the project, the road section between Coca Cola Factory and Red Light is where

formal and informal businesses are found and carrying on diverse business activities. Given the

number of business activities and the presence of wide-range of petty-traders in the road section

between Coca Cola Factory and Red Light for the last 9 years, the GoL has now decided to reduce

the road RoW from 75ft to 50ft in this section of the road.

The GoL decision to reduce the road within the segment of the road where commercial activities

are very visible is motivated by three factors: i) the need to accommodate ongoing commercial

activities, ii) the realization of difficulties that comes with the exercise of relocating about 3,000

petty-trader to “Omega Market” as initially planned and, iii) the result of intensive consultations

and negotiations between the GoL, traders’ association, marketer’ association and motor cycles

association.

Under phase II, the project will carry out road rehabilitation and upgrading activities in the

remaining 4.1km distance from Red-light – Du Port Road- SD Cooper road intersections. This will

be implemented starting January, 2019. Presences of scattered businesses and trading activities,

water main lines, water factories and critical private and public infrastructures are key

characteristics of the 4.0km corridor.


As per the World Bank policy on involuntary resettlement, the Government of Liberia (GoL) has

decided to: a) prepare Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) and, ii) implement measures adequately

addressing social and economic risks associated with project. The resettlement preparation and

implementation processes for the entire 6.1 km project are divided into two phases.

Phase I of the project is covered by the current RAP, which addresses social and economic risks

associated with rehabilitation and upgrading of the 2.1km road section from Coca Cola Factory to

Red-light intersections. Implementation of phase I of the project’s RAP for the 2.1km road section

is expected to be completed by end of September 2018.

For Phase II of the project, a separate RAP will be prepared that will address the social and

economic risks associated with rehabilitation and upgrading of the 4km road section from Red-

light –Du Port Road – SD Cooper Road intersections. Implementation of phase II of the project’s

RAP for 4km road section is expected to commence once the addendum is signed by the

Contractor and the Government of Liberia upon the clearance of the World Bank, at which time

the contractor will mobilize it design team to carry out the design in order to establish the right of

way to be affected by the project.

This RAP is prepared to address social and economic risks associated with the implementation

of the 2.1km road from Coca Cola Factory to Red-light intersection. This RAP is prepared by GoL

to solely mitigate social and economic risks associated with the civil works activities of 2.1km

road. It does not cover the remaining 4.0km road.

The project has three components. Component 1 involves road upgrading activities including: i)

site clearing/grubbing, ii) earthworks. iii) Drainage works, and iv) road pavement activities. These

activities are expected to impact public and private structures, businesses, tenants, and petty-

traders whose livelihoods are dependent on activities carried out within the 75ft right-of-way

(RoW) of the 2.1 km of the Coca Cola factory – Red-light intersections. The section within the

Red-Light market is been modified to accommodate the petty traders to prevent them from

encroaching in 50fts road carriageway.

Activities under component 1 are expected to involve civil works that will entail land acquisition

and clearing of the RoW to advance the project objective. The specific impact locations have been

identified during the conceptual design stage. The conceptual design looked into various design

alternatives to avoid and where it was not possible to minimize impacts on people and properties.

Various studies including project design conceptual report, socio-economic survey of project

affected area, census of affected people and inventory of assets to be affected by component I

have been carried out for the entire 6.1 km -Coca Cola factory and ELWA intersection. These

studies mainly focused on: i) identification of impacts, ii) census to establish eligibility for

entitlement, iii) baseline information on affected building structures and iv) information for

designing a feasible resettlement plan. The information gathered was used to determine the

applicability of OP 4.12, to the entire project. The cut-off date for collecting baseline information

on affected assets was Feb. 12, 2017.


This Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) was prepared for 2.1 km of the section of the road on the

basis of information gathered and potential impacts on livelihoods within Coca Cola Factory –

Red-Light corridor. The rapid census re-verification exercise which was conducted from October

1-17, 2017 identified 276 potential PAPs to be directly impacted by the project within the 2.1km

of the road.

The rapid census re-verification exercise concluded that a total 136 properties of which 3 are

public and 133 are private structures (64 shop/store, 24 renters (tenants), 24 landlords and 28

vulnerable people) will be directly impacted by the project while 1,803 petty traders will suffer

indirect temporary impacts. It is expected that direct impacts on the 1,803 petty-traders mentioned

above will be fully avoided and this RAP has not included compensation amount to petty-traders

as direct impact on them is expected to be unlikely.

Valuation and verification of assets to be impacted have been completed. The GoL has accepted

the assets valuation report and committed to compensating each PAP the full replacement value

of his/her affected property. Payment will be done by check to be encashed at the local Bank.

Consultation with affected people and other stakeholders has been conducted, in which potential

PAPs have been informed about their rights and choices. Focus group discussions and individual

consultation have been used to disseminate resettlement/entitlement information and to obtain

PAPs’ views.

To ensure site hand over to the contractor as scheduled, the GoL agreed that: i) entitlement

delivery is fully completed by August 15, 2018, ii) Post compensation payment for RAP audit is

expected to be completed by September 15, 2018, iii) affected people will have vacated the

impact corridor in an orderly fashion by October 15, 2018 and iv) site is handed over to the

contracting entity by October 22, 2018 after completion of compensation payments and without

any outstanding or unresolved claims.

The GoL has agreed to complete implementation of this RAP between the months of July and

September 2018. The GoL confirmed that it has the USD 886,213.55 it needs to pay entitlement

and other costs stated in this RAP budget. This amount includes compensation payments for

affected public and private structures, business restoration allowances, and assistance to tenants

and landlords, provision for post entitlement delivery RAP audit, allocation covering potential

expenses related to supervision and monitoring activities, including contingency provision for

unforeseen factors.

The Infrastructure Implementation Unit (IIU) under the umbrella of the Ministry of Public Works

(MPW) and, the Project Financial Management Unit (PFMU) under the umbrella of the Ministry of

Finance and Development Planning (MoFDP) are responsible for implementing this Resettlement

Action Plan (RAP). The IIU/MPW is responsible for the overall implementation of this RAP and

the PFMU/MoFDP is responsible for safeguarding RAP’s financial resources including processing

and making compensation payments. Each of these institutions have committed to executing their

respective roles and responsibilities. To ensure the payments of this RAP, supervision, monitoring

and GRM running cost, a total of USD 36,400 have been budgeted.


In addition to what is discussed in this section (introduction, description of project and project

area), subsequent sections of this document will discuss and present the following key elements

of this RAP:

• Socio-economic and census studies.

• Policy, regulatory and institutional framework,

• Entitlement and eligibility criteria,

• Valuation and compensation methods,

• Resettlement measures,

• Public participation and consultation,

• Organizational responsibilities,

• RAP preparation and implementation timeline,

• Cost and budget,

• Monitoring and evaluation.

1.2 Project Location, Description and Components The project is located in the city of Paynesville in the eastern suburb of Monrovia, Montserrado

County (Figure 1). The 2.1km (Coca Cola Factory – Red-Light road) section of the 6.1km road

(Coca Cola factory and ELWA junction) is within the jurisdiction of the city of Paynesville.

The 2.1km section of the road is populated with diverse forms of business enterprises (petty

traders, shops, stores, bars, restaurants, pharmacies and entertainment places).

Figure 1.1: Map of the Project Area

The proposed 6.1km project has four components. Component I: Design, Rehabilitation and

Maintenance of the Road; Component II: Consultant Service, Operating Cost and Training;

Component III Road Safety Activities and Right-of-Way (RoW) Preservation; and Component IV:

Involuntary Resettlement.

Component I: Design, Rehabilitation and Maintenance of the 2.1 km of the 6.1km road will entail the following activities: i) site clearing/grubbing, ii) earthworks, iii) drainage works and, iv) pavement activities. Under this component, private and public structures will be partially or fully


impacted, shelters will be lost, businesses will close their operations, tenants will be forced to leave their rental spaces, and disadvantaged people will be adversely impacted.

The project is planning to upgrade part of the section of the road to dual carriage road while it plans to maintain part of the section of the road as a single carriage road. The section of the road between Coca Cola Factory and Parker Paint intersection will be a single carriage road and impacts on properties and livelihoods is expected to be minimal. This section of the road is over congested with commercial and vehicular traffic. Petty-traders who are carrying out commercial activities within the RoW will be accommodated within the 75fts RoW behind a fence within 25fts reserved from 75ft RoW for them by GoL.. This has been agreed with the GoL.

On the other hand, the project is planning to rehabilitate and expand the road from single to dual carriage road from Parker Paint road to Red-Light intersections. Building structures and traders where the dual carriage road will be constructed will be adversely affected. Structures found in the dual carriage corridor will be compensated.

Design measures considered to avoid and minimize impacts of land acquisition and

livelihoods

Design alternatives considered by GoL to avoid and minimize project’s impacts on properties and

livelihoods include: i) construction of separate grade/interchange ii) construction of at grade, iii)

construction of dual carriage road throughout the 2.1km, and iv) construction of combinations of

dual and single carriage roads in portions of the 2.1km of the road as well as construction of fence

between the 50fts RoW and the 25fts reserved for trader to keep business and traders within the

25fts reserve area to carry on their commercial activities.

Options i, ii, and iii were dismissed due to cost to the project, land requirement and disturbance

on livelihoods activities. Option iv, which involves constructing combinations of dual and single

carriage roads as well as erecting fence to separate the single carriage way from traders, is

believed to offer better scenario in terms of avoiding and minimizing impacts on PAPs and is

therefore adopted by the project for advancing the project’s objective.

In addition to technical measures considered to avoid and minimize social and economic

hardships, the project has:

• Consulted and obtained the views of petty traders regarding the Government’s proposal

to reserve 25fts of the established 75fts RoW for petty-traders in order to enable them

continues their trading activities. This proposal has been incorporated into the project

design which includes erecting barriers to separate the 25fts area from the edge of the

remainder of the 50fts of the established RoW within the single carriage section.

• Installation/erection of the proposed barriers shall be completed at least one month ahead

of commencement of the road civil work. During barriers installation process,

representative of petty traders shall be participating and the 25fts reserve areas, agreed

with petty traders, on both side of the RoW, shall be adhered.

• As indicated in the contractor’s terms of reference (ToR) the road rehabilitation works

within the 2.1km shall remain within 50ft and 75ft of the single and dual carriage way,

respectively, as discussed in the design option section of this RAP.


• Realignment must be avoided or minimized as much as possible and where there is an

unavoidable need for realignment and expansion, impacts must be evaluated and this

RAP will be updated accordingly.

• There will not be camps, quarry sites and storages within the 6.1km of the entire corridor.

It is the responsibility of the contractor to identify and secure storage, quarry sites and

borrowing pits. The cost of these sites and borrowing pits shall be covered by the

contractor. The GoL shall assist the contractor in verifying the rightful ownership of the

land and in processing the documentation. These requirements shall be reflected into the

contractor’s contractual agreement. The process will not cause involuntary land take or

displacement of squatters. If involuntary displacement is to take place, the Bank’s policy

on involuntary resettlement shall apply and the contractor or the GoL shall be responsible

to comply with OP 4.12 policy and principles.

• The IIU in collaboration with the monitoring consultant who is responsible to carry out the

quality assurance role on behalf of the GoL and in partnership with local communities shall

monitor the implementation of social and economic risks mitigation measures in place to

ensure that the contractor remains within the established RoW and is fully complying. This

shall be reflected in the contractor’s contract and sensitization shall be conducted prior to

commencement of road work.

• The GoL in collaboration with the World Bank is committed to sensitizing local

communities and to building GRMs capacity.

1.3 Objectives of the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP)

The primary objective of this RAP is to identify and adopt measures for mitigating social and

economic risks associated with phase I of the project’s component I civil work activities. The

objective is to avoid or minimize direct social and economic impacts on PAPs; where it is not

possible to avoid or minimize impacts on PAPs, the goal is to restore PAPs livelihoods to pre-

project level or better. This RAP is therefore geared toward providing cash compensation and

assistances to PAPs with ultimate goal of mitigating social and economic impacts of the project

on assets and livelihoods. The specific objectives of this RAP are to:

• identify persons (individuals or groups) who will be affected by component I activities ;

• consult and inform PAPs about their right and choices, and

• Craft a process for delivering compensation and special assistance to PAPs consistent

with the World Bank policy on involuntary resettlement and the relevant Liberian legal

provisions.


Chapter Two: Socioeconomic and Census Studies

2.1 Socio-economic Studies

A socioeconomic survey for the entire 6.1km was conducted between November 2016 and April

2017.The survey covered a total of 3,962 people who are residing in phase I and II project area.

The socioeconomic survey covered household characteristics, level of education, and means of

livelihoods of people who are residing in the entire 6.1km of project jurisdiction while the census

exercise focused on direct social and economic impacts of phase I of the project, the 2.1km –

Coca Cola Factory to Red-light corridor, on 276 PAPs and their assets.

Structured questionnaires were used to obtain socio-economic information of people who are

living within the entire 6.1km of the road. Pre-coded multiple choices questions were used during

the interviews.

2.2 Household Characteristics

As shown from Table 2.1 below, a total 3,962 people who were surveyed in the entire project

area of which 1,783 are males while 2,179 are females.

Table 2.1: Household Characteristics by Gender

Education: Of the total number of 3,962 people surveyed, 16% never attended school;8% has

primary education, 23% has junior high school education, 22% attained senior secondary school

education,16% has tertiary education, 7% has vocational education, and 8% has Arabic and

France Language education. Table 2.2 shows the educational status of the PAPs.

Table 2.2: Educational Status

Gender Number of Male and female

Male 1,783 45%

Female 2,179 55%

TOTAL 3,962 100%

Population by Education Status Number and %

Never attended school 678 16%

Primary/Elementary School Level 313 8%

Junior High School Level 899 23%

Senior Secondary School Level 860 22%

Tertiary Level (University) 626 16%

Vocational School 273 7%

Arabic/French Language Education 313 8%

Total 3,962 100%


Livelihoods:

People within the 6.1km are engaged in variety of livelihood activities. Majority – 88% are

shop/store owners and petty traders. Of the remaining 12%, 7% are self-employed (garage, tyre

maintenance shop and public transport operators and artisans), while 5% are employed in the

civil service and private companies. Table 2.3 shows the livelihood activities of the PAPs.

Table2.3: Livelihood Activities What do you do for a living? Number and Percent of PAPs

Shop/store owners and petty traders 3,487 88%

Garage, tyre maintenance shop and public transport operators and artisans

277 7%

Employed as civil servants and private company workers

198 5%

Total 3,962 100%

2.3 Census within the 2.1km (Coca Cola Factory – Red-light Intersections)

The cut-off date for the census was on February 11-12, 2017.The objective of the census was to

identify PAPs and assets that will be negatively impacted by the project as result of the civil works

and RoW clearing exercise to be implemented in 2018. The result of the census exercise indicated

that civil work activities within the 2.1km road will result in losses of: i) shelters, ii) income sources,

and iii) access to assets or incomes.

The census was carried out within the 2.1km of the road is between Coca Cola Factory and Red-

Light intersection through which the road rehabilitation work will pass , where businesses and

petty traders encroached in the RoW are present and active for the last 9 years. A total of 276

PAPs are expected to be impacted.

The 2.1km road rehabilitation work is expected to be carried out within the 75fts Row between

SD Cooper road and Parker Paint intersection; and within the 50ft Row between Parker Paint

intersection and Coca Cola Factory. Impacts, in both 75fts Row and 50fts RoW, on livelihoods

and properties, are not expected to increase more than what is identified and captured by the

census.

In case of unavoidable realignments that may emerge during civil work phase, it is clearly

indicated in the contractor’s terms of reference (ToR) that realignment must be avoided or

minimized as much as possible and where realignment is unavoidable, impacts would be

evaluated and this RAP will be updated. It is also the responsibility of the contractor to identify

and secure storage, quarry sites and borrowing pits. The cost of these sites and borrowing pits

shall be covered by the contractor. Land for this purpose shall acquire commercially.

2.3.1 Outcome of Census Exercise and Magnitude of Expected Impacts

The census outcomes indicated that a total of 2,050 PAPs will be directly and indirectly affected

by phase 1 of the project along the 2.1km road corridor. Out of the total of the 2,050 PAPs, 136

are public and private properties owners (64 are shop owners, 48 are renters and landlords and,


28 are vulnerable people) who will be directly impacted while 1,803 are petty-traders who will also

be indirectly impacted by the project.

It is expected that PAPs will fully or partially lose their private and public properties that have been

used for: i) residential, ii) business and, iii) rental purposes. They will suffer loses of shelters,

rental incomes, business incomes as well convenient locations. These properties and businesses

will permanently or partially impacted by the project. Impacts range from permanent to temporary.

Design measures considered to avoid or minimize impacts on businesses are discussed under

section 1.2 of this RAP.

2.3.1.1Private Properties

A total of 133 privately owned structures will be affected by the project. Of this number, 101 will

be fully affected while 32 will be partially affected. The total verified value of these properties is

estimated to be USD397, 600.92 excluding the processing of attestation document fees which is

approximately USD 5,280.00.

Type of private building structures to be affected include: i) concrete block buildings, ii) mud brick

buildings with zinc roof, iii) mud dubbed buildings with zinc roof, iv) wooden frame structures with

zinc roof and, v) containers and others, which include kiosks, fences, gas stations as shown in

Table 2.4 below.

Table2.4: Private Properties Affected by Type and by Compensation Amount

# Type of Properties No Property Total US Dollars

1 Concrete structures (single) 24 199,838.08

2 Concrete structures ( Storey building) 1 28,560.00

3 Fences (concrete, chain link, grill) 4 7,506.60

4 Sun-dried bricks structures (Mud bricks) 20 54,486.94

5 Gas/Petro Stations 5 10,907.25

6 Containers 38 9,500.00

7 Signboards (metal and concrete) 9 4,500.00

8 Pavement (Concrete) 7 47,304.80

9 Shelter (an extended roof like canopy) 8 11,534.43

10 Wooden structures 10 6,314.70

11 Stair cases (Concrete) 1 6,750.00


12 Hand Pump 2 7,200.00

13 Zinc Framing 1 1,028.13

14 Well 1 540.00

15 Monument 2 1,630.00

Total 133 397,600.92 Note: these properties owners were requested to make payment for the processing of

Attestation documents to claim rightful ownership. Structures such as concrete, mud bricks, gas

Stations, wooden, zinc framing, monument and stair cases (68) were charged USD 50.00per structure and

Containers and others (65) were charged USD 30.00 per structure. These properties owners will be refunded.

Mitigation measures: To mitigate social and economic risks associated with loss of 132 private

structures, the GoL agreed to compensate full replacement cost of the affected properties to PAPs

with legal title to the land and with no legal or customary title to the land but with occupancy prior

to the census cutoff date. The GoL also committed and agreed that all compensation payments

to PAPs will be completed prior to commencing civil works in the 2.1km of the Coca Cola Factor

and Re-Light road corridor.

Design alternatives considered by the project to avoid or minimize permeant and temporary

impacts on private buildings structure owners are discussed under section 1.2 of this RAP.

2.3.1.2 Public Properties

A total of 3 public structures will be affected by the project. Two of the three properties will be fully

affected while one will be affected partially. There will not be interruption of public services. The

total value of these properties is estimated to be USD 5,781.63 excluding the processing of

attestation document fees which is approximately USD 150.00.

Table 2.5: Public Properties to be affected Ref Type of Public Properties and impact Number

Affected Total compensation (USA)

1 Concrete 1 5,100.00

2 Shelter 1 471.63

3 Woden 1 210.00

Total 3 5,781.63 Note: these properties owners were requested to make payment for the processing of

Attestation documents to claim rightful ownership. Structure such as Concrete, mudbricks, gas

Stations, wooden, zinc framing, monument and stair cases (66) were charged USD 50.00per structure and

Containers and others (66) were charged USD 30.00 per structure. These properties owners will be refunded.

Mitigation measures: The GoL will compensate each affected entity with full replacement cost

of the affected public properties. The GoL has committed and agreed that payment for all public

structures will be completed prior to commencing civil works on the road corridor.

Design alternatives considered by the project to avoid or minimize permeant and temporary

impacts on private buildings structure are discussed under section 1.2 of this RAP.


2.3.1.3Formal and Informal Businesses

A total of 64 businesses found within the 75fts of the RoW will be impacted. These businesses

are expected to temporarily lose total revenue of USD53, 520.00 in six months’ period in which

their business will be interrupted.

A total of 1,803 petty-traders who are found between Coca Cola Factory and Parker Paint Road

intersections will not be impacted. In view of magnitude of impacts and difficulties associated with

relocating petty-traders to Omega Market, the GoL has now decided that the RoW within the

2.1km section of the Road, Coca Cola Factor and Parker Paint Intersection, be reduced from 75ft

to 50ft. This measure is expected to avoid the project’s impacts on 1,803 petty-trades and will

allow them to continue carrying on their trading activities with the 25fts reserve area for

commercial activities. Therefore, the GoL has now abandoned the relocation exercise to ”Omega

Market” initially planned. Had impact on these petty-traders was not avoided; compensation for

their losses would have amounted to USD 1,129,620.

If for some reason the current design or option which is considered to be the best for the section

of the road between Coca Cola Factory and Parker Paint road intersection changes, the situation

will be reassessed and this RAP will be updated. In the event of such circumstances, a total of

USD28, 2401 contingency allocations is provided in this RAP budget to offset unforeseen cost.

This amount represents 25% of the total cost of USD 1,129,620 estimated to pay compensations

for petty traders had option IV was not considered.

However, the RoW in the section between Coca Cola Factory and AB Tolbert Road will remain

75fts. The project is planning to expand this section of the road from single carriage to double

carriage. Most of the properties and shops to be impacted by phase I activities in this section, of

the road are within the 75fts RoW.

Mitigation measures: To mitigate social and economic risks associated with loss of businesses

and income interruption, the GoL will compensate each affected business owner the value of the

business’ monthly net income for a period of six-month transition period. The monthly net income

reported by each business owner is used to arrive at the six months revenue loss allowance.

The GoL also agreed to compensate all affected business owners or petty traders for losses of

their revenue with legal and no legal customary title but with occupancy prior to the cutoff date.

The GoL is committed and agreed to pay all shop/store businesses and ensure full

accommodation of petty traders within the reserved 25ft space prior to commencing civil works in

Coca Cola Factor and Red-Light corridor.

2.3.1.4 Vulnerable Groups

A total of 28 potential PAPs in the project area are considered vulnerable people. Group of

vulnerable PAPs include: i) the elderly (65 years and older), ii) the disabled, ii) the sick and iv)

female household heads. Vulnerable people will be exposed to more vulnerability as the

shelters/buildings in which they are living and making livelihood will be affected by the project.

The elderly, the women head of households, the sick and disable will face more vulnerability as

they will depend on others to cater to their needs.


This group of vulnerable people will be provided with six months special package allowance to

cover rental, living expenses during the six months transition period. The total special package

for vulnerable people is estimated to be USD6, 160.00. The special package is calculated on a

basis of monthly rent for a transition period of six months, supplementary living, and transportation

allowances. The special package has been discussed and agreed with vulnerable PAPs.

In addition to the financial provision made under special package, vulnerable people will be

assisted with support that will include: i) arranging priority access to local heath posts for the sick

and the needy, ii) providing seed money for the elderly, iii) helping them open Bank account, iv)

assisting in obtaining documentation needed for processing and completing their compensation.

Table 2.6: Categories of Vulnerable People Category Gender

Total M F

Elderly (over 65 years old) 0 1 1

Female household heads (elderly and infirmed) 0 27 27

TOTAL 0 28 28

Mitigation measures: To mitigate vulnerability risks associated with disturbance, permanent and

temporary displacement of the 28 vulnerable people, the GoL shall give special attention to the

wellbeing of the elderly, the sick, and female household heads affected by the project. It will give

priority access to public services such as health. The GoL is committed and agreed to paying all

vulnerable groups their special assistance and compensation packages prior to commencing civil

works on the road corridor.

2.3.1.5 Tenants and Landlords

The project will impact a total of 48 tenants and land lords. Landlords will lose their rental incomes

while tenants will lose their rental shelters. To mitigate adverse impacts associated with incomes

and permanent shelters loses, the project will pay PAPs restorations and transition allowances

for period of six months. A total of USD 28,920.00 is allocated in this RAP to offset impacts

associated with rental incomes and shelters lose.

2.4 Other Studies

2.4.1 Land Tenure and Land Transfer System

Liberia has three land tenure systems, namely: i) Customary Tenure, ii) Freehold Tenure and iii)

Lease Hold Tenure.

Customary tenure involves the use of land which the government has granted to people in the rural space. Acquiring customary right is a bottom up oriented approach. The process starts with the lower level of the country’s administrative structure. The Town Chief is responsible for initiating the customary right process, from the Township it goes to the Clan or Paramount Chief, from the clan or paramount chief the process moves to the District Commissioner who finally prepares customary land Grant Certificates which are subsequently approved by the president of Liberia. However, it is important to note that the bottom up approach may not the one that is always practiced on the ground to process and get approval of customary right.


The freehold tenure involves holding land in perpetuity or for a term fixed by a condition and enables the holder to exercise, subject to the law, full powers of ownership. The lease hold tenure is created either by contract or by operation of the law. Under the tenure

the landlord or lesser grants the tenants or leaser exclusive possession of the land. Usually for

exclusive possession of the land, for a specific period in return for a grant, granting the tenants

security of tenure and a proprietary interest in the land.

2.4.2 Patterns of Social Interactions in Affected Communities

The communities along the 2.1km corridor are comprised of different languages, cultural and religious groups and nationalities. As such, there are different social and religious associations and clubs to which PAPs hold membership. Intermarriages are also common in this urban project area. All these enhance social cohesion and solidarity. The project will not disrupt or negatively impact these social and cultural associations or networks and structures such as churches, mosques and schools. There will not be relocation impact.


Chapter Three: Policy, Regulatory and Institutional Framework

3.1 Liberian Legal Framework This section presents a description of the legal framework for involuntary resettlement in Liberia.

The following Liberian Laws comprise the overall legal framework:

3.1.1 Land Right Policy of Liberia (2013)

The Land Right Policy of 2013 provides policy recommendations for land rights in Liberia,

centered on four basic types of rights: Public land Government land, customary land and private

land. The policy also fosters equal protection of all relative to all land matters. The policy

recognizes that since the founding of Liberia, the lands of customary communities have been less

secure than private lands. This must end such that land under customary practice and norms are

given protection equal to that of private land - I.e. the land right of men and women. In addition to

this policy, the Constitution of Liberia and the Land Acquisition Act of Liberia are the laws covering

land/property rights.

3.1.2 The Liberian Constitution 1986

Article 22(a) and (b) of the constitution gives right to all individuals who are citizen of Liberia to

own property, either on individual basis or in conjunction with other individuals. The right to

ownership of property however, does not extend to mineral resources on or beneath the land.

Article 24 indicates that the state guarantees the inviolability of property rights but then provides

for the expropriation of property for public purposes. It requires prompt payment of just

compensation where this occurs. However, there is lack of procedural provisions.

Article 24 of the 1986 Liberian Constitution further provides the basis for compensation for acquired land. It states that expropriation may be authorized for national security issues or where the public health and safety are endangered, or for any other public purposes, provided:

• That reasons for such expropriation are given;

• That there is prompt payment of just compensation;

• That such expropriation or the compensation offered may be challenged freely by the owner of the property in a court of law with no penalty for having brought such action; and

That when property taken for public use ceases to be so used, the republic shall accord the former

owner, the right of first refusal to reacquire the property.

Article 65 also contains provision that the courts shall apply both statutory and customary laws in

accordance with the standards enacted by the Legislature. This provides the constitutional basis

for the application of the customary land tenure rules under which many rural Liberians hold their

land.

3.1.3 Aborigines Law of 1956

Chapter II of this Act states that each tribe is entitled to the use of as much of the public land in the area inhabited by the tribe, as is required for farming and other enterprises essential to tribal necessities. It shall have the possession of such land as against any other person. It goes further to say that the omission of a tribe to have its territory so delimited shall not however, affect in any way its right to the use of the land. While this Act allows tribal people to own and use the land for


living and productive activities, it does not allow the individuals or groups using the land to transfer the land to another user. Chapter II of this Act states that each tribe is entitled to the use of as much of the public land in the area inhabited by the tribe, as is required for farming and other enterprises essential to tribal necessities. It shall have the possession of such land as against any other person. It goes further to say that the omission of a tribe to have its territory so delimited shall not however, affect in any way its right to the use of the land. While this Act allows tribal people to own and use the land for living and productive activities, it does not allow the individuals or groups using the land to transfer the land to another user.

3.1.4 Property law of 1976

This law established the conditions under which a Liberian can own real property and dispose of. It states that one must hold title document for such land and when transferring same, it shall be done by title, duly registered. Land acquired under this law allows the owner to convey or transfer it to another person(s) or entity through legal process. The difference between Aborigines and Property Laws is the right of land user to transfer or not to another land user.

3.1.5 Revised Rules & Regulations Governing the Hinterland of Liberia (2001)

These rules are a successor to the earlier law and Regulations on the hinterland. These rules apply not only to the hinterland, but also to land in other counties, under the customary land tenure system. Articles 66 and 67 of the rules grant tribal people in the rural area the right to utilize land in their locale. And that any stranger wishing to utilize such land as against their usage, such stranger shall compensate for the use of the land. The Land Acquisition Act of 1929 detail steps to be taken for land acquisition and payment of compensation for claimants whether in cash or land for land. Two other relevant laws that relate to the resettlement of people to be affected by infrastructure development are the Zoning Law and the Real Property Law. The 1958 Zoning Law prescribes designated sites for construction of specific structures. Construction of unauthorized structures is violation under this statute. Section 102 of the Law requires that Zoning Permit be obtained prior to construction of any structure. However, section 72 of the same statute also provide that a Temporary Permit could be obtained from the Zoning Council for a period not more than one year, to construct a non-conforming structure.

The Real Property Laws of Liberia is based upon the doctrine of Eminent Domain. As far as eminent domain is concerned, Article 24 of the constitution of Liberia stated that expropriation may be authorized for the security of the nation in the event of armed conflict or where the public health and safety are endangered or for any other public purposes, provided: i) that reasons for such expropriation are given; ii) that there is prompt payment of just compensation; iii) that such expropriation or the compensation offered may be challenged freely by the owner of the property in a court of law with no penalty for having brought such action; and iv) that when property taken for public use ceases to be so used, the Republic shall accord the former owner or those entitled to the property through such owner, the right of first refusal to reacquire the property. The Government of Liberia is the original granter of land in Liberia. Under the Real Property Laws of Liberia, the only instrument of Title is the Deed. Squatter Right is a right granted to an individual or group to use a specified land space for a specified period without ownership. Squatter Right is granted by municipalities and are covered by city ordinance. Originally, the Government of


Liberia granted land to the settlers and aborigines based upon the doctrine of pre-emption, the measure in which prior occupancy accompanied by improvement gives superiority in ownership to land (8LLR 4`6). This law is based on Aborigine Law. Pre-emption has been abolished with the growth of population and now public land must be purchased from the Government to have Title. (15LLR4243YLL). The pre-emption is a law under Real Property Law and the owner.

3.2 World Bank Operational Policy 4.12-Involuntary Resettlement

3.2.1 Policy Objectives

Involuntary resettlement may cause severe long-term hardship, impoverishment, and environmental damage unless appropriate measures are carefully planned and carried out. For these reasons, the overall objectives of the Bank's policy on involuntary resettlement are the following:

a. Involuntary resettlement should be avoided where feasible, or minimized, exploring all viable alternative project designs.

b. Where it is not feasible to avoid resettlement, resettlement activities should be

conceived and executed as sustainable development programs, providing sufficient investment resources to enable PAPs displaced by the project to share in project benefits. Displaced PAPs should be meaningfully consulted and should have opportunities to participate in planning and implementing resettlement programs.

c. Displaced PAPs should be assisted in their efforts to improve their livelihoods and standards of living or at least to restore them, in real terms, to pre-displacement levels or to levels prevailing prior to the beginning of project implementation, whichever is higher.

3.2.2 Impacts Covered

This World Bank policy OP 4.12 covers direct economic and social impacts that both result from Bank-assisted investment projects, and are caused by:

• The involuntary taking of land resulting in

o relocation or loss of shelter; o loss of assets or access to assets; or o loss of income sources or means of livelihood, whether or not the affected persons must move to another location;

• The involuntary restriction of access to legally designated parks and protected areas resulting in adverse impacts on the livelihoods of the displaced persons.

While policy objectives and impacts covered by the policy highlighted in the above paragraphs are meant to provide brief information on the scope of policy objectives and the extent of policy coverage, the entire Bank’s Policy (OP 4.12) is presented in annex I of this RAP.

The GoL is fully committed and agreed to comply with policy objectives and requirements of OP 4.12 while implementing this RAP in the 2.1km of Coca Cola factory and Red-light intersections.


3.3 Comparison of Liberian Legislations with World Bank Resettlement Policy

The table below provides a summary comparison between OP 4.12 requirements and the Liberian legal framework, highlighting key differences.

Table 3.1 below illustrated that there are differences between the Bank OP 4.12 requirements and existing Liberian Legislations. Considering the above-mentioned differences, World Bank policy complements the existing Liberian legislations with additional requirements related to:

▪ the economic rehabilitation of all affected persons and affected families (AP/AF), including those who do not have legal/formal rights on assets acquired by a project;

▪ the provision of indemnities for loss of business and income;

▪ the provision of special allowances covering PAP expenses during the resettlement process or covering the special needs of severely affected or vulnerable PAPs.

Summary of the differences and similarities between OP 4.12 and Liberian Legal Framework are shown in the Table 3.1 below.

Table3.1: Comparison of OP 4.12 Requirements with Liberian Legal Framework World Bank Safeguards / OP 4.12 Requirements Liberian Laws/requirements

The preparation of a resettlement plan cleared by the Bank prior to the implementation of the resettlement activities

There is no Liberian law mandating project proponents to develop resettlement action plan. Gaps will be addressed by this RAP and measure(s) to fill in the gap will be stipulated in the project’s legal agreement.

Involuntary displacement/ resettlement of people should be avoided or minimized where possible, because of its potential to cause disturbances and disruption in income generating activities and lead to poverty

There is no Liberian law mandating project proponent to develop resettlement action plan and there are no requirements to avoid and minimize resettlement. Gaps will be addressed by this RAP and measure(s) to fill in the gap will be stipulated in the project’s legal agreement.

However, where it is not feasible to avoid resettlement, resettlement activities should be conceived and executed as sustainable development programs, providing sufficient investment resources to enable the persons displaced by the project to share in project benefits

Constitution, Article 24a, I, ii, iii, iv: While the inviolability of private property shall be guaranteed by the Republic, expropriation may be authorized for the security of the nation in the event of armed conflict or where the public health and safety are endangered or for any other public purposes provided:

• that reasons for such expropriation are given;

• that there is prompt or just payment;

• that such expropriation or the compensation offered may be challenged freely by the owner of the property in a court of law with no penalty for having brought such action; and

• that when property taken for public uses ceases to be used, the Republic shall accord the former owner or, the right of first refusal to reacquire the property.”

Displaced persons should be meaningfully consulted and should have opportunities to participate in planning and implementing resettlement programs.

Constitution, Article 24 does not cover this. Gaps will be addressed by this RAP and measure(s) to fill in the gap will be stipulated in the project’s legal agreement.

Displaced persons should be assisted in their efforts to improve their livelihoods and standards of living or at least to restore them, in real terms, to pre-displacement levels or to levels prevailing prior to the beginning of project implementation, whichever is higher.

Constitution, Article 24 (as quoted above) does not extend to this aspect of the bank’s safeguards requirements. Gaps will be addressed by this RAP and measure(s) to fill in the gap will be stipulated in the project’s legal agreement.


World Bank Safeguards / OP 4.12 Requirements Liberian Laws/requirements

Relocated to as close as possible to original site if possible

Not covered by existing Liberian laws. Gaps will be addressed by this RAP and measure(s) to fill in the gap will be stipulated in the project’s legal agreement.

Compensated for losses at replacement costs. The Constitution mandates just compensation. Gaps will be addressed by this RAP and measure(s) to fill in the gap will be stipulated in the project’s legal agreement.

Compensations and other assistance to project affected people must be done prior to the displacement of the people for restoring their livelihoods, if significantly affected.

Constitution, Article 24 does not cover this. Gaps will be addressed by this RAP and measure(s) to fill in the gap will be stipulated in the project’s legal agreement.

Sites intended for the resettlement of project affected

people, new homes and related infrastructures, public services and moving allowances must be provided to the affected persons in accordance with the provisions of the resettlement plan

Constitution, Article 24 i. Gaps will be addressed by this RAP and measure(s) to fill in the gap will be stipulated in the project’s legal agreement.

Attention should be paid to the needs of the poorest groups to be resettled.

No mention of vulnerable groups. Gaps will be addressed by this RAP and measure(s) to fill in the gap will be stipulated in the project’s legal agreement.

Squatters: Persons covered under para. 15(c) of OP 4.12 are provided resettlement assistance in lieu of compensation for the land they occupy, and other assistance, as necessary, to achieve the objectives set out in this policy, if they occupy the project area prior to a cut-off date established by the borrower and acceptable to the Bank

There is no provision in Liberian Law. Gap will be addressed by this RAP and measure(s) to fill in the gap will be stipulated in the project’s legal agreement.

Preference is given to compensating land for land There is no provision in Liberian Law. Gap will be addressed by this RAP and measure(s) to fill in the gap will be stipulated in the project’s legal agreement.

Full replacement for loss of production trees based on life of species and maturity/productive value.

Compensation payment of USD6 per tree for economic crops such as oil palm tree, rubber tree and for bundle of sugar cane is what is provided by GoL. This is not consistent with the Bank’s involuntary policy. This gap will be addressed by this RAP and measure(s) to fill in the gap will be stipulated in the project’s legal agreement.

While the above are gaps between the Liberian legal provision and the Bank’s policy on involuntary resettlement, the GoL has agreed that when and where there are variances between the World Bank’s Policy on Involuntary Resettlement and that of Liberia’s Law, the one that is superior and prove to provide better and fair entitlement benefits to PAPs shall be applied.

3.4 Institutional Framework The institutions responsible for the RAP implementation are highlighted below with their

mandates. They are:

3.4.1 Ministry of Public Works

The Ministry of Public Works has the responsibility for the design, construction and maintenance

of roads, bridges, storm sewers, public buildings and other functions including urban and town

planning, provision of architectural and engineering services, and zoning regulations. The Ministry

has an Infrastructure Implementation Unit (IIU) charged with the implementation of World Bank

and other donor funded projects. The MPW through the IIU provides overall leadership for the

preparation, implementation, monitoring and reporting of all RAP activities. The IIU has a social


safeguard officer who is responsible for overseeing social safeguard related issues. Overall

safeguard capacity needs to be strengthened.

3.4.2 Environmental Potential Agency (EPA)

The EPA is mandated to set environmental quality standards and ensure compliance with

stipulated environmental standards. The EPA is responsible for the provision of guidelines for the

preparation of Environment Assessment and Audits, and the issuance of environmental permits.

These may include certification procedure for road projects and other activities potentially

dangerous to the environment. From time to time EPA involves in RAP field verification exercise

and they are natural partner.

This Ministry supervises the development and management of minerals resources and conducts

scientific and technical investigations required for environmental assessments. The Ministry,

besides its pivotal role in mineral sources development, it is also in charge of regulating public

and private lands. This includes land tenure, land policy, land reform, land use, planning, and

other aspects of land administration. The MLME plays role and is responsible to resolve land

disputes arising among PAPs and helps the GoL to establish the rightful land owner during RAP

verification exercises and throughout the RAP implementation period.

3.4.4 Ministry of Finance and Development Planning (MFDP)

Ministry of Finance and Development Planning (MFDP) is the agency of Government responsible

for the allocation of funds for the RAP implementation. It also carries out the processing and

payment of resettlement compensation through its Public Financial Management Unit (PFMU).

3.4.5 Liberia Revenue Authority (LRA)

The Liberia Revenue Authority is the agency of Government responsible for the valuation of

structures and land mainly for tax purposes. It is also responsible for the collection of Government

revenues such as taxes.

3.4.6 General Auditing Commission (GAC)

The General Auditing Commission is the agency of Government responsible for ensuring

accountability and transparency. The entity will ensure that the funds provided are expended for

the intended purposes as stipulated in the RAP.

3.5 Institutional Capacity and Role

The RAP implementation will involve various agencies; however, the overall responsibility lies with the Infrastructure Implementation Unit of the Ministry of Public Works (IIU/MPW). While well defined, organizational structure exists within the MPW, there is a strong need to strengthen RAP preparation, supervision and implementation capacity of the IIU. Equally, the level of awareness and understanding of MPW of OP 4.12 policy is extremely low. Sensitization and awareness workshops on the Bank’s involuntary policy and on RAP preparation and implementation processes for MPW are very critical and shall be implemented. A total of about 60 policy makers, planning and technical department staff, district, and local level officials as well as MPW resident engineers, property valuators and contractors should be targeted. The training is estimated to cost USD60,000. This provisional budget will cover local participants’ costs


including per diem and transportation cost. The training will be conducted outside of Monrovia. The GoL is committed to ensuring the implementation of this training as planned. To strengthen existing weak capacity, the GoL will continue to utilize the service of Monitoring Consultants in order to ensure proper supervision and monitoring of RAP implementation. The GoL has committed and agreed to hire a monitoring consultant before the implementation of the RAP.


Chapter Four: Entitlement and Eligibility

This Resettlement Action Plan is designed to meet Liberian legal provisions and that of the World

Bank’s policy on involuntary resettlement (OP 4.12) on entitlement and compensation. In case of

conflict between the Liberian legal provision and that of the World Bank’s Policy, the superior legal

provision or policy that offers better and fair entitlement benefits to PAPs shall prevail.

The IIU/MPW in collaboration with the World Bank shall be responsible for ensuring that the

superior policy or legal provision is applied in all cases where gaps have been identified between

the Bank’s Policy and the Liberian Legislation. The GoL is committed and agreed to implement

this RAP as a binding instruments as stated in this paragraph and other sections of this document.

This agreement and provision will be reflected into the project agreement document.

4.1 Entitlement

The entitlement matrix below defines the criteria for qualifications to receiving compensation for

assets and means of livelihoods that will be affected by civil work activities to be undertaken within

Coca Cola Factory and Red-Light corridor. It outlines: i) description of loss, ii) category of affected

persons, iii) the type of impact, iv) number of assets to be impacted, iv) entitlement for each

category impact and, v) special assistance that will be offered.

Table 4.1: Entitlement Matrix

Description of

Loss

Category of

Affected Persons

Type of Impact

No. Assets or means of

livelihoods impacted

Entitlement

Special Assistance

Private Building structures used for:

• Residential

• Business

• Rental

PAPs with legal or customary ownership

Full or partial losses of structures/properties

133 structures

Full Replacement Cost for structures If building structure is affected partially and the remaining part of the structure is not usable, the owner/PAP will receive full replacement compensation for the entire structure.

Not eligible

PAPs with no legal or customary title but with occupancy prior to the cutoff date


Full replacement costs for structures only If building structure is affected partially and the remaining part of the structure is not usable, the owner/PAP will receive full replacement compensation for the entire structure.

Not eligible


Vulnerable Groups with legal or customary title


28vulnerable

Full Replacement Cost for structures If building structure is affected partially and the remaining part of the structure is not usable, the owner/PAP will receive full replacement compensation for the entire structure.

Six-month rental, living and other supplementary allowances per persons as well as priority access to health and other public services. Assistance moving if required

Vulnerable Groups with no legal or customary title

Full replacement costs for structures only If building structure is affected partially and the remaining part of the structure is not usable, the owner/PAP will receive full replacement compensation for the entire structure.

Tenants Loss of residence

24tenants Six months’ rental allowance based on rent paid for a place occupied before the project.

Eligible

Landlord Loss of income of rental

24structures

Six months’ rental income based on rent received for a place occupied before the project.

Eligible

Public Properties used for:

• Health centers,

• Radio station,

• School

• sign boards and fences

Local government/community


3 structures Full Replacement Cost of public If building structure is affected partially and the remaining part of the structure is not usable, the entity will receive full replacement compensation for the entire structure.

Not eligible

Business Owner of business – both formal and informal

Loss of income/revenue or means of livelihoods

64 owners Six months’ net income for each affected business based on monthly net income loss. Full replacement cost of structure and land

Eligible


Person with no legal or customary title but with occupancy prior to the cutoff date

Six months’ net income for each affected business based on monthly net income loss Squatters are not compensated for land, but must be compensated for loss of structures they have built

Eligible

4.2 Eligibility

All PAPs, within the Coca Cola Factory and Red-Light corridor, who suffers direct social and

economic impacts and whose livelihoods are disturbed because of: a) the involuntary taking of

land by the project leading to relocation or loss of shelter, b) loss of assets or access to assets,

c) loss of income sources or mean of livelihood, whether affected persons must move to another

location, shall be qualified for compensation and special transition assistances (rental,

transportation and living assistance).

The GoL has committed and agreed to compensate full replacement cost for assets or structures to those PAPs who have legal title to the land, those who do not have legal title to land but reside in the project affected area before the cut-off date. The Gol agreed to follow the compensation matrix provided in this RAP while paying entitlement to eligible PAPs. Structures owners will have the option to demolish their own structures and salvage the value that will be useful to them once compensation payment has been received by PAPs. PAPs will have the right to salvage materials without reduction in their compensation amount.

4.2.1 Definition of PAPs

PAPs under this RAP are defined as: i) Those who are residing within the Coca Cola Factory and Red-Light corridor and

those found within the defined the 50ft and 75ft RoW as discussed in the design options of the section of this RAP;

ii) Those who have suffered direct economic and social impacts resulting from land acquisition, partial or full demolition of structures, permanent or temporary impacts and, site clearing exercises for advancing the project objective;

iii) Those vulnerable group residing within the Coca Cola Factory and Red-Light corridor and who are directly affected by the project;

iv) Those who are qualified for special assistance or packages;

4.2.2 Criteria for Determining Eligibility

PAPs will be eligible and shall be entitled to compensation for loss of land, structures, source of incomes, loses of shelters as well as to special assistances (rental, transportation and living allowance). The criteria for determining eligibilities are described below:

• PAPs who have formal ownership and other rights to land (including customary, free hold, lease hold rights as recognized under Liberian law);

• Those with temporary or leased rights to use land;


• PAPs who do not have formal legal rights to lands or other assets at the time of the census, but who have claim to such legal rights by virtue of occupation or use of those assets (squatters); and

• Affected Businesses within the RoW;

• Affected vulnerable groups residing within the RoW;

• Affected tenants and landlords. In line with above listed criteria, the assets re-inventory and re-verification exercise undertaken, between October 2 -19, 2017, covering Coca Cola Factory and Red-Light Corridor determined that a total of 275 PAPs will be directly affected by the project and shall be eligible for resettlement and special assistance as listed below:

• 133 Private Properties Owners

• 3 Public Properties Owners

• 64Businesses/Shops Owners

• 24 Landlords

• 24 Tenants

• 28 Vulnerable people The re-verification exercise was done to reconfirm the validity of the first verification exercise that was done in February 2017 as well as to obtain and update the data in relation to the 2.1km road to be constructed under phase I of the project. The exercise indicated that the value of properties to be compensated has increased by 37% over and above the original valuation result. The consolidated table below depicts the overall result of the revaluation exercise the details are provided as an annex to this RAP. Table 4.2: Comparative data on the original valuation vs the revised valuation

Valuation Stage Structures Business Landlords/Tenants Total

Original Valuation $281,343.30 $51,930.00 $10,380.00 $343,653.30

Revised Valuation $403,382.54 $53,520.00 $14,460.00 $471,362.54

Variances (Revised– Original) 122,938 1,590 4,080 127,709.24

NB: The revised valuation is based on the Ministry of Public Works approved price list for affected properties for Development Projects dated November 2017.

4.2.3 Cut-off Date

The cut-off-date of the census for the entire SD Cooper and Coca Cola Factory corridor was on

February 12, 2017.

Prior to the cut-off date, public notice announcing the project intention to undertake census of

potential assets to be affected by the project in the SD Cooper and Coca Cola Factory corridor

had been made.

All PAPs residing, owning land or assets, carrying on business activities in the entire project

corridor and also those who are not residing in the affected corridor(s) but conducting businesses

and, earning income within the corridor(s) and who will be affected by the project at the cut-off

date, February 12 2017, the last day of inventory of affected assets, will be entitled and eligible to

receive compensation and resettlement assistance.


Persons who encroach into the project affected area after the cut-off-date are not entitled to compensation or any form of assistance.

Chapter Five: Valuation and Compensation for Losses This chapter discusses methodologies used in: i) valuing assets impacted by phase I of the project

and, ii) determining their full replacement cost. It provides a description of proposed types and

levels of compensation under Liberian law as well as those of OP4.12 supplementary measures

considered as necessary to achieve full replacement cost for lost assets.

5.1 Valuation Methodologies

The assets valuation exercise was guided by valuation methods currently used by the Liberia Revenue Authority (LRA) and that of Real Estate Surveyor (property valuator) valuation rates for land and structures, and that of the World Bank’s Policy on Involuntary Resentment – the principle of full replacement cost. The unit rates structures are shown in Table 5.1( see Annex 6 – Unit rates of structure types) . the Table shows the new rates approved by the Ministry of Public Works for affected properties. :

The LRA periodically reviewed, revised, and updated market value based on prevailing material market price and labor cost. The prevailing rates per area of structure and materials used for construction are used to calculate and arrive at full replacement cost. This methodology is used to determine the rates to be applied for arriving at full replacement cost for affected structures captured in this RAP. In events where Liberian legal provision does not meet the principle of full replacement cost as

required by the World Bank’s policy on involuntary resettlement, compensation amount under this

RAP is supplemented by the Bank’s OP 4.12 provision. The objective is to achieve the principle

of the World Bank’s policy of full replacement cost. To that end the GoL is committed and has

agreed to honor the principle of full replacement cost for affected properties/assets as required

by the World Bank’s Policy on Involuntary Resettlement. This requirement will be incorporated

into the legal agreement between the Bank and the GoL.

5.1.1 Private Structure

A total of 132 private structures with total of full replacement cost of USD397, 600.92 are expected

to be impacted by the project. Compensation for structures followed the principle of “Full

Replacement Cost.” Full replacement cost for these properties is calculated using market cost of

the materials to build a replacement structure with an area and quality similar to or better than

those of the affected structure, or to repair a fully or partially affected structure, plus the cost of

transporting building materials to the construction site, plus the cost of any labor and contractors'

fees, plus the cost of any registration and transfer taxes.

Table 5.2: Private Properties to be impacted No. Type of Structure # of Structures Cost USD

1 Concrete structures (single) 24 $199,838.08

2 Concrete structures ( Storey building)

1 $28,560.00

3 Fences (concrete, chain link, grill)

4 $7,506.60


The census categorized private structures by type of material used to build the affected structure and the value of the affected structures at full replacement cost. Their values were determined by the prevailing market price of building materials including labor cost necessary for construction. This methodology is adopted from the Real Estate Division of the Ministry of Finance and Development Planning (Now the Liberia Revenue Authority (LRA)).Table 5.2 shows private structures to be affected.

5.1.2 Public Structures

A total of 3 public structures in the project area are expected to be affected by the project. Compensation for public structures followed the principle of “Full Replacement Cost.” The compensation amount was calculated using market cost of the materials to build a replacement public structure with an area and quality similar to or better than those affected by the project, or to repair fully or partially affected public structure. Table 5.3: Public Structures

The total cost of restoring these public structures is USD 5,781.63 as depicted in Table 5.3. Full replacement cost is calculated in accordance with the rates presented in the Real Estates properties valuation of the Liberia Revenue Authority and supplemented by OP 4.12 provision.

5.1.3 Businesses

A total of 64 shops/stores/ businesses are expected to be affected by the project within Coca Cola Factory and Red-Light corridor. Compensation for losses of income to businesses is determined by multiplying the monthly net income of each business by six month income stream to arrive at the total business restoration allowance for each business owner. The total compensation to be paid for affected businesses is USD53, 520.00. This amount represents loss of revenue suffered by businesses.

4 Sun-dried bricks structures (Mud bricks)

20 $54,486.94

5 Gas/Petro Stations 5 $10,907.25

6 Containers 38 $9,500.00

7 Signboards (metal and concrete)

9 $4,500.00

8 Pavement (Concrete) 7 $47,304.80

9 Shelter (an extended roof like canopy)

8 $11,534.43

10 Wooden structures 10 $6,314.70

11 Stair cases (Concrete) 1 $6,750.00

12 Hand Pump 2 $7,200.00

13 Zinc Framing 1 $1,028.13

14 Well 1 $540.00

15 Monument 2 $1,630.00

Sub Total: 133 $397,600.92

No. Type of Structure # Properties USD

1 Concrete 1 5,100.00

2 Shelter 1 471.63

3 Wooden 1 210.00

Total: 3 5,781.63


Chapter six: Resettlement Measures

This Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) is prepared in line with OP 4.12 stipulations as well as

the Liberian legal provision. In accordance with these provisions: I) each affected PAP was

informed about his/her options and rights pertaining to affected asset and compensation

offered, ii) all PAPs in the project area have been consulted and were requested to

propose/suggest resettlement, or entitlement options that are feasible and acceptable to them

and all PAPs have proposed cash compensation, iii) all PAPs have been informed that they

shall be provided prompt and effective compensation at full replacement cost1for losses of

assets2 attributable directly to the project’s component I activities. All PAPs were informed or

consulted on the values of their assessed/valuated properties and methods used to arrive at

full replacement cost compensation amounts. These methods were used as the basis for

explaining impacts and benefits to PAPs.

During individual PAPs interview as well as during consultation sessions, all property owners

indicated their preference for cash compensation. In view of the cash preference expressed,

the compensation package for affected properties shall be paid out to PAPs in cash.

6.1 Description of Compensation Packages and Impacts Covered

The total compensation and assistance package for impacts associated with the phase I of the

project is estimated to be USD497, 412.55. The compensation package is geared toward

mitigating the direct economic and social impacts associated with component I, civil works, as

shown in Table 6.1 below

Table 6.1: Compensation packages by category of impacts on various assets

No.

Categories of Affected Assets

Compensation and Entitlements

Full Replacement Cost for Structures

Income loss

Special Assistance

Total USD

1 Private Structures 397,600.92 0 0 397,600.92

2. Public Structures 5,781.63 0 0 5,781.63

3. Shop/store businesses

53,520.00

0 53,520.00

4. Disturbance Allowance for Tenants

0 0 14,460.00 14,460.00

5 Disturbance Allowance for Landlords

0 14,460.00

0 14,460.00

6. Vulnerable Groups 0 - 6.160 6,160.00

7. Refund for processing document

5,430.00 0 0 5,430.00

Total Compensation

408,812.55 67,980.00

20,620.00 497,412.55

1"Replacement cost" is the method of valuation of assets that helps determine the amount sufficient to replace lost assets and cover transaction costs. In

applying this method of valuation, depreciation of structures and assets should not be taken into account. 2If the residual of the asset being taken is not economically viable, compensation and other resettlement assistance are provided as if the entire asset

had been taken.


6.2Magnitude Impacts

Magnitude of impacts and impacts covered by compensation and assistance packages are

presented I table 6.2below:

Table 6.2: Magnitude of Impacts by Categories of Impacts

No.

Categories of

Impacts

Magnitude of Impact

Total

Compensation USD

Fully Impacted

Partially

Impacted

Temporary

Permanent

ly

1 Private Properties Owners

101

32 0 0 133 397,600.92

2 Public Properties Owners

2 1 0 0 3 5,781.63

3 Businesses/Shops Owners

0 0 20 44 64 53,520

4 Landlords

0 0 24 24 14,460

5 Tenants

0 0 0 24 24 14,460

6 Vulnerable Groups

0 0 28 0 28 6,160

Total 103 33 48 92 276 491,982.55 Note: Refund for processing of document is USD5, 430.00 and is not included in the above cost

As illustrated in the above table, the magnitude of the project’s impacts will include:

• 133 private properties of which 101 will be fully impacted and 32 will be partially impacted,

• 3 public properties of which 2 will be fully impacted and 1 will be partially impacted,

• 64 businesses/shops of which 44 will be permanently impacted and 20 will be temporarily

impacted,

• 24 landlords will lose rental income permanently,

• 24 tenants will lose their shelters permanently and physically relocate themselves and will

have to find new rental place,

• 28 vulnerable people will be impacted temporarily,


Chapter Seven: Public Participation and Consultation

7.1 Consultation with Stakeholders

A multi-stakeholder consultation has been held between October 2016 and February 2017.

Stakeholders who participated in the consultation included: i) Paynesville City Corporation, ii) the

Liberia Marketing Association, iii) The Liberia Petty-Traders Association, iv) The Motorcycle

Union, vi) PAPs.

PAPs who are residing within Coca Cola factory and Red-Light Corridor were informed on

entitlement offered and have also been consulted on other options including:

• The replacement values of their properties and methods used to arrival at full replacement

cost were explained by GoL,

• Availability of cash option for PAPs who prefer cash compensation for their affected

properties,

• Availability of six months transition allowances for losses of: a) rental income (landlords),

ii) business income, iii) rental shelter (Renters),

• Availability of special packages for six months transition period to vulnerable people,

• Availability of relocation option to Omega market site for petty-traders if they chose so,

• Availability of option to remain within existing location for petty-traders who refused to

move to Omega market,

• Information on their right to be informed about their choices and their right to make free

and informed choice as well as their right to accept or reject what is offered to them by

GoL (project),

• Availability of GRMs to file dispute and seek remedy when they are not satisfied with

entitlements and assistance packages offered to them,

During the consultation exercise all stakeholders fully participated and indicated their full support

for the project and their willingness to support its smooth implementation.

7.2 Consultation Strategy

During consultations with stakeholders, various consultation methods were used, including: i)

focus group discussions, ii) informal interviews and, ii) public consultations. In each of these

consultation sessions question and answers sessions have been used to obtain their views and

efforts were made to ensure that everyone’s voice was heard, responded to and recorded.

7.2.1 Focus Groups Discussion

As part of the focus group discussions, the field visit also included interviews and discussions with

various groups of PAPs, local authorities and other stakeholders along the Coca Cola factory to

Red-Light corridor. Their views have been accommodated, attempts have been made to give

appropriate responses to their concerns, and their concerns have been recorded and addressed

in this RAP.


7.2.2 Informal Interview

In addition to focus group discussions, numerous informal interviews with individual PAPs were

conducted to supplement information obtained from other sources. This, to some extent, has

helped to eliminate misinformation about the project. The interview with individual PAPs was also

used as an opportunity to clarify to each PAP the goal of resettlement and the intention of

compensation for assets to be impacted by the project.

7.2.3 Summary Views Expressed

Summary of views expressed by PAPs and responses given are listed below:

# View Expressed Responses

1 Worries over the possibility of inadequate notice from the authorities in charge of resettlement implementation

IIU/MPW in collaboration with Paynesville city corporation will allow at least two months evacuation or moving period from the time compensation and entitlements are paid to each PAP.

2 Tenants who have made advance payment to house owners are concerned about refunds

The special package compensation will provide six months rental allowance to tenants. Rental advance dispute between tenants and landlords shall be handled through the appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms that are in place in Liberia.

3 Some were concerned that they might not be given adequate compensation, thus afraid of being made worse off than they were before the project

Full Replacement Cost will be used to pay for affected properties. The IIU/MPW will do everything possible to prevent PAPs from falling below pre-project level.

4 The most important issues over which all PAPs raised concerns were adequacy of compensation for affected assets, and restoration of livelihoods

Full Replacement Cost will be used to pay for affected properties. The IIU/MPW will do everything possible to prevent PAPs from falling below pre-project level.

5 Affected people are concerned about the inconvenience of potential relocation, if any, and loss of livelihoods

There will not be relocation. The initial plan to move to Omega market has been abandoned by GoL.

6 Suggested that their businesses be restored to their original state as part of the resettlement plan

Six months revenue loss will be paid to business owners. It is anticipated that businesses will restore their operation within the six months transition period.

7 Make fair and timely compensation available for their affected assets as this goes a long way in establishing community trust in the government’s effort

Liberian law as well as the OP 4.12 supplementary measures will be considered as necessary to achieve full replacement cost for lost assets.

8 Harmonization of the relocation schedule with the school calendar to avoid disruption of academic activities of affected children and gain the support of concerned parents

There will not be relocation

9 Many PAPs show cash preferences over the project taking responsibility for replacing fully and partially affected structures

Cash compensation shall be considered for majority of the PAPs

7.3 Resettlement Alternatives

During the consultation exercises as well as during face-to-face meetings, PAPs were offered with the following alternatives including choices related to forms of compensation and resettlement assistance:

7.3.1 Alternatives Offered

In line with OP 4.12 requirement as well as the national provision, PAPs have been offered with the following alternatives:

i) cash compensation for affected structures using full replacement cost of the affected structure;

ii) project take the responsibility for replacing the fully or partially affected structures;


iii) Paying six months’ net income loss for businesses that may be partially and fully affected;

iv) Paying six months’ rental/lease allowance for tenants who will be affected, v) Allowing 25ft of the 75ft RoW for petty-trader to carry on their activities without

being relocated to another location; vi) Providing six months’ rental, living and supplemental allowances to vulnerable

people; vii) Allowing vulnerable people to have priority access to public services, viii) Allow petty-traders to move to Omega Market as proposed by the GoL. This option

was rejected by petty-traders

7.3.2 Choices Related to Compensation and Resettlement Assistance

Following the consultation processes carried out at various locations, PAPs have indicated their choices to followings and these choices are incorporated into this RAP compensation and resettlement assistance package:

1. Cash Compensation: Cash compensation will be paid to land owners and users, with consideration to the following:

a) Where land or property is not the preferred resettlement option for the affected persons;

b) Where livelihoods are, land based but the land taken for the project is a small fraction of the affected asset and the residual is economically active;

c) Where active markets for land, housing and labor exist, and there is sufficient supply of land and housing; or

d) Where livelihoods are not land based cash compensation for loss of non-moveable assets is given preference for this form of compensation.

2. Special assistance: In addition to the compensation, special assistance allowances will be

paid to PAPs. These allowances will cover rent of temporary accommodation, where necessary. The cost of moving all household items and any salvageable materials to new location, or from the rented house to a new house (i.e. moving allowance) will also be paid. These allowances will be payable in lump-sum to the PAP.

3. Compensation for loss of Business: In a situation where the PAPs incurred losses of income from business, the compensation method should be the following:

• Estimate of net monthly profit of the business based on records if any, on operator’s statements, cross-checked by an assessment of visible stocks and activity.

• Application of these net monthly profits to the period during which the business is prevented to operate; .

4. Vulnerable Households: Special attention will be paid to vulnerable groups defined as those already experiencing some form of hardship (e.g. because of extreme poverty, sickness, handicap, female-headed households, the aged, etc.) and for whom loss of land/property/income sources could lead to further hardship. To ensure that resettlement does not further exacerbate the conditions of these groups additional assistance such as special access to health centers, opening of bank account, helping to process document relevant to their compensation payment will be provided for their households. The GoL through IIU is responsible for these tasks and committed to carrying out as stated in this paragraph.


5. Form of payment: Payment will be made by bank check to each PAP. In case an individual

is absent during payment, the IIU/MPW will immediately communicate a new date of payment to such individual(s).In the meantime, the amount will be deposited in escrow account that will be opened for this purpose. All PAPs will present passport-sized photographs of themselves along with a clearance or proof of ownership to the IIU/MPW in order to qualify for payment or assistance, and serve as a means of identification. Notification of compensation payment will include locations where payments will be made, the time and date of payment as well as the beneficiaries of such payment.

7.4 Provision for updating Information on PAPs

The Infrastructure Implementation Unit of the Ministry of Public Works (IIU/MPW) is responsible for conducting public consultations and disclosure. The goal of consultations and disclosure shall be to inform affected people and to solicit feedback that will assist the implementation of the RAP. It shall include:

• Creation of multi-stakeholder committees to identify and address project impacts on ongoing basis and bring forward community concerns including compensation and resettlement progress,

• Devising communication strategy on ongoing basis to ensure that affected persons are informed and kept knowledgeable of resettlement policies and can ask and respond to questions/ comments appropriately in local dialects or English,

• Hosting regular meetings of PAPs and their representatives,

• Maintenance of an open-door policy through which PAPs can seek advice and lodge complaints. The focal point to be contacted on safeguard issues is Cynthia Bropleh, IIU/MPW, Monrovia. Telephone numbers: (+231) 0886940 715 and 0777938 101.

• Creation of GRMs at different levels.

7.5 Grievance Redress Mechanism and Procedures

Many grievance/complaints are originated from misunderstanding of compensation issues and procedures. Grievance Redress Mechanisms (GRMs) at various levels shall be established. GRMs will provide opportunities and venues for PAPs to file complaints related to compensation. It will also be open to people who believe they have erroneously been left out of the census. It shall be provided with the requisite funding in order to offset its operational and administrative cost. A grievance redresses mechanism committee of knowledgeable persons experience in the area of conflict resolution shall be constituted at all levels. PAPs have been informed about the role of GRMs and the procedures to access the committees at each level. The committees will be established prior to the implementation of RAP. Rapid training shall be offered to GRMs members before the start of RAP. The IIU/MPW will, on ongoing basis, inform PAPs on the existence of GRMs and will track cases on a monthly basis. PAPs shall be informed of the Members of the different committees through radio announcements, newspaper publication, a prepared flyer given to the PAP during the disclosure process of the full compensation and benefit amount due. The Ministry of Public Works and its Infrastructure Implementation Unit (MPW/IIU) in collaboration with PAPs is responsible for establishing the GRMs as described below:

7.5.1 Project Level Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM)

A project level GRM is a system of dispute resolution that shall be established within the 2.1km of the Coca Cola Factory and Parker Paint intersection. Its objective is to bring GRM closer to PAPs. First instance dispute/grievances shall be handled at the project level where the impact project area is. All effort shall be made to resolve issues at the first instance. If the project level


committee is unable to resolve the issues, the case will be transferred to MPW level GRM. Inability to resolve issues at project level will trigger automatic transfer of the case to District Level GRM. The project level GRM shall have the following members:

• The Monitoring Consultant, Chair

• The County Resident Engineer, Member

• The Contracting Entity, Member

• Paynesville City Corporation (PCC), Member

• Liberia Marketing Association (LMA)

• Petty Traders Association, Member

• Transport Union, Member

• PAPs’ representative (male)

• PAPs’ representative (female)

• IIU Project safeguards Officer

• Property Valuator (MPW), Member Project level GRM committee shall resolve or reach a decision five (5) days from the date the complaint is received. The chairperson of the GRM committee shall communicate the committee’s decision to the aggrieved PAPs in writing and keep record of all decisions related to each case. The committee will have registration log of complaints and the log shall be kept in a place accessible to the public. Table 7.5.1 GRM Representatives at Project Level

No Name Position Cell # Email

1 Shaun Pearton/Emmanuel T. Kaye Monitoring Consultant- Chair

0886130796/0880620463

[email protected] / [email protected]

2 G. Lahaison Waritay Resident Engineer- Co Chair

0886526467/077006420

[email protected]

3 Wu Contracting entity

4 Stanley Zahn PCC 0886515854 [email protected]

5 Catharine Early LMA 0886584178

6 Theodore G. Lymas Jr Petty Trader 0886589171/0775291946

[email protected]

7 Emmanuel S. Johnson Transport Union 0886851609

8 T. Doe Johnson PAP 0776871553

9 Marway O. Davis PAP 0886581496/0775320086

Cynthia T.Bropleh Safeguard Office 0886940175/0777938101

[email protected]

7.5.2 IIU/MPW Level Grievance Redress Mechanism

A committee of knowledgeable persons, experience in the subject area, shall be constituted at the IIU/MPW to handle complaints that have not been addressed or resolved at the project level. All efforts shall be made to resolve issues at the IIU/MPW level. This is the last level of appeal and the decision at IIU/MPW level shall be the final stage of the mediation effort. The chairperson of the GRM committee shall communicate the committee’s decision to the aggrieved PAPs in

mailto:[email protected]












writing and keep record of all decisions related to each case. The committee will have registration log of complaints and the log shall be kept in a place accessible to the public. The IIU/MPW level GRM shall be comprised of the following members:

• Deputy Minister for Administration, MPW, Chair person

• MPW Legal Council, Member

• Internal Audit, Member

• PAPs’ representative (male)

• PAPs’ representative (female) The IIU MPW level Grievance Redress Mechanism committee shall do everything possible to resolve issues within fifteen (15) days from the date the case has been transferred to it from the project level GRM committee. The chairperson of the committee shall communicate the committee’s decision to the aggrieved PAP(s) in writing. The decision reached at the IIU/MPW GRM committee level will be the final stage of the mediation efforts. If PAP is not satisfied with the GRM processes set for the project, the PAP will have the right to seek remedy through the court. The committee shall keep record of all decisions related to each case. Table 7.5.2 GRM Representatives at IIU/MPW Level

No Name Position Cell # Email

1 Hon. Joseph P. Todd DMA(M3)- Chair 0776512150 [email protected]

2 Michael Diggs Legal/MPW

3 Fredrick D. Hunder Jr. IIU/MPW 0777075762 [email protected]

4 Henry Demawu MPW 0770454555

5 Sangai Hoff MPW 0886875560 [email protected]

6 Johnny Boakai PAP 0775149395

7 Mary Tuwazama PAP 0886573210

7.6 Grievance Procedures

The following procedures shall be followed while filing and processing complains:

• Grievance Register Book: A grievance register book shall be opened and kept in the office of each GRM committee. All grievances shall be registered when and upon the receipt of complaints from the aggrieved. The book shall have: i) case reference number, ii) the aggrieved name, iii) the date the case is received, iv) the date the case is resolved and, v) a remarks column.

• Responsibility for Registering Complains: the Monitoring Consultant in the project area shall register in the Grievance Register Book all written complaints received.

• Case Receipt: Within 24 hours of receiving complaints, the monitoring consultant shall issue a letter to the aggrieved acknowledging receipt of the case and providing a date when the case will be reviewed as well as the venue.

• Public Access to the book: The book shall be accessible to the public,

• PAPs: All PAPs who have issues with their compensation and assistances are required to submit written complaints to the appropriate level of GRMs.

• Mediation meetings and outcomes will be recorded and kept in safe places at each of the Grievance Redress Mechanism Committee’s locations.



Chapter Eight: Organizational Responsibilities for RAP

Implementation

8.1 Roles and Responsibilities of the Implementing Institutions

The key organizations responsible for RAP implementation, their role and responsibilities are

summarized below:

i. Ministry of Public Work: The MPW is the executive agency and is responsible for

ensuring the upgrading of the Coca Cola Factory – Red-light road. Under the

umbrella of the MPW, the IIU is responsible for coordinating and supervising the

implementation of the RAP.

ii. Ministry of Finance and Development Planning: The MFDP is responsible for

providing safeguard for the project financial resources. Under MFPD umbrella, the

“RAP Pay Team”, under the supervision of the PFMU, is responsible for preparing

compensation payments, for supervising compensation payments and, for ensuring

period financial reporting.

iii. Liberia Revenue Authority: This Agency is responsible for validating market value of

affected properties that will be paid for by the Government;

iv. Local Authorities at various levels are responsible for: identifying legitimate project

affected property owners, providing clearance including affidavit of proof ownership

to PAPs, and for helping to resolve conflicts related to ownership claims and

compensation.


Chapter Nine: RAP Implementation Schedule

9.1 Objective of the RAP Preparation and Implementation Timeline

The objective of the RAP preparation and implementation schedule is to ensure that all RAP- related activities are fully completed before commencement of component 1 civil works. The entire RAP preparation and implementation activities are scheduled to be completed within a period of 12 months after which component 1 civil works is expected to commence in month 13 as shown in the below implementation schedule.

Table 9.1: Tentative implementation schedule #

Activities

Phase I

November 2017– October 2018 M

1

M2

M3

M4

M5

M6

M7

M8

M9

M1

0

M1

1

M1

2

1 Complete Socioeconomic

studies and census

2 Conduct consultation

3 Complete valuation and

verification

4 Agree with PAPs on

compensation

5 Start and complete entitlement

delivery J

U

L

Y

A

u

g

u

s

t

6 Post RAP Compensation

Payment Audit A

u

g

u

s

t

S

e

p

t

e

m

b

e

r

7 Grace period to vacate site S

e

p

t

e

m

b

e

r

O

c

t

o

b

e

r

8 Site handover to contractor O

c

t

o

b

e

r

9 Resolve residual issues

10 Monitoring RAP

9.2 Implementation Phases

RAP preparation and implementation are organized in two phases as discussed below.


9.2.1 Phase I

Phase I RAP preparatory works have been completed between November, 2016 and July 2017.

Socioeconomic Studies and Census: These activities were carried out between November 2016

and April 2017. Outcomes of the socioeconomic studies and the census results have been used

in developing this RAP.

Consultations: PAPs and other relevant stakeholders were consulted between March and June

2017. Outcomes of the various consultations are incorporated in to this RAP.

Valuation and Verification: These activities were carried out between November 2016 and June

2018. Results of valuation, revaluation and verification exercises have been used for developing

compensation packages for private and public structures affected by the project as well as for

providing special assistances to vulnerable people and tenants.

Agree with PAPs on Compensation Amount: These activities were completed between June 21-

23, 2018. The IIU in collaboration with the MPW verification team finalized PAPs compensation

on 5th July 2018.

.

Entitlement Delivery: This activity will be implemented in July 28, to August 30, 2018 and Post

entitlement payment RAP audit is scheduled to be completed by September 15 2018. Completion

of entitlement deliver and the outcome of post entitlement payment audit will lead to the process

of vacating PAPs and handing over the site to contracting entity. The IIU in collaboration with

PFMU is expected to complete all payments and assistance to PAPs by August 30, 2018.

Grace Period: This activity will be implemented between September and October 15, 2018. The

overall grace period given to PAPs to vacate site is two months. PAPs are expected to vacate the

site by October 15, 2018.

Site Handover: Following the site vacating exercise which is scheduled to be completed by

October 15, 2018, the site is expected to be handed over to the contracting entity by October 22,

2018. Full compliance to OP 4.12, which requires that no civil works shall commence prior to

making prompt payment to PAPs for affected structures, shall be observed. To ensure compliance

to the policy requirement, all entitlements or compensation must be paid to PAPs by August 30,

2018 as stipulated in the entitlement delivery section of this RAP. The GoL has committed and

agreed to follow on the implementation schedule shown in this section.

As shown in the RAP preparation and implementation schedule, monitoring exercises shall be

carried out during implementation of phase I activities.

Chapter Ten: Cost and Budget

10.1 Items Covered by the Budget

The overall RAP implementation cost and budget is USD 886,213.55. As shown in table 10.1,the

amount includes the following items:.


• Private properties USD397, 600.92. This compensation payment is to be made to PAPs

for their affected properties at full replacement value.

• Public properties USD 5,781.63. This compensation payment is to be made to PAPs for

their affected properties at full replacement value.

• Business/Loss of income USD 53,520.00. This compensation payment is to be made to

PAPs whose businesses are affected. The compensation amount covers three months of

net income loss for the transition period.

• Tenants USD 14,460.00. This compensation payment is to be made to PAPs whose are

tenants and affected by structure take. The compensation amount covers six months of

rental cost for the transition period.

• Landlords USD14, 460.00. This compensation payment is to be made to PAPs whose are

landlords and affected by structure take. The compensation amount covers six months of

rental revenue loss for the transition period.

• Special assistance to vulnerable Groups USD 6, 160. This compensation payment is to

be made to PAPs who are vulnerable. The compensation amount covers six months of

rental cost, livening and other allowances.

• Post compensation payment of RAP audit allocation of USD10, 000.

• Provision for RAP implementation USD36, 400. This amount represents 10% of the

compensation cost which is earmarked for supporting RAP implementation related to

supervision and GRMs activities.

• Contingency allocation of USD 282, 401. This amount represents 25% of the

compensation cost which is earmarked for addressing unforeseen factors such as price

inflation and new value for economic crops. These are summarized in Table 10.1 below.

• Safeguards training and sensitization for MPW staffs, GRM members and District

authorities USD 60,000.

• Refund to PAPs for the processing of attestation document USD 5,430.00

Table 10.1: The RAP Budget Item N° Item Direct Impacts USD Total USD

A COMPENSATION AND SPECIAL ASSISTANCES:

A.1 Private Properties 397,600.92

A.2 Public Properties 5,781.63

A.3 Businesses/Loss of Income 53,520

A.4 Tenants/Landlords 14,460

A.5 Landlords 14,460

A.6 Special Assistance to Vulnerable Groups 6,160

A.7 Refund to PAPs for processing attestation document 5,430.00

A Total (A1+A2+A3+A4+As+A6+A7) 497,412.55

B Allocations for Social Safeguards Training and Sensitization 60,000


C Post RAP Compensation and Implementation Audit 10,000

D TOTAL RAP IMPLEMENTATION (Supervision and GRMs 10%) 36,400

E CONTIGENCIES 25%* 282,401

GRAND TOTAL (A+B+C+D+E) 886,213.55 . * This amount represents 25% of the compensation cost which is earmarked for addressing unforeseen factors such as price

inflation and population growth.


Chapter 11: Monitoring and Evaluation Monitoring and Evaluation are key components of the RAP. The IIU is responsible for ensuring

its implementation.

11.1 Monitoring

While taking the lead responsibility, the IIU shall track the preparation and implementation of this

RAP and shall closely monitor the following indicators:

Table 11.1: RAP Monitoring Indicators

# Monitoring Specific indicator Frequency

1 Social and economic monitoring

On the basis of pre project’s baseline survey, provide number of PAPS: i) whose livelihoods have been restored to pre-project level, ii) whose livelihoods have improved beyond pre-project level, iii) whose livelihoods are worse than pre-project level.

Annual

2 Private structures Provide number of PAPs: i) whose livelihood have been restored to pre-project level, ii) whose livelihoods improved beyond pre-project level, iii) whose livelihood are worse than pre-project level

Monthly

3 Public Structures Provide number of PAPs: i) whose livelihoods have been restored to pre-project level, ii) whose livelihoods have improved beyond pre-project level, iii) whose livelihoods are worse than pre-project level

Monthly

5 Assistance to Businesses

Track progress on: i) number of affected businesses that have resumed business operation, ii) number of businesses that have restored their net income to pre-project level, iii) number of businesses that have restored their net income beyond pre-project level, iv) number of affected businesses that have not resume operations.

Monthly

6 Vulnerable Groups Provide number of vulnerable PAPs: i) whose livelihoods have been restored to pre-project level, ii) whose livelihoods have improved beyond pre-project level, iii) whose livelihoods are worse than pre-project level, iv) who have received assistance from the special package, v) who are sick and who benefited from health service in the project area, vi) number of disable friendly facilitates constructed by the project such as access ramp from main road to their living quarters or neighborhood,

Monthly

7 Tenants Provide number of affected tenants: i) who have found new rental places, ii) who reported that the rental allowance is inadequate, iii) who showed satisfaction over their new rental places compared to the ones they occupied before the project, iv) number of tenants who have not yet found rental places.

Monthly

8 Grievances and grievance management system

Track grievances and report: i) number of cases at each impact location, ii) the number of cases resolved, iii) number of cases pending, iv) reasons for pending cases, v) frequency of GRMs meetings, vi) description of compliance to GRM procedures

Monthly

9 Post RAP Compensation Payment Audit

On the basis of the census and entitlement matrix,the post RAP compensation payment audit exercise will verify and confirm: i) overall total number of PAPs paid full compensation on or before August 30, 2018; ii) total number of private structure owners (PAPs) paid full compensation on or before August 30, 2018; iii) total number of public structures (fences and signboards) paid full compensation on or before August 30, 2018; iv total number of business owners (loss of income/revenue) paid compensation on or before August 30, 2018; v) total number of tenants paid three months rental assistance on or before August 30, 2018; vi) total number of landlords paid three months rental losses on or before August 30, 2018vii) total number of vulnerable people paid full special assistance (6 months rental, living and transitional allowances) on or before August 30, 2018; viii) number of PAPs who are not paid full compensation on or before


11.2 Evaluation

Evaluation exercise is aimed at ensuring that this RAP is fully implemented. The exercise shall

provide feedback needed for adjusting plan and for taking corrective action. The evaluation shall

have the following specific activities

• General assessment of the implementation of resettlement activities under RAP,

• Examine compliance of the implementation of resettlement activities with national laws, regulations and that of the World Bank policy on involuntary resettlement,

• Assessment of resettlement and compensation procedures as outlined in the RAP and OP4.12,

• Evaluation of the impact of the resettlement and compensation programs on PAPs income and standard of living, with focus on the “no worse-off if not better-off” requirement,

• Identification of actions to be taken as part of the on-going monitoring exercises to improve RAP implementation, if any.

While conducting the evaluation process, the project shall utilize:

• This RAP as its guiding instrument as well as the RPF

• The Liberian laws and regulations as described in chapter three

• OP 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement, also described in chapter three

Evaluation of resettlement activities will be part of the general assessment and review activities

undertaken for SECRAMP.

August 30, 2018; ix) compensation cases disputed channeled to GRMs and status of each case; x) potential and actual residual social risks and proposed mitigation measures.


Annexures


Annex 1: Affected Properties

Properties Affected by Type and by Compensation Amount

Private Properties to be affected

# Type of Properties No Property

Total US Dollars

1 Concrete structures (single) 24 199,838.08

2 Concrete structures ( Storey building)

1 28,560.00

3 Fences (concrete, chain link, grill) 4 7,506.60

4 Sun-dried bricks structures (Mud bricks)

20 54,486.94

5 Gas/Petro Stations 5 10,907.25

6 Containers 38 9,500.00

7 Signboards (metal and concrete) 9 4,500.00

8 Pavement (Concrete) 7 47,304.80

9 Shelter (an extended roof like canopy)

8 11,534.43

10 Wooden structures 10 6,314.70

11 Stair cases (Concrete) 1 6,750.00

12 Hand Pump 2 7,200.00

13 Zinc Framing 1 1,028.13

14 Well 1 540.00

15 Monument 2 1,630.00

Total 133 397,600.92

Public Properties to be affected

Note: Refund for processing of document is USD5, 430.00 and is not included in the above costs

No. Type of Structure # Properties USD

1 Concrete 1 5,100.00

2 Shelter 1 471.63

3 Wooden 1 210.00

Total: 3 5,781.63


Annex 2: Businesses

Affected Businesses along the Coca Cola Factory-Red Light Section of Road (2.1 Km)

List Of Verified Project Affected Businesses With The Loss Of Business Income Owner Names (Coca Cola Factory to Red Light -2.5 km)

No. Structure Code

Business Owner's Name

Type of Business Name Average Monthly Income

Bi-annual

(6-months)

Total Loss of Business

1 SDC/CF-239 Melvina Johnson Service Station(Gas station) 300.00

6 1,800.00

2 SDC/CF-238A Everlyn Miller Shop(Taylor Shop) 80.00

6 480.00

3 SDC/CF-238 Lorpu Varmie Shop(Cook Shop) 100.00

6 600.00

4 SDC/CF-237 Horton Dowah Shop 120.00

6 720.00

5 SDC/CF-236A Yah Wuo Shop(Cook Shop) 100.00

6 600.00

6 SDC/CF-233A Dabah Manubah Shop(cook Shop) 100.00

6 600.00

7 SDC/CF-233 James V. Mulbah Shop( Print artist Shop) 75.00

6 450.00

8 SDC/CF-232A Hakkaton M. Mahn Shop 120.00

6 720.00

9 SDC/CF-232 Hakkaton M. Mahn Shop 120.00

6 720.00

10 SDC/CF-231-A Austine Menlor Shop(pharmacy Shop) 175.00

6 1,050.00

11 SDC/CF-230B Chuku Gbondo Photo Studio & Exchanged Bereaux

75.00

6 450.00

12 SDC/CF-230-C Janco Sackie Shop(Assorted Electronics shop)

75.00

6 450.00

13 SDC/CF-230A Francis Mulbah Shop(Furniture Shop) 200.00

6 1,200.00

14 SDC/CF-C-117 Gbanyah Barfuah Shop(Cement Depot) 125.00

6 750.00

15 SDC/CF-221B Becky Wanner Shop 120.00

6 720.00

16 SDC/CF-221A Norwood Dennis Shop 120.00

6 720.00

17 SDC/CF-221 Norwood Dennis Shop 120.00

6 720.00

18 SDC/CF-C-114 Felecia Zarwie Shop 120.00

6 720.00

19 SDC/CF-220 Reeves Shop 120.00

6 720.00

20 SDC/CF-211 Lorpu Vesselee Shop(cook Shop) 100.00

6 600.00



21 SDC/CF-212A Abdul Bah Shop(Tea Shop) 40.00

6 240.00

22 SDC/CF-212 Johnny K. Bookai Shop 120.00

6 720.00

23 SDC/CF-207C Yamah Flomo Shop(cook Shop) 100.00

6 600.00

24 SDC/CF-207B Roland Weah Shop(Barber shop) 65.00

6 390.00

25 SDC/CF-207 Mariam S. Urey Shop( Mini drink shop) 200.00

6 1,200.00

26 SDC/CF-207-A Flomo Bangalo Foreign Exchange 200.00

6 1,200.00

27 SDC/CF-229A Super Petroleum Service Station(Gas station) 300.00

6 1,800.00

28 SDC/CF-229B Super Petroleum Service Station(Gas station) 300.00

6 1,800.00

29 SDC/CF-116A Sidikie Traroe Shop(tire shop) 80.00

6 480.00

30 SDC/CF-224B John Kollie Shop(Furniture Shop) 200.00

6 1,200.00

31 SDC/CF-224 James Numaryah Shop(Taylor Shop) 80.00

6 480.00

32 SDC/CF-217 Yassah Mulbah Shop(Provision Shop) 125.00

6 750.00

33 SDC/CF-C-113 Eze David Shop(Auto spare parts shop) 120.00

6 720.00

34 SDC/CF-C-112 Cajetan O. Igboabummuo

Shop(Auto spare parts shop) 120.00

6 720.00

35 SDC/CF-C-111 Siakor Shop(Auto spare parts shop) 120.00

6 720.00

36 SDC/CF-C-110 Bekay Kpadeh Shop(Cement Depot) 125.00

6 750.00

37 SDC/CF-214 Martha Dayugar Shop(Provision Shop) 125.00

6 750.00

38 SDC/CF-C-107 Samuel March Shop(Cement Depot) 125.00

6 750.00

39 SDC/CF-C-107B Samuel March Shop(Cement Depot) 125.00

6 750.00

40 SDC/CF-C-106 Morris Duklay Shop(Cement Depot) 125.00

6 750.00

41 SDC/CF-208 Eche Donaten Shop(Auto spare parts shop) 120.00

6 720.00

42 SDC/CF-C-101D Rachel Sackor Shop 120.00

6 720.00

43 SDC/CF-101 Secret Shop(Starage) 100.00

6 600.00

44 SDC/CF-194A Marconi Shop(cook Shop) 100.00

6 600.00

45 SDC/CF-193B Kpadeh Flomo Shop(Taylor Shop) 80.00

6 480.00

46 SDC/CF-C-097 Kolako Goun Shop(Cement Depot) 125.00

6 750.00

47 SDC/CF-179 Bilal Ibraham Store(Fish cold storage) 275.00

6 1,650.00



48 SDC/CF-178 John Store(Fish cold storage) 275.00

6 1,650.00

49 SDC/CF-203 Kaibeh Ballah Shop(cook Shop)

100.00

6 600.00

50 SDC/CF-202 Kaibeh Ballah Shop(Bar & Restaurant) 250.00

6 1,500.00

51 SDC/CF-200 Richard Ofomukoro Shop(Pharmacy Shop) 175.00

6 1,050.00

52 SDC/CF-200 Emmanuel K. Jackson

Shop(Driving school) 250.00

6 1,500.00

53 SDC/CF-198 Kebah J. Jallabah Beauty Saloon 150.00

6 900.00

54 SDC/CF-188 Isaac Kerkulah Dry Used Goods 100.00

6 600.00

55 SDC/CF-C-089 Victor C. Nadoue Used Tyres 200.00

6 1,200.00

56 SDC/CF-C-088 Titus N. Larmie Used Tyres 200.00

6 1,200.00

57 SDC/CF-C-087 Pual Chukwujekwu Nweko

Used Tyres 200.00

6 1,200.00

58 SDC/CF-C-086 Ben Mulbah Shop(Cement Depot) 125.00

6 750.00

59 SDC/CF-C-083 Angie Sonnie(Kollie) Shop(Cement Depot) 125.00

6 750.00

60 SDC/CF-C-082A Irvin T. Juah Foreign Exchange 200.00

6 1,200.00

61 SDC/CF-C-082 Kormah Baysah Shop(Cement Depot) 125.00

6 750.00

62 SDC/CF-C-080 Llord George Shop(Cement Depot) 125.00

6 750.00

63 CB-001 Anna L. Urey Phillips

Shop( Dried Goods) 70.00

6 420.00

64 CB-001 Anna L. Urey Phillips

Shop( Entertainment) 70.00

6 420.00

Total for Loss of Business Income 53,520.00


ANNEX 3: Comparative data on the original valuation against the revised valuation

Variance Table on Original RAP Data against the Updated RAP Data

No. Struct

ure code

Original RAP Compensation Cost Updated RAP Compensation Cost

Variance Structure Value

Business

income Loss

Landlord/Tenant

Total Appraisal

Structure Value

Business

income Loss

Landlord/Tenan

t

Total Appraisal

1 SDC/CF-205 $5,750.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,750.00 $8,625.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,625.00 $2,875.00

2

SDC/CF- C-101-D $250.00 $720.00 $0.00 $970.00 $250.00 $720.00 $0.00 $970.00 $0.00

3 SDC/CF-101 $250.00 $600.00 $0.00 $850.00 $250.00 $600.00 $0.00 $850.00 $0.00

4

SDC/CF-C-100 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $0.00

5 SDC/CF-194A $314.56 $600.00 $0.00 $914.56 $616.00 $600.00 $0.00 $1,216.00 $301.44

6 SDC/CF-194 $1,320.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,320.00 $1,980.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,980.00 $660.00

7 SDC/CF-193B $2,912.54 $480.00 $0.00 $3,392.54 $1,762.50 $480.00 $0.00 $2,242.50

-$1,150.04

8 SDC/CF-191 $344.25 $0.00 $0.00 $344.25 $4,218.75 $0.00 $0.00 $4,218.75 $3,874.50

9 SDC/CF-193 $1,710.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,710.00 $3,296.50 $0.00 $0.00 $3,296.50 $1,586.50

10 SDC/CF-193A $471.20 $0.00 $0.00 $471.20 $471.63 $0.00 $0.00 $471.63 $0.43

11

SDC/CF-C-097 $250.00 $750.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 $250.00 $750.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 $0.00

12 SDC/CF-186 $5,265.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,265.00 $8,775.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,775.00 $3,510.00

13

SDC/CF-182-A $7,965.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7,965.00 $7,375.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7,375.00 -$590.00

14 SDC/CF-122A $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $616.00 $0.00 $0.00 $616.00 $616.00

15 SDC/CF-182 $5,031.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,031.00 $8,385.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,385.00 $3,354.00

16 SDC/CF-179 $17,340.00

$1,650.00 $0.00 $18,990.00

$20,230.00

$1,650.00 $0.00

$21,880.00 $2,890.00

17 SDC/CF-178 $16,800.00

$1,650.00 $0.00 $18,450.00

$19,600.00

$1,650.00 $0.00

$21,250.00 $2,800.00



No. Struct

ure code



Business

income Loss

Landlord/Tenant

Total Appraisal

Structure Value

Business

income Loss

Landlord/Tenan

t

Total Appraisal

18

Bill Board/No # $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 $0.00

19 SDC/CF-B-56 $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 $0.00

20 SDC/CF-B-54 $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 $0.00

21 SDC/CF-B-52 $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 $0.00

22 SDC/CF-B-51 $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 $0.00

23 SDC/CF-B-50 $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 $0.00

24 SDC/CF-B-49 $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 $0.00

25 SDC/CF-B-46 $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 $0.00

26 SDC/CF-206A $800.00 $0.00 $0.00 $800.00 $1,280.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,280.00 $480.00

27 SDC/CF-206 $1,360.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,360.00 $3,745.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,745.00 $2,385.00

28 SDC/CF-203 $11,962.50 $600.00 $0.00 $12,562.50

$17,943.75 $600.00 $0.00

$18,543.75 $5,981.25

29 SDC/CF-202 $15,795.00

$1,500.00 $0.00 $17,295.00

$23,692.50

$1,500.00 $0.00

$25,192.50 $7,897.50

30

SDC/CF-C-102 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $0.00

31 SDC/CF-200A $340.00 $0.00 $0.00 $340.00 $476.00 $0.00 $300.00 $776.00 $436.00

32 SDC/CF-200 $5,670.00

$2,550.00 $960.00 $9,180.00 $8,505.00

$2,550.00

$1,920.00

$12,975.00 $3,795.00

33 SDC/CF-199 $3,960.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,960.00 $5,280.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,280.00 $1,320.00

34 SDC/CF-198 $2,574.00 $900.00 $0.00 $3,474.00 $3,432.00 $900.00 $0.00 $4,332.00 $858.00

35 SDC/CF-197 $868.00 $0.00 $0.00 $868.00 $1,519.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,519.00 $651.00

36 SDC/CF-196A $2,970.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,970.00 $4,455.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,455.00 $1,485.00

37 SDC/CF-196 $7,560.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7,560.00

$11,340.00 $0.00 $0.00

$11,340.00 $3,780.00

38 SDC/CF-192 $1,525.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,525.00 $1,525.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,525.00 $0.00

39 SDC/CF-190 $7,650.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7,650.00

$11,475.00 $0.00 $0.00

$11,475.00 $3,825.00



No. Struct

ure code



Business

income Loss

Landlord/Tenant

Total Appraisal

Structure Value

Business

income Loss

Landlord/Tenan

t

Total Appraisal

40

SDC/CF-C-110 $250.00 $750.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 $250.00 $750.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 $0.00

41 SDC/CF-189 $700.00 $0.00 $720.00 $1,420.00 $1,050.00 $0.00 $720.00 $1,770.00 $350.00

42 SDC/CF-188 $858.00 $600.00 $360.00 $1,818.00 $1,144.00 $600.00 $360.00 $2,104.00 $286.00

43

SDC/CF-C-089 $250.00

$1,200.00 $0.00 $1,450.00 $250.00

$1,200.00 $0.00 $1,450.00 $0.00

44

SDC/CF-C-088 $250.00

$1,200.00 $0.00 $1,450.00 $250.00

$1,200.00 $0.00 $1,450.00 $0.00

45

SDC/CF-C-087 $250.00

$1,200.00 $0.00 $1,450.00 $250.00

$1,200.00 $0.00 $1,450.00 $0.00

46

SDC/CF-C-086 $250.00 $750.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 $250.00 $750.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 $0.00

47 SDC/CF-184 $3,521.63 $0.00 $0.00 $3,521.63 $1,878.20 $0.00 $0.00 $1,878.20

-$1,643.43

48

SDC/CF-C-084 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $0.00

49

SDC/CF-C-083 $250.00 $750.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 $250.00 $750.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 $0.00

50

SDC/CF-C-082A $812.00

$1,200.00 $0.00 $2,012.00 $861.00

$1,200.00 $0.00 $2,061.00 $49.00

51

SDC/CF-C-082 $250.00 $750.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 $250.00 $750.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 $0.00

52

SDC/CF-C-080 $250.00 $750.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 $250.00 $750.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 $0.00

53 SDC/CF-181 $2,250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,250.00 $6,750.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,750.00 $4,500.00

54 SDC/CF-B040 $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 $0.00

55 SDC/CF-239 $1,096.90

$1,800.00 $720.00 $3,616.90 $1,645.35

$1,800.00 $720.00 $4,165.35 $548.45

56 SDC/CF-238A $475.00 $480.00 $480.00 $1,435.00 $760.00 $480.00 $480.00 $1,720.00 $285.00

57 SDC/CF-238 $1,116.80 $600.00 $120.00 $1,836.80 $1,786.88 $600.00 $120.00 $2,506.88 $670.08

58 SDC/CF-237 $1,080.00 $720.00 $0.00 $1,800.00 $1,440.00 $720.00 $480.00 $2,640.00 $840.00



No. Struct

ure code



Business

income Loss

Landlord/Tenant

Total Appraisal

Structure Value

Business

income Loss

Landlord/Tenan

t

Total Appraisal

59 SDC/CF-236A $4,830.00 $600.00 $0.00 $5,430.00 $7,245.00 $600.00 $0.00 $7,845.00 $2,415.00

60 SDC/CF-236 $2,052.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,052.00 $2,736.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,736.00 $684.00

61 SDC/CF-235 $889.35 $0.00 $0.00 $889.35 $889.35 $0.00 $0.00 $889.35 $0.00

62 SDC/CF-233A $414.90 $600.00 $0.00 $1,014.90 $726.08 $600.00 $0.00 $1,326.08 $311.18

63 SDC/CF-234 $2,997.15 $0.00 $0.00 $2,997.15 $4,495.73 $0.00 $0.00 $4,495.73 $1,498.58

64 SDC/CF-233 $2,897.50 $450.00 $0.00 $3,347.50 $4,346.25 $450.00 $0.00 $4,796.25 $1,448.75

65 SDC/CF-232A $2,325.00 $720.00 $0.00 $3,045.00 $3,100.00 $720.00 $0.00 $3,820.00 $775.00

66 SDC/CF-232 $957.00 $720.00 $0.00 $1,677.00 $1,276.00 $720.00 $0.00 $1,996.00 $319.00

67 SDC/CF-231 $3,315.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,315.00 $4,972.50 $0.00 $0.00 $4,972.50 $1,657.50

68

SDC/CF-231-A $7,315.00

$1,050.00

$1,200.00 $9,565.00

$11,025.00

$1,050.00

$2,400.00

$14,475.00 $4,910.00

69 SDC/CF-230B $1,881.90 $450.00 $480.00 $2,811.90 $2,509.20 $450.00 $480.00 $3,439.20 $627.30

70

SDC/CF-230-C $250.00 $450.00 $0.00 $700.00 $250.00 $450.00 $0.00 $700.00 $0.00

71 SDC/CF-230 $3,528.00 $0.00 $900.00 $4,428.00 $4,704.00 $0.00 $900.00 $5,604.00 $1,176.00

72 SDC/CF-230A $1,240.00

$1,200.00 $0.00 $2,440.00 $2,170.00

$1,200.00 $0.00 $3,370.00 $930.00

73

SDC/CF-122-B $403.50 $0.00 $900.00 $1,303.50 $1,028.13 $0.00 $900.00 $1,928.13 $624.63

74

SDC/CF-C-122 $540.00 $0.00 $0.00 $540.00 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 -$290.00

75

SDC/CF-C-121 $850.00 $0.00 $0.00 $850.00 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 -$600.00

76

SDC/CF-C-118 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $0.00

77

SDC/CF-119-C $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $0.00

78

SDC/CF-117-A $221.87 $0.00 $0.00 $221.87 $221.20 $0.00 $0.00 $221.20 -$0.67



No. Struct

ure code



Business

income Loss

Landlord/Tenant

Total Appraisal

Structure Value

Business

income Loss

Landlord/Tenan

t

Total Appraisal

79 SDC/CF-227 $805.00 $0.00 $0.00 $805.00 $805.00 $0.00 $0.00 $805.00 $0.00

80 SDC/CF-227A $700.00 $0.00 $0.00 $700.00 $700.00 $0.00 $0.00 $700.00 $0.00

81 SDC/CF-223 $4,393.13 $0.00 $0.00 $4,393.13 $8,786.25 $0.00 $0.00 $8,786.25 $4,393.12

82 SDC/CF-181 $20,400.00 $0.00 $0.00 $20,400.00

$28,560.00 $0.00 $0.00

$28,560.00 $8,160.00

83 SDC/CF-222 $1,942.50 $0.00 $0.00 $1,942.50 $1,110.00 $0.00 $360.00 $1,470.00 -$472.50

84 SDC/CF-222B $3,600.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,600.00 $3,600.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,600.00 $0.00

85

SDC/CF-221-B $1,255.50 $720.00 $0.00 $1,975.50 $1,674.00 $720.00 $120.00 $2,514.00 $538.50

86 SDC/CF-221A $984.24 $720.00 $0.00 $1,704.24 $1,312.32 $720.00 $540.00 $2,572.32 $868.08

87 SDC/CF-221 $3,510.00 $720.00 $720.00 $4,950.00 $5,265.00 $720.00 $720.00 $6,705.00 $1,755.00

88

SDC/CF-C-115 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $0.00

89

SDC/CF-C-114 $250.00 $720.00 $0.00 $970.00 $250.00 $720.00 $0.00 $970.00 $0.00

90 SDC/CF-220 $1,170.00 $720.00 $0.00 $1,890.00 $2,652.00 $720.00 $0.00 $3,372.00 $1,482.00

91 SDC/CF-211 $3,120.00 $600.00 $0.00 $3,720.00 $4,160.00 $600.00 $0.00 $4,760.00 $1,040.00

92 SDC/CF-212A $306.00 $240.00 $0.00 $546.00 $535.50 $240.00 $0.00 $775.50 $229.50

93 SDC/CF-212 $1,260.00 $720.00 $0.00 $1,980.00 $1,680.00 $720.00 $0.00 $2,400.00 $420.00

94

SDC/CF-C-105 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $0.00

95

SDC/CF-C-104 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $0.00

96

SDC/CF-C-103 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $0.00

97 SDC/CF-207C $220.00 $600.00 $0.00 $820.00 $385.00 $600.00 $0.00 $985.00 $165.00

98 SDC/CF-207B $220.00 $390.00 $0.00 $610.00 $385.00 $390.00 $0.00 $775.00 $165.00

99 SDC/CF-207D $120.00 $0.00 $0.00 $120.00 $210.00 $0.00 $0.00 $210.00 $90.00



No. Struct

ure code



Business

income Loss

Landlord/Tenant

Total Appraisal

Structure Value

Business

income Loss

Landlord/Tenan

t

Total Appraisal

100 SDC/CF-207 $3,546.90

$1,200.00 $0.00 $4,746.90 $5,320.35

$1,200.00 $0.00 $6,520.35 $1,773.45

101

SDC/CF-207-A $720.00

$1,200.00 $0.00 $1,920.00 $1,080.00

$1,200.00 $0.00 $2,280.00 $360.00

102 SDC/CF-229A $982.30

$1,800.00 $720.00 $3,502.30 $1,473.45

$1,800.00 $720.00 $3,993.45 $491.15

103 SDC/CF-229B $982.30

$1,800.00 $720.00 $3,502.30 $1,473.45

$1,800.00 $720.00 $3,993.45 $491.15

104 SDC/CF-116B $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $0.00

105 SDC/CF-116A $250.00 $480.00 $0.00 $730.00 $250.00 $480.00 $0.00 $730.00 $0.00

106

SDC/CF-C-116 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $0.00

107 SDC/CF-225 $5,238.45 $0.00 $0.00 $5,238.45 $2,993.40 $0.00 $0.00 $2,993.40

-$2,245.05

108 SDC/CF-219B $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $0.00

109 SDC/CF-224B $1,088.00

$1,200.00 $300.00 $2,588.00 $1,904.00

$1,200.00 $300.00 $3,404.00 $816.00

110 SDC/CF-224A $180.00 $0.00 $0.00 $180.00 $315.00 $0.00 $120.00 $435.00 $255.00

111 SDC/CF-224 $3,610.00 $480.00 $0.00 $4,090.00 $5,415.00 $480.00 $0.00 $5,895.00 $1,805.00

112

SDC/CF-C-219 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $0.00

113 SDC/CF-219 $9,025.00 $0.00 $0.00 $9,025.00 $9,025.00 $0.00 $0.00 $9,025.00 $0.00

114 SDC/CF-218 $2,968.53 $0.00 $0.00 $2,968.53 $3,958.04 $0.00 $0.00 $3,958.04 $989.51

115 SDC/CF-217 $3,306.00 $750.00 $0.00 $4,056.00 $4,408.00 $750.00 $0.00 $5,158.00 $1,102.00

116 SDC/CF-216 $560.00 $0.00 $0.00 $560.00 $980.00 $0.00 $0.00 $980.00 $420.00

117

SDC/CF-C-113 $250.00 $720.00 $0.00 $970.00 $250.00 $720.00 $0.00 $970.00 $0.00

118

SDC/CF-C-112 $250.00 $720.00 $0.00 $970.00 $250.00 $720.00 $0.00 $970.00 $0.00

119

SDC/CF-C-111 $250.00 $720.00 $0.00 $970.00 $250.00 $720.00 $0.00 $970.00 $0.00

120 SDC/CF-214 $5,112.90 $750.00 $600.00 $6,462.90 $4,712.00 $750.00 $600.00 $6,062.00 -$400.90



No. Struct

ure code



Business

income Loss

Landlord/Tenant

Total Appraisal

Structure Value

Business

income Loss

Landlord/Tenan

t

Total Appraisal

121

SDC/CF-C-107 $250.00 $750.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 $250.00 $750.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 $0.00

122

SDC/CF-C-107B $250.00 $750.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 $250.00 $750.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 $0.00

123

SDC/CF-C-106 $250.00 $750.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 $250.00 $750.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 $0.00

124

Hand Pump No # $3,600.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,600.00 $3,600.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,600.00 $0.00

125 SDC/CF-208 $3,440.00 $720.00 $480.00 $4,640.00 $5,160.00 $720.00 $480.00 $6,360.00 $1,720.00

126 SDC/CF-209 $3,400.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,400.00 $5,100.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,100.00 $1,700.00

127 CB-001 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

$18,495.00 $840.00 $0.00

$19,335.00

$19,335.00

128 CB-001A $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $479.25 $0.00 $0.00 $479.25 $479.25

129 CB-001B $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $739.80 $0.00 $0.00 $739.80 $739.80

130 CB-002 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $661.25 $0.00 $0.00 $661.25 $661.25

131

SDC/CF-C-090 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $250.00

132

SDC/CF-C-117 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $750.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00

133

SDC/CF-C-117C $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $250.00

134 SDC/CF-058 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $350.00 $0.00 $0.00 $350.00 $350.00

135

SDC/CF-C 122C $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $540.00 $0.00 $0.00 $540.00 $540.00

$281,343.30 $51,930.00 $10,380.00 $343,653.30 $403,382.54 $53,520.00

$14,460.00 $471,362.54 $127,709.25


ANNEX 4

List of the Verified Project Affected Structures that submitted

attestation documents for processing of payment (Red Light-Coca

Cola Factory - 2.1 km)


No. Structure

Code

Name of Principal Contact

Category Kind of Structure

Current Verification

Length Width/ Height

Square/Ft Rate Reappraised

Value Shelter

Length/ Width

Sq/ft Rate Appraised

Value Structure

Value

1 SDC/CF-222A

Hilary E. Earley PA 1 storey concrete

17.00

24.00

408.00 $35.00 $14,280.00 2

- $28,560.00

2 SDC/CF-181

Timothy K. Atachie PA 3 stair cases 10 15 150 $15.00 $2,250.00 3

- $6,750.00

3 SDC/CF-223

Xcingo Karwawhee PA

Chain Link/Galv. Pipe/Pavement

53.25

33.00

1,757.25 $5.00 $8,786.25

- $8,786.25

4 SDC/CF-231

Augustus Lialoe FA Concrete

13.00

25.50

331.50 $20.00 $6,630.00

- $6,630.00

5 SDC/CF-231-A

Augustus Lialoe FA Concrete

21.25

15.83

336.388 $20.00 $6,727.75

- $6,727.75

6 SDC/CF-205

Edward B. Tokpa FA Concrete 25 23

575.00 $10.00 $5,750.00

- $5,750.00

7 SDC/CF-190 Gartor Tate PA Concrete 17 45

765.00 $15.00 $11,475.00

- $11,475.00

8 SDC/CF-193

Mrs. George A. Grant FA Concrete 9 19

171.00 $15.00 $2,565.00 Shelter 11 X 19 209 3.50

731.50 $3,296.50

9 SDC/CF-200

Harris Massaboi Sallee FA Concrete 27 21

567.00 $15.00 $8,505.00

- $8,505.00

10 SDC/CF-233

James V. Mublah FA Concrete

15.25

19.00

289.75 $15.00 $4,346.25

- $4,346.25

11 SDC/CF-202

Kabeh G. Ballah FA Concrete 40.5 39

1,579.50 $18.00 $28,431.00

- $28,431.00

12 SDC/CF-203

Kabeh G. Ballah FA Concrete 33 36.25 1196.25 $15.00 $17,943.75

- $17,943.75

13 SDC/CF-196

Lauriana Mama Sanoe FA Concrete 27 28 756 $10.00 $7,560.00

- $7,560.00

14 SDC/CF-196A

Lauriana Mama Sanoe FA Concrete 27 11 297 $10.00 $2,970.00

- $2,970.00

15 SDC/CF-208 Maimu Brown FA Concrete

16.00

21.50 344 $15.00 $5,160.00

- $5,160.00

16 SDC/CF-207

Mariam S. Urey FA Concrete 9 39.41 354.69 $15.00 $5,320.35

- $5,320.35

17 SDC/CF-224

Marwaye Davis FA Concrete

19.00

19.00 361 $15.00 $5,415.00

- $5,415.00

18 SDC/CF-207-A

Mariam S. Urey FA Concrete

8.00

9.00 72 $15.00 $1,080.00

- $1,080.00

19 CB-001 Anna L. Urey Phillips FA Concrete

41.10

25.00 1027.5 $20.00 $20,550.00

- $20,550.00

20 CB-001A Anna L. Urey Phillips FA Concrete

7.10

6.75 47.925 $10.00 $479.25

- $479.25

21 CB-001B Anna L. Urey Phillips FA Concrete-pavement

41.10

12.00 493.2 $3.50 $1,726.20

- $1,726.20

22 CB-002 Anna L. Urey Phillips FA

Concrete Palava Hut

11.50

11.50 132.25 $10.00 $1,322.50

- $1,322.50

23 SDC/CF-179

Charles N. Kangba PA Concrete with Slab 17 34 578 $35.00 $20,230.00

- $20,230.00

24 SDC/CF-178 Soko Sackor PA Concrete with Slab 14 40 560 $35.00 $19,600.00

- $19,600.00

25 SDC/CF-236A G. Wray Bayo FA

Concrete/Mud bricks

21.00

23.00 483 $15.00 $7,245.00

- $7,245.00

26 SDC/CF-C-090

Adolphus Joel Weedor FA Container L/S L/S L/S $250.00 $250.00

- $250.00

27 SDC/CF-C-083

Angie K. Kollie FA Container L/S L/S L/S $250.00 $250.00

- $250.00


No. Structure

Code






Value Shelter

Length/ Width


Value Structure

Value

28 SDC/CF-C-112

Cajetan O. Igboabummuo FA Container L/S L/S L/S $250.00 $250.00

- $250.00

29 SDC/CF-C-114

Felecia Zarwie FA Container L/S L/S L/S $250.00 $250.00

- $250.00

30 SDC/CF-C-102

Sesay Oumarou FA Container L/S L/S L/S $250.00 $250.00

- $250.00

31 SDC/CF-C-097 Kolako Goun FA Container L/S L/S L/S $250.00 $250.00

- $250.00

32 SDC/CF-C-082

Kormah Baysah FA Container L/S L/S L/S $250.00 $250.00

- $250.00

33 SDC/CF-C-113 Eze Davids FA Container L/S L/S L/S $250.00 $250.00

- $250.00

34 SDC/CF-C-087

Pual Chukwujekwu Nweko FA Container L/S L/S L/S $250.00 $250.00

- $250.00

35 SDC/CF-C-110

Richard Mayango FA Container L/S L/S L/S $250.00 $250.00

- $250.00

36 SDC/CF-C-088

Titus N. Larmie FA Container L/S L/S L/S $250.00 $250.00

- $250.00

37 SDC/CF-C-089

Victor C. Nadoue FA Container L/S L/S L/S $250.00 $250.00

- $250.00

38 SDC/CF-C-117

Gbanyan Bartuah FA Container L/S L/S L/S $250.00 $250.00

- $250.00

39 SDC/CF-230-C Jamco Sackie FA Container L/S L/S L/S $250.00 $250.00

- $250.00

40 SDC/CF-C-121 Sarah Walker FA Container L/S L/S L/S $250.00 $250.00

- $250.00

41 SDC/CF-C-100

Banjamin Davids FA Container L/S L/S L/S $250.00 $250.00

- $250.00

42 SDC/CF-C-122 Sarah Walker FA Container L/S L/S L/S $250.00 $250.00

- $250.00

43 SDC/CF-C-118

Alexander Z. Kamei FA Container L/S L/S L/S $250.00 $250.00

- $250.00

44 SDC/CF-C-080

Lorld E. George FA Container L/S L/S L/S $250.00 $250.00

- $250.00

45 SDC/CF-C-084

S. Momo Boimah FA Container L/S L/S L/S $250.00 $250.00

- $250.00

46 SDC/CF-222

Hilary E. Earley PA Fence

55.50

1.00

55.50 $20.00 $1,110.00

- $1,110.00

47 SDC/CF-184

S. Momo Boimah PA Fence with grill 93.91 1

93.91 $20.00 $1,878.20

- $1,878.20

48 SDC/CF-222B

Hilary E. Earley FA Handpump

- $3,600.00 $3,600.00

- $3,600.00

49 SDC/CF-206A

Patience Johnson FA Monument L/S L/S L/S $800.00 $800.00 Fence 24 X 4 96 $5.00

480.00 $1,280.00

50 SDC/CF-221-B

Becky Wanner FA Mudbricks

13.50

15.50

209.25 $8.00 $1,674.00

- $1,674.00

51 SDC/CF-237 Esther Dolo FA Mudbricks

10.00

18.00

180.00 $8.00 $1,440.00

- $1,440.00

52 SDC/CF-238 Esther Dolo FA Mudbricks

16.00

13.96

223.36 $8.00 $1,786.88

- $1,786.88

. SDC/CF-238A Esther Dolo FA Mudbricks

10.00

9.50

95.00 $8.00 $760.00

- $760.00

54 SDC/CF-211

Gorpu Vesselee FA Mudbricks 26 20

520.00 $8.00 $4,160.00

- $4,160.00


No. Structure

Code






Value Shelter

Length/ Width


Value Structure

Value

55 SDC/CF-232

Hakkaton M. Mahn FA Concrete

11.00

14.50

159.50 $20.00 $3,190.00

- $3,190.00

56 SDC/CF-232A

Hakkaton M. Mahn FA Mudbricks

15.50

25.00

387.50 $8.00 $3,100.00

- $3,100.00

57 SDC/CF-198

Harris Massaboi Sallee FA Mudbricks 33 13

429.00 $10.00 $4,290.00

- $4,290.00

58 SDC/CF-199

Harris Massaboi Sallee PA Mudbricks 33 20

660.00 $10.00 $6,600.00

- $6,600.00

59 SDC/CF-212

Johnny K. Bookai FA Mudbricks 15 14

210.00 $8.00 $1,680.00

- $1,680.00

60 SDC/CF-188

Marlay Quaqua PA Mudbricks 11 13

143.00 $8.00 $1,144.00

- $1,144.00

61 SDC/CF-214

Martha Bayougar PA Mudbricks

19.00

31.00

589.00 $8.00 $4,712.00

- $4,712.00

62 SDC/CF-236

Melvin Harmon FA Mudbricks

18.00

19.00

342.00 $8.00 $2,736.00

- $2,736.00

63 SDC/CF-221A

Norwood T. Dennis PA Mudbricks/Concrete

25.25

12.00

303.00 $8.00 $2,424.00

- $2,424.00

64 SDC/CF-230 Sarah Walker FA Mudbricks

28.00

21.00

588.00 $8.00 $4,704.00

- $4,704.00

65 SDC/CF-230B Sarah Walker PA Mudbricks

15.00

20.91

313.65 $8.00 $2,509.20

- $2,509.20

66 SDC/CF-218

Younger Massaquoi FA Mudbricks

26.50

18.67

494.76 $8.00 $3,958.04

- $3,958.04

67 SDC/CF-217

Yassah Mulbah FA Mudbricks

29.00

19.00

551.00 $8.00 $4,408.00

- $4,408.00

68 SDC/CF-239 Esther Dolo FA Pumping Station

7.00

15.67

109.69 $15.00 $1,645.35

- $1,645.35

69 SDC/CF-189

Foraday G. Moore PA Pumping Station

4.00

17.50

70.00 $15.00 $1,050.00

- $1,050.00

70 SDC/CF-221

Norwood T. Dennis FA Pumping Station

10.70

27.00

288.90 $15.00 $4,333.50

- $4,333.50

71 SDC/CF-229A Augustus Karr FA Pumping Station

5.17

19.00

98.23 $15.00 $1,473.45

- $1,473.45

72 SDC/CF-229B Augustus Karr FA Pumping Station

5.17

19.00

98.23 $15.00 $1,473.45

- $1,473.45

73 SDC/CF-216

Augestine Zaza PA Shelter

14.00

20.00

280.00 $3.50 $980.00

- $980.00

74 SDC/CF-235 Bill Yeeplah PA Shelter

10.00

25.41

254.10 $3.50 $889.35

- $889.35

75 SDC/CF-233A

Dabah Manubah PA Shelter

13.83

15.00

207.45 $3.50 $726.08

- $726.08

76 SDC/CF-227

Glorious Wilson PA Shelter

10.00

23.00

230.00 $3.50 $805.00

- $805.00

77 SDC/CF-227A

Glorious Wilson PA Shelter

10.00

20.00

200.00 $3.50 $700.00

- $700.00

78 SDC/CF-197

Grace S. Karbah PA Shelter

14.00

31.00

434.00 $3.50 $1,519.00

- $1,519.00

79 SDC/CF-206

Patience Johnson FA Shelter 20 34

680.00 $3.50 $2,380.00 Concrete 13 X 7 91 $15.00

1,365.00 $3,745.00

80 SDC/CF-C 122C Sarah Walker FA Well

- $540.00

- $540.00

81 SDC/CF-122A

Christine Benson FA Wooden

22.00

8.00 176 $3.50 $616.00

- $616.00


No. Structure

Code






Value Shelter

Length/ Width


Value Structure

Value

82 SDC/CF-200A

Harris Massaboi Sallee FA Wooden 8 17 136 $3.50 $476.00

- $476.00

83 SDC/CF-C-082A Irvin T. Juah FA Wooden

20.50

12.00 246 $3.50 $861.00

- $861.00

84 SDC/CF-224B

Marwaye Davis FA Wooden

32.00

17.00 544 $3.50 $1,904.00

- $1,904.00

85 SDC/CF-207B Roland Wea FA Wooden 11 10 110 $3.50 $385.00

- $385.00

86 SDC/CF-207C Nyama Flomo FA Wooden 11 10 110 $3.50 $385.00

- $385.00

87 SDC/CF-212A Abdul Bah FA Wooden 9 17 153 $3.50 $535.50

- $535.50

88 SDC/CF-224A

Marway Davids FA Wooden

10.00

9.00 90 $3.50 $315.00

- $315.00

89 SDC/CF-122-B Sarah Walker FA Zinc Framing

12.50

23.50 293.75 $3.50 $1,028.13

- $1,028.13

90 SDC/CF-C-219 Jusu Dunor FA Container L/S L/S L/S $250.00 $250.00

- $250.00

91 SDC/CF-C-111

Mohammed A. Sackor FA Container L/S L/S L/S $250.00 $250.00

- $250.00

92 SDC/CF-C-115

Garmai E. Wenwu FA Container L/S L/S L/S $250.00 250.00

- 250.00

SUB TOTAL for structures (A) $309,533.42

2,576.50 $331,139.92

Payment to Business Income Loss and tenants for affected PAPs

1 SDC/CF-239

Melvina Johnson FA Pumping Station

2 SDC/CF-238A Everlyn Miller FA Mudbricks

3 SDC/CF-238 Lorpu Varmie FA Mudbricks

4 SDC/CF-237 Horton Dowah FA Mudbricks

5 SDC/CF-236A Yah Wuo FA

Concrete/Mud bricks

6 SDC/CF-230B

Chuku Gbondo PA Mudbricks

7 SDC/CF-220 Eleazer Faye PA Mudbricks

8 SDC/CF-207-A

Flomo Bangalo FA Concrete

9 SDC/CF-229A

Super Petroleum FA Pumping Station

10 SDC/CF-229B

Super Petroleum FA Pumping Station

11 SDC/CF-224B John Kollie FA Wooden

12 SDC/CF-224

James Numaryah FA Wooden

13 SDC/CF-C-110

Bekay Kpadeh FA Container


No. Structure

Code






Value Shelter

Length/ Width


Value Structure

Value

14 SDC/CF-208

Eche Zona Nnajiofor FA Concrete

15 SDC/CF-194A Moarconi FA Wooden

16 SDC/CF-193B

Kpadeh Flomo FA Mudbricks

17 SDC/CF-179 Bilal Ibraham PA Concrete with Slab

18 SDC/CF-178 John FA Concrete with Slab

19 SDC/CF-200

Richard Ofomukoro FA Concrete

20 SDC/CF-200

Emmanuel K. Jackson FA Concrete

21 SDC/CF-198

Kebah J. Jallabah FA Mudbricks

22 SDC/CF-188

Isaac Kerkulah PA Mudbricks

23 SDC/CF-230 Francais FA Mudbricks

Sub-Total Business owner & Tenants without properties (B)

Grand Total $331,139.92


ANNEX 5: Attendance for Consultation


ANNEX 6: Unit Rate of Structure Types


REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA



P. O. BOX 9011

SOUTH, LYNCH STREET

MONROVIA

CONSULTANCY SERVICES

FOR

PREPARATION OF CONCEPTUAL DESIGN,

SUPPORT IN PROCUREMENT OF CIVIL WORKS

CONTRACT AND MONITORING SUPERVISION

SERVICES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR

LANES ARTERIAL ROAD FROM SD COOPER

INTERSECTION (THROUGH ELWA AND RED LIGHT

INTERSECTION) TO COCA COLA FACTORY

FOR

AN OUTPUT AND PERFORMANCE BASED ROAD

CONTRACT (OPRC) UNDER DESIGN, BUILD,

MAINTAIN AND TRANSFER (DBMT)

METHODOLOGY

Resettlement Action Plan


ANNEX 7: STAKEHOLDERS’

CONSULTATION

Resettlement Action Plan for Redlight to Coca Cola Factory Page i

Table of Contents

Appendix I: Public service announcement on asset marking and

valuation and on the cut-off date terminating developments on the

road ROW .............................................................................................. 1

Appendix II: Letter of invitation to a meeting with property owners

and renters ............................................................................................ 2

Appendix III: Selected Photographs of coded project affected

property ................................................................................................. 3

Appendix V: Critical Issues .................................................................. 6

APPENDIX VII: MINUTES OF MEETINGS ............................................ 7

https://worldbankgroup-my.sharepoint.com/personal/dluciano_worldbank_org/Documents/Liberia%20-%20Transport/LIBRAMP/Safeguards%20Documents/2.1%20Resettlement%20CC%20Factory%20to%20Red%20light/Annex%207%20(Stakeholder%20Consultation)%20-%20SD%20Cooper%20Road%20Project%20RAP%20Report.docx#_Toc490223206










Appendix I: Public service announcement on asset marking and

valuation and on the cut-off date terminating developments on the

road ROW


Appendix II: Letter of invitation to a meeting with property owners

and renters

February 16, 2017

Dear Sir/Madam,

Subject: Invitation to attend a Consultative Meeting regarding properties to be affected by

the Road Expansion Project from SD Cooper Junction to Coca Cola Factory

As you may be aware, there is an on-going marking and valuation of all properties in the right-of-

way (75 feet from the middle of the road) along the road corridor from the SD Cooper Junction

passing through Red Light to Coca Cola Factory. The exercise is in connection with the

Government’s plantoupgrade and expandthis section of the road from two lanes to a dual carriage

(4 lanes) road in order to improve the transport infrastructure in the area, which will lead to

improved flow of traffic and reduction in travel time.

The objective of this Consultative Meeting is to adequately inform the owners of buildings or

structures that will be affected about the purpose, the scope of activities and timeframe of the

planned road upgrading and expansion project. The meeting is also intended to get the views and

concerns of the affected property owners to feed into the preparation of the Resettlement Action

Plan, which lays out the strategies and methods that will be used to assist those who will be

affected by the project.

To this end, the consultants, AURECON and CEMMATS Group on behalf of the client, the

Ministry of Public Works (MPW), and in collaboration with the Paynesville City Corporation

(PCC) are inviting you (the affected property owner) to a meeting on the following date, venue

and time:

Date: Saturday, 18th February, 2017.

Venue: Crown Hotel Hall

Time: 9 a.m.

We look forward to your participation and a fruitful deliberation during this interactive meeting.

Yours sincerely,

AURECON and CEMMATS, on behalf of the Ministry of Public Works


Appendix III: Selected Photographs of coded project affected property

SDC/CF – 173

SDC/CF - 174

SDC/CF - 176

SDC/CF - 177

SDC/CF – 178

SDC/CF - 179

SDC/CF - 180

SDC/CF - 182

SDC/CF – 184

SDC/CF - 185

SDC/CF - 187

SDC/CF - 188

SDC/CF - 189

SDC/CF - 192

SDC/CF - 193

SDC/CF - 196


SDC/CF - 198 SDC/CF - 199 SDC/CF - 200 SDC/CF - 201

SDC/CF - 202

SDC/CF - 203

SDC/CF -204

SDC/CF - 207

SDC/CF - 211

SDC/CF - 212

SDC/CF - 214

SDC/CF - 215

SDC/CF - 216

SDC/CF - 217

SDC/CF - 219

SDC/CF - 220

SDC/CF - 221

SDC/CF - 222

SDC/CF - 223

SDC/CF - 224

SDC/CF - 225

SDC/CF - 226

SDC/CF - 227

SDC/CF - 228


SDC/CF - 229

SDC/CF - 230

SDC/CF- 233

SDC/CF - 234

SDC/CF - 235

SDC/CF - 239


Appendix V: Critical Issues The critical issues identified in the meeting of 3rd February 2017 have been covered in Revision 1. The

issues identified in the email of 27 February 2017 have been dealt with as follows.

Approach to RAP

Approach to the RAP is on the basis that the project involves clearing the Right of Way generally 75

feet on either side of the centreline of the road and that the Consultant should consider only structures

currently existing within the right of way as the structures eligible for relocation and compensation.

Sites for Relocation of the Market at Red Light District

According to Mr. Emmanuel Baker, Program Manager IIU “The MPW approved right ofway for that road

segment is 75ft from the center line of the existing asphalt pavement. The entire 75ft would be cleared

under RAP implementation. Effective ROW would be 50ft. The balance 25ft would be used to

accommodate current street sellers (irregular marketers) in designated areas along the road. There is

no space for the further expansion of the newly built market at the Omega site. No alternative sites for

relocation of the market besides what is available at the Omega.”

This statement will require a further meeting with the affected PAPs. The consultants are consequently

proceeding with Revision 1 based on the 3rd February 2017 meeting. A meeting will be convened with

the affected PAPs on Wednesday 8thMarch, 2017 and will incorporate the results of the consultation in

Revision 2 of this report which will be presented to the IIU on Tuesday14th March 2017.


APPENDIX VII: MINUTES OF MEETINGS

1. Meeting at the Marketing Superintendent Office

Minutes of Meeting at the Marketing Superintendent Office in November 2016

Number of people present - 50 people

Categories of people represented at the meeting

▪ Gorbachop market

▪ Red Light

▪ Liberian Marketers Association

▪ Paynesville City Cooperation

▪ Federation of Road Transport

▪ Nimba Field

▪ Pipeline

▪ Bright Light

Purpose of the Meeting

This was a follow up meeting with the previous one held several weeks ago pertaining to

compensation and relocation of the market at the red light market

The audience was further informed that under the World Bank regulations, resettlement is

not supposed to make the affected persons worse off when they are removed because of the

road construction and resettled elsewhere. The national law may vary and may not cover

illegal settlers but since the World Bank is the main financier of the SD Cooper road, its

concern payment of all categories of affected people must be respected. The meeting was

called to address all the concern of the affected people. In the meeting, resolutions were put

forward by the affected people about alternative market relocation, type of market, facilities

that must accompany the market and other forms of compensation for various categories of

affected people. The meeting was democratic as all invited members were allowed to speak

The lead consultant stated the purpose of the meeting and at this time final decision must be

taken on major issues pertaining to the market location and type. A number of resolutions

were voted upon to arrive at concrete decisions. The following are summary of conclusions

arrived at:

1. All those who favour the Omega market as a suitable alternative market for traders along

the Coca Cola / S.D. Cooper road were asked to indicate by show of hands up. Nobody

shows hand up and therefore there was no support for the Omega market location. The

entire audience did not support moving to Omega. All present unanimously rejected the

Omega market for the following reasons:

▪ The distance of 3km from the Red Light location is considered too far

▪ Secondly, the Omega environment is swampy and unhealthy for human location

▪ Traders will lose customers and price benefits from wholesales. At Omega one cannot sell at the same price at Red Light due to transport cost


They prefer Gorbachop market location as an alternate location for the market firstly because

it is within the environment in which they live. Distance is therefore not a factor.

All present at the meeting voted to support the Gorbachop market location as the best for

them

They identified land with an area of 8 lots (1 lot is 132 feet by 85 feet) or approximately 2

acres for the location of market. On this land, an all-purpose market with all facilities can be

constructed. If necessary they claim to provide additional land for the market of their choice.

Key Remarks from representatives at the meeting

1. Marie Smith from Gorbachop market - Stated that Omega market is not conducive

because of the distance and simply the nature of the market

2. HenriathaZarkpo from Nimba Field – Stated that Omega is in a deplorable condition for

marketing. Surrounding is poor

3. LubethaWeah from Liberian Marketing Association – She said that market should go

with facilities and Omega does not have such facilities. So she is advocating that the

new market should have facilities such as car park, Vocational Training for women, Tie

dye activities, storage facilities.

4. Emmanuel Lavalah from Transport Union – Suggested that a terminal be built for the

market, Office facilities etc.

5. Francis Sinyon from Transport Union – He advocated for garbage dump to be built for

garbage management.

The major concern for the majority was the speedy construction of the market and this should

be done well before the road construction begins. This will allow the traders to move in to the

new market in time and avoid forceful eviction/confrontation with the authorities. They were

also concerned that sufficient information and time should be given to move smoothly and

speedily.

A further concern by the majority of the people was that they desire a quick payment of

compensation which will allow them to make meaningful invested in the new market.

In conclusion, the people supported the project as a development enterprise which will be

beneficial to them, the city and the country as a whole.

Views on Compensation

1. GbaylleWeah from Liberian Market Association - Recommended $500 for 500

marketers who were removed from the road as disturbance allowance

2. YagahKromah, vice president of Transport Union - Requested that market contractors

should involve the union during the construction stage of the market or at least discuss

the drawings with them. The reason being that they will be using the market and they

should influence the type of market being built for them. He further recommended a

market that can accommodate 5000 traders.


Photos of Meeting at the Marketing Superintendent Office in November 2016

Dr. Joe Lappia explaining the ESIA process to Cross-session of Stakeholders

Cross Session of Participants


A visit to the Proposed Gobachop market Site



Attendance List of Meeting at the Marketing Superintendent Office in November 2016


2. Meeting with the World Bank representative and other stakeholders in

the PCC conference room

Agenda of meeting with the World Bank representative and other stakeholders in the PCC

conference room

Minutes of the meeting with stakeholders in the PCC conference room

Introduction of project: Mr RashiduSinnah updated the participants on the status of the project starting

with the planned extension of the road from single to dual carriage. That the client, the MPW hired the

services of a South African based consultancy firm, Aurecon, which subcontracted CEMMATS Group

Ltd from Sierra Leone to carry out an EIA and RAP study of the impact of the project on the environment

and society as a whole. He went on to state that there were gaps in the RAP study, which was why the

CEMMATS team has returned to complete the study and fill out the gaps.

RAP Preparation: Dr Bona displayed and explained the planned schedule for the benefit of all present.

The World Bank representative, Mr Safey cautioned that the project affected persons be given sufficient

time to prepare for various stages of the project, whilst also provided with adequate information to make

sound decision on matters relating to their welfare. He therefore advised that the start date of for the

marking and valuation of structures be postponed by at least 3 days, and that public service

announcement should be sent out immediately in order to prevent further loss of time.

Dr Bona stated that the preparation of the RAP involves a number of steps that includes the marking

and valuation of structures within the 75ft ROW, market survey and registration of petty traders, both

stationed and mobile operating regularly or intermittently on the ROW; and also, stakeholder

consultations involving government officials, and project affected persons (PAPs). The data obtained

from both surveys were planned to be communicated to the relevant government officials at a later

meeting prior to the departure of the CEMMATS team.

The IIU representative, Mr Kolee highlighted the challenges that included unavailability of data on the

structures and people affected by the previous demolition of structures on the ROW of the road in

question and the failure to register traders on the road. He stated that new structures emerged on the

road that was cleared and that these would need to be assessed this time around. Another challenge,

according to him, was that traders are refusing to be relocated to Omega market, as they preferred their

present location at Gorbachev: he went on to say that traders were asking for huge compensation. He

discussed the anticipated benefits and impacts of the expansion of the road from single to dual carriage

to enhance movement of people and goods by decongesting traffic.

Benefit: facilitates easier traffic and quick movements, promotes business, less fuel consumption;

Negative effect: move people and break structures; that’s why we need the RAP

He mentioned the purpose of the ROW as the part of the road system reserved for utilities and safety,

and for further improvement by government. Now that people have moved into the ROW and would

have to be moved away, the question is how could this be done?

He further stated that the RAP involves studies; socioeconomic issues, livelihood, market stalls,

schools, clinics; marking of the structures and costs; number of people that will be affected and have to

move; men, women, children; then proposal on how these people will be resettled; when to resettle?

He asserted that the meeting is preliminary as there would be a bigger meeting with the project affected

people. He joined the WB representative to categorically state that the final document should be ready

by end of month in order to be able to secure WB funding.


Matters arising from the meeting

• It will be difficult to get information from the people on a short notice;

• The structures are not the business of the marketing association; these are private structures;

so we will have to deal with the owners and tenants, themselves.

• World bank policy on resettlement requires that people have the right to information, people

are informed ahead of time to start; the rightful owner of the house should be there, rightful

owner of the business should be there;

• 2nd principle is the right of free choice; we would need to inform the people in a meeting about

their rights, e.g., full compensation with evidence of ownership; e.g., transportation cost for

movement; they have the right to refuse; if they refuse, we go through a grievance redress

mechanism; if that fails, government can do a forceful resettlement, according to the ‘Imminent

domain’ policy;

• We should agree on a cut-off date on the cessation of any further development along the ROW;

• Announcement for cut off should be prepared today and sent to the radio;

• Content of the announcement: who owns the project, what would be the ROW? It must state

that people within the ROW will be affected, and should be present for property marking at a

stated date. Owner of property should stand by their property;

• Marking and valuation should be done by the consultant at the same time, preferably on the

11th and 12th February;

• Verification will be the responsibility of the MPW;

• Community leaders will be summoned to a consultative meeting post verification; this is where

the people will be informed of their rights and how they would be compensated;

• The issue with the previous resettlement work was the failure by the consultant to provide

evidence of property marking and valuation;

• What alternative roads did the project consider? The World Bank has requested that the

engineers explore all options;

• People must understand that although the WB is guiding the process, the WB is not paying for

the project; the government of Liberia owns and is paying for the project;

• Concerns were raised by the bike riders on the possibility of being moved from the road, when

the project is completed, a separate lane for bikers was therefore suggested;

• expanded; suggesting a lane for the bikers;

• The Transport union claimed they already have a place at Omega market; and that all that is

needed is to rehabilitate the road leading to that market, which has a capacity of over 800 acres;

Soliciting solutions

1) The LMA is suggesting that Gorbachev is a better option; claiming they own Gorbachev

2) If Omega is chosen, the LMA representative cannot state a position in the absence of their

leaders;

3) According to PCC, moving to Gorbachev would require major demolition of existing structures;

4) Hence it was clear there was a major contention over market location;

5) Transport Union backed the PCC’s position that Gorbachev is too small to accommodate all

the marketers;

6) It was also suggested that those dealing with perishable goods move to Omega market; whilst

those trading in non-perishable can stay at Gorbachev;

7) Another suggestion was that there should be no blanket movement of marketers

8) The TU highlighted the synergistic relationship between their institution and marketers, that

they believe should be exploited;

9) The road from ELWA to red light has no hard shoulder for parking, especially for commercial

motorists;


10) There were design issues relating to route for bikes and parking for vehicles going to Omega

market

11) Another suggestion was to enlarge the entrance to Omega market

Next step for communities:

• Announcement/community announcement by radio and bikes must commence immediately

• The local authority must Assist with planning for market survey and structures

• The issue of choice of market must be resolved.

Photograph of meeting with stakeholders at the PCC conference room, 8th February,

2017

stakeholder consultative meeting with

PCC,LMA , MPW and the World bank

representative

World Bank rep making a point in the

consultative meeting

PCC Rep. making a statement

CEMMATS lead consultant making a point


CEMMATS Consultant giving project up

MPW rep. making a point

Attendance of meeting with stakeholders at the PCC conference room.


3. Meeting with property owners and renters at Crown Hotel

Minutes of meeting with property Owners and Renters at Crown Hotel, 18th February,

2017

Present at the meeting were 210 affected property owners on the SD Cooper road to Coca Cola Road

project as shown in the attendance list in Appendix VC.

The meeting started with opening courtesies of Muslim and Christian prayers and self-introductions,

Mr.JohnasenVoker the head of the Environmental Department at the Ministry of Public Works Said that

they had invited Affected Property Owners (APO) on the SD Cooper road to Coca Cola Road to tell

them why their properties (Houses, business places etc) had been marked within the last five days and

to initial formal consultations with them. He briefed the property owners as follows:

“The Government of Liberia has received grants from the International Development Association (IDA)

for the preparation of conceptual design support in the procurement of civil works contract and

monitoring supervision services for the construction of a 6.7 km four lanes arterial road from SD copper

intersection (through ELWA and Red Light intersection) to Coca Cola factory.

The Government of Liberia through the Infrastructure Implementation Unit (IIU), Ministry of Public Works

(MPW) intends to upgrade the Road from its current condition that has a deteriorated bitumen surface.

The road to be upgraded will enhance smooth traffic flow and improve traffic movement linkages with

major corridors. The road corridor is highly built-up with residential, petty traders, low to medium

commercial features and artisans. The proposed road project is an important road connecting SD

copper intersection and Coca Cola factory. The road starts at SD Copper and end at Coca Cola factory.

The road traverses through GSA road, Duport road and Police Academy road with densely concentrated

petty traders and business houses.

To commence the proposed road project, like any other project that may affect the environment and

communities, it is mandatory that the Ministry of Public Works (MPW) through Infrastructure

Implementation Unit conducts an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) study and to

prepare a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for those whose properties fall within the 75 feet Right of

Way on either side of the road. AURECON/CEMMATS Group Ltd. have been contracted by (MPW), to

carry out these assessments. He continued that those whose properties had been mark will be

compensated according to the government of Liberia and World Bank guidelines. He then requests the

lead consultant to make a statement.

In his opening remarks Dr Ralph Bona thanks the APO’s for honouring their invitation at short notice

and went on to explain why their property had been mark and how the calculation for compensation will

have to be done. He continued that their property had been marked because those properties fall within

the 75ft Right Of Way as indicated by the GoL and the World Bank. He went further to explained that if

20% or more of the total property fall within the ROW, then the entire property will be compensated for

and demolished and if less than 20% of the entire property is affected only the affected area will be

compensated for and demolished. He said the consultants will ensure that they submit an independent


and unbiased report. Dr. Bona said that consultation with APO is key in any resettlement programme

and that their inputs, suggestions and recommendations will be treated with all seriousness. He

continued that there will a resettlement committee and a grievance redress committee at the MPW that

will be implementing the RAP. He encourages any aggrieved persons or party to channel their concerns

to the IIU at the MPW.

Following these remarks, the meeting went into an open forum in which the affected property owners

asked both the MPW and consultants. The answers given were documented by the consultants, which

formed the basis of this minute.

Q1 AngelleKpaka: whether compensation would be done for both house owner and tenant

Response

Mr.StephenKolee (MPW): We will compensate the house owner for his house and if the tenant had

outstanding refund that will be settled between the house owner and the tenant

Q2. Charles S Songor: My property is not on the ROW but i constructed drainage to prevent my

house, that drainage is on the ROW. Removing the drainage during construction would adversely affect

my house. What will I do in that situation?

Response

Mr.StephenKolee (MPW): We will take your concern to the engineers.

Q3. William James Kolie; If I am leasing for 10 years and just two years into the lease the property is

assessed and demolished, who will get the compensation.

Response

Mr.StephenKolee (MPW): We will pay the compensation for the structure to the ultimate property

owner. The lessee will have to settle all matters with the property owner according to the agreement

made between the two parties.

Q4. YesindorGraye: Did the MPW look at the original plan of the road? This is because the original

plan of the said road was four lane, two lanes were constructed on the left hoping that in the future the

other two lanes will be constructed on the right. My property is not supposed to be affected if the MPW

had followed the original plan. It is unacceptable that the MPW had abandoned the original plan and

had now taken 75 feet from either side of the road. We will have to take this up with our lawyer.

Q5. Shankar Thamnani (Lucky Pharmacy): how would Lucky pharmacy supply drugs to the hospitals

and other health facilities if you demolish the structure that had all the modern medical storage

equipment?

Also if someone lease for 50 year and spend like $ 1 Million to construct a house and just less than 10

years into the lease the house is affected by the road project and demolished, who will claim the

compensation package?

Response


Mr.StephenKolee (MPW): It is unfortunate that such an important structure is on the ROW; however,

we will all have to find another location to continue the business.

As for lease agreement, we will always pay to the ultimate owner as lease ownership is a temporal

ownership

Q6. Cecilia F Kamara: if my container is on the ROW, will it be pushed behind the ROW or removed

to a new location

Response

Mr. Stephen Kolee (MPW): all businesses along the project road will have to be located elsewhere

Q7. Samuel K Quainoo: What will be the payment for the land that the structure is built on?

Response

Mr. Stephen Kolee (MPW): The compensation package will include payment for the land

Q8. Harris G Kollie; What if a person lease a land and put a container, now the container cannot be

moved back because there is no space, will the container owner be refunded and by whom?.

Response

Mr. Stephen Kolee (MPW): Our legal people will look into it.

Q9. Mohamed Sheriff: After the demolition exercise will the remaining property be developed?

Response

Mr. Stephen Kolee (MPW): Yes,

Q10. Fato A. Wheremongar: We will have to go the MPW to tell them that we have a deed that any

future road construction will take place on the left hand side. We will not allow any ‘’butterfly project’’ to

destroy our houses and business places.

Q11. AlieJalloh: Do we need to come with all our document for the properties when coming for

negotiation?

Response

Mr. Stephen Kolee (MPW): We will give a week notice in advance to all APO.

Q12. Nehemiah T. Sylar: We have bill board along the project road, will we be compensated for them.

Q13. Jacob S. Stewart: if my property is assessed and evaluated, will I demolished it and start

reconstruction?

Response

Mr. Stephen Kolee (MPW): No development activities should take place once that property had been

marked.

Q14. Johnny Bookai: Why is it that the ROW keeps changing? During the first demolition exercise my

structure was not affected but the resent one my structure was affected.


Response

Mr. Stephen Kolee (MPW): the accepted ROW for this kind of road construction is 75 ft and that is

what we measured on either side of the road.

Q15. What is the time duration between compensation and demolition?

Response

Mr. Stephen Kolee (MPW): We will give enough time usually 3 months but we will communicate that

to you

The meeting which started at 10:15hrs ended at 2PM noon.


Photographs of meeting with owners and Renters of project affected Property at Crown

Hotel


Attendance at meeting with owners and renters of project affected property at Crown

Hotel


4. Meeting with petty treaders’srepresentives from Different Zones at the

Red Light Market

Minutes of meeting with key stakeholders representing different zones at the Red Light

market on Thursday 9th March, 2017.

Present at the meeting were 17 key stakeholders representing different zones at the Red Lightmarket

as shown in the attendance list.

After the opening courtesies, Muslim and Christian prayers, participants were asked to introduce

themselves. Dr Ralph Bona. (Lead Consultant) enquired whether all the zones at the Red Light market

were represented, zones 2,4,5,6,7 were however not represented, he then asked whether they have a

mechanism of relating the massage of the meeting to the rest of the members at red light to which they

all responded yes.

In his opening remarks Dr. Bona said that the meeting had been called as part of the continued

consultation process required in the preparation of a RAP document. He said that the RAP for the SD

Cooper to Coca Cola road will not be completed if the issue of where to resettle to numerous traders

along the road is not addressed. He said that for this RAP, a total of 239 properties (houses, fences

business places) had been marked and 3227 petty traders had been registered and that they will be

compensated according to the Government of Liberia and World Bank regulations.He said that the

present state of the Omega market can only accommodate at most 1000 traders and the remaining

traders (Over 2000) are to be provided with a temporary space within a 25 ft wall that will be constructed

along some areas of the project road especially. He concluded that the new ideal of the wall to retain

some of the traders was the main reason for the calling of the meeting

Jemes Waters (Ministry of Public Works) addressed the traders as follow

The Government of Liberia through the Infrastructure Implementation Unit, Ministry of Public Works

(MPW) intends to upgrade the Road from its current condition that has a deteriorated bitumen surface.

The road is to be upgraded to enhance smooth traffic flow and improve traffic movement linkages with

major corridors. The road corridor is highly built-up with residential, petty traders, low to medium

commercial features and artisans. To commence the proposed road project, like any other project that

may affect the environment and communities, it is mandatory that the Ministry of Public Works (MPW)

through Infrastructure Implementation Unit conducts an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

(ESIA) study and to prepare a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for those whose properties fall within

the 75 feet Right of Way on either side of the road. AURECON/CEMMATS Group Ltd. had been

contracted by (MPW), to carry out these assessments. He continued that a consultation with Project

Affected Persons (PAP) is an important aspect of any RAP and that is why the meeting was called with

the petty traders.

Concerns from the petty traders and response from the consultants


Jones P.Y Gibson - In our last meeting we suggested to the consultant to look into the possibility of

constructing a market and relocating the traders to Gobachop, we would like to know if the suggestion

is been considered.

Response

Simon Tshekedi (Aurecon)– We are not ruling out any options, the Gobachop option is still on the

table but at the moment we want to look at the possibility of constructing a 25ft wall and retain some of

the petty traders. We would prefer moving everybody but our mandate here is rood construction

Borgor .M Sallah= Safety is a concern here for the traders in the proposal wall, how would you ensure

that the traders are safe in the 25ft wall?

Response

Simon Tshekedi (Aurecon)– The wall will be strong enough to prevent any vehicle from breaking in

the event of accident.

Mark J. Borbor- Why not used the same money to built the wall to improve on omega market and take

all the traders along the road to Omega

Response

Simon Tshekedi (Aurecon) – Our business is road construction; the government will have to find a

permanent market for the traders.

Mark J. Borbor- Building a wall will not be an ideal option, there is enough land at Gobachop where a

big market that can accommodate all the traders at red light will be constructed. The squatters at the

Gobachop market site can easily be evicted and would not require compensation.Those structures were

like leased and the time lapse had past for the structures to become freed for LMA.

Response

Dr. Ralph Bona- We are looking into all the options but the issue of discussion now is the possibility of

a 25ft wall for the traders.

Jones P.Y Gibson - what will happen to the remaining traders that could not get a space within the 25

ft wall?

Response

Dr. Ralph Bona- We are looking at the possibility of having a wall that will accommodate the remaining

traders.

Jackson A S Roberson– I am envisaging a problem with store owner, am not sure the store owners

will allow the traders to sell in front of their store

Response

Simon Tshekedi (Aurecon)- The 25ft is on the ROW and do not belong to the store owners

Dr Bona- We know it’s difficult for some people to have traders selling infront of their house/shop etc

but the engineers will factor that into their design.

Gbothe E. Morris (Transporter rep.) - We have about 40 parking stations along the road and the 25 ft

will not be spacious enough, we will like total relocation of everybody to Omega which we think have

enough space for us


Response

Dr. Bona- all your suggestions will be looked into and discussed with the engineers

Joseph Sawo - The proposed 25ft wall plan is very good but we honestly we should be thinking of a

more permanent solution now, if the government can do a quick impact project at Omega, all the trader

will be relocated there. The problem of street trading will still continue if you leave some of the traders

in the wall because they will always have to come back to the street.

Madam Catherine Early- The 25 ft wall idea will work because it has worked for us a Somalia drive.

We must accept this proposal so that the project will start

Joes P.V Gabson- The 25 ft wall proposal is a fine idea but it’s too small for the drivers to operate.

Response

Simon Tshekedi (Aurecon) –The motor driver will be treated differently, they will not be operating

within the 25ft.

Photograph of petty traders’ representatives in the meeting




Attendance of meeting with petty treaders’ representatives


5. Courtesy call on the PCC Mayor by CEMMATS

SUBJECT: EXPANSION OF THE SD COOPER TO COCA COLA FACTORY ROAD FROM SINGLE TO DUAL

CARRIAGE ROAD

Date: Friday 10th March, 2017

Location: Office the Mayor

Present: C. Cyvette Gibson (Mayor), the Mayor’s Assistant, Dr Ralph Bona (CEMMATS, Sierra

Leone), RashiduSinnah (CEMMATS, Sierra Leone), Joseph (CEMMATS Assistant, Liberia)

The consultant team made a courtesy call on the mayor of the Paynesville City Cooperation to update her on the ESIA and RAP. Dr Ralph Bona, the lead consultant briefed the mayor as follows:

“The Government of Liberia has received grants from the International Development Association (IDA) for the preparation of conceptual design support in the procurement of civil works contract and monitoring supervision services for the construction of a 6.7 km four lanes arterial road from SD copper intersection (through ELWA and Red Light intersection) to Coca Cola factory.

The Government of Liberia through the Infrastructure Implementation Unit, Ministry of Public Works (MPW) intends to upgrade the Road from its current condition that has a deteriorated bitumen surface. The road is to be upgraded to enhance smooth traffic flow and improve traffic movement linkages with major corridors. The road corridor is highly built-up with residential, petty traders, low to medium commercial features and artisans. To commence the proposed road project, like any other project that may affect the environment and communities, it is mandatory that the Ministry of Public Works (MPW) through Infrastructure Implementation Unit conducts an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) study and to prepare a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for those whose properties fall within the 75 feet Right of Way on either side of the road. AURECON/CEMMATS Group Ltd. had been contracted by (MPW), to carry out these assessments. He continued that the ESIA, ESMP and the RAP had been compiled and reviewed. He said that for the RAP, a total of 349 properties (houses, fences business places) had been marked and 3227 petty traders had been registered and that they will be compensated according to the government of Liberia and World Bank regulations. Dr Bona said that the most worrying aspect of the RAP is where to resettle the more than 3000 petty traders along the project road as the Omega market can only accommodate at most 1000 traders and the remaining traders are to be provided with temporary space within a 25 ft wall that will be constructed along some areas of the project road.

In explaining the mechanism used in accessing the affected properties, he said that if 20% or more of the total property fall within the ROW, then the entire property will be compensated for and demolished and if less than 20% of the entire property is affected only the affected area will be compensated for and demolished. He said that the consulting team will ensure that they submit an independent and unbiased report. Dr. Bona said that consultation with the Major is key in a resettlement programme and that her inputs, suggestions and recommendations will be incorporated into the final document. He continued that there will a resettlement committee and a grievance redress committee at the MPW that will be implementing the RAP.

The mayor on her part thanked the consultants for the visit and hoped that such consultations continues so that inputs, suggestions and recommendations will be incorporated into the final document to make it comprehensive. She continued that the resettlement of petty traders and the issue of solid waste along the red light area is a difficult that requires national team effort. She said that the hawkers are particular difficult to handle since they are very mobile and not registered with neither the PCC none the LMA. She said that if called upon she will facilitate the resettlement of the hawkers to OMEGA and the resolution of the issue of waste disposal at the market. The mayor concluded that she did not buy the idea of compensating the property owners and petty traders along the ROW as they are all illegal occupants. Compensating petty traders will capacitate them and encourage further street trading, the Mayor said.


VIEWS OF THE PCC MAYOR ON THE RAP

1. The Mayor appreciates the World Bank’s insistence on the RAP for the expansion of the

Tubman Boulevard from SD Cooper to Coca Cola Factory, but is concerned with the legal

implications of such an action. Her position is that illegal occupants and defaulters of the law

should not be compensated in a RAP, as this would encourage further defaulting;

2. On the 1000 or so capacity of the Omega market, the mayor was disappointed on hearing such

a small number against the 3277 registered at the census conducted by the consultant, and

acknowledged the enormity of the problem;

3. On the choice of category of petty traders at the Red Light Market from which 1000 can be

selected (out of the 3277) to be relocated to Omega market, the mayor’s preference were the

hawkers and street vendors as, in her words, ‘they are the traumatised category’.

4. She promised to make phone calls after our meeting, for the immediate relocation of the 1000

petty traders to the Omega market;

5. On the remaining 2000 and more petty traders that would remain at Red Light, and the

proposition of reducing the ROW in the Red Light segment to 50ft and keeping the petty traders

in the remaining 25ft separated by a barrier wall, she is opposed to this action as this would

give the impression of condoning the illegal occupation of the ROW. She stated that the petty

traders would traverse the wall at will and that the result will be counter-productive. She advised

the consultants to provide a more sustainable option for the resettlement of the petty traders

that would prevent them from returning to the street.

6. She mentioned that Omega market is under the jurisdiction of the PCC, and that they would

manage its operations very well, once it is occupied.

7. On parking lots at Red Light and other areas, she stated that there is provision for parking and

transporters within the market facility;

8. On the structures, and possible adjustment of the extent of the ROW to avoid excessive cost

involved in demolishing them, the mayor is also opposed to this, insisting that all structures

within the ROW were illegally constructed. The consultants iterated that some of the structures

may not have been in the ROW in the past, as its extent was only 50ft then, in some areas.

Extending to 75ft for the planned road expansion might be the reason for their inclusion in the

ROW. This could therefore provide additional argument for compensation;

9. The consultants are hence requesting consultations amongst relevant government institutions

on the RAP project, with emphasis on the MPW and the PCC.


Photograph with the Mayor of Paynesville City Corporation

Cemmats team meets the Mayor(in the middle) of Paynesville City Corporation


6. Meeting with Red Light Marketers in Paynesville

Date: 12/7/17

Venue: Crown Hotel Hall

In attendance:

• Steven K. Kolee, James B. Walker (IIU, MPW)

• Dr Ralph Bona, MamadiToure, Eric, Joe, Joanna (CEMMATS/Aurecon)

Agenda:

1. Prayer

2. Welcome remarks,

3. Recognition of Red Light Market Zone leaders

4. Purpose of meeting:

a) MPW proposal to accommodate petty traders;

b) Discussion on the proposal

5. Conclusion and closing remarks

Minutes:

The meeting was called to order by James B. Walker who introduced himself as an employee of the IIU/MPW and requested that one of the participants volunteer

to lead us in prayers. He then handed the rest of the meeting to Mr Steven Kolee who welcomed the participants and thanked them for attending in spite of the need

to be at the market today. He reminded everyone of the reason of our meeting as pertaining to the expansion of the S.D. Cooper to Coca Cola Factory Road. He went

on that the road is important to decongest that segment of a major link to the hinterlands. However, there is an issue relating to the fate of the marketers at the densely

populated Red Light street market, according to Mr Kolee. The question according to him was, ‘where would they be relocated?’ A location should be found to

which the marketers will be moved so that the road works can commence. The Omega market option has been cancelled as the site is now being used for a housing

development project. That aside, the market is not ready and would require further investment and time to upgrade to a workable option. Mr Kolee continued to say

that the Gorbachev market suggested by some people is not viable as the market is too small to accommodate the thousands of street marketers registered during the

assessment. He went through the government’s plan to demolish structures within 75ft from the centre line on either side of the road for the expansion of the road.

He then presented the government’s proposal to demarcate and set aside 25ft on both sides of the road in the Red Light area, from Victory Chapel to Parker Paint

Junction to accommodate the street marketers during the implementation of the project, and that a barrier wall will be constructed to protect the marketers, whilst

allowing traffic to flow uninterrupted. He concluded by urging the participants to respond to this proposal by way of views, comments and questions, as that was the

purpose of the meeting.


Questions/suggestions

Amos Luogon: This proposal is different from what we heard before concerning our relocation. We were informed that we would be relocated to Omega market.

But, if government has come out with a more workable solution, we are happy;

MemaiFallah: when will the project begin?

Kolee’s response: Physical work will begin as soon as the Wet Season ends. Meanwhile, other preparatory work, not affect by the rains is ongoing;

Theresa Nyumah: The marketers are many; we are appealing to the government to find a suitable place to relocate us.

It therefore appeared that the proposal was not quite understood; hence, it was presented a second time for clarity.

YassahJalloh: We welcome the 25ft wide market space as proposed.

Nathan Tengbeh: We thank the MPW for the proposal, but appeal to them to get the police officers involved so that they will not chase us away from the market

area as they always do.

Joseph Sao: during the demolition of the structures along the 75ft ROW, where will the marketers be?

Kolee’s response: Whilst we will attempt to answer your questions, not all of them will be answered at this meeting. We will discuss with other government

stakeholders, the World Bank and the contractors and revert to you. Be assured that we are documenting all of your concerns, questions and comments. But be rest

assured that we will address the issue of where you will be when the demolition is happening.

HawaWamah: for hawkers that carry their goods in their hands, what are the guarantees that they will be included in this propose relocation?

Emmanual (LMA executive): There will be no discrimination amongst categories of marketers. All marketers will be included in this proposal;

Emilia Y. Formoh: the 25ft space might put us right in front of stores. The store owners will claim that they have paid for their shop front space, and might call

the police on us. We therefore call on government to communicate their plan to shop owners to avoid this problem;

Eton Diang: We believe that the 25ft space is not enough. So, give us a compensation package and we will find another location;

Marcy Sirway: We do appreciate the government’s proposal, but we also believe the allotted space of 25ft is insufficient given our numbers. We will need an

extension;


WalayMoriba: Initially, the suggestion was 100ft ROW, but the Liberian Marketing Association (LMA) negotiated a reduction to 75ft. What is the basis of the

25ft proposal? And what are the guarantees that the police will not come and take advantage of us?

Kolee’s response: We have already noted all these concerns: having a written documentation on government’s proposal, making sure the police will not chase

marketers away from the 25ft area, and that the LMA will be involved in the implementation.

Steve Lebo: We are appealing to government and the contractors to reduce the space to 10ft.

It was therefore clear that some of the participants still did not understand the proposal. It was therefore explained again by the LMA representative,

Emmanuel Liyean..

Daniel S. Massa: There is also tension between the marketers and drivers regarding parking space, and this problem will worsen after the 25ft demarcation. We

appeal to the government and contractor to look into this.

KoluKorva: We would like the government to help us with some financial assistance;

GormaFlomo: how would we be making our living when we are removed?

Emmanuel Liyean (LMA) gave a background to the whole project starting from its inception to the debate on where marketers should be relocated; the

discussion on Omega vs Gorbachev market. He went on to add they the LMA took part in the negotiation to have the 25ft reserved for street market and

that government has already taken the proposal to donors. He cautioned that there should be not confusion over the matter. His only appeal was that the

space be developed into a market space by upgrading with pavement so that there will be no mud or dust.

Siah Sahr: I agree with Mr Emmanuel Liyean. The Red Light area is the only place we have been selling our goods since 1991. There is no better option than to

be allowed to operate in the same area.

Agnes Jackson: the 25ft space is too small to accommodate all of us;

Emmanuel Liyean (interjected): I encourage all to wait until the space has been demarcated on the ground before you can claim that it is too small.

Chris Dolo: Let’s bear in mind that there are 3 categories of Red Light marketers: those that own stalls, those that convey their goods by wheelbarrow and the

hawkers that carry their goods on their hands. I request that all should be included in this proposal;

Emmanuel Liyean repeated his reassurance that all will be included

Kolee’s response: MPW will organize consultations and a visit to the site involving market heads so figure how the 25ft will be allotted to cater to the needs of all.

We will resolve the concern about the police chasing people away, and we will talk to the store owners too.


Precious: Government is our parent, and parent can make provision for their children. Government must find other options such as get us to Omega market or

wherever or give us money to find a location of our choice.

Emmanuel Liyean: The government does not have money to build the road. The road will be constructed by the World Bank for the government. You should

think of a viable option now that we know Omega is no longer an option. We must look at things from all angles.

GormaFlomo: We agree with government’s proposal because the Omega option is not possible;

TuaraySiah: We agree with the 25ft space. People must stop requesting for money as it is not a sustainable option. Even if government gives us $500, it will not

sustain us.

Conclusion:

1. From the voting that was done at the end of the meeting, at least 60% of the participants accepted the government’s proposal. The remaining was split

between those demanding money and the undecided;

2. Two categories of marketers were demanding money: the youth that were apparently hawkers and women who claimed to have taken loans from various

sources such as Access Bank;

Those that accepted the proposal are however asking for guarantees that the will be allowed to settle peacefully in the 25ft space provided. They would like all

concerned to get on board (the Police, the shop owners, commercial drivers etc), and there should be a signed documentation to that effect;


ATTENDANCE AT THE MEETING WITH MARKETERS AND PETTY TRADERS FROM RED LIGHT MARKET ON THE DECISION TO

RELOCATE BEHIND A BARRIER AT THE RED LIGHT MARKET


ANNEX 8

June 24, 2018

Disclosure of Compensation to PAPs for the Coca Cola Factory to Redlight (2.1KM)

REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA



P. O. BOX 9011

SOUTH, LYNCH STREET

MONROVIA


1. Introduction

The assignment commenced on Thursday, June 21, 2018 with in the affected corridor of the 2.1 Km from Coca Cola Factory

(CCF) to Redlight (RL). The exercise was for a three day period which ended on June 23, 2018. The exercise provided an

opportunity for the team to carryout disclosure of compensation to be paid to project Affected Persons (PAPs) as per the census

conducted a total of 275 PAPs will be directly and indirectly affected by phase 1 of the project along the 2.1km road corridor.

Out of the total of the 275 PAPs, 136 are public and private properties owners (64 are shop owners, 48 are renters and landlords

and, 28 are vulnerable people) who will be directly impacted while 1,803 are petty-traders who will also be indirectly impacted

by the project.

The team carryout a door to door discussion to the PAPs that was present in the corridor during the three days exercise.

2. List of Team Members

The following personnel were selected to form the team to carry out the 2.1 Km from Coca Cola Factory (CCF) to Redlight (RL

RAP Compensation Disclosure:

No. Name Position Institution Email Address Cell No.

1. Cynthia Bropleh

Safeguard Support Staff

IIU/MPW [email protected]

0886940715; 0777938101

2. Augustine F. Taylor

Engineer MPW 0777228166/0886958626

3. Govergo W. Tennih

Engineer IIU/MPW [email protected]

0886445986; 0777368953

4. Michael S. K. Kpakolo Engineer IIU/MPW [email protected]

0777886712; 0777886712

5. Wellington Capehart RAP Coordinator/M-3 Office

MPW

6. MosesYeakassa Auditor, Internal Audit Division

MPW

7. Kentoma C. Kilby Property Valuator

MPW [email protected]

0777680412

8. Edwin K. Lewis Consultant [email protected]

0886325060

9. Yarsmine Freeman Accountant/Auditor

PFMU/MFDP

0777855365

3. Issues

No. Structure# Issues Remark

1 SDC/CF-233A Loss of business form not available The form will be available

2 SDC/CF-231A • Occupant claiming to be the owner of structure

• He leased the land and build the structure

• Structure fully affected

• Need to review the ownership of structure

• Need to see the lease agreement

• Need to re-measured to see it the property is to be fully or partially












• Structure owner has no attestation

• There is a dispute on ownership regarding the structure. There is a component that is being leased and the other under rental to Mr. Austin Menlor from Mr. Augustus Lialoe

affected or the extent to which the property will be affected

• As the result of resolving the dispute on the legitimate beneficiary to the marked structure, the team resolved to re-measure and appraise the individual components of the structure to reflect the benefit for the one under lease for Austine Menlor and the other one to benefit Augustus Lialoe that who rented it to Austine Menlor. The existing code SDC/CF-231-A was maintain for the portion attributed to Augustus Lialoe while the other portion under lease was provided a new code SDC/CF-231-C Note: due to the partitioning of the structure there was a reduction in the square areas of the previous coded structure SDC/CF-231-A

3 SDC/CF230B Rental agreement ended. Tenant has moved to another location

Rental agreement ended tenant ca not be located or contacted

4 SDC/CF-C-117 Name misspelled, No form for lump sum payment on container for disclosure The owner of the container had copy of the Letter of attestation received from the PCC and further said the original copy was delivered at the requisite authority at the MPW

Name corrected, Form will be available for disclosure The team got the copy of the available Letter of attestation from the PAP, and assures making a follow-up in tracing the document at the Ministry. However the disclosure was done with no signatory till the team trace the Original document which serves as a proof to authorized legitimate payment.

5 SDC/CF-231 New business started after the cut of date

Business not considered

6 SDC/CF 122B • No renters

• Owner is Musu William sister in law to Sarah Walker

• Allowed and approved Sarah Walker to do her attestation and received her check in her name

The team accepted the decision and disclosure was done with Sarah Walker, the sister-In-Law of Musu Williams, but the copy of the disclosure was presented to Musu Williams for safe keeping and future reference.

7 SDC/CF-C- 122 No attestation for the Container Owner to provide attestation

SDC/CF-C- 121 No attestation for the Container Owner to provide attestation

8 SDC/CF 221B Vulnerable person (sick)-Beckey Wanner

The team is taking into consideration the availability of the property owner during the payment exercise and subsequently


The owner of the structure in person of Becky Wanner is a disable and elderly woman, thereby categorizing her under the vulnerable group. She requested her daughter to proxy in her behalf during the disclosure exercise.

cashing of check. The lady alluded that she will be available and suggested that her particular be maintained on the document.

9 SDC/CF 222, SDC/CF 222A, SDC/CF 222B

School and church fence PA Building PA seems to be a new construction Well FA These structures are located and used as a School and Church facilities, the administrator said that a communication is provided to the MPW requesting the Ministry to exclude the mentioned facilities from the list for payment and subsequence demolition

The building need to be investigated if it was constructed before or after the cutoff date of Feb 12, 2016 The team notified the request for further enquiry regarding the structures. However, the function of these structures by virtue of the RAP policy do exempt them from being project affected Structures taking into consideration the function of the fence in securing both the school and Church and the Hand Pump. The team is yet to trace the communication requesting the exemption from the RAP list.

10 SDC/CF 239 No renter Not considered

11 SDC/CF 225 The property has been sold. It is only the fence that needs to be demolished

Could not establish the actual ownership of the property. Trying to locate the owner of the property

12 SDC/CF-216 No ownership was established Trying to locate the owner of the property

13 SDC/CF-193 Vulnerable person- widow (Mrs. Kebeh Grant)

14 SDC/CF-196, SDC/CF-196A

The structures has been demolished for the construction of a new structure

Structures were initially captured during the RAP process. Owner will be compensated

15 SDC/CF-C-110 Owner of this container has traveled

16 SDC/CF-217 Structure is in dispute on ownership Dispute to be resolve by GRM

17 SDC/CF-178 The structure is under leased to two business person, but under the Business income loss within the system only one business was captured.

The adjustment to reflect the two businesses will be made as to capture the Business that was left out. However, information regarding the particular of the said business owner was gathered and is pending incorporation into the system. Note: The businesses operated there are all Cold Storage that are involved in the selling of frozen fish, spare ribs and chicken

18 SDC/CF-221-A The structure comprised of both concrete bricks and Mud bricks, but it is 75% concrete.

The rate of the structure was modified to suit and reflect the components that make up the structure; there by augmenting the rate from 8USD to 15USD.

19 SDC/CF-C-105 The container is marked but it is currently located out of the RoW; but it may have being removed from where it

The structure was noted, but owner was not available during the disclosure exercise. However, information was left


was initially captured as within the RoW but owner may have relocated it.

with representative that the owner needs to provided Letter of Attestation as he/she is entitle to payment.

20 SDC/CF-C-094 This structure was removed from the list but during the last Re-verification exercise it was captured.

The structure due to it being marked and captured as being within the R0W, it was agreed to be included for payment but structure owner was not available for the disclosure exercise.

21 A container with an erased MPW mark was seen just before the marked pavement SDC/CF-186

The structure code is yet to be established since it code is erase and the owner of the structure is not available.

22 SDC/CF-C-090 This container do have a business operational in it as of our disclosure exercise, but was not capture during our past re-verification exercises.

The team requested the owner who was claiming that the business has being operational since then to provide business registration document reflecting the existence of the structure by then.

23 SDC/CF-202 Structure was observed having tiles in the porch and the sitting entertainment areas.

As the result of the observed tiles within the structure, the unit rate was modified to 18USD from 15USD.

24 SDC/CF-200 The renter claimed that the applied rate for rental payment was 100USD contrary to the 80 USD on the disclosure form.

After thorough enquiry regarding time the renter came into the structure, it was established that the previous occupant was an internet Café and not Driving School which is current. Meanwhile, the team and the business owner agreed that the 80USd be maintain on the basis that, the rate was predicated upon the existing business by then and not the current one.

25 SDC/CF-C-102 The container was not attended to on the basis that the owner has removed the structure code to the container and of most importance there is no attestation available to show the actual owner of the container.

The container owner known to be Omanru Saysay, was requested to get the attestation letter fir the container and subsequently submitting to the requisite authority at the Ministry of Public Works.

26 SDC/CF-224-A Structure owner has not provided letter of attestation due to financial constrain in getting the process done

The PAP was informed that the process was now free with no cost attached. The PAP promise to process the document of the structure by Monday; June 25. 2018.

27 SDC/CF-232 As from the last re-verification exercise, the structure was captured as having a business and operational from the information provided within the system.

The owner acknowledged that the structure does not have business operating over the past time, so it may have being due to some typographical error that led to it being captured for business income loss. Note: it was agreed that the compensation package for this be removed.


The structure was assessed of being made of concrete contrary to the Mud-brick that was initially reflected against it within the system.

As the result of the observed change in the structure type from Mud-brick to Concrete, there was eventually a change in the unit rate from 6USD to 20USD.

28 SDC/CF-188 Owner of this structure is a vulnerable; she is above the age 65, she is a female household head and a widow.

She is to be captured under the vulnerable group for compensation.

4. Rates Adopted for LIBRAMP 2.1Km- CCF-RL

The rates applied to this section reflected the present realities with respect to cost of building materials that was revised and

developed by the Ministry of Public Works in November 2017.

5. Arrival on-site and Preliminaries

After arrival in the 2.1Km, the team was called together by the Team Leader to discuss roles and approaches to the assignment.

The meeting commenced at about 10:45 AM, at the beginning of OPRC Lot 1 opposite Coca Cola Factory.

The Team members were brief on their various roles to be carried out in the field. The team was divided into two groups

consisting of consultation and disclosure. The Consultation group was responsible to inform the PAPs on the RAP activities and

to ascertain if they had processed their proof of property. The Disclosure group was responsible to disclosure the compensation

to the PAPs that were qualified for compensation and also identified and included PAPs that were initially not captured during

the process. The team took into consideration the categories of affected people along with the overall stats and allocations for

each category, Eligibility criteria for PAP’s the evaluation method employed.

1. Importantly, the Grievance Referral Mechanism (GRM) was informed on the exercise. The team adopted the following approach whilst implementing the exercise: ID of the owners were requested from the representative;

2. the representative should present proof of authorization to act on the owner’s behalf; 3. representative’s ID should be requested as well; 4. a note of this should be prepared, and kept by the evaluation team 5. Contact owner by phone to confirm

6. Conclusion Generally, the disclosure exercise went according to plan. The strategy adopted by the team rendered the execution of the

field work much more efficient than on previous occasions.

7. Observation

In large part, the issues raised by the PAP’s were anticipated by the team, and adequately addressed during the disclosure.

The following were observed:

Most of the PAPs were present at their structure. Approximately about ten PAP were absent

Forty Nine (49) Structures did not have ownership of property


Some structures captured during the RAP exercise that were categorized under Landlord and tenants did not meet that

requirement and were remove from the list

About 2 persons were identified as vulnerable and included in the list

There were structures that had dispute for ownership

There were new structures identified after the cutoff date

Most of the pavement located in front of the stores did not provide ownership of property and the owner could not be

identified or located

Some structures owners could not be identified or located

Some structure had to be reevaluated based on the assessment and inspection done on the structure by which

sometime lead to either an increase in rate or a decrease in rate

Some PAPs had erased the code given to the structure

The refusal of some PAPs to obtain ownership of the property

8. Recommendations

The following are recommended:

It is therefore recommended that the team be empowered and mandated to take on added responsibility both before and during

and after the actual process.

PAPs be encouraged to obtain ownership of property

Structures constructed after the cutoff date be demolished without compensation

Erase codes on structures be identified in order to provide the appropriate coding

The GRM to inform absent PAPs to come to the MPW for their disclosure of compensation


PHOTOS DURING THE DISCLOSURE EXERCISE

Copy

of

Disclosure Forms

Figure 1: SDC/CF-178 structure with double occupancy of businesses

Figure 2: Container with MPW coded mark but code number erase

Figure 4: Structure whose unite rate value was modified from 10USD to 5USD due to material make up

Figure 5: PAP signing to the disclosure form

Figure 3: Container that was relocated, but have the MPW structure code

Figure 6: Structure that has both school and Church, which owner requested that it be remove from the list for

payment and demolition.

INFRASTRUCTURE IMPLEMENTATION UNIT MINISTRY OF …...Tubman Boulevard to the Coca Cola Factory in...

Documents

Transcript of INFRASTRUCTURE IMPLEMENTATION UNIT MINISTRY OF …...Tubman Boulevard to the Coca Cola Factory in...