Report: Standard format 5/97€¦ · Web viewThere was no practical way to confirm these amounts,...

Livelihood Restoration Plan - Final

Lusaka Water Supply, Sanitation and Drainage (LWSSD) Project

Lusaka, Zambia

Prepared by:

Resettlement Implementation Consultant (RIC) and submitted 10 August, 2015 Revised by:

MCA-Zambia – 15 December 2015

List of Tables ivList of Exhibits & Figures..............................................................................................................................List of Annexes..............................................................................................................................................Acronyms and Abbreviations.......................................................................................................................Executive Summary........................................................................................................................................1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................

1.1 Background..........................................................................................................................1.2 Purpose.................................................................................................................................1.3 Scope of the Report..............................................................................................................1.4 Approach to LRP Preparation..............................................................................................1.5 Organization of the Report...................................................................................................

2.0 Policy and Precedents.......................................................................................................................2.1 PS5 and Guidance................................................................................................................2.2 Social and Gender Guidance................................................................................................

3.0 Livelihood Restoration PAPs..........................................................................................................3.1 Project Livelihood Impacts in Mazyopa............................................................................

3.1.1 Social and Gender Characteristics of Mazyopa LR PAPs....................................

3.1.2 Mazyopa Livelihood Preferences.........................................................................

3.2 Project Livelihood Impacts in Kaunda Square (KSQ) Ponds............................................3.2.1 Social and Gender Characteristics of KSQ Ponds LR PAPs................................

3.2.2 KSQ Ponds Livelihood Preferences...................................................................................3.3 LR PAPs Summary and Discussion of Preferences...........................................................

4.0 Livelihood Restoration Approach and Strategy..............................................................................4.1 Elements of the LRP..........................................................................................................4.2 Access to Water.................................................................................................................4.3 Target Income....................................................................................................................4.4 LRP Program Duration......................................................................................................4.5 Start-up Grant.....................................................................................................................4.6 Stipend for Income Support...............................................................................................4.7 Program Structure.............................................................................................................4.8 Basic Structure and Approach...........................................................................................4.9 Provision for Vulnerable PAPs to Nominate a Beneficiary...............................................4.10 Adjustment of the Entitlement Matrix...............................................................................4.11 Amendment to CA to Enroll in the LR Program...............................................................4.12 Key Risks...........................................................................................................................4.13 Expected Outcomes...........................................................................................................

5.0 Implementation of the LRP.............................................................................................................5.1 The RIC Activities prior to Implementation......................................................................5.2 Logical Framework for Livelihood Restoration................................................................5.3 Activities of the LRC.........................................................................................................

i

5.3.1 Stage 1 – Initial Training......................................................................................

5.3.2 Stage 2 - Start-Up.................................................................................................

5.3.3 Stage 3 - Supervised Operations...........................................................................

6.0 Time Frame for implementation.....................................................................................................6.1 LR Program Implementation for CP10 & CP4 Beneficiaries............................................

7.0 LR Program Budget Assumptions..................................................................................................8.0 Livelihood Restoration Monitoring and Evaluation.......................................................................

8.1 Livelihood Restoration Training........................................................................................8.2 Livelihood Restoration Program Implementation.............................................................

ii

List of TablesTable ES-1: Overview of the LRP.................................................................................IITable 2-1: Key LR Policy Provisions of PS5 and Guidance Notes.............................6Table 3-1: Overview of the Mazyopa LR PAPs……………………………...11Table 3-2: Mazyopa - Land Impacts..........................................................................11Table 3-3: Mazyopa - Gardens for Consumption vs Income and by Sex of the Gardener 12Table 3-4: Mazyopa Self-Reported Monthly Income from Gardening.....................12Table 3-5: Mazyopa LR PAP Distribution, by Sex...................................................14Table 3-6: Mazyopa LR PAP Vulnerability, by Sex.................................................14Table 3-7: Mazyopa LR PAP Marital Status, by Sex................................................15Table 3-8: Mazyopa LR PAP Food Insecurity……………………………………...15Table 3-9: Mazyopa LR PAP Food Insecurity, by Sex.............................................16Table 3-10: Mazyopa LR PAPs Educational Attainment, by Sex...............................16Table 3-11: Mazyopa PAPs LR Preferences, by Sex..................................................17Table 3-12: KSQ Ponds - Confirmed Livelihood Impacts..........................................18Table 3-13: KSQ Ponds Self-reported Monthly Income from Gardening, by Sex.....19Table 3-14: KSQ Ponds LR PAP Vulnerability, by Sex.............................................19Table 3-15: KSQ Ponds LR PAP Marital Status, by Sex............................................20Table 3-16: KSQ Ponds LR PAP Food Insecurity, by Sex.........................................20Table 3-17: KSQ Ponds LR PAPs Educational Attainment, by Sex...........................21Table 3-18: KSQ PAPs LR Preferences, by Sex.........................................................21Table 4-1: Existing Entitlement Matrix Livelihood Restoration Provisions.............35Table 4-2: Proposed Entitlement Matrix Livelihood Restoration Provisions...........35Table 4-3: Key Risks & Mitigation Measures...........................................................36Table 5-1: Logical Framework for Livelihood Restoration......................................39

iii

List of Exhibits & Figures

Exhibit 3-1 Mazyopa Outfall RCoI Delineation..............................................................................24

Exhibit 3-2 KSQ Ponds Land Acquistion........................................................................................25

Exhibit 3-3 Locationof KSQ Ponds PAPs.......................................................................................26

List of Annexes

Annex 1: Summary of Community Meetings with Mazyopa LR PAPs

Annex 2: Summary of Community Meeting with KSQ Ponds LR PAPs

Annex 3: Amendment to the CA for LR PAPs

iv

Acronyms and AbbreviationsCA Compensation AgreementCP Contract PackageEDC Effective Date of ContractEM Entitlement MatrixESAP Environmental and Social Action PlanGN Guidance Note (IFC, PS series)IA Implementing Actor (for the LRP)IAIA International Association of Impact AssessmentICR Implementation Completion Report (A RIC deliverable)IFC International Finance CorporationIR Inception Report (RIC)IW Inception WorkshopKSQ Kaunda Square (Ponds)LCC Lusaka City CouncilLR Livelihood RestorationLRC Livelihood Restoration ConsultantLRP Livelihood Restoration PlanLWSC Lusaka Water and Sewerage CompanyLWSSD (P) Lusaka Water Supply, Sanitation and Drainage (Project)LWW Lusaka Water WorksMCA-Zambia Millennium Challenge Account – ZambiaMCC Millennium Challenge CorporationMLGH Ministry of Local Government and HousingNRC National Registration CardNRW Non-Revenue WaterPAP(s) Project-Affected Person(s)PS5 Performance Standard 5 (Involuntary Resettlement) of the IFCRAP Resettlement Action PlanRIC Resettlement Implementation ConsultantRCoI Resettlement Corridor Of ImpactRIC Resettlement Implementation ConsultantSGIP Social & Gender Integration PlanSGIS Social & Gender Integration StrategyToR Terms of ReferenceUS United StatesUSD United States DollarsUSG United States GovernmentZESCO Zambia Electricity Supply Corporation ZEMA Zambia Environmental Management AgencyZMW Zambian Kwacha

v

Executive SummaryThis report presents a plan for livelihood restoration (LR) for the Lusaka Water Supply, San-itation and Drainage (LWSSD) Project prepared in August 2015 for the Millennium Chal-lenge Account – Zambia (MCA-Zambia) by the Resettlement Implementation Consultant (RIC) as part of the implementation of the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP). MCA-Zambia revised this plan in December 2015 to reflect new information about livelihood restoration needs and a new timeline. The LWSSD Project will be implemented by the MCA-Zambia through nine component Contract Packages (CPs), which are operationally, geographically and functionally distinct works under the Project.

LR is the process by which a project-affected person (PAP) is given the opportunity to restore or enhance the means of earning an income which has been permanently lost by reason of their involuntary physical and economic displacement arising from a Project’s land acquisi-tion. The activities will be implemented in accordance with the World Bank Group’s Interna-tional Finance Corporation’s (IFC’s) Performance Standard 5 (PS5).

Objective & Scope

The key objective of this livelihood restoration plan (LRP) is to provide a reasonable oppor-tunity to each PAP to restore livelihood to their original, or improved, quality of life. To en-sure that no woman, man, child, youth, elderly or disabled is left behind, with a particular fo-cus on the most vulnerable, the LRP was developed in keeping with MCC’s policy guidelines, MCA-Zambia Social and Gender Integration Plan (SGIP) and the RIC’s Social and Gender Integration Strategy (SGIS).

During the RAP preparation phase, two CPs were confirmed to have LR issues: CP4 (Kaunda Square Ponds – KSQ Ponds) and CP10 (Mazyopa).

Summary of Livelihood Impacts: Mazyopa

The works will require land acquisition, some of which is currently being used for urban gardening or other activities to generate income for residents. There are 55 PAPs impacted who are mostly cultivating gardens. Out of these up to 50 are potentially eligible for livelihood restoration which is determined on the basis of the extent and nature of their losses. The process of verification was not complete as of December 2015. One of these PAPs will permanently lose land used for a brewery.

Summary of Livelihood Impacts: KSQ

The rehabilitation and expansion of KSQ requires additional land acquisition and the perma-nent fencing off of the area. There were 29 people identified as cultivating maize or vegeta-bles in that area, on plots of varying sizes. Of these 13 have been confirmed to lose their pri-mary source of income. The process of verification was not complete as of December 2015. Up to 15 should be retained as the total number of livelihood restoration beneficiaries.

I

Proposed LR Program

Based on community and focus group discussions with the initial set (84) of LR PAPs fol-lowed by more detailed investigations (resulting in up to 65LR PAPs), a set of options was identified for inclusion in the Compensation Agreement (CA). As part of the CA verifica-tion process, the RIC identified the following choices for LR.

1. Agricultural Activity: Preference of a short cycle enterprise such as poultry): As-sistance could be offered to PAPs who identify alternative affordable plots that meet tenure security requirements and LRP objectives. Land for livestock (mainly poultry and piggery) would include assistance in obtaining an alternative plot which could be outside of Lusaka that is identified by the PAP or assistance in developing an existing plot.

2. Agriculture: Other: Given prevailing land tenure, lack of available land and economic conditions makes this challenging if not unfeasible unless the PAP has alternative land available. This option is potentially applicable to an estimated five (5) PAPs in Mazyopa who will retain some limited access to water for the purpose of gardening after the construction is complete,

3. Build to Rent: This was originally a preferred option of Mazyopa women who wished to build an extension to their existing house with the intent to rent it out, but further analysis determined that this option could be practical only where the PAPs are able to find suitable alternative locations with titled land.

4. Small Business Start-up: This was a choice favoured by female PAPS at KSQ Ponds, and some men and women from Mazyopa. This option requires training, ment-oring, capital for start-up and technical support

5. Vocational Training: This choice targets individuals who have particular experience or employment objectives. This option would include supplementary training needed for business or employment after training, so as to enhance incomes and reduce risk.

6. Equipment Purchase: This choice targets those who have specific artisanal skills and want to start a business. This too will need to be combined with training and technical support so as to enhance incomes and reduce risk.

The key elements of the LR program are summarized in the table below.

Table ES-1: Overview of the LRPLR Program Elements LRP Proposal

Target Restoration Income for each PAP ZMW 1,500 per month

LR Program Duration for each PAP

12 months with an additional three months for extended mentoring if needed

Start-up Grant for each PAP Up to ZMW 10,000 Monthly Stipend during LR Pro-gram ZMW 1,500 for the first nine months

II

LR Program Elements LRP Proposal

LR Program Structure

The LR program will be undertaken in three stages: Stage 1: Preliminary (initial) training for first three

months and individual livelihood restoration plan with possibility of one additional month for difficult cases;

Stage 2: Supervised start up over the subsequent three months with possibility of one additional month for dif-ficult cases; and

Stage 3: Six months of supervised operation with with possibility of one additional month for difficult cases.

The LR Program could reasonably be expected to produce the following results at the end of 12 months:

Fifty (50) percent of the beneficiaries could be expected to succeed, earning an income in the order of ZMW 1,500 per month, and making a profit for reinvestment;

Forty (40) percent could be expected to break even: not making a profit, but covering costs, including providing a basic income to the entrepreneur for their effort expended;

Ten (10) percent may fail, even after intensive rescue efforts. For these, it would be necessary to demonstrate that every reasonable opportunity had been afforded to succeed.

Implementation Plan

MCA-Zambia will need to procure a LR Consultant (LRC) to design and implement the LRP as defined in this report. Within the first two months of coming on-board, the LRC will provide a detailed design of the LR program to be implemented within the framework defined by the LRP.

If the LRC can be procured and on-board by early June 2016, then the LR program can be de-signed and finalized by late July 2016 and ready for implementation in early August 2016.

The current timeline is specific to the CP4 and CP10 beneficiaries. Based on this assumption, the LRC can be engaged for approximately 18months and the LR program for CP4 and CP10 could conclude by the end of November 2017.

III

1.0 IntroductionLivelihood Restoration (LR) is the process by which a project-affected person (PAP) is given the opportunity to restore or enhance the means of earning an income which has been permanently lost by reason of their involuntary physical and economic displacement arising from a project’s land acquisition.

This document presents a plan for LR for the Lusaka Water Supply, Sanitation and Drainage (LWSSD) Project prepared for the Millennium Challenge Account – Zambia (MCA-Zambia) by the Resettlement Implementation Consultant (RIC) as part of the implementation of the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP). The LWSSD Project is designed to rehabilitate essential parts of Lusaka’s water, sanitation and drainage infrastructure. The LWSSD Project will be implemented by the MCA-Zambia through nine component Contract Packages (CPs), which are the operationally, geographically and functionally distinct works under the Project. The CPs are currently grouped for procurement as follows:

CP 1 and 2: Rehabilitation of the Iolanda treatment plant and the transmission supply line to Lusaka Water Works (LWW) which comprise CP1, together with CP2, the main distribution backbone from LWW to the Lumumba Road Reservoirs and the spur from the Mumbwa Road boreholes; increase of the capacity of the line from Stuart Park Reservoirs to Munali junction; and the rehabilitation of 10 distribution centers;

CP3: Provision for expanding water supply and sanitation services to the high-density residential areas of greater Mtendere, plus rehabilitation of the sanitation interceptors to Chelston Ponds and Kaunda Square (KSQ) Ponds;

CP4: Expansion and rehabilitation of KSQ Ponds; CP5: Provision for expanding community water points, storage and additional supply

to several high-density residential areas, and some medium-density areas, in the north-east quadrant of the city (including Ndeke, Kwamwena, SOS East, Chipata and N’gombe);

CP6: Reduction of Non-Revenue Water (NRW) throughout the city, focusing on metering, customer data base management and pipe replacement in priority areas;

CP7 and 8: Rehabilitation of the Bombay Drain main channel and primary feeders from Chilumbulu road in the south to Kasangula Road in the north, with Great East Road separating the two CPs; and

CP10: Construction of 2.6 km drainage outfall through the old and new Mazyopa communities.

1.1 Background

The resettlement activities are being implemented in accordance with the World Bank Group’s International Finance Corporation’s (IFC’s) Performance Standard 5 (PS5). The approach and requirements to involuntary resettlement have been long established in Bank policy. PS5 is an internationally-accepted standard, adopted by the Millennium Challenge

1

Corporation (MCC) in 2012 and formally applied to the LWSSD Project which it has financed. The application of PS5 to the LWSSDP is domesticated in Zambian law through the Millennium Challenge Compact Act (No. 6 of 2013). The performance standard applies wherever the taking of land for a project results in the involuntary displacement of physical assets and/or economic activities. Its provisions for the basic principles of mitigation, consultation, compensation and remediation in relation to LR are described in greater detail in Chapter 2 of this report.

The implementation of works requires that the contractors have clear access to an area of land. However, in many places this clear access is not presently available to the contractor. The rapid growth of Lusaka in recent decades has resulted in significant encroachment by members of the public into the existing infrastructure wayleaves1 primarily for informal residential construction and economic activities. This renders some displacement inevitable, although opportunities are sought to reduce impacts wherever possible.

The RAP is the standard instrument to remedy, according to PS5 standards, the asset and livelihood losses that result from involuntary loss of land, or access to land, as a result of implementing the Project. The RAP’s Entitlement Matrix (EM) summarizes systematically the:

Compensation to be applied for different types of losses; Allowances to be provided according to certain defined circumstances; and Associated operational matrices to plan, administer, record, monitor and evaluate the

administration of this compensation.

The basic purpose of the RAP is to apply the provisions of PS5 in the LWSSD Project in such a way that the resettlement corridor of impact (RCoI) may be cleared for construction to proceed in a timely fashion according to the contractor’s approved program of works. The basic instrument to implement the RAP is the Compensation Agreement (CA) with individual PAPs who agree to cede the asset or cease the impacted activity in return for compensation. The RAP includes a detailed EM and valuation methodology which was applied in the administration of CAs.

The physical and economic displacements from the RCoI required for the proposed works to start, vary greatly from one part of the project to another by virtue of the nature of works and the characteristics of the sites. The anticipated displacements across these CPs vary greatly in type and range, and include a relatively small number of cases of land acquisition, a few residential and business displacements, some domestic water supply and sanitation facilities, and a great many ancillary physical impacts (wall fences, verandas, steps, hedges, ornamental plants and the like). Except for water and sanitation facilities, many of these impacts are appropriate for cash compensation agreed with the owners.

1 A wayleave or easement is a standard non-possessory interest in land, extending over a zone provided for government infrastructure, normally linear, and generally in the context of private land ownership. By contrast, the RCoI is a pragmatic area defined by the Project, not necessarily identical to the wayleave and generally of lesser dimensions, being the space required by the contractor to undertake the project works. It has no legal existence outside the scope of the project.

2

The RIC submitted the final Inception Report (IR) for this project to MCA-Zambia, following the Inception Workshop (IW) held in Lusaka on 20-22 April 2015. The IR contains a detailed description of the RIC approach to the implementing of the RAP. The RAP for the LWSSD Project was prepared in three parts by two different entities: RAP for Water & Sanitation Projects (2013) and RAP for Drainage Projects (2014) by Tetra Tech, Inc.; and the Mazyopa Annex (2015) to the Drainage RAP by Gauff Ingénieure.

While this Livelihood Restoration Plan (LRP) is presented as a stand-alone document, LR should be treated as a component activity of the resettlement implementation process.

This report focuses on the planning for LR and describes the task of LR to be undertaken as part of Compact activities in sufficient detail and specificity for MCA-Zambia to procure and contract the services for an LRC.

1.2 Purpose

LR applies to the permanent displacement of economic activities, particularly those of poor people, since the better-off are normally able to apply cash compensation to restore their standards of living, while poor people may require land for land, or additional support over and above cash compensation in order to ensure that their livelihoods are not impaired.

These displacements also entail, for a number of PAPs, the permanent loss of existing means of earning an income, thereby invoking the need for LR. For the LWSSD Project, two particular land uses at issue are/may be:

a) Urban gardening: cultivation of maize and other vegetables for subsistence and/or sale; and

b) Informal markets (trading or service provision).

These are the coping mechanisms of people living at the very margins of poverty, so although the monetary amounts involved are frequently small, they can represent the difference between survival and hardship.

During the RAP preparation phase, two of the CPs listed above were confirmed to have LR issues: CP4 (Kaunda Square Ponds – KSQ Ponds) and CP10 (Mazyopa). There are up to 15 PAPs in CP4-KSQ Ponds and up to 50 PAPs in CP10-Mazyopa who were identified for LR – meaning that a total of up to 65 PAPs could permanently lose the location and/or substantially lose access to water on which their incomes depend. These PAPs are the focus of this LRP.

CP10: The construction and fencing of the Mazyopa drain will both displace people from the land acquired for construction, restrict (but not entirely prohibit) access to water for gardening, plus restrict access to the gardens to the east (Roma) side of the Ngwerere stream. In addition to gardening losses, one PAP will lose a small informal brewery.

CP4: The acquisition of land for KSQ Ponds expansion and rehabilitation, including fencing off the ponds, will displace the subsistence supplementation and income-

3

earning activities of up to 15 PAPs already censused.

This LRP provides an operational plan describing the impacts on income streams arising from involuntary land acquisition, profiling in general the affected persons, and providing a detailed plan for compensation and livelihood restoration. It is in effect a supplement to the RAPs, for the purpose of:

Facilitating procurement of an entity to implement LR services; Guiding the specific design and delivery of these services, and in particular to

clarify what benefits comprise LR, who is entitled to LR benefits, and who is not; Addressing the situation according to PS5 requirements, should any additional LR

PAPs be identified in other CPs during the course of LWSSD Project implementation; and

Monitoring and evaluating the targeted outcomes.

This plan fulfils the requirements of PS5 on LR and in particular, in relation to the original RAPs in that it:

Provides specific measurable and time-bound targets for livelihood restoration; Expands on the range of means and options for remedial action to sustainably

restore incomes; and Defines a more detailed, plan for their delivery, monitoring, evaluation and

reporting.

1.3 Scope of the Report

The report:

Describes the livelihood impacts arising from land acquisition for infrastructure development in CP10 and CP4;

Provides basic socio-economic information on these two PAP populations. It profiles the PAPs – at the low end of the urban socio-economic scale, with high vulnerability and food insecurity;

Examines the application of entitlements in a way that ensures the achievement of the entitlement principle of sustainable restoration or enhancement of incomes;

Presents a reasoned justification for standardizing the income restoration target and presents a plan for income restoration over a 12 to 15 month period (see Chapter 4 for further details); and

Identifies schedule and budget assumptions for implementing the LRP.

1.4 Approach to LRP Preparation

In order to prepare a plan in accordance with PS5, the RIC undertook the following activities in preparation for this report:

1. Reviewed RIC database to identify the extent of previously identified livelihood impacts and livelihood restoration requirements;

4

2. Conducted research and scoping on what is to be included in the LRP; 3. Ensured that social and gender considerations are incorporated in the plan;4. Coordinated field meeting(s) with KSQ Ponds and Mazyopa PAPs affected by

livelihood displacement, to verify and better understand impacts, and determine their preferences;

5. Prepared a log frame instrument;6. Identified a proposed general minimum monetary target for income restoration; 7. Conducted key informant research on locally-available business skills and technical

training service providers;8. Reviewed with key RIC staff the approach to LR plan, design and integration of

considerations on gender and vulnerability;9. Developed an amendment document to the CA for cases where LR entitlements also

apply;10. Prepared additional outreach and communications guidance; 11. Prepared a preliminary budget; and12. Conducted a workshop with MCC and MCA-Zambia to discuss the draft plan prior to

finalizing the August 2015 version of the LRP (now superseded by the December 2015 version).

The approach of this LRP is to integrate this exercise as closely as possible with the RAP approach, procedures and instruments for reasons of efficiency and economy.

1.5 Organization of the ReportThe report is organized in the following sections:

1 Section 2: Policy & Precedents - presents the policy foundations for LR in PS5 and guidance notes (GN), MCC Gender Policy, MCA-Zambia Social and Gender Integra-tion Plan (SGIP), and the RIC’s social and gender integration strategy (SGIS);

2. Section 3: Livelihood Restoration PAPs - profiles the LR PAPs within the two CPs: describes the project impacts; provides a summary of their socio-economic and gender profile based on data gathered during RAP preparation; and lists the PAP preferences identified during community meetings;

3. Section 4: Livelihood Restoration Approach & Strategy - establishes a target outcome for the LR PAPs in terms of sustainable income levels to be achieved, and then examines the choices, type by type, establishing the key assumptions or risks to the achievement of the outcome and the feasible actions to be taken in the LRP to mitigate those risks;

4. Section 5: Implementation of the LRP - defines the log-frame and presents the implementation process for a 12-month program to achieve these outputs and mitigate the risks, with particular attention to key start-up issues such as communication and the amendment to the CA, key milestones, and interim deliverables; and

5. Sections 6, 7 and 8 present, respectively, present implementation time frame

5

assumptions, budget assumptions, and the monitoring and evaluation indicators for the LRP.

6

2.0 Policy and Precedents2.1 PS5 and Guidance

Livelihood restoration is separate from, and additional to, any compensation for loss of assets. In particular PS5, through text and guidance, lays down unambiguously that, in cases where the permanent and involuntary displacement of economic activities arises from the project’s land acquisition requirements, lost income streams must be at least restored or preferably enhanced. Clear preference should be given, where lost livelihoods are land-based, for “land-for-land” compensation. Cash compensation alone is considered generally insufficient to restore the permanent loss of an income stream (see Table 2.1 below).

By contrast, where disruption of income streams is merely temporary, it may be appropriately addressed through cash compensation. A typical example is a business disturbance allowance or allowance for lost income, for a situation where a market is disrupted for a short period, before being allowed to resume. This temporary cash compensation contrasts with the much more comprehensive assistance required in cases where a displaced business must be re-established elsewhere. Similarly, cash compensation for lost crops may be appropriate where cultivation may later resume, and is quite different from cases of permanent displacement where additional replacement land has to be procured and farming activities re-established in a different place.

The provisions of PS5 apply in all land tenure situations, namely on land held under:

Full legal rights to land use and occupation; Customary or long-standing land occupation and use, including adverse possession,

which is potentially capable of recognition; and Informal and even illegal occupation, in which case PS5 does not establish new rights

but ensures support to enhance or at least maintain the current living standards of affected persons.

The policy relating to LR is presented in PS5 and the accompanying Guidance Note (GN). Table 2-1 below summarizes its key provisions upon which this plan is based.

Table 2-1: Key LR Policy Provisions of PS5 and Guidance Notes Topic Definition or Provision Reference

Definition of livelihood

The full range of means used to make a living, including wages, agriculture, trading.

PS5: 1 (footnote 1)

Objectives To improve or restore livelihoods and standards of living; avoid the risk of project-induced impoverishment. PS5:3; GN3

Adequacy of cash compensation

Cash compensation alone frequently insufficient to restore livelihoods. PS5:28

Applies even in absence of formal

Where people occupy land without formal, traditional, or recognizable usage rights, assets are to be fully

PS5:5

7

Topic Definition or Provision Referenceoccupation rights compensated and lost livelihoods restored.

Does not apply where land use does not change

Policy does not apply where the project does not change the land use of the affected groups or where displacement is voluntary (i.e., there is right to refuse).

PS5:6

Client2 involvement encouraged Multiple advantages. PS5:2

Community engagement

Full disclosure, consultation, options and alternatives to be offered, and to continue throughout the process up to its conclusion.

PS5:10

Entitlements

In addition to compensation for lost assets, including structures and land improvements, displaced persons losing livelihoods or incomes will be provided opportunities to restore or improve their income-earning capacity, production levels and standards of living: Suitable, equivalent replacement land (if recognizable

rights) or suitable sites for cultivation; Alternative income-earning opportunities provided such

as credit, training, cash, or employment opportunities. Cash alone is frequently insufficient.

Transitional support as required based on a reasonable estimate of the time required to restore income-earning capacity, production levels, and standards of living.

PS5:27, 28, 29; GN 60, 61, 65

Valuation of assets Explanation of method to be included in LRP. PS5:3 fn4

Inflation adjustment To be done annually, “at a minimum” GN22

Timing of taking possession

The client takes possession of the RCoI section only after compensation has been made available. Exceptions (where it is not possible to pay compensation in advance) are agreed on a case-by-case basis. Note: by implication Livelihood Restoration cannot be completed prior to taking possession: in this LRP the payment of the first stipend and enrollment in the programme is considered to be the making available of compensation.

PS5:9 and GN23, 24

Staggered compensation permitted

Where there are on-going impacts to livelihoods, or necessary to achieve objectives; PAPs to be advised of risks of lump-sum compensation.

PS5:9 n 15; GN25

Gender considerations

E.g. where livelihoods are affected differently or different preferences for compensation mechanisms; recognize, understand and provide for higher risks to poor women in resettlement and livelihood restoration: access to resources, opportunities, public services, support networks.

PS5:9 n 16; GN41

2 The term “client” is used throughout the Performance Standards broadly to refer to the party responsible for implementing and operating the project that is being financed, or the recipient of the financing, depending on the project structure and type of financing.

8

Topic Definition or Provision Reference

LRP Description and Contents

Normally to be included in the RAP; but if a stand-alone document, the LRP should identify the full range of impacts to livelihoods arising from land acquisition or restrictions to land use, identify affected persons and provide a detailed plan for compensation and livelihood restoration. The Plan should, at a minimum, provide the following information: (i) an introduction to the project; (ii) summary of project impacts; (iii) summary of the social baseline; (iv) regulatory framework; (v) results of stakeholder engagement; (vi) eligibility criteria; (vii) entitlement matrix; (viii) timeframe for implementation; (ix) organizational capacity; (x) monitoring, evaluation, and reporting; and (xi) budget and resources.

PS5:19, 25; GN56

Completion

Plan is complete when impacts have been fully addressed: “once displaced persons are deemed to have been provided adequate +opportunity and assistance to sustainably restore their livelihoods”; whereupon external evaluation /audit may take place. Note: “reasonable opportunity” is not further defined and the LRP proposes a “reasonable person” interpretation.

PS5: 15 and 25.

Government resettlement to be supplemented as required if PS5 requirements not met: remedy.

Where government undertakes resettlement involving economic displacement only, the client describes the compensation measures proposed. If these measures do not meet PS5 requirements, the client develops an Environmental and Social Action Plan (ESAP) to complement government action up to the level of performance standard requirements, which measures may include additional compensation or efforts to restore lost livelihoods.

PS5:32; GN69

2.2 Social and Gender Guidance

The objectives of MCC’s policy, guidelines and the MCA-Zambia SGIP are to ensure that social inequalities do not limit opportunities, but rather, that economic opportunities for women and men of different age and social groups, including children, are maximized in MCC investments and poverty reduction addressed. Those risks of negative consequences should also be mitigated in ways that respond to and address local conditions, practices, and priorities, reflecting the social, gender, cultural and economic realities of the population served.

In light of this, the LRP implementation process will be consistent with the MCC Gender Policy and MCA-Zambia’s SGIP, to respond to and address local conditions. Its activities will comply with applicable international requirements, and national gender strategies, practices, and priorities, reflecting Zambia’s social, gender, cultural and economic realities.

While the key objective of the LRP is to restore each PAP’s livelihood to their original or

9

improved quality of life, the social and gender considerations during the implementation of the LRP should ensure that this objective is inclusive, ensuring that no woman, man, child, youth, elderly or disabled is left behind, with a particular focus on the most vulnerable. Towards this goal, the key areas of social and gender focus for the LRP are as follows:

1. Inform the process so that gender and social inequalities do not limit opportunities - The LRP has been developed considering social, economic, and cultural issues surrounding PAPs in addressing and responding to their individual needs and concerns which should be continued throughout implementation.

2. Facilitate opportunities for women and men of different ages and social groups. The LRP plays a facilitative role by identifying opportunities to improve the PAPs’ current economic horizon and practice. In addition, the implementation of this LRP should foster ideas around income generation away from what they are currently doing, links to skills training opportunity or trade learning, and capacity building opportunity.

3. Mitigate risk of negative outcomes. Implement the program in line with PS5 standards, using the following integrated social and gender consideration framework. This included, but not limited to the following: The family made aware of compensation through spouse co-signing of the CA and

the payment verification forms. Spouse involved and consulted in the selection of alternative livelihoods as a

family or household. Provision made for a nominee selected by the PAP to receive benefits on the

PAP’s behalf to address specific social, gender, age and vulnerability concerns.

10

3.0 Livelihood Restoration PAPsThis section provides a general social and gender profile of LR PAPs within the two CPs, CP10 – Mazyopa and CP4 - KSQ Ponds, describes the project impacts, and describes the PAP preferences.

There is a possibility that as the RIC expands its field activities to other CPs, additional groups of PAPs could be identified requiring LR. In assessing future LR cases, the loss of space for occasional opportunistic urban gardening is not automatically a LR issue. This common phenomenon does not necessarily constitute loss of livelihood, and is normally accommodated by a one-off cash compensation for loss of crops. The issues of livelihood loss and restoration arise only where the application of clear criteria indicates that an activity contributing significantly to the incomes of the PAP is permanently lost with no space to continue with the activity, which would have to be replaced in order to avoid hardship.

3.1 Project Livelihood Impacts in Mazyopa

Mazyopa is an unrecognized informal settlement of some 3,700 people. It is situated between Roma suburb on the east and the rail line north from Lusaka on the west (Exhibit 3-1, included at the end of this chapter), and comprises two distinct social groups. Old Mazyopa to the north, comprises a community of about 1,600 persons that resettled in adverse possession after multiple attempts at eviction by the landowners and a failed resettlement initiative in Chongwe district. See the Mazyopa RAP Annex for details.

New Mazyopa to the south, with an estimated population of 2,100, represents an overspill from the populous Chipata and Mandevu compounds located on the other side of the railway. A social survey was conducted for RAP preparation in 2014. Legally and theoretically, most of the land belongs to a number of Roma residents on the east side of the Ngwerere stream, whose titled land extends across the stream up to the railway line, but is now in the process of being considered for acquisition by the Commissioner of Lands, with a view to re-planning and re-titling in favour of the Mazyopa residents. The Mazyopa residents are following the process with great interest, but the time-scale for its implementation remains unclear.

The RCoI required for the construction of the Bombay Drain outfall, runs from south to north through this community, and is about 2.6 km in length and from 9m to 26m in width, starting from Trash Trap 1 on Kasangula Road, and broadening until the point where it joins the Airport drain. Current designs call for the drain to be permanently fenced on the Mazyopa side to prevent human access The LRP now assumes the fence will be modified to provide limited access to the water. One footbridge will be rehabilitated during construction and three new ones will be constructed. There is an additional short RCoI section, with similar impacts, for the proposed access road for Trash Trap 2 at the northern end of the proposed works within which two gardens will be impacted.

The Mazyopa population subject to displacement (113 PAPs) was surveyed and the impacts elaborated in the Annex to the Drainage RAP, prepared by the Design Engineers, using as consultants many of the individuals involved in the preparation of the other two RAPs. The final document was submitted in February 2015. The RAP has been approved by the Zambia

11

Environmental Management Agency (ZEMA). RIC has undertaken an independent PAP and CA verification exercise, which has resulted in changes to the number of those requiring LR (decreased from 55 to up 50). The main impacts from construction of CP10 are:

Few full or partial impacts to residences; Gardens, ornamental and fruit trees on both sides of the drain; Community access to the stream for non-potable purposes, especially gardening; Wall fences on both sides of the drain; Well on the west side of the drain; Latrines and bath shelters on the west side of the drain; and A small football field used by local children.

A total of up to 50 PAPs in Mazyopa are anticipated to qualify for LR. These PAPs are eligible primarily due to the loss of their garden or loss of their ability to garden. The loss of their ability to garden results from current design plans, which call for fencing the drain along the Mazyopa side, restricting access to water from the stream that some PAPs rely on for gardening.

The likely breakdown of the potential 50 PAPs based on the nature of the impact is provided in the table below.

Table 3-1: Overview of the Mazyopa LR PAPs

PAP ImpactsPotential

Number of PAPs

PAPs cultivating gardens that fall within the RCoI and lose access to their land 39

PAPs cultivating gardens outside the RCoI losing access to land and/water 11

Total 50

Some of the PAPs affected by loss of gardens come from outside Mazyopa - e.g. Chipata and Kabanana compounds where there is much greater pressure on land. The output from these gardens are for their own consumption and also for sale. These impacts are summarized in the table below:

Table 3-2: Mazyopa - Land Impacts

12

Land impact Livelihood Activities Affected

Permanent acquisition of 3.05 ha of titled land, in 23 par-

cels; 73 small parcels under in-

formal (non-legal) possession, varying from less than 13.00 m2 to 171 m2

Restricted access to Ngwerere stream from the west, but three footbridges constructed.

Vegetable gardening from (i) loss of land within RCoI; (ii) limitations on access to water currently used for gardening in plots outside the RCoI;

Other income generating/liveli-hood activities: brewery;

The following information is based on the LR PAPs identified in the May-August timeframe when the August LRP was being prepared. This information may remain broadly representative, but is not up to date.

Women gardeners slightly favour consumption over income (sale) (52 percent vs 48 percent), whereas their male counterpart prefer for sale (62 percent vs 38 percent). A breakdown of the gardeners by sex based on consumption versus sale of the garden output is provided in the table below.

Table 3-3: Mazyopa - Gardens for Consumption vs Income and by Sex of the Gardener

Garden Primary Purpose

By Females #,

% FBy Males #,

% MTotal (#, % of Total)1

Primarily consumption 15 (52%) 11 (38%) 26 (45%)

Primarily income 14 (48%) 18 (62%) 32 (55%)

Total (#, %)2 29 (50%) 29 (50%) ` 58 (100%)Source: RAP database, Census survey data. 1. Survey of one garden during the RAP phase not recorded.


Table 3-4 below provides an overview of an average monthly income generated from 32 of these gardens based on self-reported information gathered during discussions with the impacted PAPs.

Table 3-4: Mazyopa Self-Reported Monthly Income from Gardening

13

Monthly (ZMW) Garden % TotalOver 3000 6 19%

2000-3000 8 25%

Below 2000 14 43%

Not recorded 4 13%

Total 32 100% Source: RAP database, Census survey data

These numbers reported, although apparently on the high side, do not seem completely unreasonable: for example a small bunch of rape leaves – about ten stalks - sells by the roadside for ZMW 2, so the sale of 50 bunches in a day could bring in average of ZMW 100 per day. The average monthly incomes reported by women (ZMW 3,140) were slightly lower than those reported by men (ZMW 3,882), with nearly all reporting gardening as their primary source of income. But given that gardening is a seasonal and irregular activity, and given the common tendency to confuse takings with profit, these self-reported incomes seem to be optimistic especially at the high end, and they should not be extrapolated to define a yearly sustainable income. Overall the importance of gardens to the Mazyopa local economy does not appear great, as was stated several times in community meetings.3 However, for very poor people with multiple and irregular income sources, everything contributes to household support and even small losses for poor and vulnerable people are significant.

3.1.1 Social and Gender Characteristics of Mazyopa LR PAPs

Mazyopa is essentially residential and poor, without any significant or dominant economic activity and with limited access to electricity or water. A few residents have pre-paid ZESCO meters for electricity. Also, for potable use, water is accessed by a few residents from a water kiosk installed by JICA. It comprises roughly equal proportions of male and female users. The dominant economic activity seems to be casual employment or petty trading elsewhere. It has two community schools. The nearest markets are in the neighbouring and populous suburbs of Mandevu and Chipata. Urban gardening, although on a small scale, is a common method of income supplementation along with some petty trading, charcoal, brewing and burning mud bricks. The most conspicuous elements of social organization within the community are local churches and informal drinking places that are housed in informal ad-hoc structures. At the south end, a small football field used primarily by children from the neighbourhood will also be impacted. Houses are generally of poor quality, improvised with local or recycled materials, and contain only the most basic of possessions.

As the RCoI cuts a swathe through the Mazyopa community, the LR PAPs are not atypical of that community, once one excludes the Roma PAPs east of Ngwerere stream, who belong to a much higher socio-economic class living on titled plots. The RAP Annex socioeconomic baseline drew information from a variety of sources – CSO 2010 national, city and Roma Ward level data (Mazyopa Annex Chapter 7). The tables below provide the statistics drawn from the RAP census survey raw data, for the 55 potential LR PAPs identified in the RAP. 3 Mazyopa RAP Annex Appendix K5, Consultation Meeting for Mazyopa residents at Chipata Ward Development Committee Offices, 7 May 2014.

14

This information may remain broadly representative, but is not up to date.

Table 3-5: Mazyopa LR PAP Distribution, by SexSex Headcount %

Male 27 49%

Female 28 51%

Total 55 100%

Vulnerable PAPs


Livelihood PAPs were assessed according to a range of vulnerability criteria: child-headed; single parent with dependents; elderly without support; disabled-headed and extreme poverty. Of these 28 PAPs eligible for LR (51 percent) were considered not vulnerable, and the remainder possessed one or more vulnerability characteristics, of which single female with dependents was the most common.

The level of vulnerability among Mazyopa LR PAPs (an enumerator judgment based on listed criteria such as female-headed household with dependents, extreme poverty, and elderly without support) was estimated at 43 percent, which is considerably higher than the overall LWSSD Project average of approximately 10 percent of the total PAPs. Sex-disaggregation (Table 3-6 below) shows that women are distinctly more likely than men to be vulnerable and, since sex distribution is equal, the vulnerable are more likely to be female.

Table 3-6: Mazyopa LR PAP Vulnerability, by Sex

Vulnerability Status Males(#, %)

Females(#, %) Total (#, %)

Vulnerable, multiple criteria 2 (7%) 5 (19%) 7 (13%)

Vulnerable, single criterion 8 (30%) 11 (39%) 19 (35%)

Not vulnerable 17 (63%) 12 (43%) 29 (53%)

Total 27 (100%) 28 (100%) 55 (100%)Source: RAP database, Census survey data

Table 3-7 shows that women are also significantly more likely than men to be widowed, all of them are classified as vulnerable, and more than half on more than one criterion.

Table 3-7: Mazyopa LR PAP Marital Status, by Sex

15

Status Males(#, %)


Married 20 (74%) 16 (57%) 36 (65%)

Single 5 (19%) 1 (4%) 6 (11%)

Widowed 0 8 (29%) 8 (15%)

Other/not recorded 2 (7%) 3 (11%) 5 (9%)


Food Security


The estimated levels of food insecurity were assessed from the census questionnaire. Respondents were asked how frequently they resorted to any of ten coping measures such as skipping meals, borrowing money to buy food, eating reduced portions, and the responses were classed on a four-point scale by number and frequency of coping strategies used. Those who resorted to several measures frequently were classified as highly food insecure; while those not needing to resort to any were classed as low; the remainder distributed appropriately. Despite the low recorded response rate of below 50 percent, the results shown in Table 3-7 below show that the great majority of LR PAPs experience some form of food insecurity, with over 40 percent in the substantial to severe categories.

The survey (which was only able to cover 31 PAPs) showed that the vast majority of PAPs, 87 percent, experienced some form of food insecurity, with a quarter of these falling in the severe or substantial categories. Apart from sex, there is no significant correlation with other indicators, such as income, marital status or dependency on gardening, except between vulnerability and severe food insecurity, which suggests that food insecurity is likely to arise from a combination of individual household circumstances.

Table 3-8: Mazyopa LR PAP Food InsecurityFood

insecurity*# LR PAPs responding

% LR PAPs responding

Severe 4 13%

Substantial 4 13%

Moderate 6 19%

Low 13 42%

None 4 13%

Total 31 100%Source: RIC database, Census survey data. Blank records not counted.

16

Sex disaggregation summarized in a four-cell matrix (Table 3-9 below) indicates that women are twice as likely as men to suffer high or substantial food insecurity.

Table 3-9: Mazyopa LR PAP Food Insecurity, by Sex

Food insecurity* Women (#, %) Men (#, %) Total (#, %)

Severe/Substantial 5 (38%) 3 (17%) 8 (26%)

Moderate/Low 7 (53%) 12 (67%) 19 (61%)

None 1 (8%) 3 (17%) 4 (13%)

Total 13 (100%) 18 (100%) 31 (100%)

Education Levels


Educational attainment for Mazyopa LR PAPs is far lower than that for Roma Ward as a whole (see Mazyopa RAP Annex Section 7.6.2, Table 39). Two-thirds of Mazyopa have not completed primary school. Women lag far behind. No woman surveyed has attained any educational qualification. The “other” category is of relevance to LR as it includes individuals with trade or artisanal experience, and applies only to men. The survey only included a portion of the LR PAPs – 31 of 55).

Table 3-10: Mazyopa LR PAPs Educational Attainment, by Sex

Education Women (#, %) Men (#, %) Total (#, %)

None 7 (54%) 6 (33%) 13 (42%)

Part primary 5 (38%) 3 (17%) 8 (26%)

Full primary 0 1 (6%) 1 (3%)

Part secondary 1 (8%) 1 (6%) 2 (6%)

Full secondary 0 2 (11%) 2 (6%)

Other 0 5 (28%) 5 (16%)

Total 13 (100%) 18 (100%) 31 (100%)Source: RIC database, Census survey data. Blank records not counted.

3.1.2 Mazyopa Livelihood Preferences

The RIC convened Mazyopa LR PAPs on 29 May 2015 specifically to investigate what their LR preferences would be in the event that they are offered a LR program. Nineteen (19) women and 28 men attended, with nine (9) women not present. One man who is not on the list of LR PAPs also attended the meeting. They met in two groups, men and women separately, as previous experience had indicated that this resulted in a better quality of

17

information. The results are summarized below in Table 3-11 below. It is currently not known if these choices are representative.

Table 3-11: Mazyopa PAPs LR Preferences, by Sex

Preference Female #, (%)

Male # (%)

Build/rebuild/extend house (room/s) for rent 14 (74%) 1 (4%)

Build house for rent and business (e.g. grocery) 4 (21%) 1 (4%)

Build house (purpose not stated) 1 (5%) 0

Business- capital to start or expand 0 9 (31%)

Farming: land available 0 6 (21%)

Farming/poultry/piggery Land required 0 3 (11%)

Technical training (mechanics, plumbing, etc.) 0 3 (11%)

Equipment 0 4 (14%)

Not stated 0 1 (4%)

Total 19 (100%) 28 (100%)

Although there was a strong initial preference during consultations for house construction because of the demand for rentals, the PAPs concerned are informal settlers without title to land. Unless re-planning and titling could be accomplished, LR would promote construction on informally-occupied land where clarification of title may be a long and complex process, with unclear outcomes. Therefore, the decision was taken to limit this option in the CAs to only those who had titled land.

The prospect of continuing urban gardening with secure tenure anywhere within reach of Mazyopa would only be possible in a few cases (about five), assuming that the modified fence design will allow continued, albeit more limited access to water. The adjacent settlements of Roma, Kabanana, Chipata and Mandevu are already crowded and the purchase or rental of urban land for gardening on the Mazyopa scale is economically unfeasible. The area to the north of Mazyopa, where gardening continues, suffers the same land tenure issues as Mazyopa. Identifying land within Lusaka for urban gardening is not likely.

Those LR PAPs who want to continue with land-based agricultural production livelihoods expect to do so by relocating out of town. This option is feasible only if the PAPs are able to acquire land on their own, and prepare an approved farm plan or budget. The LRP will not acquire land for them, but could approve the use of a portion of the start-up grant for land purchase, if it forms part of a realistic and approved plan that is subject to professional assessment, appraisal and normal financial controls. Proposals with short turnover cycles (such as poultry) are greatly preferred to long-cycle initiatives.

18

3.2 Project Livelihood Impacts in Kaunda Square (KSQ) Ponds

KSQ Ponds represents an area of land currently used for sewage treatment through a three-stage sedimentation process. It is located to the north-east of the city to the north of the Great East Road, and east of the Munali Road leading to the Meanwood Estates. Originally this land was peri-urban farmland but is now surrounded on all sides by urban residential developments both low-density and high-density. Expansion and rehabilitation of the ponds is required for treatment of the additional effluent arising from the networking of Mtendere under the LWSSDP and Kalingalinga under another project.

Much of the land required for KSQ Ponds expansion and rehabilitation is already the property of LWSC, with some 12.6 ha additional land required for expansion and rehabilitation of the ponds. This project area is illustrated in Exhibit 3-2 at the end of this chapter. This area will be fenced off for works, with public access prohibited. The location of the PAPs requiring LR is identified in Exhibit 3-3, also included at the end of the chapter.

Apart from the direct interest of the title-holders, the area to be acquired is also the subject of the eviction of the 29 informal farmers from within the entire fenced area. During RAP devel-opment, this area was surveyed and censused. During the process of CA verification, thirteen (13) livelihood restoration PAPs were identified as eligible. The process of verification was not complete as of December 2015, so up to 15 should be retained as the total number of livelihood restoration beneficiaries.

Approximately two thirds of the eligible PAPs identified are women.

The affected land is under cultivation (maize and other vegetables) by PAPs who will lose income as a result of the impact and are therefore entitled to compensation and LR.

Table 3-12: KSQ Ponds - Confirmed Livelihood Impacts Land impact Livelihood Activities Affected Number of PAPs

Permanent Acquisition of approx. 12.6 ha land for KSQ Ponds rehab-ilitation.

Clearance and fencing of entire KSQ Ponds area.

Gardening, primarily maize and other vegetables will be permanently excluded within the KSQ Ponds perimeter which will be fenced off.

12 verified (8 Female, 4 Male)3 under verification process


The KSQ survey did not capture the distribution between whether gardening was primarily for income or for consumption. Table 3-13 below shows the extent of loss of income derived from gardening, according to self-reported data. There was no practical way to confirm these amounts, but these do not seem unreasonable. Some supermarkets reportedly send buyers to this area regularly to source green veget-

19

ables. At the southern end, some men cultivate relatively large areas of maize, up to 1,700 m2; one of them has been able from this income to feed, clothe and educate his family. At the other (northern) end are a number of poor, small-scale vegetable gardeners on small plots, sometimes as little as 2m2, who derive marginal benefits, but still enough to justify their effort. The income levels are rather more clearly dif-ferentiated into higher and lower levels than in Mazyopa, with fewer falling in between. Women reported a higher average income (ZMW 7,853) than men (ZMW 4,000). Overall, the numbers reported should be treated with considerable caution.

Table 3-13: KSQ Ponds Self-reported Monthly Income from Gardening, by Sex

Monthly Women (#, %)

Men (#, %) KSQ #, %

Over 10,000 7 (30%) 1 (17%) 8 (28%)

2000-10,000 2 (13%) 4 (67%) 6 (21%)

Below 2000 9 (39%) 1 (17%) 10 (34%)

Not recorded 5 (22%) 0 5 (17%)

Total 23 (100%) 6 (100%) 29 (100%)

3.2.1 Social and Gender Characteristics of KSQ Ponds LR PAPs

The social characteristics of KSQ Ponds LR PAPs differ from those of Mazyopa. Despite its unrecognized informal status, Mazyopa represents a stable community, and most people garden near their homes, with a few coming from outside, such as Chipata. In contrast, KSQ Ponds gardeners are non-resident who come from differ-ent areas to cultivate around the pond, and then go home. They are from: Kaunda Square Stage 1, which is an established official low-income high density settlement; Ng’ombe, an unrecognized informal settlement which is actually a beneficiary com-munity from water supply enhancement under the LWSSD: and a few from Chamba valley (mixed residential).

Vulnerable PAPs

The following information is based on the LR PAPs identified in the May-August timeframe when the August LRP was being prepared. This information may remain broadly representative, but is not up to date. KSQ Ponds LR PAPs, in contrast with their Mazyopa counterparts, in general enjoy a slightly higher living standard, incomes and access to services. However, the KSQ Ponds LR PAPs are drawn from the less privileged strata of those communities, self-selecting for this activity because they are poor, vulnerable and cannot access other opportunities. See table below. They garden because they have no alternative oppor-

20

tunities. They are overwhelmingly female (79 percent) and significantly vulnerable, because of the proportion of single females with dependents. Half of them are single (Table 3-15), compared to only 10 percent of their counterparts in Mazyopa.

Table 3-14: KSQ Ponds LR PAP Vulnerability, by SexVulnerability

StatusMales(#, %)


Vulnerable 1 (17%) 11 (48%) 12 (41%)

Not vulnerable 5 (83%) 12 (52%) 17 (59%)

Total 6 (100%) 23 (100%) 29 (100%)Source: RAP database, Census survey data.

KSQ has a higher proportion than Mazyopa of widows and single female-headed households, with a lower proportion of women who are married (Table 3-15).

Table 3-15: KSQ Ponds LR PAP Marital Status, by Sex

Status Males(#, %)


Married 5 (83%) 9 (39%) 14 (48%)

Single 1 (17%) 1 (4%) 2 (7%)

Widowed 0 10 (43%) 10 (34%)

Other/not recorded 0 (%) 3 (13%) 3 (10 %)


Food Security


Given this social profile, it is no surprise that the food security ratings in Table 3-16 below show considerably higher than in Mazyopa. The vulnerability rate is also higher than in Mazyopa. Using the same method as described for Mazyopa, the great majority (93 percent) experience some food insecurity. Food insecurity, however, correlates neither with vulnerability nor with claimed income.

Table 3-16: KSQ Ponds LR PAP Food Insecurity, by Sex

Food Insecurity Women (#, %) Men (#, %) Total (#, %)

Severe/Substantial 11 (48%) 4 (67%) 15 (52%)

Moderate/Low 10 (43%) 2 (33%) 12 (41%)

None 2 (9%) 0 2 (7%)

21

Food Insecurity Women (#, %) Men (#, %) Total (#, %)

Total 23 (100%) 6 (100%) 29 (100%)

Education Levels


The educational attainments of the LR PAPs are relevant to the kinds of support that may appropriately be offered to them for LR. They are shown in Table 3-17 below. Like Mazyopa the profiles are far below the national and city averages.

Table 3-17: KSQ Ponds LR PAPs Educational Attainment, by Sex

Education Women (#, %) Men (#, %) Total (#, %)

None 8 (35%) 2 (33%) 10 (34%)

Part primary 7 (30%) 3 (50%) 10 (34%)

Full primary 1 (4%) 0 1 (3%)

Part secondary 6 (26%) 0 6 (21%)

Full secondary 1 (4%) 0 1 (3%)

Other 0 1 (17%) 1 (3%)

Total 23 (100%) 6 (100%) 29 (100%)Source: RIC database, Census survey data.

3.2.2 KSQ Ponds Livelihood Preferences

Based upon detailed investigation in the September-December 2015 time period to verify the eligibility for livelihood restoration, the number of eligible PAPs decreased, because their losses, generally, were not the dominant source of livelihood. An amendment to the CAs was also prepared (see Annex 3) to record formally the preferences of the PAPs for livelihood restoration options. The gender, educational levels and preferences of the 13 of the potential 15 KSQ beneficiaries are summarized in the Table below:

Table 3-18: KSQ PAPs LR Preferences, by Sex

# Gender (M/F) Level of Education Livelihood Option Chosen

1 F Primary school partial Grocery shop and Business

22

# Gender (M/F) Level of Education Livelihood Option Chosen

Management Training2 F Secondary school - partial Small business and training (not

signed up to anything specific)3 F Secondary school - partial Poultry4 M Primary school - partial Small business and training (not

signed up to anything specific)5 F Deceased (the Son will replace her) Not yet selected6 M None Poultry (Chicken Rearing)7 F Primary school – partial Retail shop8 F Secondary School - partial Poultry and training in poultry

management. Second option: Catering/baking

9 F Secondary School - partial Small business start-up (buying and selling of fish)

10 M Primary school – partial Hardware shop and business management training

11 M Not available Grocery shop and Business Management Training

12 F None Grocery shop and Business Management Training

13 M Not available Not available

3.3 LR PAPs Summary and Discussion of Preferences

Based on discussion with affected PAPs in the two project areas, several points need to be taken into account in the design of livelihood restoration.

Assistance in developing available farmland outside Lusaka. Some PAPs may already have access to plots out of town, e.g., from family connections, and wish assistance to develop them. If the venture were rain-fed cropping, the success of this option would be heavily dependent on rains and the income from this option would be concentrated in a single short period of the year. Verification and confirmation that the PAP actually has access to land is critical. Similarly the viability of rain-fed cropping must be confirmed. Instead, a shorter-cycle venture could be recommended such as piggery or poultry.

Preferences are broadly appropriate and practical. Those proposing small business start-up - have proposed a wide range of businesses typical of the informal sector. Most of them recognize that they need business management training and not just cash for start-up capital. The businesses should be carefully selected on plans prepared with professional assistance. These plans must demonstrate realism in risk and market opportunity, show ability to meet costs, and comply with prevailing municipal regulations, permits and standards, and be able to generate a sustainable

23

income after a period of mentored operation. During the implementation of the LRP, the program will have to be designed to adequately address the risks of small business start-up.

Small business approach applies equally to training and equipment preferences. Those proposing training or equipment would benefit from a small business approach where they would be expected to justify the equipment and make a simple business plan with assistance, which could be monitored, to ensure that the equipment was maintained, depreciated and used appropriately to generate dependable revenue. This business plan will need to account for various risks encountered in starting a small business, including an accurate assessment of market opportunities.

A clear risk management strategy, including the ability to review and change choices during the first stage is important. LR Program beneficiaries will need professional counselling during development of their programs, rigorous quality control to test assumptions and mitigate risks, and intensive mentoring especially during the initial fragile months. These risk-management features should be systematically built into the program that is described in the next chapter, which starts with a detailed individual needs assessment, followed by training in development of a plan in which the preferences will be put to the test and, the beneficiary would be advised and assisted as needed to adjust the program to more suitable or practical alternatives. During this stage, choices may be changed.

Mentoring, monitoring and completion. All new endeavors require a period of mentoring, coaching and monitoring followed by an exit strategy at which point the LRC intensive monitoring and supervision can be deemed completed.

24

Exhibit 3-1Mazyopa Outfall RCoI Delineation (Map based on 55 PAPs initially identified)

25

Roma – large landowners, land extends to railway

Ngwerere Stream (S to N

Railway Lusaka to Copperbelt, and land

reserve

Old Mazyopa

New Mazyopa

Exhibit 3-2KSQ Ponds Land Acquisition(from Water and Sanitation RAP)

26

Legend1. Privately owned land2. Brick & Tile Co.3. Privately owned land4. Privately owned land 5. Privately owned land (affected by

pond proximity)

Exhibit 3-3Location of the KSQ Ponds PAPs

(from RIC GIS database)

Note: This map is based upon the initial 29 LR PAPs identified, the number of which has de-creased to 12 up to 15 as of December 2015.

27

4.0 Livelihood Restoration Approach and StrategyThis chapter outlines the elements and principles that go into the design of a Livelihood Restoration (LR) program and plan.

4.1 Elements of the LRP

Based on the preferences identified by the affected PAPs, and assessment of these preferences as discussed in the previous section, the following options were presented in the CA to PAPs eligible for livelihood restoration. These are:

1. Agricultural Activity: Preference of a short cycle enterprise such as poultry): Assistance could be offered to PAPs who identify alternative affordable plots that meet tenure security requirements and LRP objectives. Land for livestock (mainly poultry and piggery) would include assistance in obtaining an alternative plot which could be outside of Lusaka that is identified by the PAP or assistance in developing an existing plot.

2. Agriculture: Other: Given prevailing land tenure, lack of available land and economic conditions makes this challenging if not unfeasible unless the PAP has alternative land available. This option is potentially applicable to an estimated five (5) PAPs in Mazyopa who will retain some limited access to water for the purpose of gardening after the construction is complete,

3. Build to Rent: This was originally a preferred option of Mazyopa women who wished to build an extension to their existing house with the intent to rent it out, but further analysis determined that this option could be practical only where the PAPs are able to find suitable alternative locations with titled land.

4. Small Business Start-up: This was a choice favoured by female PAPS at KSQ Ponds, and some men and women from Mazyopa. This option requires training, mentoring, capital for start-up and technical support

5. Vocational Training: This choice targets individuals who have particular experience or employment objectives. This option would include supplementary training needed for business or employment after training, so as to enhance incomes and reduce risk.

6. Equipment Purchase: This choice targets those who have specific artisanal skills and want to start a business. This too will need to be combined with training and technical support so as to enhance incomes and reduce risk.

4.2 Access to Water

With the rehabilitation of the drain along Mazyopa, the original designs called for fencing along the stream which would prohibit local access to the water. The resid-ents of Mazyopa currently access water from the stream for non-potable uses. Be-cause lack of access to water from the stream would impact the community at large whose lifestyles will be potentially affected, and especially the lives of people who currently depend on this for gardening, a modified fence design has been recommen-

28

ded. Gates in the fence would allow residents to use the stream much as before. Such gates would have high latches and other safety features to deter access by chil-dren. In addition, a strong health and safety education/sensitization program will be required.

GardeningAs identified in the previous section, there are potentially five (5) gardens outside the RCoI which rely on water from the stream. With the fencing off of the stream, the people who currently garden these five plots will retain limited access to water, but depending upon the location of the gates, access will likely not be as convenient as previously was the case.

Community at Large

The community mostly accesses water for potable use from the kiosk provided by JICA along the Kabanana pipeline. During community meetings people, especially women, raised the issue of loss of access to the stream which, however polluted, provides a supplementary source of “grey water” for other general non-domestic uses. It has been determined that depriving the community at large access to this water is not appropriate, which is an important rationale for the modified fence design.

4.3 Target Income

A target replacement income for participants needs to be identified for the purpose of designing the LR program to provide the beneficiary with a reasonable opportunity for restoring income.

It is not possible to determine with any confidence the current incomes, which are seasonal and subject to a wide range of varying conditions: the nature of the crops, the value of subsistence consumption to the household, the area cultivated and the extent to which the household can access multiple sources of income as is typical of the survival strategies of the poor. The technical difficulties of estimating informal incomes of the poor, and the cost and complexity involved will not provide any better results. Further, the practical and equity considerations of setting different targets for different groups are fraught with risk.

The RIC recommends that the target restoration income be set at ZMW 1,500 per month, which is a feasible goal for participants and the program. This figure, as of mid-2015, was approximately the kwacha equivalent of the World Bank’s poverty line of $1.24 per person per day or a monthly income of $186 for a family of five. This amount would be sufficient to keep a family out of poverty, and would replace all but the highest incomes lost. However, the program would be considered successful for an individual whose derived income remains above the national average minimum wage of ZMW 750.

4.4 LRP Program Duration

The LR Program (once operational after a two-month mobilization period for the

29

LRC) would have a minimum duration of 12 months for each cohort of beneficiaries (a term preferred in this context to PAPs – upon enrolment they become “ex-PAPs¨). The CP 10 and CP4 LR beneficiaries will also begin receiving a subsidy prior to the commencement of the Program in the event that assets are lost before a LRC is in place. See Chapter 6 for additional information on schedule.

A 12 to 15 month LR Program for these beneficiaries can be accommodated within the Compact duration, ending in November 2018. However, the timing of the LR Program in relation to the Compact duration could be a constraint if beneficiaries are identified later in other CPs. In such cases, the duration of the LR Program for these beneficiaries can be reassessed.

Although the timing is not generous, it is considered sufficient to provide a benefi-ciary with a “reasonable opportunity” to establish a sustainable income. A possible “safety net” could be considered whereby a proportion of non-culpable business fail-ures that could arise from adversity (fire, theft, accident or illness, etc.) could be af-forded a second opportunity, which would require extending the duration of the LR Program.

The PAP’s enrollment in the LR program will be adequate for preparing the RCoI for construction. The enrollment entails the PAP provisionally indicating their pre-ferred choice for LR in Section B of the Amendment to the CA (Annex 3) during the CA verification process. The PAP upon being compensated for lost assets and in-come as agreed in the CA will then vacate the impacted facility within a 30-day period, allowed to salvage their assets on the land and/or harvest their existing crops, which essentially prepares the RCoI for construction. At this point, the PAP will be referred to as a “beneficiary” in order to not perpetuate a dependency or entitlement mentality, and to emphasize the contractual nature of the LR program.

4.5 Start-up Grant

In order to enable the beneficiary to start-up their income generating activity, the key consideration is identifying the capital for start-up, buying needed equipment, preparing sites for building to rent, or financing vocational training. The target grant would be that amount reasonably needed to achieve the intended purpose of income restoration. Based on professional assessment, a start-up grant of up to ZMW 10,000 is considered sufficient to generate a successful business that makes a reasonable profit. This is a typical amount that is sufficient enough to start a grocery or a small business, such as a small restaurant, grocery or hair salon, make a minimum return, save some capital for reinvestment and eventually qualify for support from a bank or microfinance institution to expand the business. This amount is standard maximum across all options.. While establishing a single/uniform limit for the start-up grant may seem arbitrary, the administration of differential amounts entails a

30

high risk of complaints.

Some beneficiaries may expect to receive cash compensation amounts for larger gardens (in addition to the LR support), which would significantly increase the capital amount. Beneficiaries will be encouraged to treat their compensations as additional equity investment for income, which has the additional advantage of increasing motivation to succeed. For example, by combining some part of the compensation amount with the start-up capital, the beneficiary stands to benefit from influx investment in their enterprise with increased probability of success provided the investment is made wisely. Businesses that become demonstrably successful will be able to apply for financing for expansion either to microfinance institutions or to the several banks that cater for small business needs. The program would provide counselling to ensure that the risks of credit are well understood.

4.6 Stipend for Income Support

The resettlement policy indicates that income support should be given during the start-up phase until the new income is secure. Further, because of the high opportunity cost of committing to training and business start-up, there is a real risk that poor people will become discouraged or confronted with personal and family issues that will cause them to drop out. This risk is greatly reduced by the provision of a modest monthly stipend. To avoid administrative complexities, no additional conditions should be attached, apart from an initial commitment to participate in the program. However, the beneficiary who does not commit the necessary effort runs the risk of failing to qualify for the start-up capital grant.

This plan proposes a stipend amount of ZMW 1,500 per month for nine (9) months. The amount comprises a monthly income replacement of ZMW 1,000 together with an allowance of K500 per month for supporting ancillary training costs (materials, stationery, lunch, transportation, etc.).

While discussing the benefits to the PAP during the CA verification process, the RIC has explained that the expectation is that their respective choice for income generation should generate a replacement income by nine months into the LR program. This way the risks associated with dependency and failure to successfully restore their livelihood can be mitigated through the LR program implementation.

4.7 Program Structure

MCA-Zambia will need to procure a LRC to design and implement the LRP. Within the first two months of coming on-board, the LRC will provide a detailed design of the LR Program to be implemented within the framework of the LRP. The general duration of the LR Program will be 12 to 15 months. The LRP proposed that the LR Program be undertaken in three stages:

Stage 1 – Initial training for first three months and preparation of individual development plan with the option of an additional month if needed by some;

Stage 2 – Supervised start up over the subsequent three to four months; and Stage 3 – Six to seven months of supervised operation.

31

The stages of the Program are summarized below:

4.7.1 Stage 1 - Initial Training

Over three months, for a minimum of 20 hours per week, the LRC will provide preliminary training to equip the beneficiaries with basic skills, (knowledge, attitudes and practices) related to the livelihood restoration options. The LRC will also assess and confirm the appropriateness of the LR choices made by each beneficiary and their capabilities to succeed. (Section 2.5 above).

Each beneficiary will, under close supervision, produce a simple personal development plan (or a farm plan) that will demonstrate how the start-up grant, equipment, or training will be used to produce a sustainable stream of income. The plan will be based upon research appropriate to each option; this will be undertaken by the LRC and the beneficiary. For example, what institutions provide vocational skills training or what suppliers readily have the equipment chosen by the beneficiaries. The LRC will assess the financial viability of the individual plan. For example, can the individual plan be accomplished with the grant provided which cannot exceed ZMW10, 000. The amount allocated for start-up is up to ZMW 10,000 per beneficiary payable in tranches depending on the situation. The individual plan will take into account all costs, in form that is acceptable to MCA-Zambia, FA.

The LRC will submit all beneficiary plans to MCA-Zambia for approval and payment before a beneficiary proceeds to Stage 2 All payments will be made directly to the PAP and/or institution providing vocational skills training.

This stage may continue for an additional month for those participants facing particular challenges. Failure to pass this stage by the beneficiaries, may result in discontinuance of the monthly stipend on assessment and recommendation of the LRC and entry into a specially designed remedial program. This program will be designed on a case by case basis to bring the beneficiaries back into the program Towards the end of this stage, the LRC will revisit the LR Program submitted with the Inception Report and recommend changes to the remaining stages of the program for MCA-Zambia’s review and approval.

4.7.2 Stage 2 - Start-up of the LR Program

After MCA-Zambia approval and payment of the individual plan, the LRC will work with the beneficiary to implement the approved plan over a period of three-four months. The amount allocated for start-up is up to ZMW 10,000 per beneficiary payable in tranches depending on the situation. In situations where the payments are to be made in tranches the LRC will make the necessary submissions to MCA-Zambia.

The LRC will pay particular attention in ensuring continuous progress by the beneficiary. Intensive mentoring of the beneficiary is required at this stage by tutors and technical skills experts (including LRC staff) familiar with the needs and challenges of the approved plans of the beneficiaries, likely to be in the informal sector and micro-enterprises. If the beneficiary needs to, acquire a site, permits or arrangements or utility connections, the LRC will facilitate this.

32

The LRC will monitor the accounts of the beneficiaries to ensure the funds are being spent in accordance with the plan; if this is not the case, the LRC will propose remedies to address the situation. The beneficiaries will be responsible for producing a first simple quarterly report for the first three months of operation. The LRC will be responsible for producing a template of a report and facilitating its completion by the beneficiaries.

The LRC will, monitor progress, document difficulties, challenges and identify special needs to be met through individual mentoring. By the end of the sixth month of the program, each beneficiary should be assessed for a tapered reduction in supervision and mentoring. An additional month may be allowed for beneficiaries with difficulties.

4.7.3 Stage 3 – Supervised Operations

During the six to seven months of the program, the plan of the beneficiary is expected to be fully operational, the equipment and skills put into use, the profitability of the business established, risks and opportunities managed. The LRC will continue to coach, mentor, and supervise the beneficiaries.

The LRC will continue to review the quarterly reports prepared by the beneficiaries. The LRC will assess the need for targeted supervision should the need arise. Mentoring and supervision are expected to taper off for the more successful beneficiaries, and shift to assisting the less successful to overcome their challenges. A remedial plan is developed for those who are not progressing well, with a focus of advancing them to some level of livelihood restoration.

4.7.4 Program Completion

Beneficiaries who produce three satisfactory quarterly reports and whose activities are assessed as being sustainable or having acceptable potential, receive a Certificate of Completion of the Program designed by the LRC. As appropriate, the LRC will provide a letter of introduction to a bank or microfinance institution that will enable a beneficiary to apply for additional capital for expansion. The LRC will also introduce the beneficiaries to various support programs available in Lusaka that assist small businesses to grow, offer training and skill development or technical assistance and support.

After completion as of month 17 after EDC, the LRC will prepare and submit a Draft Livelihood Restoration Completion (LRC) Report for MCA-Zambia’s review and final approval by the end of month 18.

4.8 Basic Structure and Approach

This LRP recommends employing a standard start-up approach for developing each of the options chosen by the beneficiaries and adjusting the features as needed to ac-commodate particular circumstances associated with each choice. The common sali-ent elements of the LR program are as follows:

33

Benefits to be standardized. All beneficiaries will be entitled to collective and indi-vidual training and mentoring over a period of 12 months, a monthly stipend of ZMW 1500 for nine months, and a start-up grant of up to ZMW 10,000 upon acceptance of an approved proposal that shows how this grant will be used to generate a sustainable income. These benefits are individually explained and justified in the sections that fol-low. These benefits are standard and do not vary by choice of enterprise. Without clear standardized benefits applicable across the board, the LR Program risks becom-ing enmeshed in disputes, negotiations and odious comparisons. There will be, how-ever, identified opportunities as described below whereby individual beneficiaries may access additional capital on their own initiative.

Programs to be tailored to individual choices and situations. The first three months of the LRP will comprise three elements, conducted in scheduled trainings ar-ranged in the community:

o Individual needs assessments, in which particular experiences, skills resources and needs are assessed, with particular attention to gender, vulnerability and social situation, and an individual program identified whereby each individual will be assisted to think through their choices and preferences; Given low levels of formal education, the LRC may need to incorporate a functional adult literacy module;

o Knowledge, attitudes and practices necessary for success ; e.g. to operate a bank account, keep inventory;

o Preparation, assessment and eventually approval of a livelihood proposal/plan for equipment, skills training, agriculture or other land-based enterprise, or small business or similar. For program purposes, all proposals are treated as entrepreneurial activities to be assessed for expectations, assumptions and risks. The plan will show how the investment of a start-up capital grant of up to ZMW 10,000 can be reasonably expected to produce a sustainable income as defined in Section 4.5. Beneficiaries have been encouraged to invest part of their CA compensation payment as additional collateral. The fully-costed plan will be reviewed by the LRC technical experts and subject mentors who, to-gether, will ensure the necessary skill level. The plan will make explicit as-sumptions and provision to manage risks.

The individual beneficiary plan will be submitted to MCA-Zambia for evaluation and approval and subsequent payment by the FA. A sufficient proportion of the ZMW 10,000 grant should be reserved to finance operating costs until profitability is en-sured. This grant cannot be paid until the proposal is considered satisfactory and is ap-proved. The three month period may be extended for an additional month if neces-

34

sary. It may also be withheld if a beneficiary is considered to be insufficiently serious in intent and effort.

Following appropriate instruction and mentoring, beneficiaries are expected to be able to apply basic concepts appropriate to the chosen venture. If a business, stock, depre-ciation, profit and loss, assets and liabilities. Mentoring during the start-up phase will be intensive, aiming to bring all endeavors to a basic minimum standard.

The beneficiary will be expected to produce simple reports and accounts at the end of each of the three subsequent quarters. These reports and accounts will form part of a continuous evaluation, to determine whether an endeavor is succeeding, providing in-come to the beneficiary if a job or breaking even or running at a loss if a business. From this evaluation the LRC determines the level of instruction, coaching, mentoring and assistance needed, and additional attention will be given to endeavors that run into difficulties or do not do well.

In order to supplement income during the start-up period and make it possible for poor people to attend training, a monthly stipend for transitional support of ZMW1500 will be provided for the first nine months.

4.9 Provision for Vulnerable PAPs to Nominate a Beneficiary

Particular support will be given to vulnerable people who can benefit from the program but might have particular difficulties in making the necessary commitment.

Cases have been identified where vulnerable PAPs have represented that they are just too physically frail for the challenges involved in this program. They have said that they would prefer to nominate a relative, such as a son or daughter, who could start the business, make a profit and commit to care for the vulnerable person. Three PAPs, mainly elderly females, made this suggestion.

This report supports this request which seems reasonable, as an exception and properly documented, with a formal commitment from the nominee participant to care for the vulnerable PAP. Such a commitment should be witnessed by a suitable family member or person of standing in the community. In addition, the vulnerable PAP should receive summary training on the nature of the business being proposed in order to inform their expectations.

4.10 Adjustment of the Entitlement Matrix

This chapter has benefited from the review of a number of different livelihood strategies in different countries, and in particular from the findings of a recent International Association of Impact Assessment (IAIA) symposium on resettlement and livelihood restoration,4 which

4 Smyth, Eddie, Michael Steyn, Ana Maria Esteves, Daniel M. Franks & Kemal Vaz (2015): Five ‘big’ issues for land access, resettlement and livelihood restoration practice: findings of an international symposium, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2015.1037665

35

indicates that a major reason for the frequent disappointing performance of LR programs is the underestimation of the scale, duration and level of effort required for a program to succeed. From this perspective, the present report suggests that the RAP entitlement matrix (EM) with respect to LR requires careful review of its assumptions.

The RAP Entitlement Matrix, presented identically in the three RAP documents, describes in line J1 the entitlements for Livelihood Restoration. These entitlements are described as follows:

36

Table 4-1: Existing Entitlement Matrix Livelihood Restoration ProvisionsJ LIVELIHOOD RESTORATION

Type of Impact

Effect Entitled Person(s) Entitlements (monetary or in-kind)

J1 Any PAP permanently losing means that produce a stream of income reliant on the land

Permanent Any affected per-son losing an in-come stream through land take

Training designed to provide assistance and support for small-scale enterprise start-up, growth, or income replacement activities (NOTE: NGOs may be involved);

OR Allowances:

Loss of Income (A5) (4 months) Transportation to Bank (A15)

In order to maximize the chances of achieving success and for consistency with the requirements of PS5 (Table 2-1), these provisions should be adjusted. In particular:

Training or allowances are generally insufficient on their own and do not constitute a “reasonable opportunity” to restore incomes;

A lump sum for loss of income for 4 months is unlikely to produce a sustainable income;

Start-up capital without training goes against the advice of PS5; and Transitional support, in this case - maintenance of income until the business becomes

sustainably profitable, is strongly promoted as a PS5 requirement. The transitional support covers transportation costs, which therefore does not require separate provision.

A recommended amendment to the current entitlement matrix is provided in Table 4-2 for consistency with PS5 standards consistent with LR requirements.

Table 4-2: Proposed Entitlement Matrix Livelihood Restoration Provisions

37

J LIVELIHOOD RESTORATIONType of Impact

Effect Entitled Person(s) Entitlements (monetary or in-kind)

J1 Any PAP permanently losing means that produce a stream of income reliant on the land

Permanent Any affected person losing an income stream through land take

For business start-up, any approved proxy designated by a vulnerable PAP, on their formal agreement to care for that PAP.

Training and mentoring designed to provide assistance and support for small-scale en-terprise start-up, growth, equipment pur-chase, income replacement activities, voca-tional training,; skills training, apprentice-ship or assistance to secure employment

Advice on opening bank account Start-up grant of up to ZMW 10,000 pay-

able on satisfactory completion of start-up training and approval of individual livelihood restoration plan

Assistance for PAP to seek institutional mi-crocredit support

Transitional income support of ZMW 1,500 per month for nine months

ORAbove benefits to approved designee who agrees to provide support to PAP

4.11 Amendment to CA to Enroll in the LR Program

PS5 requires that the PAP receive benefits before the RCoI is prepared for construc-tion. The RAP CAs administered under the LWSSD Project state that in return for compensation received, the PAP agrees to yield possession and that no further claims will be made or entertained. However, LR benefits were not originally stipu-lated in the CAs developed during the RAP preparation phase.

The remedy to this situation was to have the LR PAPs sign an amendment to the CA which states that, in addition to the CA, additional benefits would be received by the PAP on signed acceptance of enrollment in the program. The amendment to the CA is included at Annex 3.

4.12 Key Risks

The assumptions for the success of the LR program are many, and are further de-veloped in the Logical Framework in the next section. The corresponding risk is that the assumption fails. Some of these risks are identified in the table below.

Table 4-3: Key Risks & Mitigation MeasuresLR Program Issue Key Risks Potential Mitigation Measure

38

Land based Support

Lack of rains and therefore rain-fed crops fail

PAP does not have sufficient available land

Rain-fed cropping option is not suppor-ted

PAP chooses another option

Build to Rent: Build to rent fails because titling not done in time

This option is not supported unless beneficiary has identified titled land on which to exercise this option

Small Enterprise Start-up

Business fails to generate expected return

Thorough review of proposal before grant award

Regular monitoring, diagnosis, mentor-ing

Intensive remedial action for businesses in difficulties

Possible insurance against non-culpable failure

As last resort, success cannot be guar-anteed and “reasonable opportunity” is the criterion

Vocational Training Participant maintains motivation

Early professional review of business choices with chance to adjust

Require Mentoring and quarterly re-ports

Award Grant only after plan is ap-proved

Equipment Provision Inappropriate equipment proposals

Technical advice from confirmed experts

Gender and vulnerability

How equitable use of stipend assured Dealt with through spouse co-signature

Water access Gardening not possible Access to water maintained PAP chooses another option

PAP numbers Possible increase Contract amendment for LRC

Dependency on stipend

Participants reduce effort and rely on stipend

Intensive counselling in initial phase Stipend ends in month nine from start

of operation of LR program in month three

Some additional protection might be offered against the possibility of small enterprise failure arising from non-culpable events: for example, theft. One possibility is to encourage

39

beneficiaries to take out commercial insurance policies paid out of their start-up grant.

4.13 Expected Outcomes

Based on the RIC’s knowledge and experience, the LR Program could reasonably be expected to produce the following results:

Fifty (50) percent of the beneficiaries could be expected to succeed, earning an income in the order of ZMW 1,500 per month, and making a profit for reinvestment;

Forty (40) percent could be expected to break even: not making a profit, but covering costs, including providing a basic income to the entrepreneur for their effort expended;

Ten (10) percent may fail, even after intensive rescue efforts. For these, it would be necessary to demonstrate that every reasonable opportunity had been afforded to succeed. Those that failed through misfortune (e.g. theft) might be able to enjoy a second chance from insurance compensation.

40

5.0 Implementation of the LRP

As discussed in the previous chapter, the LR program will be designed in detail within the framework developed by this LRP and implemented by the LRC.

5.1 The RIC Activities prior to Implementation

The RIC has undertaken the following:

Preparation of simple communication materials in local languages and conduct com-munity meetings to explain what the LRP is and how it will work.

Completion of the census and survey for Roma.

Completion and signing of the CAs, the amendment to the CA and the Nominee Be-neficiary agreements for vulnerable PAPs.

Updating the database for PAPs eligible for LR.

Development, testing and approval of a method for verifying claims to gardens, given that these are far more likely than fixed physical assets to be the subject of disputes or dubious claims.

The RIC will undertake the following:

Coordination with LRC as required and participation in their introduction to the LR PAPs, once mobilized.

Development and communication of an implementation process for M&E.

Training of the LAPs in CPs 10 and 4 on the application of GRM in the LR Program.

Planning final evaluation requirements to verify that the LR Program has been suc-cessfully implemented to PS5 standards.

5.2 Logical Framework for Livelihood Restoration

The logical framework below is intended to serve as an indicative guide to pro-gramme development.

41

Table 5-1: Logical Framework for Livelihood RestorationActivity

level Targets/Results Key Indicators Key Risks or Assumptions to Monitor and Manage

Goal

PS 5 standards fulfilled MCC Gender Policy, MCA-Zambia’s

SGIP and the RIC’s SGIS fulfilled and integrated

All LR participants are generating sus-tainable minimum incomes from farm-ing, and other business of choice

LRP participants have restored their income through the LRP programme

OR Failing evidence of income restoration,

the beneficiaries are assessed to ensure that they have had a reasonable opportunity and support to restore their incomes

AND Social and gender considerations during

the LRP implementation are integrated.

Outcomes to goal Economic, business and political environ-

ment to be monitored by LRC with feed-back for mentoring or training

Social, gender, vulnerability and eco-nomic status identified are responded to and integrated

Program is subject to satisfactory monit-oring and reporting

Outcomes

Depending on choices, successful ven-tures and activities established and repor-ted on quarterly

For land-based support, successful agri-cultural enterprise established

For Build to Rent, rental rooms success-fully completed and operated

For small business start-up, established and meeting breakeven or better

For vocational training, training success-fully completed and results in gainful

Quarterly reports demonstrate satisfactory outcomes or lead to enhanced mentoring for problem solving

Business assets are maintained or grow-ing

Enterprise is debt free or managing credit successfully

Sound enterprise management principles are applied

Participant is employed in the sector in which trained

Outputs to Outcomes: Initial training and well-designed plan is

relevant and of quality

Capital grant has been used as intended

Beneficiary has secured a suitable loca-tion and essential business inputs

Vocational training effective in securing work opportunities for participant

Equipment use has resulted in work op-portunities for beneficiary

Those who opt for agriculture outside of

42

Activity level Targets/Results Key Indicators Key Risks or Assumptions to Monitor

and Manage(self)-employment

For Equipment provision, equipment is acquired, properly maintained and em-ployed to generate income

For special case PAPs who continue gardening in Mazyopa, gardening re-mains viable, despite more difficult ac-cess to water

Participant has earned and received certi-ficate of success

Since business success cannot always be assured, for those who have failed to re-store incomes, evidence (consistent with PS5) that they have been afforded a “reasonable opportunity” to do so.

Lusaka actually have access to land and inputs

Continued gardening is feasible.

Outputs

Initial training completed

Enterprise selection or vocation con-firmed based on LRC counselling and re-search

Individual Development Plan produced

Capital grant used to buy equipment/start business/complete vocational training ac-cording to the agreed plan

Participants receive required mentoring

Technical skills enhanced

Simple quarterly reports

Training report, attendance report, assess-ments

Business plans evaluated and approved

Physical inspection of sites, construction, start-up activity

Ongoing enterprise is run satisfactory Technical report on restoration of com-

munity water supplies

Inputs to outputs

Beneficiaries drop out, consider program does not meet their needs, or demotivated

Beneficiaries discontinue training from financial need or personal difficulties, in-cluding vulnerability

Mentoring is insufficient to help benefi-ciaries meet challenges of enterprise man-agement

Capital grant is misused or not received in timely fashion (fraud and corruption con-trols)

43

Activity level Targets/Results Key Indicators Key Risks or Assumptions to Monitor

and Manage

Inputs

Initial PAP commitment as participant, signed Amendment to the CA, motiva-tion, vision

All individual, training needs assess-ments completed

Start-up training delivered

Mentoring arrangements implemented, in place and monitored

All inputs prepared

M&E in place

Participant documentation produced, translated, tested

LRC mobilized

Training location suitable to participants secured and publicized. (3 months, quarterly review and occasional refresh-ers thereafter).

Start-up to Input delivery Timely recruitment of suitable LRC with

a clearly defined ToR

Timely and sufficient funding

Successful initial communications

Entitlement matrix and other policy mat-ters agreed.

Amendment to CAs signed for LR PAPs.

.

44

5.3 Activities of the LRC

The LR Program structure was defined in the previous chapter. Within the first two months of coming on-board, the LRC should develop a detailed design for the LR Program. The LRC is envisaged to provide the necessary training, coaching, support and mentoring through the LR Program and guide the beneficiaries to successfully engage in an income generating activity. Each LR beneficiary is expected to have an initial training program that, at a minimum, covers the following:

a. Training objectives, outline and approach.b. Obligations of the beneficiaries under the training program.c. Training management: Guidelines, first stipend and monthly verification.d. Individual needs assessments: Supplemental functional literacy numeracy where

needed.e. Discussions and mentoring to ensure right choice of enterprise/training/equipment:

opportunities, markets, risks, location and start-up costs. Is this the right option for the beneficiary?

f. Design of an individual plan for livelihood restoration.g. Business and sustainability principles: Elements of a plan. h. Special cases (technical inputs): Farm plan; selection and management plan for

equipment; training needed for the farm plan, equipment and/or business.i. Choosing a bank and opening an account.j. Applying key business principles: income and expenses; profit and loss; liabilities and

assets; depreciationk. Permits and authorizations required.l. Assign training mentors.m. Behavioural issues and practices to mitigate failure e.g. being a good employee or a

good business entrepreneur.

5.3.1 Stage 1 – Initial Training

The objective of Stage 1 is to enable each participant, through training, coaching, mentoring and technical assistance, to produce an appropriate, approved plan designed to meet the beneficiary’s skills, interests and circumstance and to provide the participant with a minimum monthly return of ZMW 1,500. The endeavor should be sustainable and maintain the value of its assets and personal as well as capital investment. Towards this goal, the LRC will:

1. Conduct a training needs assessment of each individual participant and maintain individual performance records in order to assess the value added of the training. The training needs assessment will also include a process to identify vulnerability, social and gender dimensions of the participants.

2. Update MCA-Zambia on a regular basis. 3. Once the plan is prepared, approved by MCA-Zambia and signed, the conditions to

proceed to Stage 2 are fulfilled. The target is three months but the participant is

45

encouraged to move at their own pace in order to get it right. An extension of one additional month is envisioned in some cases.

4. Simultaneously, the LRC should be identifying or will have identified tutors, technical specialists and mentors, engaging them in start-up planning while preparing them for the next phase. The LRC must monitor and evaluate mentor/specialist performance.

5.3.2 Stage 2 - Start-Up

The activities in this phase, which are expected to last three months, includes all start-up related activities associated with the beneficiary choice for LR: business establishment, rental property building, agricultural activities, vocational training, and/or acquisition of equipment. The mode moves from training and preparation to intensive mentoring, technical, personal and business oriented, during start-up. Ideally, each beneficiary should be assigned a main technical coach/mentor from this stage to the end of the program. An additional month extension is possible for this stage as needed by beneficiaries. The activities under this phase will entail:

1. Specific plans put into effect: highly varied, intensive supervision and monitoring required as each plan will have its own specifics

2. Plan approval and receipt of start-up grant up to ZMW 10,0003. Location, equipment, inputs, permits, security, assistance, etc.4. Regular visits, mentoring5. Technical mentoring 6. Record keeping, quarterly report production7. First business quarterly review by each beneficiary

5.3.3 Stage 3 - Supervised Operations

This stage covers the last six months of the LR program during which the endeavor or activity operates independently. An additional one month of extended mentoring should be considered to support beneficiaries in need of additional support to achieve their goals. The elements of this phase include:

1. Objective: Self-sustaining income generation achieved. 2. Aim: To have a surplus growth, and to access financing for growth. 3. Reporting: Monitoring & evaluation (M&E), Implementation Completion Report

(ICR), overall program report. 4. Review with MCA: Lessons learned. 5. Certificate of Completion awarded to all non-failing participants; with certificate of

participation for others; letter of introduction to banks or microfinance institutions for suitable and successful participants or other references to assist the beneficiary as appropriate. A graduation/completion event is recommended.

6. Recommendation for extended mentoring, as required by providing information about

46

local institutions and NGOs that might be of assistance.

6.0 Time Frame for implementation

The timeline must be sensitive to the start of construction works in CP 10 and CP 4 as well as the procurement timeline for bringing the LRC on-board.

If the LRC can be procured and on-board by early June 2016, then the LR program can be designed and finalized by late July 2016 and ready for implementation in early August 2016. Based on this assumption, the LRC can be engaged for approximately 18 months and the LR program for CP4 and CP10 could conclude by the end of October 2017 with an additional month for final reporting.

6.1 LR Program Implementation for CP10 & CP4 Beneficiaries

It is not feasible for the LR Program to begin prior to construction because of the current construction schedule. In this scenario, the consequence of delay to commence the LR Program will mean that the beneficiary would be entitled to an estimated five months of a subsistence allowance to bridge the period from vacation of the asset to the commencement of the LR Program. Furthermore, all PAPs who need to vacate their assets must have enough time to complete the LR Program prior to 17 months after the EDC for the LRC (assumed to be late May/early June). Some may be able to complete the LR Program in 12 months, but 15 months needs to be assumed for planning purposes. Based on a two-month mobilization and a 15-month period in which the program will operate, all LR PAPs need to begin the program in August 2016, even if they have not vacated their property.

Careful discussion of schedule and timing with MCA-Zambia in coordination with the RIC will be necessary in order to ensure that all PAPs can enter the program with sufficient time to complete it.

47

7.0 LR Program Budget AssumptionsThe budget for the LR Program, based on the revised timeline and the reduced number of beneficiaries, should consider the following assumptions.

1. The LR program covers up to 65 PAPs within CP4 and CP10.2. All costs payable to the beneficiaries will be paid directly by MCA-Zambia, e.g., the

monthly stipends and the costs of the individual livelihood restoration plans (up to ZMW10,000), including any outside vocational training, purchase of supplies and equipment or whatever else is needed to implement the plan. .

3. The LR EDC is expected to be in late May 2016 with two months of mobilization and planning. The LR program is expected to become operational in August 2016 and extend to October 2017, with contract termination in November 2017.

4. LRC will be on-board for approximately 18 months starting in June 2016. .5. The LRC will be responsible for training, coaching and mentoring the eligible beneficiaries

through the LR program. Given the possible LR choices, the LRC is anticipated to have the capacity to administer the program by its staff, sub-consultants or others.

6. The LRC will not be involved in compensating the PAPs for lost assets, which is already covered under the resettlement budget and implemented by the RIC.

7. The LRC will not make any payments to beneficiaries of the LR Program; all payments will be made by the FA.

8. The LRC will be required to meet all operational costs to enable them implement the LR Program as will be defined in the Terms of Reference.

*

48

8.0 Livelihood Restoration Monitoring and Evaluation

The monitoring and evaluation effort for the livelihood restoration interventions will focus on assessing whether the beneficiaries have been provided with a reasonable opportunity to maintain or enhance their livelihood, rather than focusing on outcomes achieved.

8.1 Livelihood Restoration Training

The first indicator under this will be to monitor the number of PAPs requiring livelihood restoration, disaggregated by CP and Gender. This data has already been captured during the RAP preparation stage and has been geo-mapped in the RIC database.

The second indicator should track the percent of PAPs participating in the livelihood restoration program. This will be the number of PAPs participating in the livelihood restoration program, as a proportion of the total number of PAPs eligible for participation, as captured in the first indicator above. This indicator will be disaggregated by CP, gender and vulnerability status. Specific indicators of participation must be developed, such as

Participation in initial training (no absences, many, drop-out) Type of additional training undertaken and the status, i.e. whether the PAP is actively

enrolled, has completed the training) or has dropped out Type of livelihood option selected, i.e. rain-fed crop production, chicken rearing, block

making, hair salon, etc. Modification or enhancement of the livelihood option to ensure suitability for the

beneficiary Start-up grant prepared Start-up grant evaluated and approved Start-up grant received Implementation of the chosen livelihood option

8.2 Livelihood Restoration Program Implementation

This will be an evaluation to assess the implementation of the livelihoods program based on the Terms of Reference for the LRC. The evaluation will respond to specific questions around efficiency in project implementation, effectiveness in terms of implementation strategies and impact, i.e. whether the livelihoods restoration program accorded the participating beneficiaries a reasonable opportunity to maintain or improve their livelihoods, by assessing the income levels.

49

Annex 1Summary of Community Meetings with Mazyopa LR PAPs

Note that these meetings were with a larger number of PAPs than the number likely to be that verified as eligible for Livelihood Restoration. The information can be considered generally

representative.

50

Date: 29th May 2015Field Team: SRS, SSGS, COS, Ast.GRMS

Objective of Trip: Rapid Assessment to establish PAPs preferences with regards to alternative sources of livelihoodMethodology: Consultative Meeting

Venue: Old Mazyopa (Chairman’s residence).

IntroductionA consultative meeting was held on 29 May, 2015 in Mazyopa, to carry out a rapid assessment. Approximately 60 people attended the meeting, of the 60 only 47 were eligible PAPS for the LRP consultation process. The 13 additional participants were either PAPs without impacted gardens, the community leadership and just curious community onlookers

Important achievements and learning points for the RIC drawn from the Mazyopa Rapid Assessment process and Meeting:

Need to address the lack of proper information by the PAPS on the LRP, this will provide sensitization accurate information on the livelihood restoration plan, concept and will be programme during resettlement; currently some of the PAPs see it more of a blank cheque with unlimited funds available to meet their unrealistic expectations. This has been made clear based on some of the submissions we have received on their alternative livelihood idea.

One question that arises is how realistic and sustainable the LRP and programme will re-main in a location such as Mazyopa with the current existing levels of social-economic status

Lessons learnt from the Kaunda Square Ponds garden owners and Mazyopa residents rapid assessment process is that we cannot have a collective approach, or a one size fits all ap-proach to the LRP Programme. We may have to think through issues such as education levels, age and status of these people and what we are expecting of them as most skills sug-gested and expected to be require manual work and energy exertion in general, are the PAPs aspiring to be fit or placed to do so

Possibly cluster them according to age, sex, education levels, status to get content out of them

We may need to re-think our assessment method and engage the PAPs on a one on one ses-sion individually to get their views

The list of desired outcomes and expectations of the PAPs in the Livelihood Support Plan are tabulated in the table below:

SUBMISSION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF LIVELIHOOD BY PAPs

51

Number Name Sex Preferred Alternative Source of Livelihood

1. Mary Ngoma Female Prefers building a house for rent and a grocery store.

2. Elina Ngoma Female To build a house for rent

3. Mainess Rutepo Female Needs capital to start running a Shop or grocery store and to build a house for rent

4. Naomi Mwale Simukuza Female Needs money to build a house

5. Ruth Mapulanga Female Needs money to build a house

6. Agnes Chisha Female Money to build a house that she can rent out

7. Petronella Mbewe Female Money to build a house that she can rent out

8. Angelina Sikazwe Female Money to build a house that she can rent out

9. Enala Shepwa Female Money to build a house that she can rent out

10.Violet Kalanshi

Female Money to extend the house that she is living in so that she can rent out part of it.

11. Keyara Tembo Female Money to build a house that she can rent out

12. Justina Mutale Female Money to build a house that she can rent out

13. Florence Sakala Female Demolish house that she is currently living in so that she can build another one and rent part of it out.

14 Christina Banda Female Money to build a house that she can rent out

15. Majory Kangwa Female Money to build a house that she can rent out

16. Eveline Maipopo Female Money to build a house that she can rent out and also start up a charcoal and firewood business

17. Avelina Banda Female Money to build a house that she can rent out

18. Elestina Phiri Female Money to build a house that she can rent out or start up a grocery store

19. Theresa Mutale Female Money to build a house that she can rent out

20. Catherine Mutale Female Money to build a house that she can rent out

21. Eliza Banda Female Money to extend the house that she is living in so that she can rent out part of it

22 Benard Mwale Male Course in mechanics 23 Jackson Phiri Male Capital to run a shop. Has a shop in

Kamwala24 Fredrick Simfukwe Male Has a shop and needs capital25 Moses Chilenge Male Wants to take a driving course (PSV)26 Benard Siyingwa Male Has a farm in Chibombo. Needs capital to

run the farm27 Chola Silwemba Male Has land but needs help to build a house

52


and grocery shop28 Lapuke Choowa Male Wants to start a block making business29 Moffat Banda Male Has a farm in Chinyunyu area. Wants help

with inputs30 Cleavas Nkakachota Male No submission31 Felix Chileshe Chongo Male Wants a machine to do plumbing works.

(Electric Daizing Machine)32 Andrew Ngulube Male Wants to do a course in plumbing33 Kangwa Mutale Male Wants capital to run a grocery shop34 Ernest Sichifute Male Has a farm and wants farming inputs35 Sitwell Simfukwe Male Has a farm in Chongwe and want farming

inputs and a sewing machine36 Daniel Kasaka Male Wants to start a grocery shop37 Benson Gwai Male Wants to continue farming. Has no farm38 Timothy Nyendwa Male Has a house which he wants extended so

he can put for rent39 Langfold Ngoma Male Wants to start a poultry business. Has no

land.40 Brown Nyirenda Male Wants to buy a welding machine41 Benard Chileshe Male Wants to continue farming but has no land42 Howard Sakala Male Wants to start a business (various)43 Patson Mwansa Male Has a farm in Kapiri Mposhi and would

like to go and do farming there.44 Benson Kaoma Male Would like to start a car wash business.

Wants help with capital45 Andrew Peter Banda Male Wants to start a piggery business. Has no

land but can find one in Chongwe.46 Gift Nyirongo Male Wants to start a business centre. Help with

capital (Computers, photocopiers)47 Peter Banda Male Wants to start a food supply business for

supply

53

MAZYOPA MEETINGMEETING MINUTES

Date July 20, 2015Contract No: MCA-Z/PP05/ESP-02

MCA Zambia Resettlement Implementation Consultant Services

Location: Mazyopa File: Field MeetingsOriginated By: Tetra Tech (Tt) Recorded By: JLDate Prepared: 22 July 2015Participants: CC:

Lewis Tumbama Snr Resettlement Specialist, RIC

Linda Banji Siamuzyulu LBS)

Snr Social & Gender Specialist, RIC

Joy Lubinda (JL) Communications & Outreach Specialist, RIC

Mazyopa PAPs (see Attachment A)

A. Introduction: The meeting was attended by a total of 36 participants from both old and new Mazyopa, with a gender desegregation of 19 females and 17 males (refer to attachment A). LT welcomed everyone to the meeting and mentioned that the purpose of the meeting was to follow-up from the last meeting held on Livelihood restoration issues. LT mentioned that some people had indicated that build to rent would be their alternative source of livelihood once constructions works begin. He further explained that the IFC guidelines do not allow individuals to build on property that is not legalized. LBS reiterated LT’s sentiments by in-dicating that there was need for the group to mention other alternative activities that they would be engaged in apart from build to rent.

B. Questions and Answers:I. Mary Ngoma wanted to know whether the project would allow her maintain the build to

rent alternative since she had land in Kabanana and the said property was legalized. LT mentioned that as long as there was documentation on the land then problem would as-sist in that area.

II. Andrew Banda wanted to know if it was possible for the project to acquire land for him so that he is able to build and rent out. LT explained that the projects role is not to look around for land and that the aspect of build to rent is meant for an extension of room that is legalized. LBS also mentioned that the reason why the RIC visited them was to find out if they had alternative business ideas apart from build to rent.

III. Mr. Gwaye wanted to know if the project would help him continue his farming activities by investing on his Ndola farm. LT mentioned that Ndola was outside the project scope and it would not be possible for the project to monitor his farm. In addition LT explained that the project was concerned with the issue of farming especially rainfed maize be-cause in the event that there was a drought, it would affect the progress of the business and that is why it would be good to have other options that would help.

IV. Mary Ngoma mentioned that one of her Gardens was omitted from registration and yet it will be cut off from the water source when construction works begin. LT explained that

54

if that was the case then there would be a possibility of being compensated and ensuring that water is provided so that she continues with her gardening.

V. Elina Ngoma Nyendwa wanted to find out if it would be possible for the project to con-struct a borehole at her home so that she makes an income by selling water to the people in that community. LT mentioned that the idea was to record what each individual had mentioned and follow-up with them and inform them if it was feasible.

VI. Silwimba mentioned that he had a farm in Kapiri and wanted to know if he could be as-sisted with setting up his farm. LT and LS mentioned that was too far he needed to think of an alternative livelihood.

VII. Peter Sinkala wanted to know if the project would consider other agricultural farming activities other than rainfed maize that can be done on the farm and can still help in in-come generation because that was his interest.

VIII. George Chiluba wanted to find out if it was possible to find farming land for him since he had a small garden so that he could expand his Agriculture business. LS responded by mentioning that the project’s role was not to find land for anyone but facilitate a process of them identifying alternative livelihoods, businesses and required skills that can help them. LT further mentioned that each individual was aware of the gardens that they had he further explained that those with bigger gardens would be enrolled in training to assist them come up with good business ideas and skills that would be viable and provide a good income.

IX. Zilose wanted to know if there was room for employment when the contractors come on board. LT mentioned that the aim was to help the locals, however, the RIC has no au-thority to employ anyone but the contractor would make a decision on who is employed. He further mentioned that the contractors would be introduced to the community and that might be an opportunity for her to raise that question.

X. Mr. Simuchimba mentioned that Mazyopa had been legalized and that there was docu-mentation to that effect, he further mentioned that there was a ceremony that was con-ducted about two months ago were the Mandevu area Member of Parliament) was in at-tendance. In addition, there was still a process allocating house numbers to each home. He also wanted to know how he and the other committee members were going to benefit from the project even if they were not PAPs because he felt that they had helped the pro-ject in mobilization and other issues. Mr. Silwimba also mentioned that LT, LS and JL mentioned that they were not aware of the legalization of Mazyopa and wanted to see the documentation as proof. In addition, LT mentioned that one of the benefits that the community would have from the project would be a bridge as well as water provision which was still under discussion.

XI. The following are the business options that the group mentioned;a) Mary Ngoma mentioned a grocery shop, photocopying and computers in short a

business center as well as block making as her optionsb) Peter Andrew Banda mentioned piggery( he has land in Chongwe area) and printing

as an alternative source of incomec) Bernard Chileshe mentioned farming but since there were other options he needed

time to sit down with his family and discuss what the best option would bed) Danford mentioned that he had a house in Kabanana

55

e) Peter Banda mentioned sale of Kapenta and beans (food supply)f) Timothy Nyendwa mentioned the extension of a house in Kabanana compound as a

business option.g) Agness Ngoma mentioned the sale of second hand clothes as an alternativeh) Mosted Sakala mentioned that his option was to have a shop within Lusakai) Tiseko Mwanza was interested in starting a business

.

56

Attachment AAttendance List for Mazyopa Meeting

Num-ber

Name Gender (F/M)

1. Mary Ngoma Chanda F2. Elina Ngoma Nyendwa F3, Timothy Nyendwa M4. Peter Andrew Banda M5. Danford Ngoma M6. Bernard Chileshe M7. Gift Nyirongo M8. Peter Banda M9. Eneless Banda F

10. Benson Gwaye M11. Petronella Gwaye F12. Majorie Kangwa F13. Juliet Kabwe F14. Jennifer Lombe F15. Melody Mweshi F16. Precious Matika F17. Agness Sakala F18. Elizabeth Daka F19. Fridah Mukupa F20. George Chiluba M21. Mosted Bowa M22. Yofat Tembo M23. Albert Mwewa Kasongo M24. Fredrick Simwenda M25. Apitoh Zulu M26. Liford Silwimba M27. Peter Sinkala M28. Joseph Mbewe M29. Martha Mwanza F30. Hellen Daka F31. Zilose Phiri F32. Belita Njovu F33. Beatrice Mambwe F34. Tiseko Mwanza F35. Agness Ngoma F36. Eric Bwembya M

57

Annex 2Summary of Community Meeting with KSQ Ponds LR PAPs

Note that these meetings were with a larger number of PAPs than those that have subsequently been verified as eligible for Livelihood Restoration. The information can be considered generally

representative.

58

Date: 8 May 2015Field Team: SRA, SRS, SSGS, COS

Objective of Trip: Rapid Assessment to establish PAPs preferences with regards to alternative sources of livelihood

Methodology: Consultative Meeting

Venue: Kaunda Square Ponds

IntroductionA consultative meeting was held on 8 May, 2015 in Kaunda Square ponds, to carry out a rapid assessment. A total of 28 PAPS out of 29 PAP’s who were contacted attended this meeting. Of the 28 in attendance others were attending in proxy, for instance some were represented by their spouses and in another unusual case of a deceased female PAP who was represented by the husband (widower) and Mother. The one PAP not in attendance could not be contacted because her phone was off and is not known by any member of the group. There is therefore, need to find out if she used another name during CA registration.

Important achievements of the Rapid Assessment process and MeetingLooking at the short notice given to the group for this meeting the turnout was good and their ability to mobilise themselves within their community was impressive. The meeting provided an initial opportunity to engage the Kaunda Square Ponds PAPs and to get ideas of what type of businesses people wanted to start in view of their displacement due to the LWSSD.

Some positive outcomes to highlight from this process include;

The fact that the PAPs who responded and participated were very realistic about what they wanted. Women in particular had very practical ideas of what they wanted to do, well thought out, e.g. had answers to where they would conduct business, seasonal variations etc.

Good turnout and clear social solidarity within their setup Established confidence in continuity of LWSSD project and relationship with TT/RIC Team Mobilisation of PAPs for future meetings; this was sorted out practically by establishing

communication follow up mechanisms, verifying phone numbers, contact points and;It was agreed that for future meetings there was need to identify 4 PAP’s that could essentially mobilize the whole group. The following names and numbers of PAP’s were nominated by the group to be contacted in future for easy mobilization;

1. Evans Lungu- 0979-5976002. Margaret Chisha- 0979-605140/0978-6915153. Faides Nyangu- 0979-8993654. Gladys Phiri- 0974-072322

The rapid assessment process with the Kaunda Square Ponds Garden PAPs equally provided learning points for us as a team, some of the learning points include:

59

The extent to which people had thought through the issue of sequencing, timing, coordination - crop compensation, training, capital. People thought we should start with training

The extent to which men wanted to outdo the women with comments but did not succeed: women were more practical with identifying business opportunities e.g. block making.

There was one person claiming to be a PAP whom nobody else knew, yet all the other PAPs were mutually acquainted. This may be related to the person above who claimed to have been wrongly excluded..

The request (especially from aged, vulnerable) that benefits like training should be designated for sons and daughters who would care from them and sustain the family in the long term.

Some issues and next steps after the initial assessment initiative will include; A follow up specifically for men so that they can be more free to express themselves and

debate (they were clearly inhibited) those who did not/could not express ideas Need to design a clear sequential program to produce intended results: training, income

support, capital investment Formalize the argument for proxy recipients (sustainable livelihood arrangements at

household level, not individual PAP Follow up on the “odd PAP΅ The group on disputed private land had not been included. There should be specific

provisions on how to deal with them

Concerns Raised PAPs wanted to know if they can stop or continue with gardening activity until the specified

date. Possibility of replacing a PAP with his/her nominated child or defendant if requested by the PAP

in the livelihood restoration programme. 8 people from private land appeared claiming they had been omitted during CA registration.

Two men indicated that he had been omitted because one of them claimed that he was unwell and somebody else registered on his behalf.

The list of desired outcomes and expectations of the PAPs in the Livelihood Support Plan are tabulated in the table below;

60

SUBMISSION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF LIVELIHOOD BY PAPs(Note: of the 28 attending, 9 did not express a preferred choice but requested time to reflect)


1. Chiseche Njobvu Female Business and prefers running a grocery

2. Sarah Daka Female Poultry coupled with training in management of poultry. Other option is training in catering specifically, baking as she intends to be making flitters, scones etc and supplying them to other shops

3. Dorothy Phiri Female Needs capital to start running a Shop or grocery coupled with business management training

4. Mary Chikwanda Female Capital to start trading in Second hand clothes (salaula) or poultry, coupled with appropriate training in business management

5. Magarete Mumba Female Capital to start trading in Second hand clothes (salaula) or poultry, coupled with appropriate training in business management

6. Charles Banda Male Needs enough capital to start up a grocery/shop coupled with business management training

7. .Flata Tembo Female Needs enough capital to start up a grocery/shop coupled with business management training

8. Diana Njobvu Female Needs enough capital to start up a grocery/shop coupled with business management training

9. Lodisi Nampasa Female Needs enough capital to start up a grocery/shop coupled with business management training

10. Regina Chafunga Female Needs enough capital to start up a grocery/shop coupled with business management training

11. Gladys Phiri Female Needs enough capital to buy a block making machine and sell concrete blocks

12. Anedy Banda Male Needs enough capital to start up a community hardware shop coupled with business management training

13. Mwale Kamphale Male Needs enough capital to be buying maize from farmers and supplying it to the milling companies

14 Thaulo Banda Male Needs enough capital to start up a grocery/shop coupled with business management training

15. Tionane Phiri Female Needs enough capital to start up a grocery/shop coupled with business management training

16. Mr.Phiri Male Needs enough capital to be buying maize

61


from farmers and supplying it to the milling companies.

17. Mr.Mwale Male Needs enough capital to start trading in charcoal as it is profitable

18. Evans Lungu Male Needs enough capital to start up a community hardware shop coupled with business management training

19. Kalima Phiri Male Butchery(Note that he is on the list, claims he was left out and someone dubiously registered his garden)

62

Annex 3Amendment to the CA for LR PAPs

63

Section B: Livelihood Restoration

In order to replace income lost permanently through economic displacement, the PAP hereby accepts enrollment in a 12 month Livelihood Restoration Programme. This programme is in addition to any other benefits (Sections A – E) to which the PAP may be entitled. The programme conveys the following benefits to each beneficiary:

1. Preliminary needs assessment and business skills training over first three months (Months one through three) of the LR Programme to be implemented by an entity appointed by MCA-Zambia;

2. Mentoring and assistance during the business skills training to enable the beneficiary to produce a simple approved business proposal by the end of first three months of the LR Programme. This period required may be extended for a further three months in the interests of quality, during which the beneficiary may, under guidance, vary the proposed activity;

3. Start-up grant of up to ZMW 10,000 to be applied to chosen activity: see choices below, and paid as specified in the approved business plan.

4. Intensive individual business and technical mentoring over the next three months period (Months four to six of the LR Programme) provided by the same entity appointed by MCA-Zambia during starting up of activity to establishing the business or activity, with attention to problem-solving and refresher instruction, culminating in a first financial and business quarterly report;

5. Continued individual supervision and mentoring for at least another six months (Months seven through twelve of the LR Programme) provided by the same entity appointed by MCA-Zambia. On production of three successful quarterly reports, the beneficiary will be awarded a Graduation Certificate for successful completion of the course and a letter of introduction to a microfinance institution or Bank, if necessary. The period of mentoring may be further extended by additional six months (resulting in a total LR programme duration of 18 months) based on need as confirmed by MCA-Zambia for enterprises facing difficulties to benefit from additional specialized and targeted guidance and supervision.

6. Monthly transition (training stipend) allowance of ZMW 1,500 for the first nine months of participating in the programme. By the end of the ninth month, the PAP is expected to support him or herself.

Beneficiaries should indicate initial preference by selecting ONLY ONE option from the following choices for initial enrollment. There will be opportunities during the three months of Stage 1 to change this preference with professional advice.

o Agricultural activity (preference of a short cycle enterprise such as poultry)

o Small business start-up

o (indicate type) ______________

o Agriculture: Other _______________ o Equipment Purchase

o (indicate type) _____________

o Build to rent (Only applicable to PAPs with titles to property)

o Vocational Training*

o (indicate type) _____________

* Training at an approved institution with a maximum cost of ZMW10,000 and maximum duration of 12 months Suggested institution: _____________Fees paid directly to the institution by MCA-Zambia.

64

PAP To sign below and each applicable section

By my signature below, I confirm that I understand and accept the compensation awarded under this Compensation Agreement and this amendment. I accept this compensation in full and as final settlement of any present or future claims that I may have on the assets displaced by MCA-Zambia for the LWSSD Project.

Signature: Name Date

RIC Field Representative: To sign below and each applicable sectionI confirm I have fully explained the terms of this agreement and have witnessed the above signature

Signature: Name Position Date

65

VULNERABLE PAP NOMINEE BENEFICIARY

In exceptional cases, MCA-Zambia may accept the nominee, recommended by a Vulnerable PAP, who agrees to enrol in the Livelihood Restoration Programme with all its benefits and obligations in return for agreeing to care for the PAP. In this case, after approval, both parties sign the declaration below in place of the above signature block.

PAP To sign below if a nominee is proposed

By my signature below, I confirm that owing to my personal circumstances, I am unable to benefit adequately from the Livelihood Restoration Programme and that I wish the following Nominee to receive the training benefits on my behalf in return for an undertaking to provide care and support to myself.

Name of Nominee: Relationship to PAP

Signature: DateNOMINEE BENEFICIARY To sign belowBy my signature below, I confirm that I have not made any material misrepresentation in order to receive the specified benefits and that I understand and accept enrolment in the Livelihood Restoration Program and the obligations that apply. I accept that my enrolment in the Livelihood Restoration constitutes an undertaking of future benefits that are to be used to assist the PAP identified below as restoration of any income that may be lost as a result of their economic activities displaced by the LWSSD project.

Name : Relationship to PAP

Signature: NRC Date

RIC Field Representative: To sign below and each applicable sectionI confirm I have fully discussed the nominee arrangement with all concerned and am satisfied that this proposal is made in the best interests of the PAP.

Signature: Name Position Date

Community or Family Verification:

Name of Person who is providing the verification:

Relationship to PAP/Role in the community

Signature: Date

66

Report: Standard format 5/97€¦ · Web viewThere was no practical way to confirm these amounts,...

Documents

Transcript of Report: Standard format 5/97€¦ · Web viewThere was no practical way to confirm these amounts,...