Land Acquisition and Resettlement Plan Compliance Report December 2017 ARM: Sustainable Urban Development Investment Program Tranche 2 LARP Area (Tichina - Ashtarak Highway) Prepared by the AM Partners Consulting Company LLC for the Yerevan Municipality for the Asian Development Bank.
2 This resettlement plan is a document of the borrower. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of ADB's Board of Directors, Management, or staff, and may be preliminary in nature. In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.
November, 2017 SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT PROGRAM LARP FOR TICHINA-ASHTARAK HIGHWAY UNDER PROJECT 2 COMPLIANCE REPORT Authored by: EXTERNAL MONITORING AGENCY AM PARTNERS CONSULTING COMPANY LLC SUBCONTRACT: DELICT LLC
Content CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION... 3 1.1 PROGRAM BACKGROUND... 3 1.2 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF THE COMPLIANCE REPORT... 4 1.2.1 External monitoring and evaluation... 4 1.2.2 Compliance Review of Tichina-Ashtarak Highway LARP... 5 1.3 METHODOLOGY OF THE COMPLIANCE REVIEW... 5 1.3.1 Methods and activities... 5 2 ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE... 6 2.1 LARP IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD... 6 2.2 COMPLIANCE AND ACCURACY OF DOCUMENTATION PACKAGES... 7 2.3 COMPLIANCE OF PAYMENT OF COMPENSATIONS AND ALLOWANCES... 7 2.3.1 Compensations and allowances paid... 7 2.3.2 Differences in actual and planned compensations and Impacts... 8 3 IMPLEMENTATION MODALITIES... 11 3.1 REHABILITATION CONTRACTS CONCLUSION AND DISBURSEMENTS... 11 3.2 IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGALIZATION AND CORRECTION ACTION PLAN... 13 3.2.1 Legalization issues... 13 3.2.2 Cadastral correction issues... 13 3.3 PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS AND INFIORMATION DISCLOSURE... 18 4 COMPLAINTS AND GRIEVANCES... 19 4.1 GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISM... 19 4.2 COMPLAINTS AND GRIEVANCES UNDER THE LARP FOR TICHINA-ASHTARAK HIGHWAY... 20 4.3 EXPROPRIATION AND COURT CASES... 23 5 SATISFACTION SURVEY... 24 5.1 APS AWARENESS ON LAR PROCESSES... 24 5.2 CONTRACTING, DISBURSEMENT AND RECEIPT OF COMPENSATIONS... 25 5.3 COMPLAINTS AND GRIEVANCES... 26 5.4 SATISFACTION WITH LARP PREPARATION AND IMPLEMENTATION... 27 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS... 28 ANNEXES... 29 ANNEX 1: RESPONDENTS... 29 ANNEX 2: SATISFACTION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE... 30 1 P age
Content List of Abbreviations ADB AH AP DESC EA IA EMA LAR LARF LARP MFF MEDI PIU PMIC Asian Development Bank Affected household Affected person Detailed Engineering and Construction Supervision Consultant Executing Agency Implementing Agency External Monitoring Agency Land acquisition and resettlement Land acquisition and resettlement framework Land acquisition and resettlement program Multi Tranche Financial Facility RA Ministry of Economic Development and Investments Project Implementation Unit Program Management and Implementation Consultant SPS (2009) Safeguard Policy Statement (2009) YM CATI SRP Municipality of Yerevan Computer assisted telephone interview Structural reinforcement plan 2 P age
1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROGRAM BACKGROUND 1. The Government of Armenia (GA) has received a loan from the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to finance the Sustainable Urban Development Investment Program (SUDIP) Project 2. The Ministry of Economic Development and Investments (MoEDI) of the RA is the Executing Agency (EA) and the Municipality of Yerevan (YM), is the Implementing Agency (IA) working directly with the Project Implementation Unit (PIU). Project 2 of the SUDIP is focused on three road missing links to complete the Yerevan Western Ring Road. i. Argavand - Shirak road link, of 1.3km, ii. Babajanyan-Ashtarak highway, of 6.5 km, which includes Babajanyan-Tichina and Tichina- Ashtarak highway sections and iii. Davtashen - Ashtarak highway of 2.4 km. 2. The above-mentioned 3 road links entail land acquisition and resettlement (LAR) with more than 200 affected persons (AP) to be physically and/or economically displaced. Project 2 has been classified as Category A 1 for the involuntary resettlement safeguard according to ADB guidelines. 3. To facilitate the preparation and implementation of the LARPs for Project 2 the Project area was divided into the following 4 parts: i. Argavand - Shirak Road Link ii. iii. iv. Babajanyan-Tichina: Tichina-Ashtarak highway Davtashen-Ashtarak highway 4. The LARP for Argavand-Shirak road link was prepared under Project 1 and was approved by ADB on 09 January 2014. Because of shortage of funds the Argavand-Shirak road link was removed from Project1 to Project 2. External monitoring of the LARP for Argavand-Shirak road link is under the task of the Consultant engaged by PIU under the Project1. 5. The PIU has prepared separate LARPs for Davtashen-Ashtarak highway, Ashtarak-Tichina and Babajanyan-Tichina sections. External monitoring of those 3 LARPs is delegated to AM Partners Consulting Company LLC, which operates as an External Monitoring Agency (EMA) for the Project 2. 6. The Compliance report for the LARP for Davtashen-Ashtarak road link was approved by ADB on 13 July 2017. The current Compliance Review covers the LAR-related issues for the Tichina-Ashtarak Highway area. 7. The LARP for Tichina-Ashtarak road link was accepted by ADB on 15 November 2016 and by the Government on 24 November 2016 (GD N1192Ն). Implementation of the LARP for Tichina-Ashtarak road link began in November 2016 after approval of the LARP by ADB and the Government and was completed in September 2017. The implementation of Tichina- Ashtarak highway road link foresees construction of approximately 4.3 km of urban dual carriageway with central reserve and footways either on new alignment (2.8km) within an urban context, or by widening the existing urban carriageway (1.5km). The road will provide 1As per the ADB Operation Manual (OM) F1/OP (2009) a project is classified as Category A if > 200 people suffer significant impacts (relocation or loss of more than 10% of their productive assets). 3
dual 2-3 traffic lanes each with width of 3.5-4m, and a service road with width approximately 6m. Picture 1 Map of LARP Implementation Area 1.2 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF THE COMPLIANCE REPORT 1.2.1 External monitoring and evaluation 8. The Program LAR Framework (LARF) requires the External Monitoring Agency (EMA) to carry out the external monitoring in parallel with the implementation of LARPs. The EMA monitors and verifies that the LARP implementation has been made according to the requirements of LARP and LARF to determine whether resettlement goals are achieved, livelihood and living standards are restored (and to what extent) and provide recommendation for improvement. 9. External monitoring entails two types of activities: a)short-term monitoring of LARPs implementation and compensation delivery and b)long-term evaluation of the rehabilitation effects of the LARPs. The short-term monitoring or the compliance review of the LARPs implementation has been carried out in parallel with the implementation of each LARP activity and has entailed extensive field visits and communication with APs. The long-term evaluation will be carried out before and after the LARPs implementation to find out if the LARPs rehabilitation objectives have been attained or not, as well as for the assessment of the LARPs implementation impact on the AHs. 4
1.2.2 Compliance Review of Tichina-Ashtarak Highway LARP 10. The current CR addresses the Tichina-Ashtarak Highway LARP implementation. The objective of the CR is to verify that compensation activities have been carried out based on the provisions of the ADB Safeguard Policy Statement 2009 (SPS 2009), local legislation, the Program LARF and LARP. The Report provides description of monitoring process and comparative analysis of the LARP implementation planned and actual results, delivery of compensations. The Report also identifies eventual complaints and grievances, the ways these were solved, the court cases and the general satisfaction of the APs. 11. In total, 52 AHs including owners, renters and users of the lands/buildings, business owners and employees with a total of 223 household members were to be affected by the implementation of the LARP. During the CR, EMA reviewed all the documentation of 52 AHs and interviewed well-informed household members of 38 AHs. The approval of this Compliance Report by ADB will be the condition to start civil works at the Tichina-Ashtarak Highway LARP area. 1.3 METHODOLOGY OF THE COMPLIANCE REVIEW 1.3.1 Methods and activities 12. The methodological basis for the Compliance Review was the approved EMA Inception Report. EMA has performed the full range of possible activities stipulated by the methodology. 13. The EMA studied the RA Law on Eminent Domain, ADB SPS 2009, Program LARF, and the approved LARP for Tichina-Ashtarak Highway. EMA collected and collated necessary information, reviewed the project related documents, carried out a sample household survey. 14. During the performed desk reviews EMA studied the following financial and non-financial documents: Description Protocols, including the description of the affected assets for each AP, i.e. description of land plots, crops/trees; structures/buildings, improvements, businesses etc.; Valuation Reports, with detailed representation of the results of valuation of assets subject to acquisition done by licensed valuators; Contracts/agreements with the APs on property alienation and compensation where together with all the required provisions lot-code, surface, loss of assets, compensation amount and bank account, and the person s name are clearly mentioned; It must be signed by all co-owners or by their authorized people. Payment documents for all the contracts/agreements indicating compensation aim, bank account, compensation amount, person and date of the contract/agreement signing and payment/compensation date. Information disclosure documents, including submission of description protocols and draft contracts/agreements, notifications on Eminent Domain, Grievances, including the responses by PIU 5
Other documents and datasets. 15. Documents and profiles of all APs were studied. In order to verify that compensation had been paid to all APs, the EMA reviewed payment orders of all APs, except ones whose land plots were subject to Expropriation as of the date of the preparation of the present Report. For all APs under the expropriation cases, compensation lodging documentation were checked in order to confirm that relevant acquisition compensation amounts were lodged with courts for each AP. 16. Existence of all contracts, agreements and payment orders were checked, data contained in them were checked for adequacy and compliance, in particular: (i) signatures of all owners and verification by the notary, (ii) compliance of compensation amounts, (iii) adequacy of bank accounts, (iv) compliance of notary verification dates of documents (activities implementation) to the existing procedure (implementation schedule). 17. During the Desk review the total planed budget of compensations was compared with the actual amount of paid compensations. The differences in planned and actual compensations, if any, were revealed for each AP and analyzed in detail. The bases for deviation of each APs compensation were revealed. In order to crosscheck the analyzed information the amounts of compensations for each type of loss as well as different allowances envisaged by the LARP were compared. 18. The process of public hearings and consultations and the grievance redress procedures were also studied: all written complaints and responses to them were studied in detail. 19. Interviews with YM and PIU staff, DESC and LARP Implementation Team were carried out during monitoring as a result of which clarifications and interpretations were provided to individual issues and questions. 20. The EMA surveyed 38 AH (out of 52) in a face to face format with the application of a standardized questionnaire in terms of Satisfaction survey. The average interview lasted 15 minutes. The sample included all the main types of AHs (by the main types of impacts AHs faced). EMA selected the AHs randomly from the group of AHs facing certain impact. Within the selected AHs, EMA surveyed heads of households and managers of businesses, who formally present their households in relations with the PIU. The survey used a specially designed questionnaire and addressed in detail the overall LAR process (duration, compensation payment modalities, grievances redress mechanism (GRM), respondents satisfaction with specific aspects of LARP implementation, etc.), and the extent of the accomplishment of the objectives of the LARP. 21. EMA conducted in depth personal interviews with 6 APs. 22. Findings of external monitoring allowed concluding upon the reliability, comprehensiveness and accuracy of data, as well as compliance and efficiency for compensation delivery process for the compensated APs/AHs. 2 ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE 2.1 LARP IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD 23. The implementation of the Tichina-Ashtarak Highway (Sections 7-8) LARP started with sending of draft agreements and contracts to APs in November-December 2016 and was 6
finalized in September 2017. For the implementation of the LARP a LARP Implementation team was hired by YM consisting of a Team Leader, a Lawyer and 3 Social Specialists. 2.2 COMPLIANCE AND ACCURACY OF DOCUMENTATION PACKAGES 24. The EMA verified the accuracy of documentation of the LARP for Tichina-Ashtarak Highway road section as a result of direct review of AP s documentation. During verification process, EMA observed Description Protocols, including the description of the affected assets for each AP, i.e. description of land plots and crops/trees; description of structures/buildings and real estate; description of business and company; Valuation Reports, with detailed representation of the results of assets subject to acquisition by licensed valuators; Contracts/agreements on compensations, where together with all the required provisions lot-code, surface, loss of assets, compensation amount and bank account, and the person s name are clearly mentioned; It must be signed by all co-owners or by their authorized people Payment documents for all the contracts/agreements indicating compensation aim, bank account, compensation amount, person and date of the contract/agreement signing and payment/compensation date. 25. Documents and profiles of all APs were studied. In order to verify that compensation had been paid to all APs, the EMA reviewed payment orders of all APs, except ones whose land plots were subject to Expropriation as of the date of the preparation of the present Report. For all APs under the expropriation cases, compensation lodging documentation were checked in order to confirm that relevant acquisition compensation amounts were lodged with courts for each AP. Existence of all contracts, agreements and payment orders were checked, moreover, data contained in them were checked for adequacy and compliance, in particular: (i) signatures of all owners and verification by the notary, (ii) compliance of compensation amounts, (iii) adequacy of bank accounts, (iv) compliance of notary verification dates of documents (activities implementation) to the existing procedure (implementation schedule). The compliance of data between the Description Protocols, Valuation Reports, Contracts/Agreements as well as payment documents was also checked. 26. Studies of external monitoring allowed concluding upon the accuracy and compliance of data and documentation packages. 2.3 COMPLIANCE OF PAYMENT OF COMPENSATIONS AND ALLOWANCES 2.3.1 Compensations and allowances paid 27. The DESC calculated and presented in the LARP the compensations and allowances against the various types of impacts in accordance with the Entitlement Matrix of the LARP and the PIU applied respective rehabilitation measures (provision of compensations and allowances). Amount of compensations and allowances introduced by the LARP was totaling to 7
1,775,588,147 AMD (the VAT and registration amounts excluded 2 ). Actual amount of compensations and allowances paid to the AHs within the rehabilitation measures implemented by the PIU comprised 1,773,296,141 AMD. 28. This amount contains all the compensations and allowances paid to the APs of the LARP for Tichina-Ashtarak highway section as well as 77,039,248 3 AMD compensation amounts calculated and deposited with the Court under the Expropriation cases.the deviation between planned and actual compensations totaled to 2,292,006 AMD. EMA identified and analyzed this deviation in details. 2.3.2 Differences in actual and planned compensations and Impacts 29. During the compliance review EMA identified and analyzed the deviation from the planned compensation amount. The EMA discussed the change with PIU and considers it necessary and justified. 30. During the LARP implementation phase, cadaster maps were verified and adjusted 4. 2 AP/AHs fall out of the list of AHs and was not compensated due to correction in the cadastral maps and slight changes in the design. (i)14.9m 2 of privately owned land plot was deducted. The amount of calculated compensation for this AH comprised 2,292,006 AMD, which includes 1,906,277 AMD for 14.9 m 2 of privately owned land, 2,179 AMD for 0.06 m 2 of staircase and 383,550 AMD for renovation of remaining 25.6m 2 staircases. (ii)due to slight change in design a lan plot of 7.6m 2 fell out from the list of affected land plots. The case was in court and the compensation amount of 291,916AMD should be returned from the court s deposit account. Planned and actual impacts and compensations/allowances per impact categories and types of allowances are presented in Table1 Table1 LARP Tichina-Ashtarak Highway Impacts and Compensations according to LARP and actual implementation N Impacts categories U/ M Planned impact and budget according to LARP Actual impact and budget according to implementation Difference(planedactual) Comments Quantity Amount calculated, AMD Quantity Compensated Amount, AMD Quantit y AMD 1 Compensatio n for private land (including m 2 29,325.8 822,255,223 29,303.32 820,348,947 22.48 1,906,276.8 (i)14.9m 2 with compensation amount of 1,906,276.8 AMD was deducted due to 2 21,071,131 AMD VAT and 3,258,000 AMD registration and notary fees were included in the LARP budget, in addition to the compensation amounts to be paid to the APs at replacement cost. 3 This includes 291,916 AMD which was transferred to the court s deposit account, but should be returned to PIU as the court case was closed due change in design. 4 The issue with cadastral map in presented in the LARP for Tichina-Ashtarak Highway point 10.4.2 8
15% surcharge) 2 Rehabilitatio n allowance for illegally used land m 2 11,723.95 69,661,606 11,723.95 69,661,606 0.00 0.00 corrections in the cadastral maps, (ii)7.6m 2 was deducted due to change in design. however the compensation amount has not been returned from the courts deposit account by the time of sending of the current report 3 Compensatio n for residental houses 4 Compensatio n for Support Structures with affected main residential buildings 5 Compensatio n for Support Structures without residential loss 6 Compensatio n for nonbusiness /nonresidential premises 7 Compensatin for business premises 8 Compensatio n for renovation of buildings 9 Compensatio n for fences m 2 1,583.72 482,299,970 1,583.72 482,299,970 0.00 0.00 m 2 541.94 61,479,207 541.94 61,479,207 0.00 0.00 m 2 10.80 1,221,898 10.80 1,221,898 0.00 0.00 m 2 241.04 9,126,989 240.98 9,124,810 0.06 2,179.20 Due to minor change in design a staircase with area of 0.6m 2 is not affected m 2 366.64 156,167,413 366.64 156,167,413 0.00 0.00 663,450 279,900 383,550.00 383,550 ADM was calculated for renovation of staircases. Due to design change the staircase is not affected 60,582,282 60,582,282 0.00 0.00 9
1 0 1 1 Compensatio n for improvement s Compensatio n for crops 15,865,550 15,865,550 0.00 0.00 758,501 758,501 0.00 0.00 1 2 Compensatio n for fruit bearing trees and bushes tre e 1628 66,070,080 1628 66,070,080 0.00 0.00 1 3 1 4 1 5 Compensatio n for not yet fruit-bearing trees and bushes Compensatio n for seedlings (fruit trees) Compensatio n for timber/wood trees tre e tre e tre e 115 869,690 115 869,690 0.00 0.00 83 126,250 83 126,250 0.00 0.00 27 424,870 27 424,870 0.00 0.00 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 Compensatio n for decorative trees Compensatio n for business losses, permanent Compensatio n for employment loss, permanent Severe impact allowance for residential relocation tre e 545 2,408,500 545 2,408,500 0.00 0.00 No 5 1,858,976 5 1,858,976 0.00 0.00 No 1 441,000 1 441,000 0.00 0.00 AH 12 3,960,000 12 3,960,000 0.00 0.00 10
2 0 Compensatio n for the loss of more than 10% of revenue from agricultural and agricultural business activity AH 20 14,139,441 20 14,139,441 0.00 0.00 2 1 2 2 Allowance to socially vulnerable groups Compensatio n for transportatio n costs of the movable assets AH 8 2,640,000 8 2,640,000 0.00 0.00 AH 22 1,907,250 22 1,907,250 0.00 0.00 2 3 Compensatio n of livelihood expenses for relocated AHs AH 12 660,000 12 660,000 0.00 0.00 Total 1,775,588,147 1,773,296,141 2,292,006 3 IMPLEMENTATION MODALITIES 3.1 REHABILITATION CONTRACTS CONCLUSION AND DISBURSEMENTS 31. Within the scope of Compliance Report (Compliance Survey) the EMA studied the process of signing of compensation contracts and agreements and transferring the compensation amounts to the APs bank accounts. The contracts/agreements were signed between December 2016 up to September 2017. The majority (60%) of contracts/agreements were signed in February-March 2017. Some transactions required long period, which was conditioned by deficiencies in the documents of APs. Table 2 Intensity of signing of contracts and agreements Period No. of Concluded Transactions Share 11
December 2016 12 16.9 January 2017 5 7.0 February 2017 21 29.6 March 2017 21 29.6 April 2017 1 1.4 May 2017 1 1.4 June 2017 4 5.6 July 2017 4 5.6 August 2017 1 1.4 September 2017 1 1.4 Total 71 100% 32. In all the cases the PIU paid compensations and allowances within 15 calendar days from the day of signing of contracts and agreements and filing of corresponding documents to the PIU. 33. During the review of payment documents EMA revealed several cases when PIU tranfered the compensation amounts determined in the agreements in 2 transactions; 85% after signing of the agrrement and 15% after submition of the property with the handing act. This approach is common for compensations paid according to contracts (legal properties) and was used also in the previous LARPs, however this is a new approach for compensations paid according to agreements (illegal properties). PIU clarified this by the fact that some APs refuse or delay vacation of the site after receiving of full compensation and this mechanism is applied for avoiding such issues. 34. EMA considers this approach acceptable with condition that it should be envisaged in all agreements and applied for all the APs for avoiding double standards 5. 35. According to the LARP methodology the head of administrative district signs the references of illegal usage of land by the APs. During the review of LARP documents for the section Tichina-Ashtarak EMA revealed 7 cases where the references of illegal usage of the land were not approved by the head of administrative district. Further ADB requested PIU to notify APs on this as well as on their rights for complain. However the APs were not notified by PIU. EMA studied those 7 cases and revealed the following. In one case there was a cadastral issue and the fence of the legal property was located in a wrong place which was already corrected and the issue with illegal usage of land was already resolved. In one case there was a non-operating shop with an illegal shed which was not used by the AP. As there was no any usage of land under the shed by the AP PIU has decided not to demolish the shed and accordingly no any compensation was calculated for the shed. EMA considers this approach reasonable. In the remaining 5 cases EMA requested the PIU to notify the APs on the issue with approval of the references of illegal usage by the head of administrative district. On 12 October all 5 APs were notified accordingly. All 5 APs have received the notifications and have written announcements that they have no complaints. 5 During implementation of the LARP for Tichina-Ashtarak this method was allpied not for all APs. 12
36. According to the LARP the APs have 30 days to relocate from the date of delivery of full compensation/allowances and within this time they should manage to dismantle and remove all salvageable material for rebuilding of houses and re-establishment of businesses. 37. Based on safety issues which may emerge during demolishment of the buildings as well as lessons learnt from the LARPs under Tranche 1 when the APs damaged the adjacent buildings while demolishing their own ones the PIU stated in the contracts that the APs are not allowed to demolish the houses by themselves. Instead the AP will be able to take all the salvageable materials after demolishing of the buildings by the contractor. The APs were informed on this during the Public Consultations as well as before signing of the contracts. In addition all the APs have signed statements that they have been notified on this accordingly. 38. PIU will submit the list of the APs to the Contractor and the Contractor should notify by phone the APs about the day of demolishment of the buildings so the APs will be able to take all the salvageable materials. PIU will monitor this and include in the Semi-annual social safeguards monitoring reports. 3.2 IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGALIZATION AND CORRECTION ACTION PLAN 39. 23 6 cases with involvement of 12 AHs/APs were included in the LCAP under the LARP for Tichina-Ashtarak highway. Those cases were divided into two main typical groups: 21 cases were related to the legalization of APs/assets and 2 cases were related to the cadastral corrections. 3.2.1 Legalization issues 40. Typical legalization issues presented in the LARP for Tichina-Ashtrak highway were issues related to (i) absentee APs (11 cases) and (ii) properties with encumbrance (10 cases). 41. 11 out of 21 legalization cases were related to absentee APs who were out of RA or refused to provide any documents at the stage of LARP preparation. In 1 case the AP s legal representative signed the contracts/agreements and received the compensation amounts based on power of attorney provided by the AP. 8 AHs/APs provided the necessary documents, signed the contracts/agreements and received the compensation amounts personally. In the remaining 2 cases the properties were under pledge. Conditioned with the failure to sign a contract within 3 months after sending the draft contract court cases were opened and the compensation amounts were transferred to the courts deposit accounts. The LARP implementation team of PIU supported the APs in obtaining the necessary documents. 42. 10 out of 21 legalization issues were related to the properties with encumbrance. 6 cases were resolved, the compensation contracts/agreements with the owners were signed and the compensation amounts were transferred to the APs bank accounts. 2 land plots with encumbrance were deducted from the list of affected land plots due to correction of cadastral maps. In the remaining 2 cases PIU transferred the compensation amounts to the courts deposit accounts and opened court cases. 3.2.2 Cadastral correction issues 43. 2 land plots with cadastral correction issues where identified at the stage of LARP preparation. The land plots were neighboring and belong to the same AH. According to the results of actual measurements, the land plots were located 2,5m further from the land limits 6 Without double counting 12 AHs/APs are involved in 23 cases. 5 AHs/APs refused to provide documents and at the same time their properties were under pledge in the banks. 1 AH owed 4 land plot and refused to provide documents. 1 AH owed 2 land plots which were under pledge and in the meantime had cadastral problems. 13
indicated in the Electronic Cadastral map. The land plots were removed due to correction of cadastral map. 44. The cases included in the LCAP are presented in detail in the table 3 below Table 3 List of Cases for Legalization and Cadastral Correction No No of Cadastral Description of issue Solution of the issue Section Lot-Codes 1 8 0582-0008 The co-owners are out The isue is resolved. of RA. The APs representative signed the contract and received the compensation. 2 8 0582-0015 Issues related to The case is in court passport Refused to provide any documents 3 8 0582-0014 Issues related to The issue is resolved. passport The AP provided all the necessary Refused to provide any documents, signed documents the contracts/agreements and received the compensation amount. 4 8 0582-0002 Issues related to The issue is resolved. passport The AP provided all 5 8 0586-0001 Refused to provide any documents 6 8 0585-0001 7 8 0587-0001 8 8 0582-0006 Issues related to passport The AP was not available during the DMS 9 7 0661-0004 Issues related to passport Refused to provide any the necessary documents, signed the contracts/agreements and received the compensation amount. The issue is resolved. The AP provided all the necessary documents, signed the contracts/agreements and received the compensation amount. The case is in court 14
documents 10 7 0572-0006 Issues related to passport 11 7 0572-0007 The AP was not available during the DMS 12 8 0108-0328 Issues related to properties with encumbrance: According to the SCREC the property is under pledge in the name of HSBC CJSC. 13 8 0108-0329 Issues related to properties with encumbrance: According to the SCREC the property is under pledge in the name of HSBC CJSC. 14 8 0582-0015 Issues related to properties with encumbrance: According to the SCREC the property is under pledge in the name of ACBA-CREDIT AGRICOLE CJSC. 15 8 0582-0014 Issues related to properties with encumbrance: According to the SCREC the property is The issue is resolved. The AP provided all the necessary documents, signed the contracts/agreements and received the compensation amount. The issue is resolved. The AP provided all the necessary documents, signed the contracts/agreements and received the compensation amount. The issue is resolved. The YM has applied to SCREC with request of correction of cordinates of the land plots in the Cadastral map. The issue is resolved. The YM has applied to SCREC with request of correction of cordinates of the land plots in the Cadastral map. The case is in court The issue is resolved. The AP provided all the necessary documents, signed the 15
under pledge in the name of ACBA-CREDIT AGRICOLE CJSC. 16 8 0582-0012 Issues related to properties with encumbrance: According to the SCREC the property is under pledge in the name of ARMECONOMBANK OJSC. 17 8 0582-0011 Issues related to properties with encumbrance: According to the SCREC the property is under pledge in the name of ARMECONOMBANK OJSC. 18 8 0108-0009 Issues related to properties with encumbrance: According to the SCREC the property is under arrest by CES from19.09.2013 19 7 0302-0072 Issues related to properties with encumbrance: According to the SCREC the property is under pledge in the name of Procredit Bank CJSC. 20 7 0661-0004 Issues related to properties with encumbrance: According to the SCREC the property is under pledge in the name of MoF of RA contracts/agreements and received the compensation amount. The issue is resolved. The AP provided all the necessary documents, signed the contracts/agreements and received the compensation amount. The issue is resolved. The AP provided all the necessary documents, signed the contracts/agreements and received the compensation amount. The issue is resolved. The AP provided all the necessary documents, signed the contracts/agreements and received the compensation amount. The issue is resolved. The AP provided all the necessary documents, signed the contracts/agreements and received the compensation amount. The case is in court 16
21 7 0572-0006 Issues related to The issue is resolved. properties with The AP provided all encumbrance: the necessary According to the documents, signed SCREC the property is the under pledge in the contracts/agreements name of and received the HayGyughPokhBank CJSC. compensation amount. 22 8 0108-0328 Cadastral issue: The issue is resolved. According to the result The YM has applied to of the actual SCREC with request measurement, the of correction of property is located 2,5m further from the land cordinates of the land plots in the Cadastral limits indicated in the map. Electronic Cadastral map. Correction of coordinates of the land plot is required in the cadastral map by SCREC. 23 8 0108-0329 Cadastral issue: The issue is resolved. According to the result of the actual measurement, the property is located 2,5m further from the land limits indicated in the Electronic Cadastral map. Correction of coordinates of the land plot is required in the cadastral map by SCREC. The YM has applied to SCREC with request of correction of cordinates of the land plots in the Cadastral map. 45. EMA has studied all the cases presented in the LCAP of the LARP for Tichina-Ashtarak highway. All the cases included in the LCAP were resolved except 2 7 cases in court. Resolution of those cases is out of PIU s competency. 7 In both cases there were issues related to absentee documents and encumbrance of the properties. 17
3.3 PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS AND INFIORMATION DISCLOSURE 46. Three public consultations were held for the APs living in the area of road sections 7 and 8; two consultations for the Decree on Preliminary study of properties and one for the Eminent Domain Decree. 47. Conditioned with the adoption of 2 different GDs on Preliminary study of the properties for sections 8 and 7 separate public consultation were held with the APs from this sections on 21 January 2016 and 14 June 2016. 21 APs (all men) participated in the public consultation held for the APs from Section 8 and 26 APs (6 women and 19 men) participated in the public consultation held for the APs from Section 7. The road design, features of the main phases of the resettlement processes, the team that conducted the DMS and socioeconomic surveys, as well as the procedures involved in the surveys were presented to APs during first stage of consultations. 48. The third public consultation was held on 26 July 2016 after EDD entered into force for APs of sections 8 and 7. In total, 30 APs (5 women and 25 men) participated in the public consultation. The Entitlements Matrix, valuation methodology, DMS and Census/SES were presented to the APs. The Grievance Redress Mechanism was addressed in detail, with particular focus on the role and functions of the Local Focal Point as a way to raise, formulate and address APs complaints to the IA during all stages of the Project. 49. All APs were notified by phone about the date and place of the consultations. In addition, the announcements were published in the Republic of Armenia daily newspaper and on SUDIP website. 50. Project Director, Resettlement, PR and other experts of the PIU, representatives of the DESC, the valuation company participated in the public consultations. 51. All the public hearing events passed in a format of active discussion, questions and answers. The PIU and related consultants (DESC) did their best explaining the LARP preparation and implementation process, providing information materials, answering the APs questions, etc. 52. EMA studied all the minutes of meetings of the public consultations 8 as well as questions raised by the APs and answers provided by the PIU and consultants representatives. EMA confirms proper organization and implementation of the Public Consultations based on the requirements of the LARF. 53. The GD on Eminent Domain (GD 683-Ն, dated 30 June 2016) was published in the newsletter ''Republic of Armenia'' on 22 July 2016. An announcement on the GD on Eminent domain was posted also on SUDIP s website. On 29 July 2016 the owners of the properties included in the GD on Eminent Domain were officially notified. Maps indicating affected and nonaffected parts of the properties were presented to the AP s. The Description protocols were submitted to AP's in August and September 2016. Draft contracts/agreements and the Project information pamphlet were submitted to the APs in November-December 2016. 54. The LARP for Tichina-Ashtarak was disclosed on SUDIP website. 55. EMA studied all the information disclosure documents and activities performed by PIU and confirms its proper organization based on the requirements of the LARF and RA legislation. 8 A contract with EMA was signed on 11 August 2016 therefore the EMA s conclusions are based on the available documents provided by PIU. 18
4 COMPLAINTS AND GRIEVANCES 4.1 GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISM Step 1 56. A 2 level GRM was developed in the LARP for Tichina-Ashtarak. The GRM was presented to APs during public consultations and disseminated through SUDIP website. Several parties are involved in the GRM such as the PIU, Grievance Review Group (GRG) and YM. Picture 2 below represents the Grievance resolution process scheme. 57. Complaints and grievances are being addressed through the following steps and actions: The PIU accepts the complaints in the first instanceandwithin a period of maximum30 days from the day of receiving the grievance PIU officially answers the AP. If the AP is not satisfied with the response or PIU responsible staff needs additional capacity to response the APs' grievance, the Grievance Review Group (GRG) can be formulated. The following composition of the GRG is proposed by PIU in the LARP: Members (a) Representative of PIU (b) Representative of safeguards team (PIU) (c) Representative of Local Government, as relevant (d) Certified technical expert, as relevant (e) Representative of Engineer/Contractor, as relevant (f) Representative of the APs Position Chairperson Member Member Member Member Member Step 2 (g) Independent party (for example NGO) Observer 58. During the grievance review process by GRG, several experts can be involved such as valuation expert, agronomist, measurement specialist, design engineer etc. Independent party (for example NGO representative) can be invited upon request of AP.A settlement will be made within 30 days. 59. If the AP does not agree with the PIU s answer he/she should address their grievance to the YM. YM must respond to the complaint within 30days. 19
60. Regardless of the set grievance mechanism and procedures, APs will have the right to submit their cases to a court of law at any point in time of the grievance redress process. A template for recording grievance has been developed and is available to the APs when they lodge the complaint. Picture2:Grievance resolution process scheme AP has a complain AP lodges grievance to PIU field or PIU responses within30 AP does not accept PIU AP lodges 2 nd grievance for GRG PIU/GRG responses within 30 AP does not accept the AP lodges 3rd grievance YM respons es AP does not accept YM AP applies to the court Court decision 4.2 COMPLAINTS AND GRIEVANCES UNDER THE LARP FOR TICHINA-ASHTARAK HIGHWAY 61. To assess the grievance redress process, the EMA requested the copies of submitted Complaints from the PIU as well as PIU s responses. 14 applications or complaints have been filed to the PIU from 11 9 APs. Also 1 inquiry was received from the Ombudsman of the RA. All 14 cases were properly recorded in the grievance register books and processed accordingly. The day of the complaint submission as well as the day of PIU s responses were recorded as well. PIU responded to the submitted complaints and inquiries in written form within defined dates.the review of the process of handling of the grievances didn t identify any cases when a GRG was formulated. In this regard it should be mentioned that though the APs were informed on this opportunity during the Public Consultation held on 26 July 2016 as well as this information was included in the Project information pamphlets which were submitted to the APs in November-December 2016, however the PIU had to inform the APs about this as well as other GRM opportunities in its replies, according to the LARP 10. 62. The EMA studied the contents, character and relevance of those complaints. In 2 cases the APs requested information which was provided to them by PIU. In 1 case the AP had complained to the Ombudsman of RA. Based on the complain the Ombudsaman had made an inquiry from the YM and PIU had provided the requested information. In 2 cases the APs complaints were satisfied and in 1 case the APs complaint was satisfied partially. In 1 case the AP after filling the complaint to PIU applied for the second time with request not to consider his complaint. 6 complaints were rejected by PIU. Only in one case PIU didn t 9 In 3 cases APs have applied 2 times. 2 APs applied with complaint and with request to provide information. 1 AP applied twice with different complaints. 10 The issue was disclosed also in the Compliance Report for Davtashen-Ashtarak section but the PIU had received the complaints and had answered to them before compliance review of the Davtashen-Ashtarak section. 20
answered to the AP s complaint as additional clarifications were requested from the Ministry of Finance (MoF) of the RA. 63. The review of the APs complaints and PIUs replies showed up that none of the APs requested formulation of GRG as stipulated in the LARP GRM. The main complaints, the nature and details of the complaints, as well as decisions taken upon them are presented below. The EMA agrees with all the decisions taken by PIU. Complaints in regard to description protocols - In 2 cases the APs were not satisfied with the description protocols. 1 case was solved in favor of the AP as there was a technical mistake and the description protocols were revised and resubmitted to the AP. In the other case the APs demand to include the illegal land with an area of 1572m 2 in the description protocol was rejected. According to LARP methodology the usage of illegal land should be approved by the head of administrative district. The head of the administrative district did not approve the illegal usage of land by the AP and therefore the illegal land plot was not included in the description protocol. Further investigations revealed that due to cadastral mistake the fence of the land plot was located out of his own area. The cadastral map was corrected and the AP signed the compensation contract/agreement and received the compensation amount. EMA conducted an interview with the lawyer of the AP who confirmed that the fence of the land plot was located in a wrong place due to cadastral mistake which was already corrected. Complaints in regard to valuation of assets - In 2 cases the APs presented their disagreement with the results of valuation. In 1 case after submition of the complaint the complainant submitted to PIU the second application with request not to consider the previous complaint. In the second case the AP was insisting that the gate was not included in the valuation report. PIU had rejected the complaint as according to the valuation company the cost of the gate was included in the cost of the fence. Request for acquisition of the whole property - PIU received 4 complaints from the APs with request to acquire the whole property. Only 1 of those complaints was resolved in favor of the AP. It must be noted that during the DMS stage it was decided to acquire the whole property as out of 1000m 2 private land 670.77m 2 was affected and an embankment with height of 4.3m next to the remaining part of the property was envisaged by the design. However the AP had refused from the proposal of full acquisition at the stage of LARP preparation. In the remaining 3 cases the APs requests of full acquisition were rejected by PIU as they were not justified 11. In all 3 cases the total land plots were 1000m 2 without any structures, improvements or trees. The affected parts of the land plots were 206.37m 2, 428.65m 2 and 310.3m 2 which comprised 21%, 43% and 31% of total land. There were no any access isues.in all 3 cases the APs were informed that according to the law if they are not satisfied with PIU s decision they have the opportunity to apply to court in 30 days after receiving PIU s rejection. Only 2 APs (out of 3) apllied to the court with demand of full acquisition. Those cases are presented in detail under clause 4.3. EMA studied all the documents available with PIU and confirms that PIU s decisions are in line with RA Law on Expropriation of Property for Public and State Purposes Article 5, Point 2. 11 According to the RA Law on Expropriation of Property for Public and State Purposes, Article 5, Point 2 the owner of the property has the right to request full acquisition of the property in 2 cases i. when the remaining part of the property loses it s economic or operational significance ii. when the remaining part of the property is minor compared with the acquired part. According to the Project LARF nondirectly affected sections of a plot which become inaccessible or unviable for cultivation or any use after the impact will be included in the affected land. 21
In 1 case the AP requested to allow to demolish the compensated building and was rejected by PIU. The AP was informed that he will be allowed to take the salvageable materials after demolishion of the bulding by the constructor. 2 of the APs requested to provide the map of the area including the affected and not affected parts of their properties. PIU provided the maps accordingly. In one case the AP applied to the PIU twice with 2 different requests. At first time the AP requested to compensate for business loss and to provide a parking for the customers of the shop. In its answer PIU informed the AP the compensation for loss of business is envisaged for the cases when the business is affected and stopped temporarily or permanently. In the meantime PIU had informed the AP that the issue with parking will be investigated additionaly. An oral agreement was reached with the AP in this regard and the AP had signed the contract/agreement and received the compensation. EMA conducted an interview with the AP. The AP confirmed that he has no objections in regard to compensation and confirmed that he is satisfied with the solution proposed by municipality in regard with the parking. During the interview the AP raised his concern that along with the value-added tax he will have to pay profit tax. After the interview with EMA the AP applied to PIU for the second time with request to compensate also for Profit tax. In this regard PIU applied to the MoF of the RA for clarification if Profit tax is applicable for the AP. However, regardless of the feedback of the MoF the issue could be resolved only after April 2018 as according to the RA Law on Profit Tax the taxpayers are submitting yearly tax declarations on their profit and the deadline for submitting the declarations is 15 April. In this regard EMA suggests to commence construction in order not to delay project implementation and to resolve the issue after April 2018 based on the feedback from MoF and the APs tax declaration. In the inquiery done by the Ombudsman of the RA YM was informed that an AP had applied to the Ombudsman with complaint that he was not compensated though he had received from PIU draft compensation contract/agreement. PIU answered that the property was included in the list of EDD based on the information and cadastral map provided by SCREC. However during the DMS it was revealed that there was en error in the cadastal map. Actual measurements showed that the property was located with deviation of 2.5 meters. Based on this YM applied to SCREC with request of correction of the coordinates of the land plot. EMA conducted an interview with the AP and revealed that the AP was not aware of the cadastral issue. In this regard though EMA considers PIU s actions reasonable and acceptable however EMA recommends PIU in such occasions to inform APs officialy on the existing problem and actions taken to solve the problem. 64. EMA reviewed all formal complaints submitted by APs to PIU, discussed them with the PIU, got acquainted with communication between the PIU and the DESC on this issues. The EMA agrees with all the decisions taken by PIU and responses provided to the APs. 65. The review of the process of handling of the grievances revealed that in its replies PIU did not inform the APs about the opportunity of formulating a GRG as prescribed in the LARP. In this regard EMA recommends PIU to follow the procedures described in the LARPs and to inform the APs of the GRG opportunities in the upcoming LARPs. 22
4.3 EXPROPRIATION AND COURT CASES 66. During the implementation of the LARP for Tichina-Ashtarak highway PIU was involved in 5 court cases. EMA observed the documents related to those court cases and identified the following: 67. Case N1 Hasmik Grigoryan - The area of the AP s land plot is 1000m 2. According to the LARP only part of AP s land with an area of 428.65m 2 is subject for acquisition. On 17 October 2016 the AP had applied to the court with demand to acquire the whole property. The court hearing was appointed on 05 October 2017. However on 18 July 2017 the AP signed the contract with PIU on alienation of 428.65m 2 and received the compensation of 16,464,447 AMD. In the meantime the AP is insisting on alienation of the remaining part of the property in the court. The next court hearing is appointed on 23 November 2017. Regardless of court s decision EMA considers the issue resolved as the affected land plot is already registered in the SCREC as the ownership of the RA. 68. Case N2 Karine Meliqyan - The area of the AP s land plot is 1000m 2. According to the LARP only part of AP s land with an area of 206.37m2 is subject for acquisition. On 25 November 2016 the AP had applied to the court with demand to acquire the whole property. In the meantime on 30 March 2017 conditioned with the failure to sign a contract within 3 months after sending the draft contract to the AP PIU deposited the compensation amount of 7,190,963 AMD on the court s deposit account and opened a court case on 19 April 2017. The issue is not resolved yet. 69. Case N3 Sos Hartenyan The APs property was under pledge and the AP was not able to solve the issue in time. Conditioned with the failure to sign a contract within 3 months after sending the draft contract to the AP PIU deposited the compensation amount of 69,257,857 AMD on the court s deposit account on 11 April 2017 and opened a court case on 06 May 2017. On 16 June 2017 the AP withdrew the compensation amount from the court s deposit amount. On 23 July 2017 the court made a decision which enterd into force on 23 August 2017. On 01 December 2017 the the property was registered in SCREC and the case is officialy resolved. 70. Case N4 Tavros Gevorgyan- The APs property was under pledge and the AP was not able to solve the issue. Conditioned with the failure to sign a contract within 3 months after sending the draft contract to the AP PIU deposited the compensation amount of 291,916 AMD on the court s deposit account on 03 May 2017 and opened a court case on 06 May 2017.The court session was appointed on 12 October 2017. In order to speed up the commenrcement of construction PIU revised slightly the design. As a result the affected land plot of 7,6m 2 fall out from the list of affected land plots. Based on this PIU withdrew the application from the court on the session held on 12 October 2017. On 26 October 2017 the court made a decision to close the case. The court s decision entered into force on 27 November 2017. The issue is resolved. On 6 December 2017 PIU sent a request to the court to return back the amount of 291,916 AMD deposited on the court s account. 71. Case N5 Defanse Housing Invest CJSC- The AP s property was under pledge and the AP was not able to solve the issue in time. Conditioned with the failure to sign a contract within 3 months after sending the draft contract to the AP PIU deposited the compensation amount of 298,512 AMD on the court s deposit account on 03 May 2017 and opened a court case on 29 May 2017. The court sessions were held on 04 and 18 July 2017. The court satisfied PIUs application. Court s decision was published on 21 July 2017 and entered into force on 21 August 2017. On 17 November 2017the property was registered in SCREC and the case is officialy resolved. 23