REPÚBLICA DEMOCRÁTICA DE TIMOR LESTE Ministry of Public Works TIMOR-LESTE ROAD CLIMATE RESILIENCE PROJECT (TLRCRP) RFP No.: RFP/021/MOPTC-2017 May 2019 AITUTO TO HATUBUILICO, STA. 0+000 HATUBUILICO TO LETEFOHO, STA. 24+000 BEGINNING POINT/JCT. AITUTO, NARROW ENTRANCE EXISTING SEALED ROAD AITUTO TO HATUBUILICO, STA. 4+000 NARROW ROW, STEEP TERRAIN AND STEEP GORGE SLOPE BIG TREES AND COFFE PLANTATION AITUTO TO HATUBUILICO, STA. 5+500 LETEFOHO TO GLENO, STA. 42+000 RESIDENTIAL AREAS GRAVEL ROAD L = 16kms L =17kms L = 27kms HATUBUILICO TO LETEFOHO, STA. 15+000 LETEFOHO TO GLENO, STA.54+200 ON-GOING ROAD WIDENING: MT. RAMELAU RIHEU BRIDGE 1|Page Land Acquistion and Resettlement Action Plan (LARAP) Timor Leste Road Climate Resilience Project (TLRCRP) Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno May 2019 This Land Acquisition and Resettlement Action Plan is a document of the Proponent. The views expressed herein may be preliminary in nature. In preparing the Land Acquisition and Resettlement Action Plan and making reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Proponent does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or another status of any territory. 2|Page Table of Contents CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION .................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. A. COUNTRY CONTEXTS ......................................................................................................................................8 A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................9 B. PROJECT FOOTPRINTS ...............................................................................................................................11 Section 1: Aituto to Hatubuilico ......................................................................................................12 Section 2: Hatubuilico to Letefoho ..................................................................................................13 Section 3: Letefoho to Gleno ............................................................................................................13 C. INSTITUTIONAL AND IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS ................................................................................16 CHAPTER II LAND ACQUSITION AND RESETTLEMENT PLANNING .................................................... 18 A. SCOPE OF THE LARAP ..............................................................................................................................18 B. OBJECTIVE AND PRINCIPLES .......................................................................................................................19 C. APPROACH FOR THE LARAP ......................................................................................................................21 D. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................................21 Identification of Stakeholders .........................................................................................................21 Consultation and community engagement .....................................................................................22 Social Assessment ............................................................................................................................22 Land Acquisition and Resettlement (LAR) Impact Assessment .......................................................23 Compensation Approach .................................................................................................................23 Disclosure .........................................................................................................................................25 Cut-off Date .....................................................................................................................................25 E. IMPACT AVOIDANCE MEASURES .................................................................................................................25 Shortcut route at Humboe School zone ...........................................................................................26 Shortcut Route at Goulolo Suco ......................................................................................................26 Letefoho Church Service Road with installed sidewalk ....................................................................26 F. LIMITATION DURING THE LARAP PREPARATION ............................................................................................28 G. MANAGEMENT OF LAND ACQUSITION IMPACTS FOR ASSOCIATED FACILITIES .....................................................29 H. MANAGEMENT OF LAND ACQUSITION IMPACTS UNDER THE GOTL’S EMERGENCY ROAD OPERATION IN SECTION 3.........................................................................................................................29 CHAPTER III LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK ............................................................................... 31 A. WB SOCIAL SAFEGUARDS POLICY ...............................................................................................................31 B. EXISTING POLICY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF GOTL .....................................................................................31 C. GAP ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................................................................32 D. PRINCIPLES OF LAND ACQUISITION AND RESETTLEMENT PROCESSES .................................................................34 E. CATEGORY OF PROJECT AFFECTED PERSON (PAPS) .......................................................................................36 Definition .........................................................................................................................................36 Tenurial Status ................................................................................................................................36 Severity of Impacts ..........................................................................................................................36 Eligibility and Cut-off date ...............................................................................................................37 Principle of Replacement Cost .........................................................................................................37 Assistance to Vulnerable Group .......................................................................................................38 CHAPTER IV IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ...................................................................... 39 A. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS.............................................................................................................................39 Impacts on Land ..............................................................................................................................42 Impacts on Trees .............................................................................................................................44 Impacts on Structures ......................................................................................................................44 Livelihoods Impacts .........................................................................................................................47 Impacts on Vulnerable People .........................................................................................................47 CHAPTER V SOCIAL ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................... 49 A. OVERVIEW..............................................................................................................................................49 3|Page B. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE ............................................................................................................................49 Population and Household Size .......................................................................................................49 Occupation ......................................................................................................................................50 Household Livelihood .......................................................................................................................50 Ownership of Consumer Durables ...................................................................................................50 Family Expenditure ..........................................................................................................................50 Livestock Ownership.........................................................................................................................50 Access to Social Amenities...............................................................................................................50 Poverty Impacts ...............................................................................................................................51 Women Issues and Development Needs ..........................................................................................51 C. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION, CONSULTATION AND DISCLOSURE .....................................................................51 Identification of Stakeholders .........................................................................................................52 Consultation Processes ....................................................................................................................52 CHAPTER VI FINANCING PLAN AND RESETTLEMENT BUDGET ......................................................... 58 A. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT FOR FINANCING RESETTLEMENT......................................................................58 B. DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION AND ENTITLEMENTS ..............................................................................58 C. ENTITLEMENTS ........................................................................................................................................59 D. PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION ...................................................................................................................62 E. ESTIMATED RESETTLEMENT COST AND BUDGET.............................................................................................64 SECTION 1: AITUTO - HATUBUILICO ............................................................................................................64 SECTION 2: HATUBUILICO – LETEFOHO.......................................................................................................65 SECTION 3: LETEFOHO - GLENO ..................................................................................................................66 CHAPTER VII INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT ............................................................................... 68 A. ORGANIZATION OF LARAP IMPLEMENTATION ..............................................................................................68 B. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES .....................................................................................................................69 C. LARAP IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE ..........................................................................................................70 D. LARAP DISCLOSURE PLAN ........................................................................................................................72 E. MONITORING AND EVALUATION.................................................................................................................74 F. REPORTING .............................................................................................................................................75 CHAPTER VIII GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISM .......................................................................... 76 A. RATIONALE .............................................................................................................................................76 B. GRM FOCAL POINT .................................................................................................................................77 C. GRIEVANCE CATEGORIES ...........................................................................................................................77 D. GRIEVANCE REDRESS PROCESS ...................................................................................................................77 E. GRIEVANCE LOG ......................................................................................................................................79 F. MONITORING ..........................................................................................................................................79 ANNEX 1: REGULATORY GAP ASSESSMENT ON LAND ACQUSITION AND RESETTLEMENT ........................................80 ANNEX 2: AFFECTED AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL LAND .................................................................................84 ANNEX 3: AFFECTED STRUCTURES AND ESTIMATED COMPENSATION COSTS ...........................................................94 ANNEX 4: AFFECTED TREES AND COMPENSATION RATES .........................................................................................99 ANNEX 5: ASSESSMENT OF SEVERITY OF IMPACTS (SEVERELY AND SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTED HOUSEHOLDS) .......111 ANNEX 6: INITIAL TRACER REPORT FOR SECTION 3 ................................................................................................118 ANNEX 7: STANDARD PRICE OF AFFECTED TREES/CROPS ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE OF TIMOR LESTE ......................................................................................................................................................................135 ANNEX 8: CENSUS AND ECONOMIC SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ...............................................................................137 ANNEX 9: PHOTO FROM LAR CONSULTATIONS AND ATTENDANCE LIST .................................................................145 ANNEX 10: NATIONAL PUBLIC CONSULTATION MINUTES .......................................................................................185 4|Page GLOSSARY Abbreviated Resettlement Action Plan (ARAP) –The ARAP is acceptable if fewer than 200 people are affected. It is also acceptable if more than 200 people are affected so long as all land acquisition is minor (10 percent or less of all holdings is taken) and no physical relocation is required. Affected Family/Affected Household (AF/AH) - consists of all members of a household residing under one roof and operating as a single economic unit, who will be adversely affected by the project. For resettlement purposes, Affected Persons (APs) will be dealt with as members of Project Affected Families (PAFs). Affected Person(s) or Household Head (HH) - dealt with as member of project affected families/households who on account of the execution of the project, would have the right, title or interest in all or any part of a house, land (e.g., residential, agricultural or pasture) or any other fixed or moveable asset acquired or possessed, in full or in part, permanently or temporarily. Compensation means payment in cash or in kind at replacement cost for an asset to be acquired or affected by an infrastructure project. Cut-off-date - is the date of commencement of the census of affected families within the project boundaries. APs and local communities will be informed of the cut-off date and persons not covered at the time of census will not be eligible for claims of compensation and entitlements. Displaced Person - consistent with World Bank policy 4.12, people who are affected by direct economic and social impacts that both result from Bank-assisted investment projects, and are caused by involuntary taking of land resulting relocation or loss of shelter; loss of assets or access of assets; or loss of income source or means of livelihood, whether or not the affected persons must move to another location; or the involuntary restriction of access to legally designated park and protected areas resulting in adverse impacts on livelihood of the displaced persons. Eligibility- any person(s) who at the cut-off-date was located within the area affected by the project, its sub-components, or other subproject parts thereof, and are affected by the project. Eligibility is irrespective of formal legal rights to land or of customary claim to the land the PAPs are occupying. Encroacher - legal titleholder, who illegally extend their legal holding onto (and, thus, encroach upon) government land. They are encroachers for their illegal holding. Under World Bank’s policy, if affected people with title to land have encroached from their legitimately landholding onto land that they do not own, they will be compensated, whether on the legitimately occupied piece of land or on the piece of land upon, will be compensated. Entitlement- the range of measures comprising cash or kind compensation, relocation cost, rehabilitation assistance, transfer assistance, income substitution and relocation which are due to APs depending on the degree of losses, to restore their social and economic base to pre- project levels.
 Income Loss. For loss of business/income, the AP will be entitled to an income rehabilitation assistance for the period corresponding to the stoppage of business activities. Indigenous people - consistent with World Bank policy 4.10, people who belong to a distinct, vulnerable social and cultural group possessing the following characteristics in varying degree: (a) self- identification as members of a distinct indigenous cultural group and recognition of this identity by others; (b) collective attachment to geographically distinct habitat or ancestral territories in the project 5|Page area and to the natural resources in these habitats and territories: (c) customary cultural, economic, social, or political institutions that are separate from of the dominant society and culture; and (d) an indigenous language, often different from the official language of the country or region. Informal Settlers - a person using or occupying vacant state land and who does not have title or formal agreement from the owner to use, the land. Land acquisition - the process whereby a person is compelled by the Government through the Executing Agency of the Project to alienate all or part of the land s/he owns or possesses in favor of the State in the implementation of the Project or any of its components in return for consideration. Marginally affected – the impact is only partial, and the remaining portion of the property or asset is still viable for continued use. Compensation will be on the affected portion only. Minor impacts are limited to cases where APs are not physically displaced and less than 10% of their productive assets are lost). Negotiated Settlement - is an agreed amicable rates or package of compensation and entitlements for the APs to ensure that the cost is sufficient to cover affected structures and assets, physical and non- physical. Compensation packages shall ascertain that the APs will not be worse-off, and they could recover from the disturbances caused by the project. Project Boundaries is defined as the project construction limits or maybe referred to the Right- of-Way limits, which may vary depending to prescribe RROW. Rehabilitation - the measure requires to (i) restore access to public facilities, service and infrastructure; (ii) cultural property and common property resources; (iii) cultural sites, public services, water resources; grazing, or forest resources including establishments of access to equivalent and culturally acceptable resources and income-earning opportunities; and, (iv) restore the economic and social capital of the APs seriously affected by the loss of assets, and employment. All such people will be entitled to rehabilitation assistance measures for restoring incomes and living including any APs whose rights might not be formally recognized. Additional rehabilitation assistance should be provided for vulnerable people, to ensure that they are able to restore their standards of living to pre-project levels. Relocation- the physical resettlement of APs from their pre-project place or residence, place for work or business premises as a result of project activities. Replacement cost - the method of valuing assets to replace the loss at the market value, or its nearest equivalent, plus any transaction costs such as administrative charges, taxes, registration, and titling cost. Where national law does not meet this standard the replacement cost will be supplemented as necessary. Replacement cost is based on market value before the project or dispossession, whichever is higher. In the absence of functioning markets, a compensation structured is required that enables affected people to restore their livelihoods to levels at least equivalent to those maintained at the time of dispossession, displacement, or restricted access. For loses that cannot easily or compensated for in monetary term (e.g. access to public service, customers, and supplies; or to fishing, grazing, or forest areas), attempts are made to establish access to equivalent and culturally acceptable resources and earning opportunities. Resettlement - all measures taken to mitigate any and all adverse social impacts of a project on the APs, including compensation and relocation. Full or partial, permanent or temporary physical displacement (relocation, loss of residential land/ or shelter) and economic displacement (loss of land, assets, access to assets, income sources, or means of livelihoods) resulting from (i) involuntary acquisition of land, or (ii) involuntary restriction on land use on or access to parks and protected areas. The definition applies to impact experienced, regardless of whether it involves actual relocation. 6|Page Resettlement Plan - the time-bound action plan prepared to compensate and /or mitigate the impact of resettlement. A FULL resettlement is required for project or subprojects with significant impacts (see definition below), and an ABBREVIATED resettlement plan is required for project or subprojects with non-significant impacts. Screening - the process to determine what types of impacts might be anticipated, based on projects type, scale, location, and sensitivity. The screening will categorize the project or sub- project and therefore determine what level of assessment and further planning is required. Severely affected – The portion of the property to be affected is more than 10% of the total land area or even less than 10% if the remaining portion is no longer economically viable or it will no longer function as intended. Full compensation of the whole property. Significant impact - more than 200 people are affected by resettlement through loss of 10% or more of productive assets (income generating) or physical displacement/ dislocation (loss of housing). Simple structures - small (in the order of 1-15m2) roadside stalls or shade houses that are constructed of rough-sawn wood, bamboo, thatch, banana or sago palm leaf, and can be moved and re-constructed in less than day. Social Impact Assessment or Social Assessment is a framework for incorporating social or stakeholders’ analysis and participatory process in the project design and implementation. Subsidiary household - a household that is a part of the origin group that have been allocated land by the members of the origin group (i.e. through inheritance or subdivision of a family-owned land. They have the same right to use the land but must seek permission form the members of the origin group for certain activities. Vulnerable - Any people who might suffer disproportionately or face the risk of being marginalized from the effects of resettlement i.e. (i) female household head with dependents; (ii) disabled household head; (iii) poor household as defined by the poverty line; (iv) landless elderly household head with no means of support; (v) household head without security of tenure 7|Page CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A. Country Contexts Roads represent the primary mode of transport in Timor-Leste. The country has an extensive road network totaling 6,941 km, consisting of 1,427 km of national roads; 812 km of district roads; 1,975 km of core rural roads; and, 3,567 km of non-core rural roads. The main network corridor runs along the northern fringe of the country from the Indonesian border in the west through the capital Dili and then eastward to the second largest city, Baucau, and beyond. The road network in the west is reasonably dense, serving a strong agricultural region. In the rest of the country, the road network consists of five north-south connectors linking the northern corridor across the mountainous spine to the east-west road along the southern coastal plain. These main road corridors are important as they connect potentially promising agricultural areas and new oil industry-related developments along the southern coast to the main population and more developed areas along the northern coast. Nevertheless, much of this network is still in poor condition, mainly due to unsuitable design and underinvestment in maintenance. The results of the 2015 survey indicated that 13 percent of rural roads were rated good, 30 percent were rated fair, 44 percent were rated poor, and 13 percent were rated bad. Timor-Leste’s slope instability and frequent landslides also pose a challenge to the provision of road transport. Data from 2011 study revealed that two-wheel drive cars could only drive at reasonable speeds on 20 percent of the national road network, and more than 6 percent were in such a poor condition that it was only passable by four-wheel drive vehicles. A deteriorated road network makes travel time longer, vehicles operating costs higher, and rural communities more isolated. It also has a negative impact on livelihoods and key basic services including employment, health, and education. In many cases, however, the roads were also not properly designed and lack sufficient drainage capacity. Due to the steep terrain, ground conditions, and local climate, slope instability is a major problem. Combined with the shortage of maintenance funds, these factors resulted in a necessary focus on emergency repairs rather than systematic maintenance. Branch Roads on the Gleno–Maubisse corridor: The Branch Roads play an important role for central Timor- Leste, linking its east to its west, while also serving transit traffic along the project road and onward connections to the Dili–Ainaro and the Gleno–Tibar corridors. The Gleno–Maubisse corridor starts at the city of Gleno, passes through the towns of Ermera, Letefoho, Hautubuilico, and Aituto and ends at the town of Maubisse. Gleno is a city 30 km to the southwest of Dili and is the capital of the municipality of Ermera. Maubisse is a historic town in the hills 70 km south of Dili, in Ainaro District. It is a popular tourist destination and a weekend visiting spot for people from the capital. Agricultural activities are evident along the corridor. Coffee producers are concentrated particularly in Ermera district. The Hatubuilico town is on the route to Timor-Leste’s top tourist destination, Mount Ramelau. It is anticipated that, in addition to enhancing connectivity in the project areas, the project will help develop the agricultural and tourism sector by improving road access specifically to the country’s highest coffee producing areas and tourist destination. BRP will improve the Gleno- Letefoho and Letefoho- Hatubuilico Junction sections of the corridor, while the Hatubuilico Junction-Aituto section and the links to the towns of Ermera and Hatubuilico will be improved at a second phase of the project. The section between Aituto and Maubisse was already improved. Traffic: The overall traffic is low in Timor-Leste, only the northern link between the Indonesian border and Dili, and from Dili to the eastern region, having non-motorcycle traffic above 1,000 vehicles per day. Notwithstanding, there has been rapid growth in the vehicle fleet with annual growth of approximately 28 percent between 2010 and 2013. Motorcycles comprise approximately three-fourths of the fleet. In the proposed project roads, traffic is low with an Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) of, 843 on the Gleno- Letefoho section and 418 on the Letefoho- Hatubuilico Junction section, based on the Classified Traffic Counts conducted in May 2018, with 69 percent being motorcycles. Road safety: Timor-Leste’s poor road infrastructure condition and susceptibility to climate change and natural disasters make road safety measures utmost important for the well-being of road users. In 2016, the 8|Page World Health Organization methodology for determining road fatality rates was 12.7 fatalities per 100,000 population, with 161 estimated road traffic fatalities in Timor-Leste that year. GoTL is in the process of developing a National Road Safety Plan that will be guided by the road safety activity framework set out in the Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011–2020. With the current administrative structure, the National Directorate of Road Safety is under the Ministry of Defense and Security; however, it is anticipated that responsibilities will be shifted to a National Land Transport Authority in coordination with Directorate of Land Transport, Timor-Leste National Police and other Government stakeholders, in leading efforts to address road safety and reduce road trauma. Road maintenance: Effective road maintenance is essential to reduce high exposure to climate change and natural disasters, as well as prevent high costs for rehabilitation and reconstruction. In 2016, US$4 million was allocated to routine and periodic maintenance of national, district, and urban roads, while US$10 million was allocated for rural roads. A similar amount was allocated in 2017. So far there is no budget allocation for road maintenance in 2018 since GoTL has not been able to approve the 2018 budget. Although the road maintenance department has increased its capacity in past years and has managed a number of maintenance contracts, it still lacks the necessary capacity and resources to maintain even only the national roads, which have recently been upgraded. Periodic maintenance on national roads is rarely done and routine maintenance is done using one-year output-based contracts. Most of the maintenance budget is spent on emergency works. Institutional framework: GoTL has prepared the Strategic Development Plan (SDP) 2011–2030 to set out the development vision and long-term guide, which aims to rehabilitate all the existing roads by 2020, and provide a comprehensive road maintenance program by 2030, which seems very ambitious. The SDP includes a transport policy statement with a view to providing the legal framework for transport infrastructure and services, as well as to defining the organization and management of the transport system in Timor-Leste. To attain this vision and the connectivity objectives of the SDP, a Transport Sector Master Plan (TSMP) launched in March 2018 sets out to develop an ‘integrated transport framework of systems, services and facilities required to facilitate and underpin inclusive economic and social development’, which has targets for road upgrading that are more realistic. A key policy objective within the roads subsector is ‘to develop the core road network with major urban roads, roads linking municipalities to each other, upgraded municipal roads linking municipal centers with sub-municipalities, and rural roads that provide access to villages and the more remote areas.’ Improvements in all levels of road network – national, municipal, urban and rural road infrastructure – are to be constructed and maintained with appropriate standards and in good condition. In June 2018, the Eight Constitutional Government was sworn in, and the former Ministry of Public Works, Transport and Communications was separated into (i) the Ministry of Public Works (MPW); and, (ii) the Ministry of Transport and Communications (MTC). MPW is responsible for the design, execution, coordination and evaluation of the policy defined and approved by the Council of Ministers in the areas of public works, urban planning, housing, water supply, distribution and management, sanitation and electricity; while MTC is responsible in the areas of civil, maritime and air transport, auxiliary services, communications, postal services, telegraph, telephone and other telecommunications and meteorological and geophysical services. The Directorate of Roads, Bridges and Flood Control (DRBFC) under MPW is responsible for planning, developing, and maintaining national road network, including rural roads. A. Project Description The main objective of the Branch Road Project is to improve road access, safety, and climate resilience i) enhance road access, safety and efficiency of road networks, ii) increase access of the rural and urban populations on the Gleno-Maubisse corridor to various social services and markets leading to improved livelihoods and poverty reduction, and iii) improve the districts trade on agriculture products and other potential commodities, promote a development potential for tourism and agriculture by facilitating road transport and connectivity to major urban and per-urban areas including Dili, Ermera and Ainaro. 9|Page Figure 1.1 : Project Location of Branch Road Aituto to Gleno Source: KEI Consultant, 2018 The project’s development objective is expected to be achived through the following interventions: Component 1: Gleno–Maubisse Corridor Upgrading and Road Safety Improvements (US$72.8 million of which expected IDA financing is US$55.0 million). This component consists of the civil works activities to be undertaken on the Gleno–Maubisse corridor and the road safety activities on the rest of the network. The activities include: a. Sub-component 1.1: Gleno–Letefoho and Letefoho–Hatubuilico Junction roads sections upgrading (US$70.8 million). This component would upgrade the Gleno–Letefoho (25.8 km) and Letefoho– Hatubuilico Junction (18.5 km) road sections of the Gleno–Maubisse corridor (66.1 km) to National roads standards. The designs will incorporate climate resilience considerations, considering: (i) pavement upgrading with selective widening to bring the project roads to national standards; (ii) improvement of drainage structures to meet forecasted rainfall volumes and intensities; and, (iii) construction or reinforcement of slope stabilization structures. Where roads serve pass through urban areas, attention will be given to safety improvements, orientation signage, bus stops, and sidewalks. As a first phase of a program to improve the Gleno–Maubisse corridor, the two project roads sections (totaling 44.3 km) have been proposed based on the prioritization results of the feasibility study and the readiness for implementation. The second phase of the upgrading of the Gleno–Maubisse corridor1 will be defined during implementation and it is envisaged that will be financed under an additional financing to BRP or as a new standalone project. This sub-component will also finance the construction of the upgrading works and related supervision consultancy. b. Sub-component 1.2: Road Safety Improvements (US$2.0 million). This sub-component will cover civil works and/or goods to address road safety issues on roads other than on the Gleno–Maubisse corridor roads, such as road signage and pavement markings or black spot improvements at 1 The remaining roads to be improved on the Gleno –Maubisse corridor are: (i) Hatubuilico Junction to Aituto road section (11.9 km); and (ii) the links to the corridor of the towns of Ermera (4.8 km) and Hatubuilico (5.2 km). The road section between Aituto and Maubisse (9.9 km) was already improved under RCRP. 10 | P a g e locations to be identified by GoTL. The scope of sub-component 1.2 will be decided during implementation with support of a road safety advisor to be hired under the project. Component 2: Institutional Strengthening and Project Management (US$4.0 million of which expected IDA financing is US$4.0 million). This component aims at helping strengthening capabilities within MPW and DRBFC on issues related to road assets management, road safety and road maintenance. It will finance technical assistance, equipment, and operational costs associated with the implementation of the Project. It will also finance studies required for the preparation of potential future investments in the road sector. This component is split into three sub-components, as detailed below. a. Sub-component 2.1: Technical Assistance (US$1.6 million). This sub-component involves knowledge, capacity building, data and funding to support transport sector development. Technical Assistance activities include: (i) data collection on road inventory, traffic and condition on national and district roads (approximately 2,240 km) to update the Road Asset Management System2 for supporting monitoring, planning and programing of road works; (ii) piloting of multi-year performance based maintenance contracts on national roads3 (two years of maintenance on approximately 125 km) through contractors using community-based groups with female participation, including strengthening supervision activities done by DRBFC; (iii) road safety capacity building program within MPW through the hiring of a road safety advisor to DRBFC;4 and, (iv) geotechnical capacity building program within MPW through the hiring of a geotechnical advisor to DRBFC.5 b. Sub-Component 2.2: Design of Future Projects (approximately US$1.4 million). This sub- component will finance feasibility/technical studies and designs required for the preparation of potential future investments in the road sector (approximately 55 km). The road section to be designed will be selected from the following roads that GoTL showed an interest in receiving the Bank’s support for feasibility/technical studies and designs: (i) Viqueque–Uatulari–Uatucarbau– Lliomar–Lospalos Road Project; (ii) Lautem–Fuiloro–Lospalos Road Project; and, (iii) Maubara– Vatobau–Sare–Cailaco Road Project. c. Sub-component 2.3: Project Support (US$1.0 million). This sub-subcomponent will finance operational costs associated with implementation of the Project, training of MPW staff, and goods needed by the Project. It also includes yearly audits of the project accounts to be submitted to the Bank. Component 3: Contingent Emergency Response (US$0 million). Since Timor-Leste will remain vulnerable to climate change and severe weather events, even with the successful implementation of the first two components, supporting post-disaster recovery is an important feature of the project. This zero-dollar component is designed to provide swift response in the event of an Eligible Crisis or Emergency, by enabling GoTL to request the Bank to reallocate project funds to support emergency response and reconstruction. The project will prepare a CERC Project Operations Manual within six months of project effectiveness. B. Project Footprints The project footprints cover limited areas for investments under Sub-component 1.1: Gleno–Letefoho and Letefoho–Hatubuilico Junction roads sections upgrading as well as other additional areas for associated 2 The Road Asset Management System is being developed with ILO, ADB and JICA support. 3 The maintenance contracts will be implemented on Lots 1 and 3 of the ongoing RCRP (around 40 km) and other national roads to be selected by MPW. 4 The tasks would include: training of MPW staff, assessment of national and district roads for road safety risks, preparation of road safety improvement works program, and road safety audits of project designs. The assignment is expected to last for 12 months spread over two years. 5 The tasks would include: training of MPW staff, assessment of national and district roads for geotechnical hazards, preparation of road geotechnical remedies works program, and geotechnical audits of project designs. The assignment is expected to last for 8 months spread over two years. 11 | P a g e facilities which will be confirmed during project implementation. The LARAP addresses the former whereas a framework approach will be adopted for the latter. The proposed Branch Road Project is situated within two administrative jurisdictions of Ainaro and Ermera Districts. Section 1 begins at km 0+00 at Aituto intersection between Maubessie and Ainaro, ± 38 Km south of Dili. Section 1 ascends from the Aituto junction to the west up to mountainous areas at an elevation around 1,917 m a.s.l. These areas are adjacent to the protected areas southeastern of Mt. Ramelau. The proposed road alignment passess Sucos/villages intermittently, with the biggest concentration in the sections approaching the Letefoho sub-district. Section 3 will connect the existing upgraded road in Gleno, which was previously financed by the Asian Development Bank (ADB). There are 11 Sucos/villages along the proposed road corridor. Three Sucos are located within Ainaro District, and these include Horai-Quik, Mulo, and Nunu-mogue. Whereas the rest eight Sucos i.e. Katarai Karaik, Dukurai, Haupu, Goulolo, Eraulo, Estado, Humboe, Riheu. are located within Ermera District. The GPS coordinates, which begin at Aituto are S -8° 54' 1" and E 125° 35' 34", and end in Gleno City at -8° 43' 26.00" S and 125° 26' 10.00" E. The map of the Proposed Branch Road is provided in Figure 3. These sections will pass schools, markets, as well as sacred sites and hence, pre-construction and construction-induced impacts are anticipated. While there is a widely-used suco boundary map in Timor Leste, it should be noted that within the country, suco affiliation is more of a cultural concept rather than a geographic and adminstrative boundary. Communities might reside within the geographical boundary of one Suco but may identify themselves as residents or members of another suco. Hence, further consultations will be required to update the LARAP to ensure that PAPs are legitimate residents or own assets and claims in the affected Sucos. Key physical characteristics of each road section is summarized as follows: Section 1: Aituto to Hatubuilico General conditions: this road section (12.7 km) is characterized by steep gorges and hills on both sides, with a narrow existing corridor (3 to 4 meters). The road is mostly unsealed or has weathered back to its original state. There are five Sucos (Horaiquiik, Mulo and Nunumoge), which are sparsely populated. The traffic is currently very low, with pedestrians and motorbikes being the main users. However, due to the road’s proximity to Mount Ramelau, there is an anticipated increase in road use following the proposed upgrading. The entire section is still off-grid. As part of the mission, the task team also recommended an additional improvement in the existing road connecting Section 1 to the Hatubuilico sub-district capital to enable better access to the public facilities as well as tourism sites around the Mount Ramelau. Since many of this section contains steep terrain, the current plan on improving the existing road to the national standard will likely involve extensive cut and fill in potentially unstable geotechnical environments (up to 4 to 5 meters for steep hills). Widening will likely change the landscape permanently and therefore elevate the environmental risks, including increased risks of landslides. Potential impacts on private properties such as residential and agricultural land, including trees and other assets are anticipated due to the narrow existing ROWs. While the extent of soil will depend on the amount generated from slope cutting, limited flat/idle land may limit available options for proper and safe soil disposal. Previous experiences under the TLCRP indicate that soil dumping practices in private properties, often at the request of landowners, have encouraged constructions on loose soil which present safety risks. This will require proper designation for soil piles in consultation with affected communities, which is further detailed in the project’s Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP). This section is currently out of the scope of the proposed Branch Road Project. 12 | P a g e Section 2: Hatubuilico to Letefoho General conditions: The terrain is comparably less steep compared to the section 1 although the alignment passes through the northern section of the Tatamailau Mountain protected area, with an elevation above 2,000 meters. The length of this section is approximately 18.5 km and has a 3 to 4- meter carriageway (4-5 meters of ROW) and are sparsely populated except towards the end of the section in Suco Dukurai. Road upgrades in this section are expected to provide easier access for tourists to visit Tatamailau Mountain as well as access to the sub-district town of Hatubuilico where public services are located. Land acquisition on private properties along this section is expected to be minor, except in Suco Dukurai where built-up settlements on both sides of the existing road shoulders were observed. These settlements consist of permanent houses and workshops. Engineering measures are currently being considered to reduce land taking by incorporating adjustments in proposed carriageway and installation of underground culverts. Along this section, road widening, and subsequent soil disposal may affect agricultural land for vegetable farming and cattle grazing, and in some parts, coffee plantation. Furthermore, this section will also pass religious sites (i.e. the Dukurai chapel and Letefoho church) as well as several schools, and therefore require further installation of measures to ensure road safety and reduce disruption to routine activities. Section 3: Letefoho to Gleno General conditions: The road is located in peri-urban settings and the existing carriageway is already wide and hence require minimal widening. Several parts of the section have been widened as part of on-going construction works to improve the road conditions under the GoTL’s “Emergency Project” since 2018. The section is approximately 25.6 km, with an existing carriageway between 5 to 7 meters (5 – 7.5 meters of ROW). The traffic significantly increased on this section, including small trucks and private busses. This section is known as a coffee growing region and connected to the already upgraded road from district capital Gleno to Tibar, which is expected to serve as the main port after Dili and previously funded by the ADB. The section passes five Sucos (Haupu, Goulolo, Eraulo, Estado, and Humboe). Since this proposed road will improve connection to the nearby towns including Ermera and Gleno, as well as further to Dili, particular attention with regards to road safety, especially in public facilities (i.e. schools, markets, churches, etc.) have been considered as part of the project design due to a likely increase in traffic. There have been issues stemming from improper spoil disposal and limited soil stabilization/strengthening which will need to be addressed as part of the DED finalization for Section 3. Impacts associated with slope cutting and soil disposal on coffee plantations were observed during the LARAP consultations. Environmental impacts resulting from the on-going construction works will need to be further assessed as part of the tracer study and on this basis, the DED needs to include remedial measures to minimize impacts that have been caused, including management of improper soil disposal. Some of the segments in Section 3 which were included under this on-going road project cover STA 37+450 to STA 40+900 (3.45 km length) and from STA 46+100 to STA 51+000 (4.90 km length). Additional segment with the length of 5.6 km (from STA31+900 to STA37+500) has not commenced at the time of the TLBR project preparation. Hence, no impacts were reported within this additional segment. The following figures provide illustrations of the geographical characteristics of the proposed corridor. 13 | P a g e Figure 1.2 : Road Link of Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Source: KEI Consultant, 2018 14 | P a g e Figures 1.3 : Key Geographical Conditions of the Proposed Branch Road 15 | P a g e C. Institutional and Implementation Arrangements The executing agency will be the Council for Administration of the Infrastructure Fund (CAFI), while the implementing agency will be MPW through the Directorate of Road, Bridges and Flood Control (DRBFC). The 16 | P a g e project will be implemented by the multi-donor Project Management Unit (PMU) which is responsible for managing ADB, JICA, and World Bank projects, including the ongoing World Bank-funded RCRP on the Dili– Ainaro road. The PMU manages externally supported major road upgrading projects, being a single PMU in charge of project monitoring and reporting as well as the safeguards assessments and monitoring system, thereby reducing the project management costs. The PMU is under the responsibility of MPW, and is headed by a project manager, staffed with local and international consultants. In January 2019, GoTL started a process of restructuring the staffing of the PMU to promote more effective capacity building of MPW staff, include more MPW staff to support the PMU activities, and strengthen the management of the PMU’s portfolio of projects, with an intention to integrate more the PMU into the MPW structure. The restructuring of the PMU will take place during the first semester of 2019, with support of ADB, World Bank and other donors, when the PMU will have very little capacity. The PMU staff will be strengthened under the project by the hiring of a Project Coordinator who will deal only with the World Bank projects. The National Procurement Commission (NPC) handles all public procurement above a value of US$1 million and will procure the civil works under the project using international competitive bidding in accordance with World Bank guidelines. The project implementation period will be four years. The project will be implemented following a Project Operations Manual (POM), which contains detailed information on the project implementation arrangements and processes, including procurement, financial management and safeguards. The POM will be adopted from the ongoing RCRP. 17 | P a g e CHAPTER II LAND ACQUSITION AND RESETTLEMENT PLANNING A. Scope of the LARAP The Branch Road Aituto-Hatubuiloco-Letefoho-Gleno is divided into three sections: a. Section 1 from Aituto to Hatubuilico (12.9 km); b. Section 2 from Hatubuilico to –Letefoho (18.5 km) and; c. Section 3 from Letefoho to Gleno (25.8 km). The proposed project will upgrade the existing carriageway to the National Road standard. The minimum requirement of the Right of Way (ROW) for the Branch Road is on average 9 meters (6-meter carriage-way, 1-meter road shoulder on each side and 1-meter for drainage) on flat land. In areas with steep topography, such ROW width requirements may add-up. Reflecting from the on-going Dili-Ainaro road project, additional 1 – 5 meters for slope cutting and installation of embankments can be anticipated. The road improvement on each section will follow the existing alignments of the roads. Different cross- sections have been prepared for different cut and fill scenarios. However, there are some adjustments made on the road alignment such as on Aituto entrance of Section 1, Letefoho Church and Letefoho Junction of Section 2, and a short cut on Humboe School of Section 3. In one of the built-up areas in Letefoho, the width of the carriageway has been adjusted with engineering design measures to reduce the need for land acquisition and resettlements as well as accommodate necessary road traffic and road safety requirements. Such measures will be further detailed in the following section on Impact Avoidance (Section E). The LARAP was written with the assumption of the inclusion of all three road sections proposed under the initial design and hence, an assessment of impacts along with its inventory of lossess covers all the three sections. Within the current financing availability, the project will upgrade Section 2 Letefoho–Hatubuilico Junction (18.5 km) and Section 3 the Gleno–Letefoho (25.8 km) road sections of the Gleno–Maubisse corridor (66.1 km). Financing for road upgrade works in Section 1 Aituto to Hatubuilico (12.9 km) has not been determined and hence is currently outside the scope of the project. However, the LARAP provides a baseline database for all three sections which is expected to provide a reference for impact assessments in the event that future financing for Section 1 has become known. The GoTL has agreed to apply the same standards that the LARAP is proposing for all the three sections, regardless of the financing sources. Figure 2.1 : Typical ROW 18 | P a g e Several parts of the existing alignment of Section 3 (Letefoho-Gleno) are currently undergoing widening and basic upgrading under the Government of Timor Leste (GoTL) sponsored program called Emergency Roads, which is a separate financing arrangement from the proposed project. These activities include repairing of existing road alignments, install new drainages as well as retaining walls in critical areas. The Emergency Roads project was slowly started in 2017. However, since June 2018 the civil works have expanded and involved multiple slopes-cutting and filling, roads widening and still continue at the time of this LARAP was produced. As part of the LARAP, an initial tracer study has been conducted although the scope of such impacts cannot be confirmed since the works are still reported on-going. For this reason, the LARAP for Section 3 will need to be revisited once the on-going construction works and its final DED have been completed. The initial tracer is expected to provide a baseline assessment of impacts and inventory of losses as a result of the Emergency Roads Project as well as the amount of compensations that have been settled by the GoTL and/or contractors. On the basis of the tracer assessment, gap filling measures to address key requirements under the World Bank’s OP 4.10 have been proposed. A framework approach will be used to address potential land acquisition and asset removal for the purpose of associated facilities such as quarries, borrow pits, stone crushers, batching plants and asphalt mixing plants since their location identification will take place during the construction phase. In the event that private land and properties are required for these associated facilities, the GoTL/PMU and/or contractors are required to prepare a LARAP for each site which will be subject to review and clearance by the World Bank. In addition to environmental permitting processes as per-the national law, any forms of lease agreements or use permits must be documented and made available to the World Bank for review and no- objection. In addressing force majeur events, such as landslides due to slope cutting which may impact on private land, the same compensation entitlements as described in the LARAP will apply and these will be the GoTL’s responsibilities to ensure that such requirements are met in a timely fashion. B. Objective and Principles The Ministry of Public Works (MPW) made a contract agreement with the Consultant, Katahira Engineers and International (KEI) for the preparation of an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA), Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) and Land Acquisition and Resettlement Action Plan (LARAP) to address potential social and environmental risks and impacts resulting from the propose road project. The overall objective of the LARAP is to provide necessary details for compensation, resettlement and rehabilitation by identifying i) the extent of losses; ii) the policy framework for compensation payments, 19 | P a g e income restoration, relocation and rehabilitation; iii) mechanisms for timely disclosure of information to the PAPs and other stakeholders iv) institutional arrangement for LARAP preparation, implementation and monitoring; v) grievance redress mechanism and vi) itemized resettlement budget and staggered implementation schedule to ensure timely implementation of RAP provisions in compliance with World Bank’s safeguard requirements and before commencement of civil works. In addition, the overall LARAP process has enabled mutual engagement and consultations with potentially affected communities to understand their concerns and perspectives about the project. On the basis of which, impact avoidance measures as well as design alternatives have considered and integrated in the engineering design to the extent possible. In the event that land acquisition and involuntary resettlement (LAR) impacts are unavoidable, all PAPs will receive their rights to fair compensations and other LAR entitlements to ensure that their livelihoods enhanced, or at least restored to pre-project levels. The Branch road alignment has been thoroughly studied and adopted a strategy to ensure that the acquisition of land areas, demolition of structures and other improvements including cutting of various species of trees are kept to the minimum. Implementation of all physical works will be carried out limiting within 8-9 meters wide which include shoulder provision proposed to 1-1.5 meters and 1 meter for drainage facilities. Some engineering adjustments have been made to avoid potential impacts and these are further detailed in Section E as well as the SEIS/ESIA and ESMP. In accordance with the terms of reference (TOR), this section describes the scope of the preparation of LARAP for the Branch Road (Aituto-Hatubuilico-Letefoho-Gleno road section), which addresses the following aspects: a. Identification of the key social impacts using various assessment tools including the Land Acquisition and Resettlement Impact Survey and Social Economic Survey; b. Quantification of different categories of PAPs eligible for assistance, compensation, rehabilitation or relocation; c. Definition of the eligibility criteria for compensation and entitlement package of compensation and rehabilitation measures for each category of PAPs; d. Accurate estimation of the number of people that will receive compensation and allowances; e. Establishment of an effective Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM), and preparation of an outreach program for the PAPs on how the mechanism will work and ensure it is accessible to PAPs including, vulnerable groups, the elderly and women; f. Documentation of detailed gender disaggregated record of grievance handling and complaints resolution; g. Developing a system for community consultations and information disclosure to ensure PAPs are aware of the project impacts, eligibility, entitlements, compensation and allowances, schedule of compensation disbursement, complaints and grievance redress procedure, and all relevant project related information; h. Documentation of the PAPs concerns and offer viable remedial measures to address those concerns; i. Institutional arrangements and/or an execution mechanism that provides for the implementation of applicable local laws and regulations dealing with expropriation, rights to property, and the management of resettlement activities in a timely manner; j. Allocation of clear responsibilities for the execution of all elements of the LARAP, and provisions for proper coordination with other project components; k. Budget estimation to cover LARAP implementation costs including costs of entitlement package of compensation and rehabilitation measures for each category of PAPs; and l. A systematic LARAP implementation schedule in tandem with the project activities with clear assigned roles and responsibilities. On the basis of the objectives above, the following key principles have been mainstreamed to guide the LARAP to ensure that the overall project design: a. avoid involuntary resettlement wherever possible; 
 20 | P a g e b. minimize involuntary resettlement by exploring project and design alternatives; c. enhance, or at least restore, the livelihoods of all displaced persons in real terms relative to pre- project levels; d. improve the standards of living of the displaced poor and other vulnerable groups; e. call for meaningful consultation with affected people; f. outline measures to mitigate its adverse impacts; 
 g. provide an estimate for budgetary allocation for compensation of loss of assets and resettlement benefits; h. prepare, implement, and monitor a time-bound resettlement plan; and 
 i. provide procedure for internal and external monitoring of resettlement implementation. 
 Project implementation will be contingent on the compliance with the following LARAP conditionality along with the environmental and social safeguards measures: a. Approval of this LARAP including the Tracer Survey by the GoTL and World Bank; b. Full disclosure of at least summary of this LARAP to the public; c. Full implementation of the compensation program; d. External/independent monitoring agency/consultant is in place; e. No Objection Letter (NOL) from the World Bank for commencement of physical works. C. Approach for the LARAP A combined of Land Acquisition and Resettlement Action Plan (LARAP) and Tracer Survey Report has been prepared for the Branch Road implementation. The LARAP section in this Combined report will focus on the Section 1 and Section 2 since the DED has been completed. Meanwhile for Section 3, the LARAP includes a tracer assessment which focuses on identifying and tracing of the land acquisition and resettlement impacts of the on-going government construction (Emergency / Rehabilitation Road project) and potential additional land acquisition to the extent known. The tracer also includes suggested corrective actions for the GoTL to settle identified impacts of their on-going project to be fully compliant with with the country and the requirements of the World Bank’s OP 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement. The Combined LARAP and tracer will be updated (Final Report) when the detailed engineering design (DED) of Section 3 and subsequent land acquisition and resettlement impacts survey of the remaining Section 3 have been completed. Such updates will also include identification of potential additional impacts resulting from changes in the proposed alignment such as alternative design of Letefoho Junction (Section 2) which was recently submitted in February 2019. The Tracer will also need to be updated to cover additional activities under the GoTL’s emergency road project (from STA31+900 to STA37+500), which is currently on- going. D. Methodology The development of the LARAP has been guided by the World Bank’s OP 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement and its supporting Guidelines for Environmental and Social Safeguards considerations and the Resettlement Framework (RF) which has been adopted earlier by the GoTL under the World Bank financed road projects. Identification of Stakeholders Prior to the conduct of validation survey a courtesy calls/coordination meeting with Administrators of the concerned Sub Districts, Suco/Aldeia Chiefs who has the administrative responsibility on the areas were personally met and informed about the purpose of our meeting. The Village local leaders were informed on the activities in relation to the proposed project and seek assistance in recognizing the real claimants of any affected properties or assets. Directly and indirectly all the affected persons were informed and requested to attend consultations meetings and verification of affected assets. 21 | P a g e Consultation and community engagement High level communication and information sharing with the Ministry of Public Works (MPW) through the Project Management Unit (PMU), National Directorate on Land Property and Cadastral Services (NDLPCS) have been maintained as part of the LARAP development. Courtesy visits, field inspection and surveys as well as public consultations were conducted in close coordination with the Forestry, Electricity, Water and Sanitation, Health, and Education Agencies as well as District governments, Suco and Aldeia Chiefs, and other relevant stakeholders such as customary leaders, Priest of Letefoho Church, adminsitrators of village chapels and veteran coordinators. Engagement with a local contractor (Monteviado Lda.) was undertaken as part of the tracer assessment for Section 3. To ensure wider participation, written and verbal invitations were carried out to notify the respective Sucos and Aldeia Chiefs as well as their constituents especially those who will most likely be affected within the construction limits and/or Road Right of Way (RROW) limits to attend public consultations. The objectives of the consultations are to create awareness on the part of the stakeholders particularly on the project concepts, requirements of the funding institution (World Bank) and concerned government agencies as far as environmental and social safeguards consideration and the likely impacts and schedule of related activities. A series of consultations was conducted from 12-26 September 2018 in two districts (Ermera and Ainaro) and 4 Subdistricts (Maubisse, Hatubuilico, Letefoho, and Ermera) coverling all 11 Sucos and Aldeias affected. A complete documentation of such consultations is provided in Chapter V and further documentation is appended in Annex 9. Social Assessment A social impacts assessment was conducted as part of the LARAP and tracer processes. A combination of qualitative and quantitative assessment tools was used to determine the range of potential impacts on the PAPs, not only limited to land acquisition but also broader social aspects. The latter has been incorporated into the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) of the project. A census survey was carried out in July 2008 to cover 50 randomly-selected households in each Suco along the corridor out of the approximately 200 households potentially affected. The sample size was deemed sufficient as the populations appear homogeneous in terms of their living standards and socio- cultural characteristics. Efforts were made to include gender issues and to integrate gender aspects into the project design and the social assessment process. A structured questionnaire was administered to collect quantitative and qualitative information on these households, particularly on the following aspects: • Demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the PAPs; • Family structure and number of family members; • Social organization; • land ownership and use; • customary practices; community governance and administrative system, including leadership and power structure; • Literacy levels; • Occupation types and income levels and livelihoods sources; • Impacts on assets due to the project by types and degree of losses; • Impact on community resources as well as social services; • Project-specific impacts on vulnerable households, such as poor households, children and women; • Perceptions on the resettlement and rehabilitation measures; • Perceived income restoration measures and; • Project related awareness and knowledge. The findings of the survey have been analyzed and presented in Chapter IV and V on social impact analysis. Information generated from the survey serves as a baseline for estimating the extent of potential adverse impacts of the project, particularly those generated from and/or associated with land acquisition, on the basis of which compensation entitlements and budget for temporary 22 | P a g e livelihoods support were calculated.A final census survey will be conducted following the finalization of the DEDs for sections 1 and 2 and this shall be completed prior to bidding processes to ensure timely payments of compensation entitlements and delivery of temporary livelihoods support. Land Acquisition and Resettlement (LAR) Impact Assessment LAR impact identification along with an inventory of asset losses in all sections was developed in reference to the DED progress. The DED for Sections 1 and 2 has included minimum requirements for pavement, shoulders, retaining walls, necessary roadside improvements (eg. bus stop, parking zone etc.) as well as cross-sections and slopes cutting and hence, these potential areal footprints have been covered. In areas where the original road alignments were adjusted and /or altered for short-cuts, geo- tagged potential footprints were also included to ensure that all potential PAPs are covered. The tracer survey in Section 3 was undertaken to reflect the new ROWs following the road widening under the GoTL’s emergency road projects, which were then overlaid by all identified claims of lossess, which cover land and trees. While the basis of the tracer is set between 1 to 5 meters of additional land parcels that were affected, these widths varied in mountainous locations where previous slope cutting and disposal materials were observed. Communities in Section 3 were given 3 days to submit their claims of their affected land parcels and trees as a result of the on-going road project to their respective Suco and Aldeia Chiefs. These claims were then verified by representatives of Sucos and Aldeias and their respective chiefs prior to be submitted to the assessment team. For both the LAR impact assessment and tracer survey, interviews were held with the heads and members of the affected households at their residence. These interviews were also used to collect socio-economic information of PAPs. A Structured Socio-Economic Survey Questionnaire was utilized to collect details of the affected persons (see Annex 8). A Detailed Measurement Survey (DMS) was conducted for each affected asset. Through DMS process, the size, type, quality of each asset (land, structures or other assets attached to the land, including trees), ownership status, and current use were analyzed to establish the project’s inventory of losses. This inventory of lossess has been completed for Sections 1 and 2, whereas for Section 3, an intial tracer was used in lieu and will be further updated once the final DED for section 3 has been provided and the on-going GoTL’s emergency road project has been completed. The DMS was carried with participation of PAPs to assess the exact dimensions and quantities and valuation of all affected assets, including, as applicable, land (residential/commercial and agricultural etc.), buildings (residential and commercial), communal/public or cultural/religious facilities, crops, trees and business incomes and wages. The compensation cost of lost assets (houses and structures) was determined through precise measurement of affected structure, its construction type, quality and materials as well as the cost estimates for labor costs for the construction of new structure of similar type and dimension to ensure that the compensation is reflective of the full replacement cost as per-OP 4.12 requirements. Compensation Approach During the DMS process (point 3), efforts were made to assess the value of existing private structures, public infrastructure, trees and land to be acquired under the project based on market/replacement value as the per latest available DED for sections 1 and 2 shared by the design consultants. Valuation of the preliminary asset inventory has been computed. Land parcel values cannot be determined at this stage since these will be assessed by the the Directorate of Land, Property and Cadastral Survey (DLPCS) and therefore will be updated when such a process has been undertaken. Determination of compensation and entitlements for land and structures will adopt a Negotiated Settlement approach which represents a mutually agreed amicable rates or package of compensation 23 | P a g e and entitlements by the PAPs. An endorsed entitlement matrix (see Chapter VII) will be re-disclosed to PAPs and on this basis, such negotiation will be undertaken. The rates established in the LARAP were based on the compensation packages of the previous LARAP for the on-going TLCRP project which has been assessed to sufficiently cover affected structures and assets at their replacement costs (at undepreciated value of replacement material and labor, plus any associated transaction costs). In the event that land acquisition results in loss of shelter, such replacement costs reflect the minimum requirements to enable PAPs purchase or build housing that meets acceptable minimum community standards of quality and safety. All potentially affected households will be resettled in-situ and at the request of PAPs, the GoTL will facilitate identification of potential housing sites near the original residences. Transaction costs include administrative charges, registration or title fees, reasonable moving expenses, and any similar costs imposed on affected persons. Each aspect of the compensation approaches is summarized as follows: Land Valuation Along the project corridor, there were various categories of land use and ownership within the existing ROWs and proposed additional alignment. These include agricultural land, idle land with and without claims, residential areas and commercial land. In some rural areas, practice of land sales and purchases is not common and hence, an estimation of productive value of the land affected will be required. These cost estimates will be determined through a separate land valuation assessment by the DLPCS as the basis for negotiations. In principle, compensation entitlements based on mutual concensus between the PMU and land holders will be sought. In cases where some land parcels are sometimes collectively owned by clans, a concensus-based rate with clan groups will be pursued. Under such circumstances, compensation payments will be distributed through the clan elders who will distribute them to their clan members. Land users with no legal rights or recognized claims to the land will be provided with assistance to find alternative lands with comparable uses to sustain their livelihoods. Such informal land users could not be identified during the LARAP process. However, a further assessment of land ownership will be conducted as part of LARAP updating process during project implementation. Where individual households lose agricultural or built-up land parcels, structures, crops, and trees, compensation will be paid directly to the affected households through their respective bank accounts. Private Structures Estimation is based on actual costs to rebuild similar structures at an undepreciated value of replacement material and labor for construction of structures or other fixed assets, plus transaction costs. In all instances where physical displacement results in loss of shelter, replacement cost must at least be sufficient to enable purchase or construction of housing that meets acceptable minimum community standards of quality and safety. Transaction costs include administrative charges, registration or title fees, reasonable moving expenses, and any similar costs imposed on affected persons. Crops and Trees The trees grown in the corridor include coffee, fruits and timber trees and the compensation of these trees will be based on negotiated settlement with affected owners. A baseline of unit prices for various species of affected trees are based from the Ministerio Agrikultura e Peskas and the rate of additional assistance and entitlements will be defined as part of the negotiation process with affected owners. Additional assistance may include provisions of plant seedlings for replanting and/or temporary livelihoods support. 24 | P a g e Public and Community Structures Similar to residential structures, compensation will be made at replacement costs. Measures will be reflected in the CESMP to ensure that the public can continue their routine activities in a safe manner. Some public utilities may be affected during land clearing and each of these utilities has been identified, including their coordinates. Relevant departments will be consulted and any prior measures such as relocation of these utilities will need to be completed prior to any construction works to avoid service disruption. Such costs will be borne as part of the civil work contracts. The RAP provides an estimate to ensure that such budget is properly reflected in the contractors’ budget proposal. Income Loss Income lossess due to disruptions in small businesses and agricultural production, particularly coffee have been identified through consultative processes with PAPs. These PAPs will be provided with temporary livelihoods assistance. PAPs who lose a significant portion of their coffee plantation, replanting assistance will be offered on top of cash compensations for each tree lost. Disclosure Following approval of the LARAP, including the tracer, the LARAP, including the corresponding entitlement matrix will be translated into Tetum and publicly disclosed to the broader public. These LARAP and tracer assessment will be updated following finalization of the DED in both Section 2 and 3, which will be included under the current scope of the Branch Road Project. Prior to such updating, further consultations with the PAPs will be conducted and a summary of the LARAP and tracer will be disseminated in the form of public information booklets/brochures to enable PAPs and local communities are full inflormed about the potential impacts, benefit and compensation packages offered as well as other mitigation measures. MPW, through its PMU and consultants will disseminate such information and provide explanations of the mechanisms and procedures as well as overall process of the compensation program. A project-specific Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM) will be established by then. The LARAP will be treated as an official public document and must be made available in the MPW office, NDLPCS office as well district and sub-district administration offices. Likewise, this LARAP will be disclosed by the MPW and the World Bank on their respective websites. Cut-off Date Any person who will suffer loss or damage to an asset, business, trade or loss of access to productive resources because of the project will be considered eligible for compensation, livelihoods support and/or resettlement assistance. It is essential to finalize a Cut-off date to prevent false claims for compensation or rehabilitation. The cut-of-date for conducting the census survey was taken as the cut-off date (s) for qualifying the PAPs for entitlement/ compensation. For the purpose of the LARAP development, the census date for Section 1 was 15 November 2018, whereas the census dates for Sections 2 and 3 were 20 January 2019 and 28 February 2019 respectively. The cut-off dates for each section will be revisited as there is a likelihood for a census update prior to the start of construction, which may take a while following the loan negotiation. E. Impact Avoidance Measures Efforts have been made using all appropriate options of engineering design in finalizing the road alignment to minimize the resettlement impacts for sections 1 and 2. An alternative analysis and assessment was undertaken to arrive at the best option with minimum resettlement impacts. Adjustments of the original road alignments were made with a view of maintaining minimum resettlements along the proposed corridor. The corridor passes through mixed land uses such as agriculture land, residential land, unfertile and empty land, coffee plantation, and mountainous areas. Many of the new land 25 | P a g e parcels to be affected in Section 2 are empty land and currently not used for agricultural cultivation, however some land acquisition impacts are foreseen in coffee planting areas as well as some settlement areas in the five affected Sucos. Several scenarios of the Branch Roads have been assessed and reflected into the Branch Roads’ alignment and engineering design. Inputs from PAPs and other stakeholders concerned which were collected during the public consultations from 12-28 September 2018 have informed the project’s DED. At the writing of this SEIS/ESIA, some impact avoidance made through engineering design is summarized as follows: Shortcut route at Humboe School zone Humboe elementary school is surrounded by a narrow existing road and hence widening of the road section in front of the school will prevent future expansion of school infrastructure. In addition, it is expected that future traffic volume will increase due to the improvement of project road, which presents a major traffic safety risk for school children. At the request from the communities and school administrators, rerouting was introduced in the DED to avoid impacts (see Figure 5); Shortcut Route at Goulolo Suco Goulolo Suco community has requested a road re-alignment to avoid potential impacts on historical sites Uma Lulik located uphill. According to the community in Goulolo Suco, there are concerns that construction activities, including slope cutting and operations of heavy vehicles may compromise the structure of such historical sites. Rerouting to another existing road section was introduced in the DED and assessed to be technically feasible although land acquisition for road widening is anticipated (see figure 6). Potential social and environmental impacts have been assessed as insignificant. Letefoho Church Service Road with installed sidewalk The Letefoho Church administrators and community representatives from Suco Haupu requested alternative design to minimize footprints of the proposed road road upgrade. Underground culverts will be installed to minimize land requirements and in addition, a paved sidewalk with a guardrail will be built along one side of the road section to minimize road safety risks during church services. The church’s service road will be upgraded and will serve as an alternative route to divert traffic during peak times (see Figure 7). Figure 2.2 : Shortcut Route at Humboe School Zone Figure 2.3 : Shortcut Route at Goulolo Suco 26 | P a g e Figure 2.4 : Letefoho Church Service Road Some other agreed mitigation measures have been proposed to minimize land acquisition and other related issues associated with temporary restrictions of land uses, these include: 1) If religious structures as well as cultural / historical sites exist along the corridor, efforts to preserve and maintain the structures and sites will be made through alignment adjustments to minimize social issues. In the event that such impact avoidance, proper consultations with host communities will be to agree on mitigation measures, including replacement and/or relocation of such sites in a manner that is acceptable to the communities. No physical works are allowed until such consensus has been obtained. 27 | P a g e 2) Occupational, Health and Safety (OHS) and community, health and safety risk prevention will be reflected in the Construction Environmental and Social Management Plan (CESMP) to minimize activity disruption in public places such as markets, schools, churches and cultural sites; 3) Replacement of utilities such as water pipes and electricity must be in place prior to any land clearance to avoid service disruption. Such requirements will need to be reflected in the CESMP; 4) Selection of road alignments, including the extent of widening and slope-cutting required will be consulted with afftected communities prior to any works and measures to minimize land acquisition impacts on agricultural land, trees and other infrastructure must be reflected in the DED. Contractors must provide evidence of such consultations as well as impact minimization measures prior to the start of construction works; 5) The DED incorporates appropriate measures including box culverts for crossing facilities like irrigation channels on both sides of the centerline within the acquired RoW enabling landowners to continue cultivating their land on both sides of ROWs. F. Limitation during the LARAP Preparation The LAR impact survey on Section 1 and Section 2 was conducted from November 2018 to December 2018. However, not all affected peoples were present during the LAR impacts survey since 30 percent of the total PAPs on Section 2 lived outside the impacted Sucos. A follow up inquiry to reach out those affected peoples who were absent will be conducted as part of the updating process of the LARAP during project implementation. The tracer survey for Section 3 was undertaken in third week of December 2018. Since the GoTL’s Emergency Road Project is still on-going, a complete and final assessment of impacts could not be provided at the time of the LARAP was written. Hence, the tracer in Section 3 will be subject to further assessments and re- validation upon the completion of the on-going project. An alternative alignment design of Letefoho Junction was only recently submitted in January 2019 to replace the previous design dated November 2018. These alternative alignments will likely necessitate more land and hence, an updated impact survey will need to be undertaken as part of the LARAP updating process once the DEDs for sections 1 and 2 have been completed. Other constraints that were reported during data collection are summarized as follows: 1) Non-availability of cadastral maps and accurate land holding documents hindered team to assess and verify the legal status of land ownership of the affected land; 2) Approximately 20 percent of PAPs could not either be met or interviewed as they were not present or available during the impact survey, and hence, the LARAP will warrant further data collection during project implementation once the DEDs for sections 1 and 2 have been finalized; 3) Hand-held GPS and google maps were utilized to identifiy the centerline of the proposed alignment as per-preliminary design coordinates. In the absence of boundary pegs and alignment marking, accurate measurement on each side of the identified centerline likely resulted in a various degree of margin of error. Such measurement is expected to be rectified following the finalization of the DEDs of the road alignment; 4) Disruption of survey works due to rainy seasons and the absence of PAPs resulted in frequent delays and interruptions towards completion of the social impact assessment. It should be noted that the process of negotiation to arrive at consensus based the proposed unit rates of the affected land parcels and assets has not been conducted for the preparation of RAP. For the purpose of planning and budgetting, interim estimates were derived based on existing projects’ benchmarks and consultations with relevant specialists in the PMU. These estimates will be updated following the finalization of the agreed official prices and the LARAP will be updated during project implementation. No construction works under the project will be allowed until the LARAP has been updated and finalized. 28 | P a g e G. Management of Land Acqusition Impacts for Associated Facilities Additional areas required for spoil disposal and temporary stockpiles and associated facilities such as engineers offices and laboratory facilities, contractor camp and yard, including quarries, borrow pits, manufacturing areas (crushers, batching plant and asphalt mixing plant) etc. will only be determined during project implementation and to the extent possible, “no-go zones” shall be reflected in the DED for each section, which is currently being finalized. The preferred project’s approach for land acquisition for associated facilities will be use of state land evidenced by no competing claims or conflicts or temporary lease agreements directly with land owners. The project will not acquire land which results in the loss of ownership rights as these associated facilities are mostly temporary in nature, with the exception for areas for spoil disposal and quarries where unclaimed state lands are preferred. A separate LARAP will need to be developed by contractors outlining land requirements, land acquisition approaches, list of land holders and claimants, compensation entitlements in conjuction with OP 4.12, consultation processes, FGRM and LARAP approval processes. For the purpose of sub-project LARAP development, the guiding principles, the entitlement matrix, methodology of compensation and calculation of replacement costs will follow relevant elements established under the LARAP. Such sub-project LARAPs will be reviewed by the PMU and the World Bank will provide a no-objection to the plans prior to any works. No construction works for the development of associated facilities, including quarry extraction, will commence without acceptable LARAP which will be reviewed and cleared by the PMU and the World Bank. H. Management of Land Acqusition Impacts under the GoTL’s Emergency Road Operation in Section 3 As of October 2018, Section 3 (Letefoho-Gleno) has been widened and repaired under the GoTL’s Emergency Road from STA 37+450 to STA 40+900 (3.45 km) and from STA 46+100 to STA 51+000 (4.90 km). Current observation indicates that road widening covered up to 6 meters, with a 1 to 1.5- meter shoulder on each sid. The widths tend to be larger on road curves. This road widening has affected Suco Goulolo and two aldeias (Baturema and Kailiti) affected by the Road widening from STA 37+450 to STA 40+900 (3.45 km). Another segment from STA 46+100 to STA 51+000 (4.90 km) affected three Socos (Eraulo, Estado, and Humboe). Some of the segments in Section 3 which were included under this on-going road project cover STA 37+450 to STA 40+900 (3.45 km length) and from STA 46+100 to STA 51+000 (4.90 km length). Additional segment with the length of 5.6 km (from STA31+900 to STA37+500) has not commenced at the time of the TLBR project preparation. Hence no impacts have been reported. An impact survey will be undertaken for this road segment once the DED has been made available. The tracer study will be updated to document environmental and social impacts, including lost assets and land, prior to construction in Section 3. The total length of the Section 3 affected by the Emergency Road is approximately 8.35 km. This first phase of the tracer report covered impacts on the first two segments i.e. STA 37+450 to STA 40+900 (3.45 km) and from STA 46+100 to STA 51+000 (4.90 km). Remedial measures for lost assets, including affected land, will follow the entitlement matrix established in the LARAP. Top-up compensation will be provided to PAPs on the basis of a baseline assessment of impacts as documented in the Tracer Study (Annex 6). Any additional works by the GoTL under the emergency road project in Section 3 will need to comply with the World Bank’s safeguards policies. Management of potential environmental and social impacts, particularly pertaining to land acquisition must be carried out in conjunction with the TLBR’s Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) and Land Acqusition and Resettlement Action Plan (LARAP). Any 29 | P a g e expansion or extension of the on-going works in Section 3 should not commence without acceptable LARAP and Contractor ESMP approved by the World Bank. 30 | P a g e CHAPTER III LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK This LARAP is based on the World Bank’s Policy on Involuntary Resettlement as well as the Timor-Leste’s applicable/domestic policy instruments and laws, equally, in conjunction with the provisions of the Resettlement Framework (RF) that has been formulated for WB funded projects to mitigate adverse effects. A. WB Social Safeguards Policy The World Bank’s OP 4.12, Involuntary Resettlement provides comprehensive guidance in complying with the requirements for Environmental and Social Safeguards considerations resulting from involuntary resettlements as a result of the project. It contains three important elements as follows: 1) Compensation to replace lost assets, livelihood and income at replacement costs; 2) Assistance for relocation including provision of relocation sites with appropriate facilities and services; 3) Assistance for rehabilitation to improve or achieve at least the same level of standards of living prior to the project; 4) Transitional support will be provided as necessary to all economically displaced persons based on a reasonable estimate of the time required to restore their income-earning capacity, production levels and standards of living The policy requires provision of support and assistance for those who lose their land, assets or livelihood due to land acquisition of land or restriction on land use. Resettlement planning is designed to provide PAPs with a standard of living equal to if not better than the level prior to the project. The policy is guided by the following principles: 1) Involuntary resettlement is to be avoided or at least minimized; 2) Compensation must ensure the maintenance or improvement of the APs/AHs pre-project living standards; 3) PAPs should be fully informed and consulted on compensation options: 4) PAPs’ socio-cultural institutions should be supported/used as much as possible; 5) Compensations will be carried out with equal considerations for both women and men as well as their constraints; 6) Lack of formal legal land title should not be a hindrance to assistance/rehabilitation; 7) Particular attention should be given to women-headed households as well as vulnerable groups such as indigenous people and ethnic minorities; 8) Appropriate assistance should be provided to help PAPs restore and/or at least maintain their livelihoods and stardard of living; 9) Land acquisition and resettlement should be conceived and executed as a part of the project. The full costs of compensation should be included in the project costs; and 10) Compensation/rehabilitation assistance should be paid prior to ground levelling and demolition and in any case before an impact occurs. B. Existing Policy and Legal Framework of GoTL Currently there are no specific laws on involuntary land acquisition and compensation, although the proposed Expropriation Law would be the most relevant one but still under the parliament for approval. The legal basis for declaring the right of way outside the current road footprints has not been neither established nor delineated. Hence, the RPF will prevail and serve as a gap filling measure and will be revisited once laws and regulations pertaining to land acquisition and resettlements have been issued. 31 | P a g e However, there is a mere pronouncement and information both from the MPW and NDLPCS prescribing 3- 5 meters strip of land reserved for public use or for infrastructure development and though no written policy, yet, the government started its implementation in which community along the road has the same understandings and provided mutual concensus. Such consensus will be revisited and in the event that communities object or have competing claims, the provisions in the LARAP will prevail. When road works required land in the past, the Government negotiated with the owners or users including informal settlers on a case by case basis. According to past practice, when land was required for project development, concerned parties under the direction of local authorities (district and sub- district Land and Property Units and village) negotiated and reached agreement on compensation rates, total compensation amount, and the procedures or mechanism for compensation and transfer. The following describes relevant policies, entitlements and eligibility for compensation and other resettlement entitlements. National Policies and Legislation. Section 141 of the Constitution of RDTL states that the ownership, use and development of land as one of the factors for economic production shall be regulated by law and Section 54 of the Constitution covers the right to private property and states that prescribes: 1) Every individual has the right to private property and can transfer it during his or her lifetime or on death, in accordance with the law; 2) Private property should not be used to the detriment of its social purpose; 3) Requisitioning and expropriation of property for public purposes shall only take place following fair compensation in accordance with the law and; 4) Only national citizens have the right to ownership of land The first land law of Timor-Leste was promulgated in March 2003 and was designed to serve as an umbrella law for the rest of the land and property regime. The law established by the DLPCS as a legal entity and defined its jurisdiction, and articulated general rules concerning land tenure and property rights to be further developed by ensuing legislation. Moreover, this law established a one-year period for both nationals and non-nationals to register their land claims. Effectively Law No. 1/2003 vests all land that belonged to the Portuguese state, and all state property acquired or built by the Indonesian regime, in the new state of Timor-Leste. A decree issued by the Government in February 2011 provides for granting compensation to relocate unlawful occupants of State property based on humanitarian considerations. The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) through Ministerial Decree, which is yet to be finalized, will establish the basis for calculating compensation. Another decree promulgated in July 2011 was passed in June 2011. The decree allows private property rights registration by landowners/persons in areas where cadastral surveys have been completed (following registration and verification of claims by the government) and confirmed that the claims to land are undisputed. Among the claims registered so far under the Ita Nia Rai program, which has been limited to urban areas, some 92 percent of claims are undisputed. The Civil Code promulgated in 2011 (which will come in force in March 2012) includes a section that governs day-to-day land decisions such as the sale and lease of land. The following three draft legislations relating to land are awaiting parliamentary approval: 1) The Transitional Land Law would decide who owns what land and in the case of conflicting claims, who has the strongest right to the land; 2) The Expropriation Law that would allow the state to take land for "public good" for example, to build ports and other infrastructure; 3) The Real Estate Finance Fund would provide compensation as determined under the other laws. C. Gap Assessment 32 | P a g e A gap assessment was conducted as part of the LARAP. The following provides a summary of key gaps in the current country systems in light of key provisions in the OP 4.12: Formal land recognition and compensation entitlements: a formal legal basis for determining land ownership is still being developed. Most Timorese in the countryside access and hold land through customary and informal systems, which have no legal recognition. Only a minority ever got access to formal land titles during the Portuguese or Indonesian administrations. This situation is further complicated by urban migration, especially to Dili, where without mechanisms to legally access land, people can only rely on informal schemes. Without a land title, land rights are not recognized under the current land law, leaving the majority of the population without any legal tenure security. Based on a survey commissioned by the Asia Foundation, a least a quarter of the population in urban Dili (63,000) would not have any land rights recognized by law. The draft law on land expropriation included provisions to protect those households from eviction that do not fulfil the criteria of the law for land ownership recognition and cannot afford resettlement. Replacement costs: Section 141 stipulates that requisitioning and expropriation of property for public purposes shall only take place following fair compensation in accordance with the law. The draft law requires that land expropriation should follow principles of justice and equality on account of ensuring that expropriation must ensure that the standard of living of PAPs is equal to or higher than the one enjoyed prior to compensation. The draft law is also required to guarantee fair compensation based on market value. While some elements of replacement costs are alluded in the draft law, there is no specific definition or methodology to define replacement costs. The National Directorate of Land Property and Cadastral Services (NDLPCS) has the mandate and responsibility to assess the value of land and related assets. Compensation to squatters: Decree no. 11/2011 on Compensation for Resettlement authorizes the payments of compensation to unlawful occupants of state property to resettle elsewhere. However, such payment is not mandatory. Assistance to vulnerable groups: The draft law on land expropriation stipulates that special needs of minorities and vulnerable groups should be taken into consideration throughout land expropriation processes. Subject to the adoption of the law, the draft law provides sufficient legal basis to achieve policy objectives. Gender and access to land: in a study commissioned by the Asia Foundation, men tend to have greater access to and ownership of land and housing. There were cases where land is claimed to be owned individually by men, but the house built on the land is jointly owned by the couple. Existing processes of land registration or titling do not incorporate clear measures to mitigate gender discrimination and hence, cash compensation will warrant further assessment and monitoring whether current practices may reinforce such structural inequalities. Eviction: the national law 1/2003 allows evictions of occupants in state property. However, the law provides no detail regarding the process of identifying a property as state property. In practice the state only declares that a property is state property in the notification for eviction. Furthermore, access to meaningful appeal may be limited. While financial compensation is paid by the state to evicted people, such a practice likely happens on an ad-hoc basis without any legal framework. Recognition of customary rights: the legal framework for customary rights is incipient While the Constitution recognizes customary practices – as long as they are not contrary to the Constitution – no specific reference on customary land rights. Law 10/2011, Article 4, establishes that the land that is used communally by a community according to its usages and customary practices represent community’s property. However, there is no other reference to community property, leaving the legal regime unclear. Further analysis on a policy and regulatory gap assessment along with recommendations to address the gaps is provided in Annex 1. The project will follow the entitlement matrix as presented in Section VI in Chapter VI to ensure compliance with OP 4.12. 33 | P a g e D. Principles of Land Acquisition and Resettlement Processes The legal and policy framework on resettlement in Timor-Leste has been compared with the requirements of WB and some gaps have been identified. The gap-filling measures required to resolve its differences and those measures then are incorporated into the identification of PAPs, their eligibility to compensation and entitlements and other forms of resettlement assistance. The resettlement policy principles for the project are as follows: 1) The Constitution gives the power to the state to expropriate land for public purposes paying due compensation in accordance with the law. The Expropriation Law is one of the three legislations relating to land that are awaiting parliamentary approval; 2) A substantive amount of land in Timor is not registered. The Government has started issuing land title certificates in urban areas, which will help in identifying land owners. In rural areas where most of the road sections will be improved, the NDLPCS will identify and establish ownership claims for the land parcels required for the project roads; 3) The absence of an active land market in rural areas poses a challenge to determine the market or replacement value of the affected land. The Project Management Unit (PMU) with the assistance of Social Safeguards Consultant and the NDLPCS provide valuation of affected assets to determine fair compensation at replacement cost to PAPs; 4) Resettlement impacts will be minimized through careful engineering design; 5) PAPs will be systematically informed and consulted during the entire process of resettlement planning and implementation, including assessment of possible impacts on their livelihoods, purchase of land/assets, determining compensation/resettlement options and socio-economic rehabilitation measures. They will be informed of their rights and options and be invited to participate actively in the identification of mitigation and rehabilitation measures; 6) PAPs will be identified and recorded as early as possible in order to establish their eligibility through a population record or census that serves as an eligibility cut-off date, usually around the time of initial consultations at the subproject identification stage to prevent a subsequent influx of encroachers or others who wish to take advantage of such benefits; 7) Eligible PAPs are entitled to compensation and livelihood rehabilitation measures sufficient to assist them to improve or at least maintain their pre-subproject living standards, income earning capacity and production levels; 8) In the consultation process, representatives of local governments, Suco chiefs, other community leaders and civil society organizations such as non-government organizations (NGOs) from the operational areas will be included. The customs and traditions, as well as the religious practices of all PAPs, will be respected and protected; 9) The institutions of PAPs, and, where relevant of their hosts, are to be protected and supported. Physically displaced PAPs will be assisted to integrate economically and socially into host communities so that adverse impacts on the host communities are minimized and social harmony is promoted; 10) Lack of formal legal rights to assets lost will not deprive any AP from receiving compensation and payments for non-land assets and entitlements; 11) Particular attention will be paid to the needs of vulnerable PAPs. This group of PAPs may include those without legal or recognizable title to the land or other assets, households headed by females, the elderly or disabled, and other vulnerable groups, such as people living in extreme hardship, and indigenous people that may be a minority in specific locations. Appropriate assistance will be provided to help them improve their socio- economic status; 12) The concerns of women will be identified based on gender disaggregated socio- economic data, separate discussions on women’s concerns, and ensuring adequate measures and budgetary allocations in the resettlement plan to compensate and resettle them in a manner that does not disadvantage them. In this effort the assistance of national NGOs currently engaged in women’s welfare will be sought; 13) Since there are no significant differences in cultural and socio-economic identity among the different language groups, no specific adverse impacts are anticipated to warrant separate indigenous people’s plans. To ensure that the different language groups fully participate in planning and 34 | P a g e implementing resettlement, discussions and reports will be prepared and disclosed appropriately in the relevant languages. LARAP will also include provision for any special measures that may be required; 14) Resettlement planning decisions will be preceded by a social preparation phase where consultations will be held with PAPs, community leaders, local administrators, and NGOs to enhance the participation of these PAPs in negotiation, planning, and implementation; 15) Payment for physical assets, i.e. land, houses, buildings and other structures, and non- physical assets such as lost income from productive assets or jobs, will be calculated at replacement cost and included in the LARAP; 16) PAPs losing only part of their physical assets will not be left with a proportion inadequate to sustain their current standard of living. Such a minimum size will be identified and agreed upon during the resettlement planning process; 17) A grievance redress mechanism linked with existing traditional formal and informal systems and cognizant of cultural requirements will be established to solve resettlement related disputes and complaints from PAPs; 18) Land for land or asset for asset compensation is always the preferred method. However, if insufficient land or assets are available, or if the affected people have a preference for cash and settlement impacts are considered to be minor and do not undermine the livelihoods of PAPs, cash paymentS at replacement costs will be provided based on negotiation with PAPs. For those experiencing severe impacts (more than 10% of productive land severely affected people (i.e. those PAPs experiencing significant impacts) assistance will be given to identify and purchase alternative land. Efforts will also be made to provide sustainable livelihood restoration measures so that affected people can improve or at least restore their standard of living to pre-project levels; 19) The full cost of land purchase and resettlement will be included by the government in the project cost and adequate budgetary provision shall be made available during implementation; 20) All land purchase, compensation, resettlement activities will be satisfactorily completed, and the subproject areas cleared of all obstructions before the commencement of civil works; and 21) No works with resettlement impacts will be implemented before the LARAP has been prepared and approved. The general process for preparing LARAP includes: • Consultation with PAPs relevant stakeholders, and whenever necessary, assistance of relevant institutions to ensure effective consultations; • Undertaking of a participatory inventory of losses (IOL), which will be updated during a detailed measurement survey (DMS) following the detailed design; • Determination of replacement cost for PAPs losing assets (land, physical assets, means of livelihood, or social support systems) will be compensated and assisted, through adequate and satisfactory to the PAP, replacement land, housing, infrastructure, resources, income sources, and services, in cash or in kind, so that their economic and social circumstances will be improved or at least restored to the pre-project level. All compensation will be based on the principle of replacement cost at current market value. When necessary, livelihood restoration programs acceptable to the local community will be put in place to help people improve, or at least restore, incomes to pre-project levels; • Preparing a cost estimate and budget including the costs of compensation, relocation and rehabilitation, social preparation and livelihood programs. The budget will also include the costs for planning, management, supervision, monitoring and evaluation, land taxes, land fees, physical and price contingencies, and implementation of the LARAP; • Inclusion of a grievance mechanism based on cultural practices and agreeable to PAPs; • Inclusion of a monitoring system, appropriate reporting and monitoring and evaluation will be established as part of the resettlement management system, this will be set out in the RP. The provisions of the above framework apply for potential additional land acquisition required for the project’s ancillary facilities (i.e. Section 2 Hatubuilico and Letefoho and Section 3 Letefoho and Gleno). These include land acquisition for the project’s required ancillary facilities such as soil disposal sites, batching plants, quarries, etc. The locations of these facilities cannot be determined at the project’s preparation phase and will only be known prior to or during construction activities. In addition, as the previous road 35 | P a g e experiences indicate, unforeseen land-related impacts due to land slides are also anticipated and hence, the RPF outlines guiding principles for compensation and livelihoods measures as established in the World Bank’s Safeguards Policy OP 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement; E. Category of Project Affected Person (PAPs) A person is considered as a PAP if, at the time of census, they are verified to be occupying, living/residing, doing business and/or utilizing the land, resources and improvements that will be acquired for the project, irrespective of ownership thereof. Members who share a common kitchen are considered as one household regardless of the number of families or extended families living together under one roof, thereby, PAPs shall be reckoned by the household as a unit of representation. Definition Affected Family/Affected Household (AF/AH) - consists of all members of a household residing under one roof and operating as a single economic unit, who will be adversely affected by the project. For resettlement purposes, Project Affected Persons (PAPs) will be dealt with as members of Project Affected Families/Households. Project Affected Person(s) or Household Head (HH) - dealt with as member of project affected families/households who on account of the execution of the project, would have the right, title or interest in all or any part of a house, land (e.g., residential, agricultural or pasture) or any other fixed or moveable asset acquired or possessed, in full or in part, permanently or temporarily. Informal Settlers - a person using or occupying vacant state land and who does not have title or formal agreement from the owner to use, the land. Tenurial Status PAPs are categorized based on their tenurial status at the time of census cut-off date as follows: 1) Land owners – PAPs who are land title holders or who have formal legal rights to land including customary and traditional land rights recognized under the law; 2) Structure Owners on private lots - PAPs who own the structure built on own lot or on another person’s private lot with or without the consent of the owner; 3) Informal Settlers – APs who do not have formal legal rights to land they are occupying. Severity of Impacts Properties to be acquired for the project may include the entire area or a portion of it. Hence, compensation for such assets depend on whether the entire property will be affected or just a portion of it. Marginally affected/ Minor or insignificant impact – the impact is only partial, and the remaining portion of the property or asset is still viable for continued use. Compensation will be on the affected portion only. PAPs are not physically displaced and less than 10 percent of their productive assets are lost and fewer than 200 PAPs are affected; Severely affected or significant impact – the portion of the property to be affected is more than 10 percent of the total area or even less than 10 percent if the remaining portion is no longer economically viable or it will no longer function as intended, PAPs are eligible to full compensation of the whole property. More than 200 people are affected by resettlement or significant impacts on productive assets (income generating) or physical displacement (i.e. loss of housing). 36 | P a g e Eligibility and Cut-off date Eligibility: consistent with the World Bank’s policies, eligible PAPs will be entitled to receive compensation for their losses in addition to allowances and other special assistance to ensure they can restore their livelihoods and achieve at least if not improve their pre-project living standards. Vulnerable PAPs will also be entitled to additional assistance. The following eligible PAPs are those that: 1) Legal PAPs: have legal rights to land (including customary and traditional rights recognized under the laws of the government); 2) Legalized Aps: do not have legal rights to land but have a claim to such land or assets provided that such claims are recognized under the laws of the country or become recognized through a process identified in the resettlement plan; and 3) Non-titled APs/informal settlers: have no recognizable legal right or claim to the land they are occupying or using, these PAPs are not eligible for compensation for the land but are eligible for compensation for their assets on the land and other assistance to restore and/or improve their livelihoods and living standards to the pre-project level; 4) Owners of Assets: PAPs losing structures, trees or crops irrespective of the status of ownership of the land; Cut-off Date: The Cut-off Date is the date of commencement of the census of affected families within the project boundaries. Any persons that were not covered during census survey will not be eligible for claims of compensation as it was announced to the local communities during the public consultations. People moved into the project boundaries after the cut-off date will not be entitled to any compensation unless the Suco/Aldeia Chief will attest that newly identified PAPs were missed out or rather living in the area for over the years during the previous census. The cut-off date for the project is to be determined and will be informed by the construction schedule, which is expected to commence in early 2020. Initial census dates were established for the purpose of this LARAP surveys, which will be updated during project implementation. If there is long gap between the approval date of the LARAP and its implementation, PMU will update or conduct validation of the LARAP prior to ots implementation, as necessary, to accommodate the factual and/or additional affected assets. Principle of Replacement Cost Replacement cost is defined as a method of valuation yielding compensation sufficient to replace assets, plus necessary transaction costs associated with asset replacement. Where functioning markets exist, replacement cost is the market value as established through independent and competent real estate valuation, plus transaction costs. Where functioning markets do not exist, as in the case of rural parts of the proposed road segments, replacement cost may be determined through alternative means, such as calculation of output value for land or productive assrts, or the undepreciated value of replacement material and labor for construction of structures or other fixed assets, plus transaction costs. Transaction costs include administrative charges, registration or title fees, reasonable moving expenses, and any similar costs imposed on PAPs. Compensation at negotiated settlements for land and other fixed assets such as temporary, semi- permanent and permanent structures, kiosks, trees, crops and other improvements will be adequate to replace losses. In the event that physical displacement results in loss of shelter, replacement cost must at least be sufficient to enable purchase or construction of housing that meets acceptable minimum community standards of quality and safety. Those PAPs whose structures will be affected will receive a reconstruction and reorganize work costs. Each PAP having loss business will also be entitled to assistance for restoring their incomes. 37 | P a g e The unit prices to be offered to PAPs whose residential and commercial structures including other improvements are presented in Chapter VII on the Financing Plan and Resettlement Budget. Unit prices for various species of affected trees are based from the Ministerio Agrikultura e Peskas and the rate of additional assistance and entitlements are attached in the Appendices. To ensure compensation at replacement cost, planned compensation rates may require updating in project areas to ensure inflation is fully factored into the overall budget calculation or the period of time between calculation of compensation rates and delivery of compensation is extensive. Assistance to Vulnerable Group Special attention shall be extended to extremely vulnerable PAPs such as the poorest of the poor, female-headed households and other vulnerable households. For this project, 17 households are are categorized as being vulnerable. Hence, on top of the entitlements accorded for them, these PAPs will be entitled to an additional allowance for two months at monthly rate of US$ 100.00 and would qualify for any special assistance. 38 | P a g e CHAPTER IV IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. Summary of Impacts The project’s impact assessment was undertaken in reference to the latest available design alignment for Sections 1 and 2 as well as parts of Section 3 shared by the design Team. The DED is currently being finalized and hence, the impact assessment presented in the LARAP is indicative in nature and was developed for the purpose of budget planning. All identified impacts within the Proposed Branch Road right of Way (RoW) were enumerated and measured to determine extent of loss (partial or full) with their level of significance. The owners/occupiers of such impacted assets were enumerated and interviewed to identify the ownership status as well as implications on their livelihoods. The project impacts include loss of diferent types of agriculture land, residential land, government land, residential structure, commercial structure, ancilarry structures, and trees/crops due to land acquisition and land clearance. Since most of the road segments follow the existing alignment, the magnitude of impacts associated with asset losses and livelihoods disruptions are expected to be between low and moderate. However, unless engineering measures could reduce potential footprints, there are estimated 40 households who may significant impacts due to loss of residential structures as well as temporary loss of livelihoods (i.e. relocation of kiosks). These households can be found in Sections 2 and 3 where the project will be implemented. Around 21 households may experience significant to severe impacts due to a combinaton of lossess as well as potential longer-term livelihoods disruptions due to loss of productive crops, such as coffee trees, which represents a primary commodity in the area. Out of this figure, an estimate of 21 households may need to be relocated in-situ due to project impacts on their residential structures. Depending on the results of the final DED, the figures may change and hence will need to be revisited. No physical displacement is envisaged as a result of the project. The total land area to be acquired by the proposed project is 27.10 hectares, consisting of 12.06 hectares of agricultural and, 3.66 hectares of residential land, 10.85 hectares of vacant land and 0.67 hectares of government and church land. The scope of Resettlement Impact of the Branch Road is for each section summarized in the following: Table 4.1: Categories of Affected Assets and Number of PAFs Category of Impacts Scale of Impacts Number of Affected Households 248 households Number of Affected Family Members 1,310 PAPs Affected Land Total Land Area Affected 271,372 sqm /27.1 hectares Residential land 0.88 hecatres / 77 PAPs Agricultural Land 23.85 hectares/ 66 PAPs Government Land (i.e. Suco offices and school 1200 sqm areas) Church-owned land (i.e. Mulo and Dukurai) 1340 sqm Affected Structures a. Residential Permanent 16 units Semi-permanent 7 units b. Commercial Permanent 6 units Semi-permanent 19 units 39 | P a g e c. Ancillary Facilities Water tanks 2 units Electricity poles 57 units Water pipes 200 meters Concrete fences/retaining walls 70 meters Temporary fences/retaining walls 380 meters d. Affected trees Coffee plants 27,693 Timber trees 731 Fruit trees 1,317 Significance of Impacts Significantly affected HHs (i.e. relocation in- 40 HHs situ, temporary loss of livelihoods) Severe impact (i.e. lack of remaining viable 21 HHs land, long-term impact on livelihoods) A summary of impacts broken down into each section is summarized as follows. Potential impacts due to loss of coffee production as a result of road widening are most severe in Section 3. Whereas unless there is an alternative routing/alignment, potential impacts due to resettlements (14 households) are envisaged in Section 3. Table 4.2: Categories of Affected Assets and Number of PAPs for each Section Section 1: Aituto – Hatubuilico Category of Impacts Scale of Impacts Number of Affected Households 75 households Number of Affected Family Members 489 PAPs Affected Land Residential land 12,367 sqm Agricultural Land 25,880 sqm Vacant land 83,720 sqm Government Land (i.e. Suco offices and school 800 sqm areas) Church-owned land (i.e. Mulo and Dukurai) 3360 sqm Affected Structures a. Residential Permanent Semi-permanent 2 (full impacts) b. Commercial Permanent Semi-permanent 3 kiosks c. Private Ancillary Facilities Concrete fences/retaining walls Temporary fences/retaining walls 60 meters Permanent Kitchen/Bathroom/Terrace 1 unit /Garage Semi-permanent Kitchen/Bathroom/Terrace 1 unit /Garage d. Affected trees Coffee plants 8371 Timber trees 123 40 | P a g e Fruit trees 162 e. Significance of Impacts Significantly affected HHs (i.e. relocation in- 2 HHs situ, temporary loss of livelihoods) Severe impact (i.e. lack of remaining viable 4 HHs land, long-term impact on livelihoods) f. Impacts on the vulnerable 1 widow, 1 widower, 1 orphaned Section 2: Hatubuilico - Letefoho Category of Impacts Scale of Impacts Number of Affected Households 85 households Number of Affected Family Members 415 PAPs Affected Land Residential land 14,909 sqm Agricultural Land 23,687 sqm Vacant Land 23,510 sqm Government Land (i.e. Suco offices and school 400 sqm areas) Church-owned land (i.e. Mulo and Dukurai) 960 sqm Affected Structures a. Residential Permanent 12 units (full impacts) Semi-permanent 1 unit (full impacts) b. Commercial Permanent 1 unit Semi-permanent 11 unit (234.25 sqm) c. Private Ancillary Facilities Concrete fences/retaining walls 18.2 meters Temporary fences 410 meters Permanent Kitchen/Bathroom/Terrace/ Garage Semi-permanent Kitchen/Bathroom/Terrace 3 units /Garage d. Affected trees Coffee plants 93 Timber trees 316 Fruit trees 195 e. Significance of Impacts Significantly affected HHs (i.e. relocation in-situ, 21 HHs temporary loss of livelihoods) Severe impact (i.e. lack of remaining viable 4 HHs land, long-term impact on livelihoods) f. Impacts on the vulnerable 4 widows, 2 widowers Section 3: Letefoho - Gleno Category of Impacts Scale of Impacts Number of Affected Households 88 households Number of Affected Family Members 406 PAPs Affected Land 41 | P a g e Residential land 9,409 sqm Agricultural Land 45,960 sqm Vacant Land 11,460 sqm Government Land (i.e. Suco offices and school areas) Church-owned land (i.e. Mulo and Dukurai) TBD Affected Structures a. Residential Permanent 4 units (full impacts) Semi-permanent 4 units (full impacts) b. Commercial Permanent 5 kiosks Semi-permanent 5 kiosks c. Private Ancillary Facilities Concrete fences/retaining walls 18 meters Temporary fences 80 meters Permanent Kitchen/Bathroom/Terrace/ Garage Semi-permanent Kitchen/Bathroom/Terrace 3 units /Garage d. Affected trees Coffee plants 19263 Timber trees 631 Fruit trees 17 e. Significance of Impacts Significantly affected HHs (i.e. relocation in- 17 HHs situ, temporary loss of livelihoods) Severe impact (i.e. lack of remaining viable 13 HHs land, long-term impact on livelihoods) f. Impacts on the vulnerable 5 widows, 2 widowers, 1 divorced Impacts on Land The project will acquire some 27.10 hectares of land for the construction of the Branch Road for all sections. Out of the total impacted land, there are approximately 12.06 hectares of agricultural and, 3.66 hectares of residential land, 10.85 hectares of vacant land and 0.67 hectares of government and church land. No communally and/or customarily-owned land and commercial land owned by companies will be affected by the proposed Branch Road. Table 4.3 shows type of affected land and the total land holdings. Table 4.3: Summary of Affected Land for all Sections Land Use and Type Total Land holdings (m2) Affected Land (m2) Section 1 Individually-Owned Private Land a. Agricultural Land 409,500 51,020 b. Residential Land 379,800 12,367 c. Vacant Land 711,300 73,530 Public/Church-owed Land 22,500 4,160 Sub-total for Section 1 2,000,100 141,077 Section 2 Individually-Owned Private Land 42 | P a g e a. Agricultural Land 358,200 23,687 b. Residential Land 80,277 14,909 c. Vacant Land 176,900 23,510 Public/Church-owed Land 34,000 1,360 Sub-total for Section 2 649,377 63,466 Section 3 Individually-Owned Private Land a. Agricultural Land 666,930 45,960 b. Residential Land 47,440 9,409 c. Vacant Land 120,800 11,460 Public/Church-owed Land N/A N/A Sub-total for Section 3 835,170 66,829 TOTAL LAND 3,484,647 271,372 There are 248 households (AHs) will be directly impacted by land acquisition of the Branch Road. Based on land used type, 140 PAPs will be affected from acquisition of 8.46 hectares of cultivated land; 42 PAPs of fallow shifting agriculture land; 37 PAPs of resident/compound land. Table 4.4 shows type of affected land use and the number of affected households. Table 4.4: Summary of Affected Land Types of Affected Land Size of Affected Land No. of HHs Section 1 Individually-Owned Private Land a. Agricultural Land 51,020 31 b. Residential Land 12,367 13 c. Vacant Land 73,530 31 Public/Church-owed Land 4,160 3 (TBC) Sub-total for Section 1 141,077 Individually-Owned Private Land a. Agricultural Land 23,687 34 b. Residential Land 14,909 30 c. Vacant Land 23,510 14 Public/Church-owed Land 1,360 4 (TBC) Sub-total for Section 2 63,466 Individually-Owned Private Land a. Agricultural Land 45,960 75 b. Residential Land 9,409 6 c. Vacant Land 11,460 7 Public/Church-owed Land N/A Sub-total for Section 3 66,829 248 Table 4.5 presents severity of impact on productive land resulting from expected road widening for each section. Impacts were assessed on the basis of the potential extent of land acquisition for each land type (i.e. agricultural, residential, public and vacant). Impact classification consists of a) significant impacts, which covers impact exceeding 10 percent of the overall land holding but below 30 percent and b) severe includes which coveres impact exceeding 30 percent of productive land. Landowners whose original land ownership is classified as small will automatically fall under severe impacts in the event that their land parcels become no longer viable for their original purposes and hence, require assistance to identify land replacement with similar productive values. 43 | P a g e On the basis of severity of impacts, road widening in Section 3 is predicted to result in more impacts compared to other sections. In terms of types of impacts, impacts on residential land are expected to be more significant in Section 2 compared to other sections. Whereas in Section 3, impacts on agricultural land, particularly coffee plantations, are expected to be more significant compared to other sections. However, since the DED for Section 3 is currently being prepared and the on-going GoTL’s emergency road construction (see Tracer Assessment) is yet to be completed, impacts will likely change and hence, need to be revisited. Table 4.5 Impact Significance Land Types Significant (≥ 10% - ≤ 30%) Severe ≥ 30% or land is no longer viable Section 1 Agricultural land 10 n/a Residential land 9 4 Vacant/non-cultivated land 1 n/a Public/Church land 1 n/a Sub-total 21 4 Section 2 Agricultural land 8 2 Residential land 27 2 Vacant/non-cultivated land 5 n/a Public/Church land n/a n/a Sub-total 40 4 Section 3 Agricultural land 20 5 Residential land 3 6 Vacant/non-cultivated land 2 n/a Public/Church land n/a n/a Sub-total 25 11 TOTAL 86 19 Impacts on Trees The census survey indicates that impacts on agricultural crops are more severe in Section 3 (i.e. approximately 19,238 coffee trees need to be removed for the purpose of road widening) and hence, may warrant further considerations with regards to mitigation measures associated with livelihood impacts. In total, there will be approximately 27,652 mature coffee, 517 timber and 1,055 fruit trees that will be impacted. Compensation for tree owners is further described in Chapter 5 on the entitlement matrix. As part of safeguards measures, replanting assistance will be offered to tree owners in addition to compensation payments and livelihoods assistance. The following table (Table 4.6) illustrates the extent of impacts on trees for each section. Table 4.6 Affected Trees Fruits Timber Coffee Young Mature Young Mature Young Mature Section 1 3 313 2 193 0 93 Section 2 5 118 7 155 50 8,321 Section 3 7 624 4 169 25 19,238 Total 15 1,055 13 517 75 27,652 Impacts on Structures 44 | P a g e There are different categories of private structures impacted, including residential and commercial (i.e. kioks, workshops), which may be located within the existing ROWs or private land which will be included as part of the proposed Branch Road right of ways (ROWs). Another category includes public structures which cover government buildings (i.e. Suco offices, schools) as well as church-owned properties. Impacts on private structures include partial and full removal of houses, kiosks, workshops and ancillary structures such as garages, kitchens as well as fences and retaining walls. Structures are both permanent and semi-permanent and all PAPs will be compensated at replacement costs. Compensation packages for those who need to be relocated in situ cover cash compensations for land and structures affected (and whole structures in the event that they can no longer be used), construction assistance at 30 percent of the overall structure compensation and transitional assistance. Those owning semi-permanent structures, compensation values have been set to enable affected structure owners to build back better. Calculation of compensation values, and livelihoods assistance particularly those whose livelihoods will be disrupted as a result of the construction activities is further provided in Chapter V. Residential Structures With regards to resettlement impacts, impacts tend to be more significant in Section 2 where 12 HHs (105 PAPs are anticipated to be relocated in-situ. In section 1 and 3, two HHs (22 PAPs) and seven HHs (47 PAPs) are anticipated to be relocated in situ respectively. Engineering design is currently in the process of finalization for Sections 2 and 3 and impact avoidance considerations, particularly to minimize resettlement impacts in Section 2 are currently being developed. Approximately 1,392 sqm of permanent houses and 372.98 sqm of semi-permanent houses will need to be removed (both partially and fully). However, since such structural demolition will compromise building safety, these houses will hence need to be fully demolished and owners will be compensated at replacement costs for their affected structures and land and transitional housing allowance. Table 4.6 summarizes the number of impacted HHs and family members as well as types of impacts on residential structures. Table 4.7 Affected Residential Structures Number of affected HHs Number of Types of Residential Structures Male Female affected Permanent Semi- Ancillary people House permanent Structures House Section 1 3 1 39 2 4 (2 HHs, 22 PAPs) Section 2 18 6 156 12 1 13 (12 HHs, 105 (TBD) PAPs) Section 3 7 4 70 4 4 6 (3 HHs, 26 (4 HHs, 21 PAPs) PAPs) The project will also affect private/individual ancillary structures which include 3 kicthens, 4 toilets, fences and cyclone wire owned by 14 PAPs as summarized in Table 4.8. 45 | P a g e Table 4.8 Affected Ancillary Structures HHs PAPs Ancillary Structures by Location Location M F Temp Toilets Fence Cyclone Kitchen Perm. Temp. Perm. Temp. wire Section 1 1 2 2 unit 1 0 60 Section 2 8 2 0 1 1 70 320 Section 3 1 1 1 60 TOTAL 10 4 2 units 2 unit 70 m 380 60 m 147 3 units m PAPs Commercial Structures The project will affect a total of 25 commercial structues, which is composed of permanent (6) and semi-permanent kiosks (17) and two semi-permanent mechanical workshops. 11 of semi-permanent kiosks are movable and hence will result in minimal impacts. Impacts on livelihoods associated with removal or moving of kiosks and mechanical workshops are expected to be temporary. Owners will be provided with temporary allowance of 100 USD each month for three consecutive months to enable them to rebuild their commercial structures and recover their economic activities. Impacts during construction are expected to be positive due to a potential increase in trades of basic foods and goods with the presence of construction workers. Table 4.9 presents a summary of affected commercial structures and potential HHs and PAPs affected. Table 4.9 Affected Commercial Structures Number of affected HHs Number of Types of Commercial Structures Male Female affected Permanent Semi-permanent people Section 1 2 1 24 3 Section 2 9 3 82 1 11 Section 3 9 59 5 5 Public Utilities Public utilities include two water tanks, 200 meters of water pipes, one multi-function classroom room, 51 electric poles. These utilities/facilities will need to be rebuilt or relocated. The project will provide complete restoration/rebuilding costs as well as replacement costs for these entire utilities. As part of the project’s Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP), these utilities will need to be fully relocated and/or replaced prior to any land clearance or construction works to minimize activity and service disruption. Such relocation and/or replacement will be coordinated with respective agencies responsible for the maintenance of these utilities/facilities and all replacement costs will be borne by the GoTL. 46 | P a g e Livelihoods Impacts 11 of 25 potentially impacted permanent and semi-permanent kiosks are movable and hence, impacts are expected to be minimial. These businesses are mostly side-road kiosks which will be fully and/or partially demolished due to their proximity with the proposed alignment. Basen on interviews with the PAPs, it appears that notional montly incomes of all these shops are on average 100 – 600 USD/per-month and these kiosks and economic activities could be rebuilt on average between 2 - 3 months. There are around 9 HHs in Section 3 who may suffer severe impacts due to multiple losses (i.e. loss of agricultural land, crops, as well as impacts on residential and/or commercial structures. Impacts on agricultural land is more severe in this section compared to other sections and hence, further attention needs to be paid with regards to support for livelihoods restoration based on community consultations. Additional support packages in the forms of temporary livelihoods assistance and replanting may be offered as part of the impact mitigation measures. Impacts on residential structures in Section 2 are not expected to significantly affect livelihoods since PAPs will be offered cash compensation at replacement costs for their land and structures affected as well as temporary relocation assistance. Further elaboration of impact mitigation measures is established in the entitlement matrix in Chapter 4. Table 4.10 provides a summary of impact significance with regards to livelihoods for each section. Further analysis of severety of impacts is appended in Annex 5. Table 4.10 Summary of Impact Sigificance Level of No. of HHs PAPs Category of Impacts Impacts M F Temporary Loss of Relocation Multiple Disruption of Agricultural Losses Commercial Land Activities Section 1 Significant 2 22 2 Severe 3 1 30 3 1 Section 2 Significant 14 2 94 1 5 9 1 (tbd) Severe 5 3 46 5 2 1 (tbd) Significant 16 75 15 1 (tbd) Severe 7 6 83 3 1 9 Impacts on Vulnerable People No distinct group with vulnerability characteristics were identified along the proposed road corridor. In Section 2, there are approximately 21 households who will experience significant impacts resulting from in- situ relocation or temporary loss of livelihoods, and in Section 3, 17 households fall under the same impact category. In Section 3, 13 households may experience severe impacts due to significant loss of residential or agricultural land, with subsequent longer-term impact on livelihoods whereas in Section 2, there are four of such households. Other vulnerable groups affected by land acquisition also include the elderly, disabled and female headed households. The census identified 4 widows and 2 widowers in Section 2 and 6 widows and 2 widowers in Section 3 who may be affected by the project. 47 | P a g e On the basis of income, there are potentially vulnerable households who due to their income levels may experience more significant impacts as a result of livelihoods disruptions. In Section 2, impacts on the poor are considered less severe since HHs on average appear to have higher income than Section 3, with only three HHs with notional montly income less than 300 USD. In Section 3, seven HHs and 9 HHs with monthly incomes less than 200 USD will be severely and significantly impacted. These HHs will be entitled to temporary livelihoods assistance under the project. These vulnerable PAPs will be entitled for special assistance (vulnerability allowance) to ensure their living standard is restored if not improved. Additional verification of vulnerability will be done upon completion of detailed design . 48 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno CHAPTER V SOCIAL ASSESSMENT A. Overview This chapter presents an overview of the socio-economic conditions of project area in general, focusing on the key socio-economic development parameters such as demography, literacy, income, and employment, to provide the context of the area in general. The main objective of the section is to analyze socioeconomic and cultural characteristics of the PAPs to understand their interrelationships, dynamics, and qualities. One of the key objectives is to plan more sustainable and equitable development through adequate social risk management by identifying and assessing negative and positive impacts caused by a project, to design and implement measures to prevent, reduce or compensate adverse impacts and enhance positive ones. • The survey focused on the following features of the PAPs. • Demographic features include size of households and gender composition, • Literacy status of the PAPs in the project COI • Occupational Structure • Role of Women in the Household • Livelihood Patterns of Displaced Person • Vulnerability assessment of the displaced population • Status of Land Ownership • Social amenities available within COI • Impact on poverty B. Demographic Profile Population and Household Size A 100% household survey was carried out to get information on socio-economic and demographic details of the affected families at the preliminary stage. The population reflects that out of the total population 241, 86.7% were male and 13.7% females of the total PAPs. In the project COI, majority of the PAPs live as an extended family (63%) and the remaining (37%) live as nuclear family household. This explains the predominance of extended families in the project area. The extended or joint families include all the family members consisting children, wife, mother, father, brothers, sisters and grandparents are living under the same compound led by the family head. The elder of the house is responsible to look after all the social matters and other activities of the house. The average size of a household was 5.33 persons per family. 49 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Occupation Among the PAPs, the farming / agriculture dominates the project area. About 60 % of the PAPs are farmers for subsistence and commercial agriculture products. About 36 % of the PAPs engaged in small-scale business (kiosk, stores, vehicle workshops etc.). Out of the total, 15 % of the household heads reported their primary occupation as paid labor in coffee plantations and processing factory (NCBA), 5% were engaged in government job. Relatively a small number (6%) PAPs were working in the private sector with majority found to be vehicle drivers of the construction activities (operating small trucks, cars), mechanics, and carpentry. Those occupational status and condition are indicating the poor socio-economic status of the area. A small number of PAPs/ family members work in Dili and Maubisse mostly as laborer. Household Livelihood During the field survey, it was observed that the major sources of income in the project area are generated from agriculture products, coffee, and business (kiosks, shops, workshops etc.), services (drivers), labor, and etc. Based on the data collected from the field, the average monthly family income is calculated to be USD $ 250 - 350. About 13.5% of PAPs were found to be below poverty line. Ownership of Consumer Durables Obtaining income information from individuals and households is a difficult task as many people are reluctant to disclose and often under report. Using proxy indicators such as household assets provides a realist picture of the household well-being. From the survey indicated that some PAPs owns home appliances such refrigerator, TV, radio. Most of them were reported as bought those items locally available in Gleno and Maubisse markets. Ownership of automobile is very low. Some PAPs have motorcycles. Few households own luxury items such as power generator and other electrical appliances. A significant number of PAFs were almost without consumer durables that portray poverty in the project area. Family Expenditure The monthly expenditure and pattern of expenditure provides an indication for assessing standard of living of a household. The expenditure on food items include rice, breads, sugar, cooking oil, milk etc., while the non-food items consisting of expenditure on education, medical treatment and clothing. The important staple food is rice and maize supplemented with purchased other commodities such as meat, sugar, vegetables and fruits. Livestock Ownership Livestock ownership was also used as proxy indicator for assessing of living standard/ family well-being. It was observed during the field survey that many PAPs were keeping livestock such as cow, horses, and goat. Livestock reported to be an additional source of food and cash income for the project affected families. Access to Social Amenities The factors affecting poverty are lack of access to basic social services such as education, health, clean drinking water and proper sanitation. About 60 % PAPs had the access to electricity and 38% had drinking 50 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno water supply in the proposed Branch Road area. In case of other amenities, i.e., access to health facilities, schools and sewerage, the extent was 17 %, 20 % and 2 % respectively. Poverty Impacts Lack of secure and consistent incomes aggravated by lack of access to diverse sources of income is the main reason for the poverty in project areas. Negligible off-farm economic opportunities restrict job opportunities for daily wage labor. During the construction the project may provide alternative income sources to relief vulnerable PAPs from poverty in order to sustain their livelihood. Under the project, this category of PAPs will be preferred in the project related jobs. The project will be (i) beneficial as it will generate employment opportunities for the people, (ii) improve access to social services such as health and education, marketing, (iii) reduce transportation costs (iv) improve their income level due to access to market facilities. Women Issues and Development Needs In traditional structures of main ethic groups in the proposed Branch Road, status and identity along with gender and age and were key factors in determining power and influence. The identity of women is drawn from that of their male next of kin – fathers, brothers or husbands. Women had no significant role in decision- making, even if decisions directly affect their lives. They had little voice in issues that affected themselves, their households, or the community. Women are generally excluded from decision-making processes. At the household level, a male elder, often also the head of the household is in control. Man makes all decisions regarding the household, including those related to household income and its sources, education, health, marriage, and conflicts. When needed, man consults with other male members. Young men and boys are also generally excluded from decision-making at the household. Bride price is an established custom in which a prospective groom pays money to the family of his bride. Until bride price is paid a marriage is not solemnized. This custom has reportedly evolved into a means of exploiting women as they are sold to the highest “bidder”. Elders in a household, generally men, make decisions about bride price and marriages, at the exclusion of the woman to be married. The consent of the bride-to-be is usually not obtained. Women often own no tangible asset such as land or a home. As the project route is passing through the rural areas, and rural community, women activities in the field (such as fetching of drinking water, collecting firewood, washing clothes, livestock grazing activities etc.) may be affected due to the road construction activities. Moreover, labor influx for construction works can lead to a variety of adverse social and environmental risks and impacts such as risk of social conflict, increased risk of illicit behavior and crime, influx of additional population (followers), impacts on community dynamics, and increased burden and competition for public services and natural resources. The risks of these occurrences and their mitigation have been assessed as part of the project ESMP. C. Community Participation, Consultation and Disclosure Community participation, consultations and information disclosure represent an integral part of the involuntary resettlement planning, RAP preparation and implementation for the project with LAR impacts. The consultations and the information awareness raising played an essential role to enable PAPs understand 51 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno the rationale of the project, explain why land acqusition is necessary, provide a preliminary assessment of its impacts, and disclose the fundamental principles on which the resettlement program will be designed, the procedures for assessing compensation, and the timetable for any displacement and relocation. The key objectives of such community participation and consultations are to foster community buy-in to minimize potential resistance as well as maximize project development benefits that are shared by affected community groups, including the vulnerable. Furthermore, this engagement was expected to enable the GoTL to: • Appraise gender issues and accordingly incorporate views of women into the project design; • Study specific issues related to PAPs and those of vulnerable sections; • Facilitate development of appropriate and acceptable entitlement options; • Ensure project buy in and sustainability through incorporating PAPs feedback and suggestions on mitigation measures. Identification of Stakeholders An initial stakeholder identification was made during the Feasibility Study (FS), then followed by an update and analysis of directly impacted stakeholders through a series of Suco-level public consultations conducted in September 2018. A detailed list of the project stakeholder identification and analysis of their key important roles is reported in the revised Feasibility Study. Courtesy calls, coordination, and meetings with directly impacted stakeholders as well as with Suco/Aldeia Chiefs who have the administrative responsibility in their respective areas were conducted as part of the consultations. The local leaders and traditional/customary leaders were regularly informed about the activities, as well as assessments of environmental and social aspects in relation to the proposed project. Continuous support and technical assistance from the survey teams were provided during the field works. Such support covered identification of specific claimants of any affected properties or assets, identification of cultural heritage sites, as well as identification of the presence of indigenous peoples and vulnerable groups. In addition, information about community preferences on potential sites for soil and material disposal and quarries as well as obtaining insights of broad community support to the project were also explored as part of the Suco-level consultations. Consultation Processes To ensure wider participation, written and verbal invitations were carried out to notify the respective Sucos and Aldeia Chefes as well as their constituents especially those who will most likely be affected within the construction limits and/or road Right of Way (ROW). Project information booklet together with invitation letters have been disclosed to key project stakeholders, local communities who will potentially be impacted. These consultation materials were provided in a local language (Tetun) prior undertaking consultations. A series of consultations was conducted from 12 to 26 September 2018 in two affected districts (Ermera and Ainaro), four affected Subdistricts (Maubisse, Hatubuilico, Letefoho, and Ermera) and in 11 villages (Sucos). The purpose was to inform local communities and other relevant stakeholders, particularly District and Suco 52 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Governments about the proposed project, the road proposed alignments, key social and environmental safeguard issues and to receive their inputs and understand their concerns and aspirations. Inputs obtained from these consultations have been considered and used to inform the Branch Road alignment and adjustments in order to minimize land taking impacts and hence, reduce the need for resettlement and impacts on productive agricultural crops, particularly coffee. Select ad-hoc consultations, focus group discussions and meetings with potentially affected people and concerned stakeholders were conducted by the resettlement team in the period of November and December 2018 and prior to conducting Land Acquisition and Resettlement (LAR) impacts assessment and Tracer. However, a follow up public consultation meeting with a specific neighborhood who may be relocated in Letefoho Sub-district (Section 2) will be updated following DED finalization. In general, the proposed project received broad community supports and requested the process to be continued. In total, more than 400 peoples actively attended the meetings and consultations. Key government representatives such as the Land and Property, Forestry, Electricity, Water and Sanitation, Health, Education Offices and coordinators of veterans, customary leaders, priest of Letefoho Parish, village chapels, local NGOs, development partners, including former Administrators of Postu of Maubisse, Hatobuilico, and Leteho have supported the proposed project and expected the civil works can be implemented soon. The project constituents and beneficiaries requested that in each residential area, school, Church, chapel, village offices and markets, side walks should be included into the project design. Some spots for pick up points (i.e. bus stops) should also be added. Public utilities to be protected and secured before and during construction. The final design should avoid impacts on important cultural heritage sites which belong to extended families as well as respected by Aledia / Suco and Sub-district / district. Specific recommendations from each Suco with regard to the proposed Branch Road alignment and project design and how they are addressed described below. Table 5.1: Consultation Summary SECTION 1 Aituto-Hatubuilico Suco / District Concerns / Suggestions Expressed Concerns Addressed Horai Quik Suco. Community requested specific Realignments on Aituto Entrance measures to avoid impact on the have been included in the DED as of customary house (Uma Lulik) owned by November 2018 to avoid impacts on an extended family. Publicly owned Uma Lulik and permanent houses. cultural heritage sites, including holly The final DED of Feb 2019, however water and holly tree) called as Haeluli has modified Aituto entrance, which and a historical stone used as altar may require more land area to be uphill called Hautsau should also be acquired. Therefore, some private avoided. land and semi-permanent houses and kiosks may likely be affected. Impact 53 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno assessment on these specific access points as well as consent from those additional affected persons shall be obtained prior to RAP implementation. Mulo Suco. Community requested to respect Impacts on customary houses have customary houses near the road been avoided. Public water sources alignment and protect public water will be protected prior to the civil sources commonly used by local works as indicated in the EMP. peoples. Cefe de Suco of Mulo indicated critical land slide spots in Mulo and suggested to be followed up by Soil and Land Slice expert to assess the area. Nunumoge Suco. Head of Hatobuilico Sub-district PMU has discussed the possibility of suggested to add the alignment from scaling up the benefits of the project Hatobulico intersection to government with the World Bank. Yet, this may office complex, and access to local not be included under this current tourism objects (Ramelao Mountain, project. Puzada, Hatobuilico Lau / Historical Stones (5.2 km). SECTION 2 Hatubuilico – Letefoho Suco / District Concerns / Suggestions Expressed Concerns Are Addressed Katarai Karaik Suco Community was concerned over the The road alignment and DED has project’s potential impacts on their incorporared such concerns and cultural heritage site named Urbo. This avoid possible impacts to this cultural heritage location is near by the identified cultural heritage site. existing road – about 20 meters on the However, community request for southern part of the road. Katarai development of the Urbo Cultural Karaik community and customary Heritage site may not be included in leaders requested the project to this current project. The project’s protect the Urbo and its surrounding to ESMP has included measures to avoid avoid potential impacts. the impacts on this cultural heritage site. Dukurai Suco The community was concerned if road The design and engineer team widening up to national standard may together with the resettlement team affect their chapel front-yard area. An had a follow-up discussion and site alternative route is suggested behind inspection together with the Dukurai the chapel. Another concern is Chapel representative and Dukurai potential impacts on one elementary Suco Head and agreed to adopt a school in Dukurai. The school’s front- special design that will minimize the 54 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno yard area is prone to landslides and impacts, including installation of a hence, may increase risks of collapse retaining wall in landslide prone following widening and slope-cutting. areas. The project ESMP has The community requested that a indicated mitigation measures for all retaining wall be built in the area. impacts foreseeable at this time. Haupu Suco The community was concerned about The design and engineer team their cultural heritage site called together with resettlement team had Asnaupae (i.e. customary forest, a follow discussion and site mountain, and holly water springs). inspection together local leaders and Local community and local government Haupu Suco Head and agreed to officials requested the project to adopt a special design that will respect their cultural value and minimize the impacts. The project tradition (Asnaupae) and ensure ESMP has indicated mitigation measures are in place. The community measures for all impacts foreseeable suggested the project design to include at this time. a revision to alter the newly installed drainage by the government back to its original route. LETEFOHO DISTRICT The priest of the Letefoho Church Special design has been adopted into Common Concerns suggested an alternative route. The the final DED of February 2019 to church has a plan to improve the avoid and minimize LAR impacts in church area including the altar and the dense neighborhood area toward meeting hall. If the road is widened to the Letefoho junction. Impact the national standard, it may affect the assessment on the affected people Church’s future plan to expand its who were absence during the survey premise. The priest suggested to look conducted by the resettlement team for alternative routes. There are three shall be updated. A follow up ad-hoc options provided. An official letter has consultation with directly affected been sent to the PMU by the Letefoho peoples shall be made prior to RAP Administrador supporting the Church implementation. request. Widening of the road may affect The design and engineer team houses and assets along the road together with resettlement team had corridor approaching the Letefoho a follow-up discussion and site intersection. People residing/currently inspection together the Letefoho owning assets near the Letefoho Church representative. A special intersection come from mixed sucos in design has been incorporated into the Subdistrict. The head of Sub-district the DED to minimize the impacts. of Letefoho requested to conduct The project ESMP has indicated another consultation meeting with 55 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno impacted people prior to a final impact mitigation measures for all impacts survey. Such additional consultations foreseeable at this time. can be conducted in the sub-district office of Letefoho. Gulolo Suco The community suggested that the The design and engineer team proposed project explored another together with the resettlement team route (short-cut) to avoid potential had a follow-up discussion and site impacts on a complex of historical Uma inspection in Gulolo Suco. The final Lulik located uphill in one of the DED has adopted a special design to segments in the proposed alignment. minimize potential impacts on the Community representatives informed site, including adjustment in the that they fear that further construction alignment. The project’s ESMP has may impact on their historical Uma indicated mitigation measures for all Lulik, as observed during the on-going impacts foreseeable at this time. GoTL emergency road construction. Eraulo Suco. Community suggested to include an The design and engineer team improvement on the existing bridge together with the resettlement team outside of the proposed project had a follow-up discussion and site alignment. It is also requesting a inspection. The final DED and ESMP protection for two spring water sources have adopted mitigation measures used by public (just 15-20 meter from for all impacts foreseeable at this the main road). time. SECTION 3 Letefoho – Gleno Suco / District Concerns / Suggestions Expressed Concerns Are Addressed M. Estado Suco Community requested some widening The drainage team has assessed the and repair of the exiting drainages drainage design and adopted a bigger constructed by the on-going GoTL’s outlet into the design. emergency contractor to prevent/ minimize flooding which may affect the houses in the area. Humboe Suco The Ministry of Education The proposed DED has included an representative and the school principal alternative route to avoid impacts on suggested to do a short-cut to avoid Homboe public school. Consent and impacts to school area. There is a plan agreement from the land owner of to add more classrooms. Cefe de Suco the proposed route has been of Humboe and local community obtained. understood that road widening may affect their village office and hence, another route was proposed to avoid the impact. One of the landowners, Mr. 56 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Mario Maia Exsposto agreed to donate the land for the alternative route. Riheui Suco No significant concern from the The DED has minimized additional community in terms of the proposed LAR impacts since the alighment will project alignment as the segment has use the existing footprints. already been widened by the on-going construction activities under the Emergency project financed by Government of Timor Leste. A national public consultation for Timor Leste Branch Road was held by the Government of Timor Leste on May 23, 3019 in Salão Paroquial São José Catedral, Vila Verde, Dili. The objective of public consultation was to enable public participation in the overall project design and enable affected stakeholders to express their views and raise their concerns to enable better and more inclusive design and project implementation in the future. The consultation was attended by 104 people (including 17 women) which consisted of representatives from the affected communities, central and district government officials, NGO/CSO, and academia. The Director General for Public Works Department of Road, Bridges and Flood Control and the Technical Support Team Leader from Project Management Unit facilitated the consultation and invited constructive feedback from all stakeholders. Further documentation of the consultation is appended in Annex 10. 57 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno CHAPTER VI FINANCING PLAN AND RESETTLEMENT BUDGET A. Institutional Arrangement for Financing Resettlement All costs associated with resettlement are provided by the government. The Ministry of Finance (MoF) and Ministry of Public Works (MoPW) will ensure that adequate funds are available for carrying out resettlement according to the budget prepared for the project. The PMU will coordinate on the allocation of funds, approval of payments and delivery of funds, monitoring of progress and reporting. In order to fully complement the RP, the PMU must likewise ensure that sufficient funds are available in anticipation to the additional assets that could be affected until the completion of the project. B. Determination of Compensation and Entitlements In the absence of specific law on social safeguards consideration or policy, A Resettlement Framework for the World Bank assisted projects was formulated and this framework requires that any impacts on land or assets will be kept to a minimum. Alternative design options will be considered to avoid and/or minimize involuntary resettlement. As a result, the framework practically adopts and endeavors to be compliant with most of the basic principles of involuntary resettlement for World Bank and other financiers such as the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) with some modifications and refinements in conformity with the GoTL policy that are specific and responsive to the needs, circumstances and nuances of the project area. Further, considering that no standard procedure in determining the cost of materials to be assumed in the computation of compensation and entitlements, as consequence, the price lists/unit prices acceptable and agreed upon to all concerned stakeholders for the project will be applied. The unit prices to be offered with APs whose assets to be affected are presented in Annex 2 for land affected, Annex 3 for structures affected and Annex 4 for agricultural crops and other trees affected. Such calculation refers to the current unit prices for various species of affected trees based from the Ministerio Agrikultura e Peskas and other price lists using the current rate. These prices will be used as the basis for negotiation with PAPs and final prices/compensation packages will be arrived at In general, the determination of compensation and entitlements is based on the prevailing practice of a negotiated settlement which represents agreed amicable rates or package of compensation and entitlements for the PAPs. 58 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno A standardized entitlement matrix is provided in Table 6.1. GoTL’s standard prices for crops and land parcels will serve as benchmarks for negotiation with PAPs and hence, are used for the purpose of RAP budget calculation. However, final prices will be made based on consensus with PAPs. C. Entitlements The proposed entitlement matrix is summarized below. This matrix was made available during Suco- consultations. Table 6.1 : Entitlement Matrix Item Type of Loss Entitled Persons Details of Entitlements Responsibility 1 Permanent Title holders/ • Cash compensation for the loss of PMU in coordination with Agriculture land recognized or land at replacement value based on MOJ/DLPCS, Ministry of Productive Land, recognizable negotiated settlements6 (land Finance, with assistance including residential claims under valuation will be carried out by the from valuation specialist, land national laws National Directorate of Land local authorities and Property and Cadastral Services community leaders. (NDLPCS) based on the prevailing market price or productive value of agricultural land (whichever is higher). Final price will be made based on consensus. • If the residual land is not viable or if land acquired is 75% or more of the total land holding of the title holder, full cash compensation of the affected land and livelihoods restoration assistance (including assistance to identify alternative suitable land, replanting assistance, temporary subsistence allowance proportional to income losses or a combination of those). • Subsistence allowance proportional to temporary income losses if residual land is viable. • All fees, taxes and other charges, as applicable under relevant laws incurred in the relocation and resource establishment are to be borne by the project. • Additional compensation for vulnerable households (item 10). • 60 days of notice for agricultural lands to harvest standing crops. If notice cannot be given, compensation for share of crops will 6 The term “negotiated settlements” refers to situations where MoPW first attempts to arrive at mutually agreeable negotiated settlement with the landowner/user rather than doing so expropriation proceeding. 59 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Item Type of Loss Entitled Persons Details of Entitlements Responsibility be provided. Refer to item 8 for other applicable compensation. 2 Permanent loss of Tenants and • Cash compensation at $200 of up to PMU in coordination with homestead and leaseholders 6 months of land lease. MOJ/DLPCS, Ministry of agriculture land • 60 days of notice for agricultural Finance, with assistance lands to harvest standing crops. If from valuation specialist, notice cannot be given, local authorities and compensation for share of crops community leaders. will be provided. • Additional compensation for vulnerable households. 3 Temporary Loss Landowners/ • Cash compensation at $200 of up to Responsibility of the of Land Lessee six months of land lease. contractor with • 60 days of notice for the use of assistance/oversight from land. PMU in coordination with • Two months of disturbance MOJ/DLPCS, Ministry of allowance (lump sum of $100 per Finance and assistance month). from consultant, local Authorities and community leaders. 4 Permanent loss of Owners of • Cash compensation equivalent to PMU in coordination with residential/ structure replacement value of whole MOJ/DLPCS, Ministry of commercial structures (or part of structure if still Finance, with assistance structures. viable) without depreciation. from valuation specialist, Replacement value covers the costs local authorities and of the materials and reconstruction community leaders. costs, including labour. • Compensation for land affected (see item 1); • Subsistence allowance of $100/month of up to two months for affected residential/commercial structure. • Transportation allowance equivalent to $ 1009. • Right to salvage materials from the demolished structure without deduction from their compensation. • Additional compensation for vulnerable households. 9 The allowance is only applicable if there is a physical relocation of structures. 60 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Item Type of Loss Entitled Persons Details of Entitlements Responsibility 5 Permanent loss of Informal • Cash compensation equivalent to DLPCS with Assistance residential / settlers/squatters replacement value to rebuild whole from the PMU commercial /non-tilted PAPs structures (or part of structure if still Resettlement Specialist structures viable) without depreciation. and in consultation with Replacement value covers costs of relevant authorities will the materials and reconstruction finalize the compensation costs, including labour. at replacement cost for • Assistance to find alternative land the affected structure as • Subsistence allowance of identified during IOL. $100/month of up to two months for affected residential structure (see item 4 for income loss from affected business)10. • $100 transportation allowance11. • Right to salvage materials from the demolished structure without deduction from their compensation. • Additional compensation for vulnerable households (item 10). 6 Permanent loss of Owners / • Cash compensation equivalent to PMU in coordination with Ancillary12 Squatter of replacement value structure (or part MOJ/DLPCS, Ministry of structures Structures of structure) without depreciation. Finance, with assistance Replacement value covers the costs from valuation specialist, of the materials and reconstruction local authorities and costs, including labour; community leaders. • Cash compensation equivalent to replacement value of permanent fence ($20-$35/Ln.m) and temporary fence ($3/Ln.m); • Right to salvage materials from the demolished structure without deduction from their compensation. 7 Income from Business owners, PMU in coordination with business vendors (stalls) • Replacement for lost income based DLPCS and with on minimum of two months income assistance from local lost, based on average monthly authorities and income, for semi-permanent and community leaders. permanent kiosks; • One-time payment of $50 for temporary and movable stall; • Additional compensation for vulnerable households (item 10). Note: two months represent average time requirements for businesses (i.e. kioks, workshops, etc.) to recover. 10 The allowance is only applicable if there is a physical relocation of structures. 11 The allowance is only applicable if there is a physical relocation of structures. 12 Ancillary (Toilet, Kitchen, Fence or Garage) 61 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Item Type of Loss Entitled Persons Details of Entitlements Responsibility 8 Loss of crops and Owner of the • Cash compensation for perennial DLPCS with assistance trees affected crops crops and fruit bearing trees based from the PMU’s valuation on the Standard price of affected specialist in consultation trees / crops issued by the Ministry with relevant authorities of Agriculture. This standard pricelist will determine the fair will be used as the benchmark for compensation at negotiation with owners and final replacement cost. prices will be determined based on consensus; • Provisions of 60 days’ notice to harvest standing seasonal crops. If harvest is not possible, cash compensation for crops affected (or share of crops) equivalent to the prevailing market price; • Replanting assistance will be offered 9 Loss of paddies Owner of the • Compensation for rice paddies DLPCS with assistance affected paddies equals to the market value of its from the PMU‘s valuation annual yield for three (3) years13. specialist in consultation with relevant authorities will determine the fair compensation at replacement cost. 10 Impact on Vulnerable and • Additional subsistence allowance PMU with assistance of vulnerable APs women-headed equivalent at $100 for three months DLPCS and local households for loss of land or structure. community leaders. identified by IOL • Landless/vulnerable APs will be assisted to find alternative land plots to rebuild affected structures or redevelop agricultural land; • One-time rehabilitation grant in the form of productive assets (e.g. seeds and planting materials)14. • Vulnerable households will have priority in any employment required for the project. 11 Unforeseen impact Concerned • Unforeseen impacts will be PMU identifies and persons affected documented and mitigated based on mitigates impacts as the entitlement matrix and required. negotiation with PAPs in conjunction with the Resettlement Planning Framework in the document. D. Payment of Compensation 13 Based on the updated information from PMU during a Resettlement Training held on 12th of July 2017 14 Productive assets will be determined during the IOL and if found that affected assets represent the main source of income of PAPs. 62 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Compensation payments will be made through these established processes, which have been adopted for other road projects in Timor Leste. 1. Preparation of Request for Payment. Request for payment with summary list for each of the PAPs will be prepared by the PMU. This document entitles the PAP to receive the amount indicated in the invoice. 2. Delivery of Money to Local Banks. The PMU will initiate the opening of bank account for each PAP who doesn’t have existing BNCTL accounts. The compensation and entitlements then accorded to the APs will be remitted by MPW/MOF to the PAPs individual BNCTL accounts. 3. Payment of Compensation. Each PAP will receive compensation for their affected assets directly to their respective BNCTL account. The PAP shall sign acknowledgement receipt and a waiver detailing the whole amount deposited in their bank account and has no longer any pending claims over the affected property. A photograph shall likewise be taken with the PAP upon receipt of compensation as record of proof and as part of project documentation. 4. Identity of Affected Person. Complete required documents such as Original Karta Konkordansia, Photocopies of National Identity Card, Photocopy of BNCTL/IBAN Account Number and Detailed Description/Photographs of Affected Properties. 63 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Diagram 6.1 : Compensation Payment Arrangement E. Estimated Resettlement Cost and Budget Land Acquisition and Resettlement budgets for the proposed Branch Road for Section 2 and 3 are estimated to cost USD 744,061.67 and USD 890,817.4 respectively. Section 1, which is currently outside the scope of the project, is USD 744,061.67. Out of these estimated budgets, 10 percent is reserved as a contingency. SECTION 1: AITUTO - HATUBUILICO Qty. Unit in SqM Total Cost Affected Structures 9 344.74 USD 28,965.70 Compensation for residential land - USD 12367 USD 61,835 5/sqm 64 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Compensation for agricultural land - USD 51020 USD 255,100 5/sqm Compensation for claimed non- 73530 USD 220,590 productive land/vacant land - USD 3/sqm Compensation for government land - USD 4160 USD 20,800 5/sqm Compensation for affected trees 8656 USD 85,529 Subsistence allowance for relocation in- 5 HHs USD 1,000.00 situ (both residential and commercial) - USD 100 x 2 months Transportation allowance for owners of 5 HHs USD 500.00 affected residential and commercial structures - USD 100 Subsistence allowance if the remaining 4 USD 1,200 land is no longer viable – USD 100 x 3 months Additional allowance for vulnerable PAPs 3 USD 900.00 - USD 100 x 3 months LARAP operation budget for USD 20,000 consultations, M&E, and FGRM (tentative budget) SUB-TOTAL USD 696,419.7 Livelihoods restoration measures 10% of USD 69,641.97 the overall estimated sub- total budget Contingency 10% USD 69,641.97 TOTAL for SECTION 1 (approx.) USD 835,703.64 SECTION 2: HATUBUILICO – LETEFOHO Qty. Unit in SqM Total Cost Affected Structures 40 2151 USD 261,645 Compensation for residential land – USD 14909 USD 74,545 5/sqm Compensation for agricultural land – USD 23687 USD 118,435 5/sqm Compensation for claimed non- 23510 USD 70,530 productive land/vacant land – USD 3/sqm Compensation for government land – 1360 USD 6,800 USD 5/sqm Compensation for affected trees 8656 USD 85,529 65 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Subsistence allowance for relocation and 21 HHs USD 4,200 impacts on commercial structures – USD 100 x 2 months Transportation allowance for owners of 21 HHs USD 2,100 affected residential and commercial structures – USD 100 Subsistence allowance if the remaining 4 HHs USD 1,200 land is no longer viable – USD 100 x 3 months Additional allowance for vulnerable PAPs 6 USD 1,800 – USD 100 x 3 months LARAP operation budget for USD 20,000 consultations, M&E, and FGRM (tentative budget) SUB-TOTAL USD 646,784 Livelihoods restoration measures 10% of 64,678.4 the overall estimated sub- total budget Contingency 10% USD 64,678.4 TOTAL for SECTION 2 (approx.) USD 776,140.8 SECTION 3: LETEFOHO - GLENO Qty. Unit in SqM Total Cost PROPOSED ALIGNMENT Affected Structures 24 905 USD 109,675 Compensation for residential land - USD 9409 USD 47,045 5/sqm Compensation for agricultural land - USD 45960 USD 229,800 5/sqm Compensation for claimed non- 11460 USD 34,380 productive land/vacant land - USD 3/sqm Compensation for government land - USD tbd tbd 5/sqm Compensation for affected trees 20067 USD 202,129 Subsistence allowance for relocation and 17 HHs USD 3,400 impacts on commercial structures - USD 100 x 2 months Transportation allowance for relocated 17 HHs USD 1,700 HHs - USD 100 66 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Subsistence allowance if the remaining 13 HHs USD 3,900 land is no longer viable – USD 100 x 3 months Additional allowance for vulnerable PAPs 8 USD 2,400.00 - USD 100 x 3 months TRACER (further verification needed) Affected land by GoTL’s emergency road 22,954 USD 114,770 (claimed) Affected trees (claimed) 6,330 USD 60,635 LARAP operation budget for USD 20,000 consultations, M&E, and FGRM (tentative budget) SUB-TOTAL USD 829,834 Livelihoods restoration measures 10% of USD 82,983.4 the overall estimated sub- total budget Contingency 10% USD 82,983.4 TOTAL for SECTION 3 (approx.) USD 995,800.8 67 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno CHAPTER VII INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT The Ministry of Finance (MOF)/Commission for Administration of the Infrastructure Fund (CAIF) or CAFI is the project Executing Agency. The Ministry of Public Works (MoPW) through its existing Project Management Unit (PMU) is the implementing agency with technical support from the Design Consultant (DC) in the first stage and the Project Implementation Supervision Consultants (PISC) in the second stage. Both the DC and PISC include international and national social safeguards specialists to work with PMU on all social safeguards related activities. The PMU thru ESU includes international and national resettlement and environmental specialists. The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) and National Directorate of Land, Property and Cadastral Services (NDLPCS) likewise involved during the implementation of the RP. The MOJ and NDLPCS dealt with lot claimants for the land to be acquired and property valuation including resolution of land disputes if there is land acquisition. Concerned Suco/Aldeia Chiefs also involved during public consultations, validation/verification of APs and direct negotiation of settlement. The World Bank will issue a No Objection Letter for procurement to process the project once land acquisition is complete and all payments of compensation are likewise completed. Proof of acquisition completion and payment will be required. World Bank NOL for contract award will be issued after documentary evidence is received that all APs have received compensation as established by the RP. A. Organization of LARAP Implementation MPW as the EA has overall responsibility for implementing the RP. The PMU under MPW has established an Environmental and Social Unit (ESU) composed of an international and national social safeguards and environmental specialists to work with the DC and PISC safeguards consultants. The DC and PISC on the project will also provide an international social safeguards specialist to work with the PMU on all resettlement and consultation tasks. At the project completion, a final social safeguards compliance report will be submitted to ADB by the MPW/PMU. The PMU/ESU will be responsible for all environmental and social aspects of the road development work. On the social safeguards side, they shall manage all resettlement activities. The following tasks enumerated below are its key functions: • Strengthen its capacity with a social safeguards specialist in planning, coordination, implementation and monitoring of land acquisition and resettlement; • Train counterpart staff and monitor resettlement in the sub-projects; • Conducting of consultations and ensuring that the APs are well-informed on the resettlement and compensation; • Conducting negotiation with the APs with the value of compensation at replacement cost based on the reference price unit. • Coordination with the MPW, MOJ and NDLPCS and ensuring a prompt, adequate and timely implementation of the RP according to the RF Monitoring and reporting resettlement activities. 68 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Diagram 7.1 : LARAP Institutional Arrangement B. Roles and Responsibilities To ensure the success of this project, all concerned public and private organizations and institutions must strive to work closely together in policy and program formulation and implementation of the 69 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno project as well as the LARAP implementation. Table 7.1 : Roles and Responsibilities Agency Roles and Responsibilities Executing Agency: a. Overall execution of the project; MOF/CAFI Implementing b. Directs the PMU; Agency - MPW c. Provide funds for LARAP implementation; d. Liaise with the World Bank MoPW and PMU a. Manages social and resettlement aspects of the project, including financing of the LARAP; b. Works with the design and supervision consultants relative to all resettlement planning and implementation; c. Organizes public consultations and disclosure of resettlement planning documents in accessible language and forms; d. Disclose the LARAP in local websites as well as in accessible places in project locations; e. Carries out land acquisition, including negotiation with PAPs according to the provisions in the LARAP and GoTL’s laws in coordination with the Ministry of Justice as well as NDLPCS; f. Ensures that PAPs receive prompt compensation payments and livelihoods support – adequately and effectively – in compliance with the LARAP, the World Bank’s safeguards policy and Timor Leste’s laws and regulations; g. Establishes a grievance redress system designed to address complaints from PAPs in a responsive and timely fashion; h. Liaises with the World Bank on all matters related to resettlement and submit regular implementation reports of the LARAP. MOJ/NDLPCS a. Oversees and reviews the implementation of land acquisition and resettlement according to the agreed LARAP; b. Guides PMU in addressing issues that require policy direction in conjunction with the current/prevailing laws and regulations; c. Collaborate with the PMU to verify and validate land compensation values in conjunction with the provisions in the LARAP. C. LARAP Implementation Schedule A tentative implementation schedule is proposed in Matrix below. A timeframe of 18 months has been considered for the implementation of this RP and may change due to some circumstances beyond the control of the implementing agency. 70 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Table 7.2 : Implementation Schedules # of months # Activities Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 Review of RAP/Design 1 Drawings 2 Peg markIng/ Demarcation 2 3 Marking of the Structures/ 3 Asset on ground 4 Review of Corridor of 1 Impact (COI) 5 Verification of the PAPs 1 6 Updating of the PAPs 2 7 Submission of updated LARAP to WB through 1 MPW/PMU for review and approval 8 Revise updated LARAP 1 addressing comments 9 Disclosure of approved 1 LARAP 10 Verification Survey by the GRC and 3 Negotiation Settlement 11 Translation & Distribution of 2 Public 71 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno # of months # Activities Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 12 Information 2.5 Booklet PMU prepare Master List 13 Prepare vouchers Master list 6 approved by MPW 14 Submitted to MOF endorses To the Treasury 12 processed & remitted to BNCTL 15 Delivery of compensation to PAPs BNCTL 18 advises PMU money transferred 16 Dispute/ Objections 18 (Complaints Grievances) 17 Internal monitoring & 18 reporting to WB thru PMU 18 Consultation throughout 18 project implementation 19 Account opening 6 D. LARAP Disclosure Plan The primary objective of the disclosure is to inform and continually update about the project and to engage with affected stakeholders to seek and maintain active participation and support of PAPs, project-affected 72 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno communities and their representatives throughout the various stages (appraisal, planning, implementation, follow up, monitoring and evaluation) of the project. Specific objectives include the following: • To inform PAPs and other stakeholders about and discuss the nature and scale of adverse and beneficial socio-economic impacts of the project on their livelihoods in a more transparent and direct manner and seek their active participation in the project cycle and; • To give PAPs and other members of affected communities a chance to have a say and express their views in the planning and implementation of the Project that affect them directly. Key aspects of this LARAP have already been disclosed to the PAPs during the stakeholder consultation and discussions, census and socio-economic surveys and field level meetings with PAPs, political administration and concern Agencies. In addition, following steps will be undertaken for disclosure of LARAP. The draft RAP will be disclosed to PAPs in Tetum and serve to inform PAPs about key aspects of the compensation and entitlements established for Branch Road and the implementation and monitoring mechanisms that will ensure transparent and fair execution of these aspects. For this purpose, an information booklet with a summary of impacts, asset valuation, unit rates, eligibility criteria, compensation entitlements, compensation delivery and grievance redress mechanism with institutional arrangements for implementation of RAP will be prepared. In addition to the disclosure of this LARAP, PMU and Implementing Contractor will send to all PAPs a pamphlet in Tetum summarizing the content of this LARAP, the entitlements matrix, the terms of agreement between the customary elders, Suco and Aldeia chiefs and the Project Affected Peoples, and agreed compensation rates. The summary LARAP in Tetum will also be posted in major gathering places such as markets, and main government offices. The draft LARAP will be updated including final impacts, inventory and compensation costs following the finalization of the DED. The final LARAP will be endorsed by the PMU for the World Bank’s review and approval. Following the World Bank’s approval and clearance, the final LARAP will also be uploaded on PMU and the World Bank’s websites while hard copies of the approved LARAP will be placed in relevant government departments and offices. The main consultation activities during LARAP implementation cover: • Updating, implementation and monitoring of land acquisition and resettlement plan; • Updating the census of PAPs by type, category and severance and preparation of compensation packages based on agreed unit rates and entitlements criterion; • Distribution of the notices to the entitled PAPs regarding their payment of compensation; • Facilitation to PAPs in completion of necessary documentation to receive their entitled payments; • Providing guidance for the submission of their requests for compensation as per-eligibility and entitlements. • Payments of compensation; 73 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno • Facilitation to the PAPs to put their complaints (if any) in front of Grievance Redress Committee (GRC) and; • Internal and external monitoring. E. Monitoring and Evaluation The main objective of monitoring the implementation of the Resettlement Plan is to determine whether or not the LARAP is carried out in accordance with the Resettlement Framework and to provide feedback to PMU/MPW and to assess its effectiveness. It involves the monitoring of compensation for lost assets and land acquisition if necessary. Follow up monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the compensation process will be conducted to make sure that PAPs receive their compensation as described in the LARAP. Moreover, evaluation of the resettlement activities will be resorted after implementation of the LARAP to assess whether the resettlement objectives were appropriate and whether they were met, specifically, whether livelihoods and living standards have been restored or enhanced if there is any. The evaluation will also assess resettlement efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability, drawing lessons as a guide to future resettlement planning. Monitoring - Monitoring of all resettlement activities, consultation tasks and reports to the World Bank will be conducted by the national and international social safeguard specialists of the Environmental and Social Unit (ESU) established in the PMU. Monitoring will include reporting on progress in the activities envisaged in the implementation schedule with particular focus on public consultations, land purchase (if required), determination of compensation, compensation payment occurred, record of grievances and status of complaints, financial disbursements, and level of satisfaction among AP’s. Potential indicators for monitoring are presented in Matrix below. Table 7.3 : Monitoring and Evaluation Matrix Monitoring Issues Indicators Budget and timeframe a. Have all safeguards staff under the ESU been appointed and mobilized for field and office work? b. Have capacity building and training activities been completed? c. Are resettlement implementation activities being achieved in accordance to the agreed implementation plan? d. Are funds for resettlement being allocated on time? e. Have the PMU received the scheduled funds? f. Have funds been disbursed according to the LARAP? Delivery of PAP entitlements a. Have all PAPs received entitlements according to the 74 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno numbers and categories of losses as set out in the entitlement matrix? b. How much compensation has been paid? c. What is the status of other payments not yet paid? d. How many affected households relocated and built their new structures at new locations? e. Are income and livelihoods restoration activities being implemented as planned? f. Have the affected businesses received appropriate entitlements? g. How many kilometers are free as workable areas? Consultation, Grievances and a. Have resettlement information brochures/leaflets been Special Issues prepared and distributed? b. Have consultations taken place as scheduled including meetings, groups, community activities? c. Have any PAPs used the grievance redress procedures? d. What were the outcomes? e. Have conflicts been resolved? Benefit Monitoring a. What changes have occurred in patterns of occupation compared to pre-project situations? b. What changes have occurred in income and expenditure patterns compared to pre-project situations? c. Have PAPs income kept pace with these changes? d. What changes have occurred for vulnerable groups? F. Reporting The Social Safeguards Monitoring (SSM) is undertaken by the International and National Social Safeguards Specialists from the PISC. The National Social Safeguards Specialists prepare monthly reports for submission to PMU and the monthly reports are integrated into quarterly progress reporting (QPR) by the International Social Safeguards Specialist to be submitted to MPW and WB. The ESU has inputs to the QPR. Semi-annual safeguards monitoring reports adopting a structured Table of Contents will be prepared by PMU and to be submitted to MPW and WB. Relevant information from these reports will be disclosed in the project areas and shall be available in local languages. 75 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno CHAPTER VIII GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISM The Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM) is established to handle the questions and complaints coming in on the project. It involves a multi-level structure that encouraged immediate resolution of issues on the ground and created access to more senior authorities to handle issues that could not be resolved on the ground. A. Rationale MPW through PMU will establish a grievance redress mechanism (GRM) for the project to facilitate resolution of complaints by affected people and grievances about the project’s environmental and social performance. The GRM will be facilitated by the PMU/Consultant and be applicable to all contractors who will be required to maintain a grievance registry or record. The PMU or designated officer will manage the GRM in liaison with the Suco leaders and committees at the district level. The public will be made aware of the relevant contact numbers and contact person in PMU/Consultant and each contractor through media publicity, notice boards at the construction sites, and local authority offices. The public will be made aware that the contractors and the PMU have an open-door policy and that the complainant can remain anonymous if requested. The GRM will address affected people's concerns and complaints promptly, using an understandable and transparent process based on traditional methods for resolving conflicts and complaints. The GRM shall provide some procedures for resolving complaints at the project level as well as beyond the project (that is, involving relevant government offices such as District and Suco committees, NDLPCS (National Directorate for Land Property and Cadastral), etc.), using the existing judicial or administrative remedies. The GRM to be established to receive, evaluate and facilitate the resolution of affected people’s concerns, complaints and grievances about the social and environmental performance at the level of the project, including the construction issues. The PMU/Consultant will maintain an open-door policy to accept complaints at all levels concerning the environmental performance of the project. The GRM will aim to provide a time-bound and transparent mechanism to voice and resolve social and environmental concerns linked to the project. A project information brochure will include information on the GRM and shall be widely disseminated throughout the project corridor by the safeguards officers in the PISCs that support the PMU. Grievances can be filed in writing or by phone with any member of the PMU, PISC, construction site staff and other key public offices, all of which will accept complaints. However, the key officers with responsibility for monitoring grievances will be the National Environmental Consultant (NEC) and the National Social- Resettlement Consultant (NSC) in the PISC. The PISCs effectively form integral divisions covering separate projects and contracts within the PMU. The GRM has been based on existing arrangements for redress of grievances for affected persons which are through complaints to the village and suco committees up to the district level and then through the 76 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno PMU and back to the agency which implements a project. This indirect route will remain in place to preserve the usual administrative remedies. The process to deal with project complaints and grievances is based on this existing/traditional approach, experience of dealing with complaints for other projects and the results from GRM established for other projects implemented by the PMU. B. GRM Focal Point An easily, accessible and well publicized focal point will be appointed as the main person in the PMU to coordinate grievance resolution and settlements, which may involve external parties. The affected persons or the complainants can submit their grievance verbally or in writing directly to Suco Chiefs or the recognized community leaders or through focal point from the project i.e. Engineer; or directly to contractor. The Engineer will validate the grievance or complaint if valid or not valid. The GRM is publicized in print in the project location such as Suco office; contractor site; and the PMU office and spread during public consultation. The PMU will assign a focal person for receiving and resolving any grievance of PAPs. The local administration particularly the Suco Chiefs and recognized civil society leaders play a major role in the grievance redress process. C. Grievance Categories It is anticipated that four categories of grievances on projects are related to: land, physical asset and trees acquisitions grievance such as disputes related to ownership of affected assets; agreement of compensation amount; late payment of compensation amount; number of affected asset and etc. D. Grievance Redress Process Category I: Land, physical asset and trees acquisitions grievance To handle any concern regarding category I, the GRM follow GRM in the approved Resettlement Plan. The complaint that cannot be solved on the spot, it may need to be mediated by involving outside parties. One or more Grievance Redress Committee/s (GRCs) will be set up for the project/sub-project based on the local administrative units (District/Sub-district/Sucos/Aldeis) as well as to facilitate easy accessibility of APs to address any complaint regarding the category I. The proposed composition of the GRCs is as below: a. MPW-PMU; b. Project Implementation Supervising Consultant (RS, EO, RE) Local Administration (District/Sub- District and Suco/Aldeis Chiefs) Recognized civil society leaders; c. Government representatives; 77 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno d. At least one female member within the GRC. Table 8.1 : Land/Compensation Related Grievances Step Process Duration 1 PAPs submit grievances to Suco Chiefs in person and Suco Chiefs notify the PMU focal point (PISC) 2 Suco Chief in coordination with PMU/Consultant 7 days facilitates to redress grievance and reports back to PAPs If unresolved or if PAPs want to go directly to the GRC or PMU 3 PAPs or PMU focal person will take the grievance to Within 2 weeks of receipt the GRC/PMU/Community Liaison Officer 4 Issues discussed at project liaison meetings of 1 week Grievance Redress Meeting 5 PMU/Community liaison officer reports back to 5 days Sucos/PAPs If unresolved 6 PAP take grievances to MPW/SEFOPE (Secretario Within 2 weeks of receipt Estado de Formacau Professional) 7 MPW/SEFOPE refers to the matter to an internal 2 weeks committee (PMU) If unresolved 9 PAPs can take the matter to the appropriate court As per judicial system Category II: Construction Grievance The process of the GRM to handle any grievance regarding category II is as follows: Step Process Duration 1 PAPs submit grievance to the local administration or through Suco Chief in person and Suco Chief notifies the PMU focal point/Consultant who then notifies the grievance to contractor or Suco Chief notifies directly to Contractor Contractor has to address the 2 Suco Chief in coordination with PMU/Consultant grievance within 2 weeks after facilitates to address grievance and reports back to the grievance is received by PAPs contractor 3 Consultant can forward the grievance to PMU in order PMU to instruct the contractor to redress the grievance 78 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno E. Grievance Log All complaints are logged in writing and maintained in a database such as in a simple excel file. The grievance log will capture the name of the complainants, date of submission, the complaint being made verbally or in written directly to project proponent or through informal or traditional systems (such as Suco Chiefs or community leaders); the issue raised and location of complaints circle around, the status of the complaint (resolved or not resolved or referred to third party). After the resolved agreed, the database should also cover the solution and the date of solution. All supporting documents of meetings needed to achieve resolution should be part of the file related to the complaint. This should include meetings that have been escalated to an appeals level or are handled by a third party. The Engineer under PISC is encouraged to log all complaints. F. Monitoring At a minimum, the database should track and report in the project monthly report the following information: a. #complaints received; b. #complaints addressed; c. #complaints responded and/or resolved within stipulated service standards for response times (3 months); d. The above information will become monitoring indicators. 79 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno ANNEX 1: REGULATORY GAP ASSESSMENT ON LAND ACQUSITION AND RESETTLEMENT Scope / Topic Provision of the Bank’s Policy OP 4.12 GoTL Gap in Bank Policy and GoTL Laws and Regulations Suggested Measures to Fill-in the Gap 1 2 3 4 5 Policy Objectives PAPs (Project Affected Persons) should be assisted in their Section 54 of the Constitution stipulates that private property rights are In principle, livelihoods restoration is ensured under Application of the agreed resettlement planning efforts to improve their livelihoods and standards of living or protected. These include i) citizens’ rights to own and transfer private the constitution and the draft law. However, since framework and entitlement matrix in the LARAP. at least to restore them, in real terms, to pre-displacement property, and ii) expropriation of private property for public purposes the law is yet to be passed, there is essentially an levels or to levels prevailing prior to the beginning of project following payment of fair compensation in accordance with law. 3). absence of further regulatory frameworks that implementation, whichever is higher (Para 2.c) define the operationalization of relevant The draft law on land expropriation further elaborates the constitutional constitutional provisions. provisions by requiring that expropriation should follow the principles of legality, justice, equality, proportionality, impartiality and good faith. Expropriation must ensure affected people’s circumstances such that their standard of living is equal to or higher than the one they enjoyed prior to expropriation. Furthermore, special needs of minorities and vulnerable groups should be taken into consideration throughout the land expropriation process. Resettlement as Sustainable Resettlement activities should be conceived as sustainable Section 141 of the National Constitution stipulates that ownership, use Different modes of compensation other than cash, LARAP requires the project proponent to provide Development Program. development programs, providing sufficient resources to and development of land are factors for economic production and shall particularly relocation and land-for-land, are not sufficient resources for development of enable persons displaced to share in project benefits (Para be regulated by the law. sufficiently elaborated resettlement sites, where necessary; together 2.b). with provision of relocation assistance and for planning and implementation of income rehabilitation measures for those affected by loss of incomes and livelihood. Direct Impacts due to Land Covers provision of benefits to address direct social and The draft law stipulates direct impacts related to land expropriation and Adverse social and economic impacts due to The ESMP for the project requires mitigation Acquisition economic impacts caused by the acquisition of land including easements. Once fair compensation is given, further consideration and restriction of access to legally designated parks and measures related to temporary restrictions on restrictions of access to legally designated parks and impact mitigation are not elaborated. protected are not explicitly covered under the draft land use caused by the project. protected areas resulting in adverse impacts on livelihoods law. (Para 3) Linked Activities Covers impacts that result from other activities if they are (i) Not covered Not covered Legacy issues and linked activities need to be directly and significantly related to the proposed project; (ii) assessed and Due Diligence/Tracer assessment necessary to achieve its objectives; and (iii) carried out or needs to be carried out, as necessary. Remedial planned to be carried out contemporaneously with the measures shall be consistent with OP 4.12 and any project (Para 4) land acquisition linked to the project shall be covered under the LARAP approved by the World Bank. Compensation for indirect impact It is good practice for the borrower to undertake a social Environmental Licensing Decree No. 5/2011 only requires management Indirect impacts are not covered Indirect impacts due to land acquisition will be caused by acquisition of land or assessment and implement measures to minimize and of indirect impacts and benefit sharing with affected communities for covered under the ESMP. structures mitigate adverse economic and social impacts, particularly Category A projects. Indirect impacts caused by acquisition of land upon poor and vulnerable groups and/or assets are not covered under the current law. (Footnote 5). States that other environmental, social and economic impacts that do not result from land taking should be addressed under OP 4.01 80 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Compensation at full Replacement Compensation for lost land and other assets should be paid Section 141 stipulates that requisitioning and expropriation of property While some elements of replacement costs are Compensation (valuation) for affected structures cost at full replacement costs (Para 6.a (iii) and Footnote 11) for public purposes shall only take place following fair compensation in alluded in the draft law, there is no specific should be free of depreciation and deductions for accordance with the law. The draft law requires that land expropriation definition or methodology to define replacement salvaged material. The TOR for NDLPCS and/or should follow principles of justice and equality on account of ensuring costs. The National Directorate of Land Property and appraisers deployed by the project should ensure that expropriation must ensure that the standard of living of PAPs is Cadastral Services (NDLPCS) has the mandate and that no depreciation is applied for assessment of equal to or higher than the one enjoyed prior to compensation. The responsibility to assess the value of land and related compensation for affected assets. draft law is also required to guarantee fair compensation based on assets. market value. The LARAP for respective project/subproject will provide basic principle for assessment of compensation for affected assets. Support for affected persons who Financial assistance to all project affected persons to achieve Decree no. 11/2011 on Compensation for Resettlement authorizes the Partially covered. Such compensation is not All affected households without recognizable legal have no recognizable legal right or the policy objective (to improve their livelihoods and payments of compensation to unlawful occupants of state property to mandatory. rights including those occupying public or private claim to the land they are standards of living or at least to restore them, in real terms, resettle elsewhere. However, such payment is not mandatory. land are provided compensation for their lost occupying to pre-displacement levels or to levels prevailing prior to the assets at replacement cost and assistance, as beginning of project implementation, whichever is higher necessary, for their relocation to meet the policy (Para 15.c, 16 and Footnote 20) objectives as established in the entitlement matrix of the LARAP. Assistance to Vulnerable Groups To achieve the objectives of this policy, particular attention is The draft law on land expropriation stipulates that special needs of Subject to the adoption of the law, the draft law The Land Acquisition and Resettlement (LAR) paid to the needs of vulnerable groups among those minorities and vulnerable groups should be taken into consideration provides sufficient legal basis to achieve policy survey has attempted to identify vulnerable displaced, especially those below the poverty line, the throughout land expropriation processes. objectives. groups within affected communities (the poor, landless, the elderly, women and children, indigenous women and people with disabilities). The LARAP peoples ethnic minorities, or other displaced persons who requires special measures to address impacts on may not be protected through national land compensation these groups including additional livelihoods legislation (Para 8). assistance. Compensation for loss of income Loss of income sources should be compensated (whether or Compensation is limited to direct land acquisition and assets. Legal provisions are deficient to recognize Households affected by loss of households sources or means of livelihood not the affected persons must move to another location) entitlements for loss of incomes and means of incomes or livelihood will be entitled to (Para 3a & 6) livelihood due to land acquisition. compensation for income loss and assistance for restoration of livelihood to meet the policy objectives as established in the entitlement matrix of the LARAP. Income restoration plan and The resettlement plan or resettlement policy framework also Once fair compensation given further consideration and impact The draft law on land expropriation does not Project authorities will be required to provide assistance include measures to ensure that displaced persons are: mitigation are not elaborated. elaborate the option and implementation of sufficient resources for planning and (i) Offered support after displacement, for a transition assistance and livelihood restoration. implementation of livelihood restoration period, based on a reasonable estimate of the time likely to measures such as: temporary livelihoods be needed to restore their livelihood and standards of living assistance, replanting assistance for significant such support could take the form of short-term jobs, impacts on agricultural land (i.e. coffee subsistence support, salary maintenance or similar plantations), and land replacement assistance at arrangements; and the request of PAPs. (ii) Provided with development assistance in addition to compensation measures described in paragraph 6 (a) (iii), such as land preparation, credit facilities, training, or job opportunities (Para 6c). 81 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Assistance to Physically Displaced Includes measures to ensure that the displaced persons are The draft law on land expropriation does not provide for any specific Assistance to displaced households due to land All displaced households will be entitled to provided assistance during relocation; residential housing, or assistance, including transitional support and development assistance to acquisition are not covered by the draft law on land relocation assistance such as: transport allowance, housing sites, or, as required, agricultural sites; and offered displaced persons other than offering compensation for lost assets. expropriation. transition allowance and other resettlement support after displacement, for a transition period, and measures as necessary as established in the provided with development assistance in addition to entitlement matrix of the LARAP. compensation measures (Para 6b&c and Footnote 13 & 14) Compensation Options Provide technically and economically feasible resettlement Provisions for fair compensation as enshrined in the National Provision of replacement land and relocation The entitlement matrix in the LARAP outlines a alternatives and needed assistance, including (a) prompt Constitution and the draft law on land expropriation. The draft law also assistance are not sufficiently elaborated. range of compensation options, which not only compensation at full replacement cost for loss of assets contains special measures for vulnerable groups. cover direct compensation for lost assets but also attributable to the project; (b) if there is relocation In practice, only compensation in cash is given relocation assistance, temporary livelihoods assistance during relocation and residential housing, or priority in deciding the form of compensation. assistance and special assistance for vulnerable housing sits, or agricultural sites of equivalent productive groups. Further consultations and impact survey potential, as required; (c) transitional support and will explore PAPs’ preferences (i.e. whether land- development assistance, such as land preparation, credit based resettlement, compensation or other facilities, training or job opportunities as required, in assistance based on needs). Project proponents addition to compensation measures; (d) cash compensation will be required to assist resettled households to for land when the impact of land acquisition on livelihoods is identify suitable land, preferably in-situ or near minor; and (e) provision of civic infrastructure and the original locations to minimize impacts. community services as required. Eligibility for Indigenous Peoples. Land of Indigenous Peoples is addressed in both OP 4.12 and Not covered. Not covered ESMF for the program will include provisions for OP 4.10. If land of IPs is to be taken, requires broad recognition of affected IP communities, community support through free, prior and informed conducting social assessment, consultation and consultations. FPIC requirements and appropriate compensation Preference is given to land-based resettlement strategies for and assistance consistent with the requirement of these groups (see para. 11) that are compatible with their the Bank’s OP 4.10. cultural preferences and are prepared in consultation with them (Para 9) Host Community Displaced persons and their communities, and any host Not covered in the draft law on land expropriation. Such provisions are Not covered. Impacts on host communities are not envisaged communities receiving them, are provided timely and limited to only minimizing impacts on cultural values and spiritual sites for the direct physical investments/road relevant information offered opportunities to participate in both for direct impacts on land acquisition and resettlement in host upgrading works as in-situ resettlement will be planning, implementing, and monitoring resettlement; communities. sought. infrastructure and public services are provided as necessary to improve, restore, or maintain accessibility and levels of The ESMF for future feasibility studies or service for the displaced persons and host communities (Para unidentified land acquisition for the program will 13 a&b) specify the need for consultation with host communities and identification and mitigation of any adverse impacts due to relocation of PAPs Resettlement Cost to be included The full costs of land acquisition and/or resettlement Not specifically regulated. Cost estimation and proposal for budget The current laws, including the draft law on land Feasibility Studies and overall project costing to in project cost activities necessary to achieve the objectives of the project allocation are carried out at the planning stage, whereby detail surveys acqusition do not specify resettlement cost to be ensure inclusion of cost of land acquisition and are included in the total costs of the project. for each land plots and measurement are carried out during the part of the total project cost. However, the resettlement in overall project cost and for implementation stage of land acquisition. Feasibility Study at the planning stage is required to conducting cost-benefit analysis. include overall project cost as well as estimated cost of land acquisition; and a cost benefit analysis. By inference it is assumed that resettlement cost is therefore included in overall project cost. 82 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Public Participation and Displaced persons should be meaningfully consulted and The draft law on land expropriation stipulates the requirements to Consultations are only required at the planning Public consultation procedures for public Consultation should have opportunities to participate in planning and ensure PAPs are informed of their rights, which include consultations stage and the draft law does not explicitly require consultation and their participation in decision- implementing resettlement programs prior to land expropriation. consultations and public engagement during making both during project preparation and (Para 6a, 13, 14 & 19) implementation. The Law also do not ensure that implementation will be mandatory and will be all modes of information dissemination are applied, further strengthened through recruitment of a and affected households are fully informed of all social specialist in the PMU and facilitators. options of mode of compensation in detail. Disclosure of Planning instrument The relevant draft resettlement document is made available The draft law requires that administrative possession is to be obtained Although the draft law on land expropriation All documents will need to be disclosed to public at a place accessible to displaced persons and local NGOs, in after the publication and notification of the declaration of public requires dissemination of information on affected in suitable and accessible forms to meet the a form, manner, and language that are understandable to interest, including all information associated with the property to be land and other assets, and applicable compensation Bank’s disclosure requirements. them. Once acceptable, the Bank makes it available to the expropriated and compensation entitlements. amounts to affected households, there is no clarity public (Para 22 & Footnote 23). on public disclosure of documents: FS, LARAP, etc. Grievance Redress Mechanism Appropriate and accessible grievance mechanisms are The draft law on land expropriation guarantees judicial appeal. The draft law is not clear with regards to the All complaints in regard to land acquisition, established (Para 13a & 14) requirement of a project-specific GRM to be compensation, relocation and/or other established, including roles and responsibilities and entitlements will need to be documented. documentation of grievances. The LARAP provide specific procedures for a project-level GRM. Monitoring and Evaluation Adequate monitoring, both internal and external, by an National Directorate of Land Property and Cadastral Services (NDLPCS) The draft law on land expropriation does not All project/subprojects under the will be required independent agency, required. and project proponents have the responsibility to monitor land provide for external monitoring of resettlement to monitor land acquisition and resettlement Upon completion of the project, an assessment is required to expropriation processes. implementation and post-implementation activities by an independent monitoring and determine whether the objectives of the resettlement However, the legal framework does not require external monitoring of evaluation to assess whether the objectives of the supervision consultant team prior to, during and instrument have been achieved (Para 24) land acquisition/resettlement impacts on the livelihoods and living resettlement plan have been achieved. post-implementation of the road upgrading works. standards of displaced persons and does not require assessment whether the objectives of the resettlement plan have been achieved. Further it is deficient in providing details on objectives of evaluation. 83 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno ANNEX 2: AFFECTED AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL LAND No Respondent Name Age Number STA_ Gender Marital Total Primary Proof of Land Use Type Total Area of Total Area to Severity Note Status Family Livelihood Skill ownership Land Owned be affected by impact Member (m²) project (m²) SECTION 1 SUCO HORAIQUIK 1 Amelia Bossa 74 0+000-0+020 F Widow 7 Selling - Residential land 300 60 20% Significant 2 Rosa Fernandes 35 0+010-0+060 F Married 6 Farming - Home garden 2800 77 3% 3 Francisco de Araujo 60 0+240 M Married 11 Farming SNC Agriculture land 30000 1350 5% 4 Guilhermino Cortereal 71 M Married 11 Farming SNC Agriculture land 10000 900 9% 5 Bernardino de andrade 45 0+080-0+240 M Single Farming SNC Agriculture land 57600 2080 3.6% 6 Octaviano tilman de araujo 32 M Married 5 Farming - Agriculture land 9000 300 3.3% 7 Duarte de Araujo 38 0+810-0+900 M Married 12 Farming SNC Home garden 1800 900 50% Severe – land replacement 0+920-1+030 M Married SNC Home garden 2500 1500 60% Severe – land replacement 3+260-3+360 M SNC Vacant land 25000 1000 4% 8 Laurentino Ximenes 59 1+980-2+250 M Married 12 Farming SNC Agriculture land 54000 400 1% 0+640-0+810 Agriculture land 34000 2550 8% 9 Marcos Pereira Lopes 46 0+080-0+120 M Married 12 Farming SNC Agriculture land 57600 2080 4% 10 Osorio da silva Andrade 44 0+120-0+180 M Married 6 Farming - Home garden 6000 780 13% Significant 11 Rosa da costa Pinhero 55 0+350-0+400 F Married 5 Farming SNC Agriculture land 10000 900 9% 12 Manuel Da silva 58 M Married 5 Farming SNC Agriculture land 22000 200 1% 13 Andrade Sarmentio 39 0+180-0+240 M Single Farming SNC Agriculture land 57600 2080 4% 14 João de deus 74 1+280-1+980 M Married 8 Farming SNC Vacant land 175000 9100 5% 2+400-2+250 M Married SNC Vacant land 30000 270 1% 15 Lucio da conseiҫão 62 1+140-1+260 M Married 15 Farming SNC Vacant land 18000 2400 13% 16 Paul de deus 70 2+240-2+400 M Married 6 Farming SNC Agriculture land 104000 3000 3% 17 Domingos de Araujo 46 3+120-3+260 M Married 6 Farming SNC Vacant land 35000 2520 7% 18 Aquelina Barbosa 28 3+020-3+120 F Married 11 Farming and SNC Vacant land 25000 1900 8% project labor 19 Calistro tilman 63 3+360-3+560 M Married 3 Farming SNC Vacant land 45000 3600 8% 20 Alberto da Silva 63 2+920-3+020 M Married 12 Small kiosk and SNC Vacant land 20000 2500 13% farming SUCO MULO 21 Idelfonso d.c de Araujo 28 4+560-4+660 M Married 4 Driver SNC Agriculture land 8000 1300 16% Significant 22 Fernando Cristovão - 4+660-4+680 M Married 3 Farming - Home garden 2000 240 12% Significant 84 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 23 Elias benevides 49 4+820-4+920 M Married 8 Farming SNC Agriculture land 10000 1000 10% Significant 24 Amaro da Cruz 38 4+940-5+020 M Married 7 Farming SNC Agriculture land 8000 800 10% Significant 25 Fernando Sampaio 61 5+020-5+080 M Married 4 Farming - Agriculture land 6000 600 10% Significant 26 Antonio da Cruz 69 5+080-5+200 M Married 6 Farming SNC Agriculture land 14400 1800 13% Significant 27 Felix de orleans 70 5+200-5+240 M Married 12 Farming SNC Home garden 3200 320 10% 28 Manuel da Silva 65 5+240-5+300 M Married 12 Farming SNC Home garden 1800 660 37% Significant 29 Vicente Tilman 54 5+300-5+380 M Married 7 Farming SNC Home garden 4000 1280 32% Significant 30 Domingos Cardoso 65 4+840-4+960 M Married 7 Farming SNC Agriculture land 7200 1200 17% Significant 31 Tanah Gereja (Public) 5+380-5+460 Church Land 12000 1280 11% Significant 32 Tanah sekolah (Gaverment) 4+960-5+260 School yard 10500 800 8% 33 Denis Marques de orleans 29 5+630-5+700 M Single Farming SNC Vacant Land 7000 1050 15% 34 Geraldo pereira de araujo 42 5+780-5+980 M Married 5 Farming SNC Vacant land 20000 3800 19% 35 João Godinho 45 5+460-5+680 M Married 8 Farming SNC Vacant land 33000 3740 11% 36 Eduardo da Cruz 65 5+700-5+780 M Married 12 Farming SNC Vacant land 16000 1360 9% 37 Domingos de Orleans - 6+020-6+120 M Married 7 Farming SNC Vacant land 8000 200 3% 38 Armindo da Cruz - 6+300-6+420 M Vacant land 18000 2040 11% No interview SUCO NUNUMOGE 39 Jose Martins 35 6+420-6+480 M Widower 5 Farming SNC Vacant land 2400 720 30% 40 Domingos Ximenes 45 6+480-6+600 M Married 10 Farming SNC Vacant land 9600 2400 25% 41 Carlos Ximenes 65 6+600-6+640 M Married 10 Farming SNC Home garden 3200 480 15% Significant 6+710-6+750 Home garden 2800 750 27% Significant 6+640-6+660 Vacant land 1200 240 6+750-6+830 Vacant land 24000 960 42 Marcos de deus 49 104+401-0+640 M Married 8 Farming Agriculture land 20000 2600 13% Significant 6+640-6+660 M Married Home garden 1200 240 20% Significant 6+750-6+830 M Married Agriculture land 24000 960 4% 43 Jose Casmiro - 6+660-6+710 M Vacant land 5000 1050 21% No interview 44 Leonardo Sarmento Lopes 60 6+830-6+940 M Married 10 Farming SNC Vacant land 22000 1320 6% 7+760-7+940 M Married SNC Vacant land 36000 4680 13% 8+460-8+720 M Married SNC Vacant land 104000 4420 4% 45 Felismino de Araujo 40 6+920-7+070 M Married 10 Farming SNC Agriculture land 15000 1350 9% 46 Abel Ximenes 58 7+070-7+740 M Married 12 Farming SNC Home garden 5600 350 6% 47 Araujo de deus Amaral 86 7+140-1+280 M Married 4 Farming SNC Agriculture land 14000 1080 8% 7+200-7+280 M Married SNC Agriculture land 8000 200 3% 48 João Benevides 29 7+280-7+420 M Married 5 Farming Agriculture land 74000 2100 3% 49 Tanah Gereja 7+420-7+580 32000 2080 7% No interview 85 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 50 Manuel de Araujo 56 7+580-7+760 M Married 6 Farming SNC Vacant land 27000 3600 13% 51 Felisberto Doutel Sarmento 40 7+940-8+080 M Married 7 Farming SNC Vacant land 42000 1260 3% 52 Olga Ximenes 25 8+080-8+200 M Orphaned 2 Farming SNC Vacant land 36000 2280 6% 53 Rafael Ximenes 40 8+200-8+460 M Married 8 Farming SNC Vacant land 80000 3000 4% 6+750-6+830 SNC Home garden 1600 960 60% Severe – land replacement 54 Arlindo Soares lopes 28 8+720-8+900 M Married 4 Farming - Agriculture land 72000 2340 3% 55 João Ximenes - 8+900-9+100 M Married 6 Farming SNC Vacant land 8000 3400 43% Significant 56 Lourenço Ximenes 52 9+100-9+400 M Married 6 Farming SNC Vacant land 45000 3600 8% 57 Marcelino Lopes 50 9+400-9+460 M Married 9 Farming SNC Vacant land 9000 480 5% 58 Abilo Tilman 68 9+460-9+660 M Married Farming SNC Vacant land 20000 2600 13% 59 Martino Amaral de Deus 66 9+660-9+730 M Married 8 Farming SNC Agriculture land 8400 700 8% 60 Reinaldo de Araujo 49 9+730-10+100 M Married 9 Farming SNC Agriculture land 37000 3700 10% 61 Miguel Ximenes Verdial 24 10+100-10+210 M Married Farming SNC Agriculture land 22000 1540 7% 62 Celestino Taina 45 10+210-10+310 M Married 9 Farming SNC Agriculture land 30000 1600 5% 63 Alcino Pereira 30 10+310-10+440 M Married 3 Farming SNC Home garden 2600 2470 95% Severe, land replacement and livelihoods support 64 Laurentina de araujo 39 7+140-7+200 F Married 10 Farming SNC Agriculture land 6000 700 12% Significant 10+640-10+700 F Married Home garden 4800 120 3% 65 Roberto de Araujo 50 10+660-10+750 M Married 10 Teaching and SNC Agriculture land 5400 420 8% Farming 66 Amelia de orleans - 10+810-10+880 F Married 8 Farming SNC Vacant land 17500 320 2% 67 Filomena jose fernandes - 10+580-10+920 F Married 10 Employee and SNC Agriculture land 3500 320 9% Farming 68 Marciana Ximenes 45 10+900-11+360 F Married 12 Farming SNC Agriculture land 92000 5980 7% 69 Thomas Alves Quintão 49 11+360-11+440 M Married 9 Farming SNC Agriculture land 12000 670 6% 70 Valente Marques - 11+440-11+460 M resident land 2000 120 6% No interview 71 Natalino - 11+460-11+510 M resident land 5000 700 14% Significant No interview 72 Celestino - 11+510-11+530 M resident land 2000 180 9% No interview 73 Bento Alves 50 11+520-11+600 M Married 7 Farming SNC Agriculture land 8000 560 7% 74 Mateus - 11+600-11+640 M Vacant land 4000 680 17% No interview 75 Armindo Doutel Sarmento - 11+640-11+700 M Married 10 Farming SNC Agriculture land 6000 660 11% Significant 76 Lourenço de Araujo - 11+700-11+720 M resident land 2000 180 9% No interview 77 Alberto dos Santos 49 11+720-11+800 M Married 7 Farming SNC Farm Land 8000 1000 13% Significant 78 Quito Marques - 11+840-11+920 - Vacant Land 8000 1040 13% No interview 86 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno SECTION 2 SUCO KATRAI KARAIK 79 Luciano De Araujo 71 16+080-16+320 M Married 6 Farming - Agriculture land 36000 1820 5% 80 Luis Jose Brandão 48 18+000-18+140 M Married 8 Farming - resident land 8400 700 8% 81 Marcos de Deus - 18+140-18+220 M - Home garden 4000 320 8% No interview 82 Bendita Maia de Deus 30 18+140-18+240 F Married 8 Farming - Home garden 6000 800 13% Significant 83 Ines da Silva 56 18+460-18+500 F Widow 6 Farming - resident land 2000 200 10% 84 Alsino Mariano de Deus - 18+500-18+520 M resident land 1000 160 16% No interview 85 Silvina Madeira - 18+540-18+560 F resident land 1000 220 22% No interview 86 Orlando Soares - 18+500-18+600 M resident land 5000 400 8% No interview 87 Adelino Salsinha 26 18+460-18+620 M Married 2 Farming resident land 2000 80 4% 88 Miguel Soares de Deus 51 18+620-18+640 M Married 8 Farming BPN Certificate Resident land 1000 80 8% 89 Izaquel Soares 36 18+640-18+660 M Married 5 Farming resident land 2000 80 4% 90 Angelina Soares 56 18+660-18+700 M Widow 8 Farming resident land 2400 200 8% 91 Alda de Araujo 41 18+640-18+700 M Widow 8 Farming resident land 3000 300 10% Significant SUCO DUCURAI 92 Domingos Cardoso - 18+700-18+760 resident land 3000 300 10% Significant No interview 93 Francisco de Deus - 18+700-18+760 resident land 3000 300 10% Significant No interview 94 Filomena de Deus 58 20+020-20+180 F Married 10 Farming resident land 12800 1120 9% 95 João felisberto de Deus 67 21+470 & 24+700- M Married 6 Employee and vacant land 63000 5460 9% 25+120 Bussiness 96 David Soares - 21+600-21+700 M vacant Land 6000 700 12% No interview 97 Abel de deus - 23+100-23+240 M resident land 1200 TBD TBD No interview 98 Adão de Deus 36 23+360-23+460 M Married 4 Farming vacant land 6000 1100 18% 99 Agusto de Deus - 23+460-23+540 M vacant land 32000 5760 18% Significant No interview 23+940-24+260 vacant land 4000 720 18% Significant 100 Jacob de Deus - 24+260-24+200 M Agriculture land 11200 1540 14% Significant No interview 101 Francisco Mariano de Deus 50 24+400-24+540 M Single Farming Agriculture land 7000 1260 18% Significant 102 Rui felisbertu de Deus - 24+560-24+640 M Agriculture land 8000 480 6% No interview 103 Romana Soares 29 25+040 F Married 4 Farming/bisnis resident land 2250 5 0% 104 Candida pereira ximenes de deus 22 25+120-25+160 F Married 4 Farming Vacant land 2000 360 18% Significant 105 Paulo de Deus 34 25+160-25+200 M Married 4 Farming resident land 2000 240 12% Significant 106 Julião de Deus - 25+200-25+300 M vacant land 8000 1100 14% No interview 107 Madalena soares de Deus 25+300-25+320 F Married 4 Farming resident land 600 200 33% Significant 87 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 108 Mario Rosario Maia 46 25+320-25+340 M Married 8 Teaching and BPN Certificate Resident land 600 200 33% Significant Farming 109 Domingos de Deus 56 25+240-25+360 M Married - Farming Vacant Land 9600 1140 12% Significant 110 Lourenҫo Maia 50 25+340-25+540 M Married 9 Teaching and resident land 30000 1200 4% Farming 111 Domingos Soares 71 25+510-25+540 M Married 8 Teaching and resident land 1800 180 10% Significant Farming 112 Efrem cornelio 32 25+560-25+600 M Married 11 Teaching and Agriculture land 3600 300 8% Farming 113 Moises de Deus 47 25+640-25+700 M Married 5 Farming Vacant Land 10000 600 6% 114 Francisco Rosario Soares 50 25+640-25+740 M Married 8 Farming and resident land 3200 320 10% Significant Self Employe 115 Lino de Deus 41 25+740-25+800 M Married 11 Farming resident land 1000 120 12% Significant 116 Jose de Deus 54 25+820-25+860 M Married 11 Self-Employee resident land 1200 120 10% Significant 26+040-26+180 Married Agriculture land 11200 1400 13% Significant 117 Mariano Soares 44 28+820-28+860 M Married 6 Self-Employee resident land 2000 240 12% Significant 118 Natalino Maia Salsinha 30 25+940-26+000 M Married 5 Driver resident land 3200 540 17% Significant 119 João dos santos 36 26+000-26+040 M Married 7 Farming resident land 2000 280 14% Significant 120 Clementino Soares 73 26+000-26+040 M Married 11 Farming resident land 3000 540 18% Significant 25+860-25+920 M Married resident land 2800 200 7% 121 Marcelo de Deus 79 26+180-26+200 M Married 6 Farming resident land 6000 300 5% 122 Armando Soares de Deus 48 26+200-26+260 M Married 8 Farming Agriculture land 18000 1080 6% 123 Constantino Maia Soares 30 26+360-26+300 M Married 5 Pegawai resident land 4000 360 9% 124 Church Area 26+260-26+500 Church Land 24000 960 4% 125 Functioning Infromal Class / Course 26+500-26+600 Suco Office Land 10000 400 4% Room at Dukurai Suco Office area 26+380-26+500 TBD TBD 126 Rui Alberto Soares 47 26+600-26+680 M Married 11 Factory worker Agriculture land 8000 1280 16% Significant 127 Rafael Soares maia 41 26+700-26+820 M Widower 8 Farming Agriculture land 12000 120 1% 128 Marcelino Rosario Soares 46 26+820-26+840 M Married 11 Factory worker resident land 1600 200 13% Significant 129 Paulino Maia de F. Soares 44 26+840-26+880 M Married 6 Employee resident land 2800 400 14% Significant 130 Domingos de Deus 46 26+880-26+900 M Married 6 Farming resident land 800 100 13% Significant 131 Carolino - 26+900-26+990 M resident land 4500 900 20% Significant No interview 132 Agustinho Mario Soares 47 28+840 M Married 12 Farming Agriculture land 2700 7 0.25% 133 Duarte Soares - 26+990-27+030 M Married Resident land 3200 480 15% Significant No interview 134 Rosario - 27+030-27+060 M Married Resident land 1500 270 18% Significant 88 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno No interview 135 Antonio Salsinha - 27+120-27+240 M Married Agriculture land 9600 1200 13% Significant No interview 136 Rui Albertu Maia 44 27+240-27+360 M Married 7 Farming BPN Certificate Agriculture land 9000 1200 13% Significant 137 Manuela de Deus 30 27+360-27+400 F Married 8 Farming and Agriculture land 3200 960 30% Significant, land Self Employee replacement and replanting 138 Antonio Soares - 27+400-27+480 M Married Agriculture land 6400 640 10% Significant No interview 139 Carlito Soares - 27+480-27+510 M Married Agriculture land 4000 1300 33% Significant, land replacement and replanting No interview 140 Filomena Salsinha 49 27+520-27+660 M Married 7 Factory worker resident land 1400 TBD TBD 141 Deolindo Soares - 27+660-27+740 M Married Agriculture land 14000 1820 13% Significant No interview 142 Constatino Soares - 27+740-28+000 M Married Agriculture land 20800 3900 19% No interview 143 Abel de Deus - 28+000-28+180 M Married Barren Land 14400 1120 8% No interview 144 Pedro de Deus 56 28+180-28+300 M Married 7 Farming Agriculture land 36000 1680 5% 145 Filomeno - 28+300-28+470 M Married Agriculture land 51000 1700 3% No interview 146 Joaquina Martins - 28+470-28+520 F Married vacant Land 1500 450 30% Significant No interview 157 Armando de Deus 49 28+520-28+560 M Married 10 Teaching resident land 1800 180 10% Significant 148 Martinho Soares 36 28+560-28+620 M Married 5 Farming vacant Land 1800 840 47% 149 Monica de Fatima 32 28+620-28+720 F Married 5 Farming BPN Certificate Resident land 20000 1200 6% 150 Miguel de Deus - 28+720-28+860 M Married vacant land 7000 1820 26% No interview 151 Sezaltino Manuel de Deus - 28+860-29+040 M Married vacant Land 9000 2340 26% No interview SUCO HAUPU 152 Church Letefoho 29+440-29+820 TBD TBD Engineering design considerations TBC 29+440-29+740 153 Domingos do Rosario - 20+860 M 0 No interview 154 Mariano da. C Soares 30 29+870-29+000 M Married 5 Self-employee resident land 306 60 20% Significant 155 Ilda Soares 53 30+000-30+040 F Married 10 Self-employee Resident land 400 120 30% Severe – land replacement TBD 30+030-30+050 Married resident land 200 20 10% Significant 156 Abilio de Araujo 36 30+020-30+030 M Married 7 Farming and resident land 150 30 20% Severe – land Business replacement TBD 157 Julião Soares de Deus 40 30+030-30+050 M Married 7 Welder and resident land 400 40 10% Significant Business 89 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 158 Agustinho Daci-mau Soares 40 30+080 M Married 10 Faming resident land 96 8 8% 159 Calistro de Deus 34 30+080 M Married 6 Business resident land 150 10 7% 160 Domingos de Deus 53 30+060 M Married 10 Farming and resident land 180 12 7% Business 161 Fernanda de Deus 38 30+100 F Married 5 Farming and resident land 200 20 10% Significant Business 162 Tomas Maia Soares 54 30+100 M Married 8 Police officer resident land 900 60 7% 163 Antonio De Deus 59 30+080-30+100 M Widower 8 Farming resident land 300 20 7% 164 Armanda de Jesus Soares 53 30+100 F Married 5 Farming and resident land 195 26 13% Significant Business 165 Mario de Deus 60 30+140-30+210 M Married 7 Farming and resident land 2800 420 15% Significant Business 166 Maria Teresa Martins 58 30+240 F Widow 10 Self employee resident land 1000 28 3% SECTION 3 SUCO HAUPU 167 Felis Soares 75 39+920-39+980 M Married 8 Farming and Agriculture land 2500 60 2% Business 168 Jose Soares 42 38+940-38+980 M Married 10 Farming Agriculture land 20000 320 2% 169 Carlos Soares 62 38+840-38+880 M Married 10 Farming resident land 600 160 27% Significant SUCO GOULOLO 170 Francisco de Deus S. de Jesus 62 39+420-39+430 M Married 4 Farming resident land 250 15 6% 40+220-40+460 Agriculture land 24000 1920 8% 171 Kapela Goulolo 39+320-39+380 TBD TBD 172 Lucio Pereira 35 39+900-39+920 M Married 4 Teaching BPN Certificate Resident land 2000 120 6% 173 João de Deus 45 39+280-39+600 M Married 7 Suco Chief TBD TBD 174 Agustinho Madeira 69 39+700-39+820 M Married 8 Farming BPN Certificate Farm Land 24000 840 4% 175 Armindo Mau-Loe Magalhaes 62 39+600-39+640 M Married 6 Farming TBD TBD 176 Anita Reinaldo 72 39+570-39+600 F Married 6 Teaching TBD TBD 177 Domingos Reinaldo dos Santos 48 39+840-39+900 M Married 11 Farming Agriculture land 3600 420 12% Significant 178 Damião Domingos de Deus 62 39+440-39+460 M Married 10 Farming resident land 400 20 5% 179 Thomas de Deus 74 39+300-39+330 M Married 10 Teaching resident land 1200 600 50% Severe – land replacement TBD 40+920-41+600 Married vacant land 62000 6200 10% 180 Manuel Maia 67 39+128-39+140 M Married 6 Farming resident land 360 96 27% Significant 181 Alberto Manuel Maia 49 39+128-39+170 M Married 7 Farming Agriculture land 42000 200 0.47% SUCO ERAULO 182 Remigio Soares 35 40+780-40+800 M Married 4 Farming BPN Certificate vacant land 1200 500 42% Significant 183 Jacinta Soares 46 40+600-40+720 F Married 9 Teaching BPN Certificate Resident land 2000 1800 90% Severe – land replacement TBD 90 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 184 Antonio Soares 79 40+600-40+700 M Married 6 Farming BPN Certificate Resident land 7200 200 3% 185 Quintão Soares 45 40+800-40+840 M Married 8 Business BPN Certificate Resident land 600 600 100% Severe – land replacement TBD 186 Beatriz de Deus 68 40+520-40+600 F Widow 5 Farming Home garden 1000 500 50% Severe – land replacement TBD 187 Antonio Soares da Silva 20 25 41+900-42+000 M Single Student BPN Certificate Agriculture land 10000 600 6% 188 Joana Soares Martins 57 41+560-41+660 F Widow 7 Farming BPN Certificate Resident land 3000 700 23% Significant 189 Josefa Soares 31 41+600 F Divorce 3 Farming BPN Certificate Resident land 90 48 53% Severe – land replacement TBD 190 Camilio Maia 65 41+660-41+685 M Widower Farming resident land 370 250 68% Severe – land replacement TBD 191 Judit de Deus 56 41+560-41+660 F Widow 5 Farming resident land 1000 700 70% Severe – land replacement TBD 192 Fernando Carvalho 37 42+540-42+600 M Married 5 Farming Agriculture land 6000 840 14% Significant 193 Jose Abdula Renbaldo 42+000-42+140 M Vacant land 14000 700 5% SUCO ESTADU 194 Jacob de Deus 59 42+600-42+660 M Married 8 Farming BPN Certificate Vacant land 6000 600 10% 195 Agustinho de Jesus 48 41+780-41+800 M Married 6 Farming Agriculture land 6000 360 6% 196 Fernando Salsinha 31 41+700-41+740 M Married 4 Farming BPN Certificate Agriculture land 4000 600 15% Significant 197 Zaqueu da Costa Lemos 30 41+800-41+880 M Agriculture land 2400 240 10% Significant No interview 198 José de Deus Suco (Riheu) 41+740-41+780 M vacant land 6000 360 6% No interview 199 Mariano de Fatima 43+620-43+680 M Agriculture land 4800 240 5% No interview 200 Mario Lemos 43+260-43+400 M vacant land 14000 1820 13% No interview SUCO HUMBOE 201 Moises Soares 46 43+060-43+100 M Married 8 Farming Agriculture land 2000 80 4% 202 Luis da Silva Pinto 48+860-48+900 M Married 9 Farming Agriculture land 2000 280 14% Sigificant 203 Jose Marcus 47 48+520-48+580 M Married 8 Farming Agriculture land 3000 900 30% Signficant 204 Marcus Flores Salsinha 36 49+260-49+400 M Married 5 Farming Agriculture land 14000 980 7% 205 Jose Xavier Amaral 46 49+980-50+040 M Married 9 Farming Agriculture land 6000 660 11% Significant 206 Francisco Alves da Cruz 33 48+840-48+860 M Married 4 Farming Agriculture land 1000 100 10% Significant 207 Jacinta Aranhaldo 40 62 49+900-49+980 F Widow 5 Farming Agriculture land 11200 1760 16% Significant 208 Jose Cardoso 65 49+040-49+140 M Married 4 Farming Agriculture land 8000 200 3% 209 Abrão Soares 46 49+140-49+260 M Married 5 Farming Agriculture land 9600 960 10% Significant 210 Thomas da Cruz 63 48+440-48+520 M Married 9 Farming Home garden 2000 1040 52% Severe – land replacement TBD 211 Jeferino Babo 56 48+580-48+640 M Married 7 Farming and Home garden 3000 1320 44% Severe – land Business replacement TBD 212 Abril Soares 40 48+700-48+740 M Married 8 Carpenter Home garden 2000 600 30% Significant 91 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 213 Fernando Soares 42 49+400-49+440 M Married 8 NCBA Home garden 4000 480 12% Significant employee 214 Marcos da Cruz 33 48+740-48+840 M Married 3 Farming Agriculture land 5000 1300 26% Significant 215 Duarte Salsinha 48+900-49+040 Agriculture land 9800 1120 11% Significant No interview 216 Antonia Maria Fatima Babo 53 49+440-49+800 F Widow 2 Teaching Agriculture land 43200 3960 9% 217 lino Xavier Amaral 50 52 50+500-50+600 M Married 8 Farming Agriculture land 16000 1500 9% 218 Sebastião dos Santos 60 50+040-50+100 M Married 15 Business Agriculture land 7200 200 3% 219 Jaime Amaral Ximenes 33 50+240-50+320 M Married 3 Farming Agriculture land 8000 800 10% Significant 220 Hipolito Exposto 50+600-50+720 M Agriculture land 12000 900 8% No interview 221 Selestino 49+800-49+880 M Vacant land 9600 1120 12% Significant No interview 222 Paulino Salsinha 48+640-48+700 M Agriculture land 3000 1260 42% Severe – land replacement TBD No interview SUCO RIHEU 223 Orlando Soares 45 50+100-50+220 M Married 6 Farming Agriculture land 18000 360 2% 224 Osorio Soares Carvalho 39 50+320-50+500 M Married 5 NCBA BPN Certificate Agriculture land 27000 2340 9% employee 225 Abel Rodrigues Bareto 45 50+160-50+240 M Married 8 Farming Agriculture land 8000 480 6% 226 Domingos Pereira 51 52+150-52+420 M Married 9 Driver Agriculture land 36000 2880 8% 52+620-52+700 Vacant land 8000 160 2% 227 Carlos da Costa Pereira 42 51+460-51+600 M Single Farming Agriculture land 21000 1080 5% 228 Aleixo Dos Reis Gomes Pereira 30 52+400-52+540 M Married 4 Business Agriculture land 14000 700 5% 229 Marcelino F. Soares 48 51+740-51+860 M Married 5 Farming Agriculture land 14400 1440 10% Significant 230 Lucio do Santos Magalhaes 68 52+100-52+180 M Married 10 Farming Agriculture land 6400 800 13% Significant 231 Agusto Soares 48 51+860-52+000 M Married 9 Farming BPN Certificate Agriculture land 16800 2100 13% Significant 232 Joni Florindo Pereira 33 52+700-52+780 M Single Teaching BPN Certificate Agriculture land 9000 480 5% 233 Anastacio 51+720-51+740 M Home garden 2000 160 8% No interview 234 Jose Bareto 50+240-50+340 M Agriculture land 18000 140 1% No interview 235 Domingos 51+600-51+620 M Agriculture land 2000 200 10% Significant No interview 236 Fernando 51+620-51+680 M Agriculture land 6000 560 9% No interview 237 Domingos Pereira 51+680-51+720 M Agriculture land 4800 440 9% No interview 238 Julio Exposto 45 52+540-52+560 M Married 6 Farming Agriculture land 7200 180 3% 239 Maria soares 51+280-51+400 F Married Agriculture land 14400 640 4% No interview 240 Alfredo do Santos Soares 32 53+840-54+080 M Married 6 Pegawai Agriculture land 19200 1260 7% 241 Marcos Maia Salsinha 23 53+580-53+640 M Married 3 Farming Agriculture land 6000 280 5% 242 Damião do Seu Soares 57 53+800-53+840 M Married 13 Pegawai Agriculture land 2000 200 10% 92 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 243 Jorge Vonseca 79 53+740-53+800 M Widower 10 Police officer Agriculture land 1200 300 25% Significant 244 Augustos Castro Pereira 49 52+780-52+880 M Married 8 Farming Agriculture land 9000 240 3% 245 Marciana 53+680-53+700 F Agriculture land 9000 320 4% No interview 246 Agusto Exposto 52+700-52+760 M Agriculture land 6000 120 2% No interview 247 Miguel Jordão 52+760-52+800 M Agriculture land 4000 160 4% No interview 248 Nelson pereira 52+800-52+880 M Agriculture land 14400 300 2% No interview 248 Alcino Pereira 52+080-52+980 M Agriculture land 8000 280 4% No interview 250 Januario Texeira 52+980-53+020 M Agriculture land 4000 80 2% No interview 251 Januario Branco 53+020-53+140 M Agriculture land 9600 1320 14% Significant No interview 252 Antonio Pereira 52+140-52+380 M Agriculture land 24000 1280 5% No interview 253 Manuel do Ceu 53+380-53+420 M Agriculture land 3600 180 5% No interview 254 Albino Bareto 53+420-53+500 M Agriculture land 7200 320 4% No interview 255 Manuel 53+940-54+000 M Agriculture land 4800 400 8% No interview 256 Julio Salsinha Piadade Amaral 45 54+080-54+380 M Married 7 Teaching Agriculture land 15000 1400 9% 93 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno ANNEX 3: AFFECTED STRUCTURES AND ESTIMATED COMPENSATION COSTS No Respondent Name Age # of Number STA_ Aldeia Gender Marital Type of Asset Category Used Based on PMU Unit Calculation Compensation Packages PAPs Status Structure Measured Price ($ Value bases on (sqm.) /sqm.) PMU Issues Category SECTION 1 SUCO HORAIQUIK 1 Amelia Bossa 74 7 0+000-0+020 Lauheli F Widow Kiosk 25 Temporary Commercial 70 $1,750.00 Cash compensation, structure temporary livelihoods Kitchen 20 Temporary Ancillary Structure 30 $600.00 Cash compensation 2 Octaviano tilman de araujo 32 5 Lauheli M Married Kiosk 25 Temporary Commercial 70 $1,750.00 Cash compensation, structure temporary livelihoods SUCO MULO 3 Eduardo da Cruz 65 12 5+700-5+780 Maulahulo M Married Kiosk 32.76 Temporary Commercial 70 $2,293.20 Cash compensation, structure temporary livelihoods SUCO NUNUMOGE 4 Abel Ximenes 58 12 7+070-7+740 Queorema M Married House 68.98 Temporary Residential 125 $8,622.50 Resettlement in situ Structure 5 Roberto de Araujo 50 10 10+660-10+750 Qeuorema M Married Fence 60 Temporary Ancillary Structure 30 $1,800.00 Cash compensation 6 Armindo Doutel Sarmento - 10 11+640-11+700 Blehetu M Married House 72 Semi-permanent Residential 150 $10,800.00 Resettlement in situ Structure Kitchen 35 Temporary Ancillary Structure 30 $1,050.00 Cash compensation Bathroom 6 Permanent Ancillary Structure 50 $300.00 Cash compensation SECTION 2 SUCO KATRAI KARAIK 7 Luciano De Araujo 71 6 16+080-16+320 Mau-soromata M Married Fence 30 Semi-Permanent Ancillary 40 $1,200.00 Cash compensation Structure 8 Ines da Silva 56 6 18+460-18+500 Colo-coli F Widow Fence 40 Semi-Permanent Ancillary 40 $1,600.00 Cash compensation Structure 9 Izaquel Soares 36 5 18+640-18+660 Colo-coli M Married Fence 20 Temporary Ancillary Structure 30 $600.00 Cash compensation 10 Angelina Soares 56 8 18+660-18+700 Aimeta M Widow Fence 40 Temporary Ancillary Structure 30 $1,200.00 Cash compensation 11 Alda de Araujo 41 8 18+640-18+700 Colo-coli M Widow Fence 60 Temporary Ancillary Structure 30 $1,800.00 Cash compensation SUCO DUCURAI 12 Domingos Cardoso - TBD 18+700-18+760 Eratoi Fence 60 Temporary Ancillary Structure 30 $1,800.00 Cash compensation 13 Francisco de Deus - TBD 18+700-18+760 Eratoi Fence 60 Temporary Ancillary Structure 30 $1,800.00 Cash compensation 14 Filomena de Deus 58 10 20+020-20+180 Eratoi F Married Retaining 10.2 Permanent Ancillary Structure 50 $510.00 Cash compensation Wall 15 João felisberto de Deus 67 6 21+470 & 24+700- Lebululi M Married Garage 45 Semi-Permanent Ancillary 40 $1,800.00 Cash compensation 25+120 Structure 16 David Soares - TBD 21+600-21+700 Lebululi M Garage 32 Temporary Ancillary Structure 30 $960.00 Cash compensation 94 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Fence 60 Temporary Ancillary Structure 30 $1,800.00 Cash compensation 17 Jacob de Deus - TBD 24+260-24+200 Lebululi M Kiosk 30 Semi-permanent commercial 80 $2,400.00 Cash compensation, Structure temporary livelihoods 18 Romana Soares 29 4 25+040 Lebululi F Married Kiosk 12 Semi-permanent commercial 80 $960.00 Cash compensation, Structure temporary livelihoods 19 Lourenҫo Maia 50 9 25+340-25+540 Lebululi M Married Kiosk 24 Semi-permanent commercial 80 $1,920.00 Cash compensation, Structure temporary livelihoods 20 Efrem cornelio 32 11 25+560-25+600 Lebululi M Married Fence 40 Temporary Ancillary Structure 30 $1,200.00 Cash compensation 21 Francisco Rosario Soares 50 8 25+640-25+740 Laklo M Married Kiosk 6.25 Semi-permanent commercial 80 $500.00 Cash compensation, Structure temporary livelihoods 22 Jose de Deus 54 11 25+820-25+860 Manusae M Married House 90 Permanent Residential 150 $13,500.00 Resettlement in situ Structure 23 Mariano Soares 44 6 28+820-28+860 Manusae M Married Kiosk 24 Semi-permanent commercial 80 $1,920.00 Cash compensation, Structure temporary livelihoods support 24 Area kantor desa 26+380-26+500 Sabelo Office 72 Permanent Structure 110 $7,920.00 Cash compensation 25 Domingos de Deus 46 6 26+880-26+900 Sabelo M Married Kiosk 12 Semi-permanent commercial 80 $960.00 Cash compensation, Structure temporary livelihoods support 26 Agustinho Mario Soares 47 12 28+840 Sabelo M Married Kiosk 72 Semi-permanent commercial 80 $5,760.00 Cash compensation, Structure temporary livelihoods support 27 Sezaltino Manuel de Deus - TBD 28+860-29+040 Rotuto M House 84 Semi-Permanent Residential 150 $12,600.00 Resettlement in situ Structure SUCO HAUPU 28 Area Gereja Letefoho 29+440-29+820 Ausat (Haupu) Impact is to be minimized through engineering measures 29+440-29+740 As above 29 Domingos do Rosario - TBD 20+860 M House 90 Permanent Residential 175 $15,750.00 Resettlement in situ Structure 30 Mariano da. C Soares 30 5 29+870-29+000 Renumata M Married Kiosk 24 Semi-permanent commercial 80 $1,920.00 Cash compensation, Structure temporary livelihoods support 31 Ilda Soares 53 10 30+000-30+040 Lutlala F Married House 50 Permanent Residential 175 $8,750.00 Resettlement in situ Structure 32 Abilio de Araujo 36 7 30+020-30+030 Duhoho M Married House 120 Permanent Residential 175 $21,000.00 Resettlement in situ Structure 33 Julião Soares de Deus 40 7 30+030-30+050 Hatulete M Married House 84 Permanent Residential 175 $14,700.00 Resettlement in situ, cash Structure compensation, temporary Garage 20 Semi-Permanent Ancillary 40 $800.00 livelihoods support Structure 95 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Workshop 77 Semi-permanent commercial 80 $6,160.00 Structure 34 Agustinho Daci-mau Soares 40 10 30+080 Mausoromata M House 96 Permanent Residential 175 $16,800.00 Resettlement in situ (TBD) Structure 35 Calistro de Deus 34 6 30+080 Hatulete M Married House 90 Permanent Residential 175 $15,750.00 Resettlement in situ (TBD) Structure 36 Domingos de Deus 53 10 30+060 Riamoricleo M Married House 63 Permanent Residential 175 $11,025.00 Resettlement in situ (TBD) Structure Workshop 12 Semi-permanent commercial 80 $960.00 Structure 37 Fernanda de Deus 38 5 30+100 Poetete F Married Retaining 8 Permanent Ancillary Structure 50 $400.00 Cash compensation Wall 38 Tomas Maia Soares 54 8 30+100 Manturai M Married Two Storey 168 Permanent Residential 175 $29,400.00 Resettlement in situ (TBD) House Structure 39 Antonio De Deus 59 8 30+080-30+100 Manturai M Widower House 108 Permanent Residential 175 $18,900.00 Resettlement in situ (TBD) Structure 40 Armanda de Jesus Soares 53 5 30+100 Manturai F Married House 42 Permanent Residential 175 $7,350.00 Resettlement in situ (TBD) Structure Kiosk 18 Semi-permanent commercial 80 $1,440.00 Cash compensation, Structure temporary livelihoods support 41 Mario de Deus 60 7 30+140-30+210 Asuileten M Married Homestay 130 Permanent Residential 175 $22,750.00 Resettlement in situ (TBD) Structure 42 Maria Teresa Martins 58 10 30+240 Hatulete F Widow 2 storey 28 Permanent Commercial 110 $3,080.00 Cash compensation, Kiosk Structure temporary livelihoods support SECTION 3 SUCO HAUPU 43 Felis Soares 75 8 39+920-39+980 Raepusa M Married Water Tank 10 Permanent Ancillary Structure 50 $500.00 Cash compensation SUCO GOULOLO 44 Francisco de Deus S. de Jesus 62 4 39+420-39+430 Goulolo M Married Kiosk 18 Permanent Commercial 110 $1,980.00 Cash compensation, Structure temporary livelihoods support 45 Kapela Goulolo 39+320-39+380 Goulolo Retaining 18 Permanent Ancillary Structure 50 $900.00 Cash compensation Wall 46 Lucio Pereira 35 4 39+900-39+920 Goulolo M Married Fence 20 Semi-Permanent Ancillary 40 $800.00 Cash compensation Structure 47 Agustinho Madeira 69 8 39+700-39+820 Goulolo M Married Kosk 30 Semi-Permanent Commercial 80 $2,400.00 Compensation and Structure temporary livelihoods support 48 Domingos Reinaldo dos Santos 48 11 39+840-39+900 Goulolo M Married Barb Fence 60 Semi-Permanent Ancillary 40 $2,400.00 Cash compensation Structure 96 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 49 Damião Domingos de Deus 62 10 39+440-39+460 Goulolo M Married Garage 15 Semi-Permanent Ancillary 40 $600.00 Cash compensation Structure 50 Thomas de Deus 74 10 39+300-39+330 Goulolo M Married Kiosk 25 Permanent Commercial 110 $2,750.00 Compensation and Structure temporary livelihoods support House 72 Permanent Residential 175 $12,600.00 Resettlement in situ (TBD) Structure 51 Quintão Soares 45 8 40+800-40+840 Madede M Married Kiosk 30 Permanent Commercial 110 $3,300.00 Compensation and Structure temporary livelihoods support 52 Joana Soares Martins 57 7 41+560-41+660 Madede F Widow House 63 Permanent Residential 175 $11,025.00 Resettlement in situ (TBD) Structure 53 Josefa Soares 31 3 41+600 Madede F Divorce House 60 Semi-Permanent Residential 150 $9,000.00 Resettlement in situ (TBD) Structure 54 Judit de Deus 56 5 41+560-41+660 Madede F Widow House 63 Semi-Permanent Residential 150 $9,450.00 Resettlement in situ (TBD) Structure Suco Estadu 55 Jacob de Deus 59 8 42+600-42+660 Lihmo M Married Empty 49 Semi-Permanent Residential 150 $7,350.00 Cash compensation house Structure 56 Fernando Salsinha 31 4 41+700-41+740 Sagrada Curaҫão de M Married Kiosk 54 Semi-Permanent Commercial 80 $4,320.00 Compensation and Jesus Structure temporary livelihoods support 57 Mariano de Fatima TBD 43+620-43+680 Lihmo M Kiosk 25 Permanent Commercial 110 $2,750.00 Compensation and Structure temporary livelihoods support 58 Jose Xavier Amaral 46 9 49+980-50+040 Peana M Married Kiosk 15 Temporary commercial 70 $1,050.00 Compensation and Structure temporary livelihoods support Kiosk 9 Temporary commercial 70 $630.00 Compensation and Structure temporary livelihoods support 59 Jacinta Aranhaldo 62 5 49+900-49+980 LacoGoa F Widow & House 60 Semi-Permanent Residential 150 $9,000.00 Resettlement in situ (TBD) disabled Structure 60 Thomas da Cruz 63 9 48+440-48+520 Borhei M Married House 70 Permanent Residential 175 $12,250.00 Resettlement in situ (TBD) Structure House 56 Permanent Residential 175 $9,800.00 Resettlement in situ (TBD) Structure Kiosk 8 Temporary commercial 70 $560.00 Compensation and Structure temporary livelihoods support Kitchen 57 Semi-Permanent Ancillary 40 $2,280.00 Cash compensation Structure 97 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 61 Jeferino Babo 56 7 48+580-48+640 Borhei M Married Kiosk 18 Permanent Commercial 110 $1,980.00 Compensation and Structure temporary livelihoods support Grand Total Compensation for Structures $400,285.70 98 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno ANNEX 4: AFFECTED TREES AND COMPENSATION RATES SECTION 1: AITUTO – HATUIBUILICO Respondent Name Name of Tree / Diameter Number Tree classification Owners' Self- Compensation Standard Prices at Owners' Severety of Losses Vegetation / Height Estimate Proposed/Tree Compensation Request Value coffee fruit timber SUCO HORAIQUIK Amelia Bossa Abruinus (Fruit) large 1 1 10.00 - $10.00 Rosa Fernandes Abruinus (Fruit) large 6 6 50.00 - $300.00 Banana grove 2 2 50.00 $15.00 $30.00 $100.00 Tanzarine (Fruit) large 1 1 50.00 $10.00 $10.00 $50.00 Francisco de Araujo coffee tree large 93 93 50.00 $10.00 $930.00 $4,650.00 Significant Abruinus (Fruit) large 35 35 100.00 - $3,500.00 Banana large grove 4 4 100.00 $15.00 $60.00 $400.00 Tanzarine (Fruit) large 1 1 100.00 $10.00 $10.00 $100.00 Pine (Cemara) large 8 8 50.00 - $400.00 Guilhermino Cortereal Ai Kasi (Wood) small 58 58 100.00 - $5,800.00 Ai Saria (Wood) small 11 11 100.00 - $1,100.00 Ai Sentru (Wood) small 9 9 100.00 - $900.00 Marcos Pereira Lopes Ai kafe (Wood) small 2 2 50.00 - $100.00 Abruinus (Fruit) large 16 16 500.00 - $8,000.00 Banana medium 6 6 500.00 $15.00 $90.00 $3,000.00 Rosa da costa Pinhero Ai centru (tree for small 20 20 100.00 - $2,000.00 soil protection) Ai kasi (tree for soil 5 5 100.00 - $500.00 protection) Andrade Sarmentio Ai kasi (tree for soil median 8 8 50.00 - $400.00 protection) Ai kakeu (tree for median 22 22 50.00 - $1,100.00 coffee shade) Ai kafe (tree for soil small 10 10 50.00 - $500.00 protection) SUCO MULO Idelfonso d.c de Araujo Ai kasi (tree for soil large 5 5 - - protection) Ai sentru (tree for large 10 10 - - soil protection) 99 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Elias benevides Ai kasi (tree for soil large 5 5 - - protection) Ai sentru (tree for large 6 6 - - soil protection) Felix de orleans Abruinus (Fruit) large 3 3 100.00 - $300.00 Manuel da Silva Abruinus (Fruit) large 107 107 100.00 - $10,700.00 Significant Vicente Tilman Abruinus (Fruit) large 50 50 100.00 - $5,000.00 Significant Ai sentru (tree for large 3 3 25.00 - $75.00 soil protection) SUCO NUNUMOGE $0.00 Felismino de Araujo Abruinus (Fruit) large 8 8 50.00 - $400.00 Abel Ximenes Abruinus (Fruit) large 12 12 50.00 - $600.00 Banana large 3 3 50.00 $15.00 $45.00 $150.00 Ai kakeu/cemara large 3 3 - - (tree for soil protection) Ai sentru (tree for large 10 10 - - soil protection) Laurentina de araujo Abruinus (Fruit) large 8 8 50.00 - $400.00 Roberto de Araujo Abruinus (Fruit) large 4 4 50.00 - $200.00 Filomena jose fernandes Abruinus (Fruit) large 25 25 50.00 - $1,250.00 Marciana Ximenes Abruinus (Fruit) large 12 12 100.00 - $1,200.00 Thomas Alves Quintão Abruinus (Fruit) large 2 2 50.00 - $100.00 Alberto dos Santos Abruinus (Fruit) large 10 10 25.00 - $250.00 TOTAL 604 93 316 195 $1,175.00 $53,535.00 SECTION 2: HATUIBUILICO – LETEFOHO Respondent Name Name of pohon / Diameter / Number Tree Classification Owner Self Compensation Standard Price at Owners' Severety of Vegetation Height Estimate Proposed/Tree Compensation Request Impacts Value Coffee Fruit Timber SUCO KATRAI KARAIK Bendita Maia de Deus Abruinus (Fruit) large 4 4 $50.00 - $200.00 Ines da Silva Ai centru large 6 6 - - Adelino Salsinha Abruinus (Fruit) large 6 6 $50.00 - $300.00 Miguel Soares de Deus Ai centru large 1 1 - - Angelina Soares Abruinus (Fruit) large 2 2 $50.00 - $100.00 Alda de Araujo Ai centru large 1 1 $50.00 - $50.00 100 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno SUCO DUCURAI David Soares Pine large 8 8 - - Jacob de Deus Orange (fruit) large 2 2 $10.00 $20.00 $20.00 Banana large 2 2 $15.00 $30.00 $30.00 Coffee large 8 8 $10.00 $80.00 $80.00 Pine small 3 3 - - Francisco Mariano de Deus Coffee large 45 45 $10.00 $450.00 $450.00 Significant Pine large 1 1 - - Pine small 3 3 - - Rui felisbertu de Deus Banana large 2 2 $15.00 $30.00 $30.00 Significant Aicentru(tree) large 2 2 - - Guava large 1 1 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 Ainespra(fruit) large 1 1 - - Coffee large 40 40 $10.00 $400.00 $400.00 Madalena soares de Deus Jeruk(orange) large 2 2 $10.00 $20.00 $20.00 Banana large 1 1 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 Guava large 3 3 $4.00 $12.00 $12.00 Domingos Soares Guava large 3 3 $10.00 $4.00 $12.00 $30.00 Banana large 2 2 $20.00 $15.00 $30.00 $40.00 Aisanto small 2 2 $10.00 - $20.00 Efrem cornelio Orange large 3 3 $10.00 $30.00 - Abruinus (Fruit) large 4 4 - - Banana large 2 2 $15.00 $30.00 $30.00 Mango small 3 3 $25.00 $75.00 $75.00 Francisco Rosario Soares Banyan medium 1 1 - - Pine large 1 1 - - Lino de Deus Guava large 2 2 $4.00 $8.00 $8.00 Banana large 7 7 $15.00 $105.00 $105.00 Orange large 3 3 $10.00 $30.00 $30.00 Jose de Deus Coffee large 16 16 $10.00 $160.00 $160.00 Severe Orange large 1 1 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 Coffee large 540 540 $10.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 Mariano Soares Banana large 1 1 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 Coffee large 15 15 $10.00 $150.00 $150.00 Mahogany small 1 1 - - Natalino Maia Salsinha Nespra (fruit) small 1 1 $5.00 - $5.00 Avocado small 1 1 $5.00 $10.00 $10.00 $5.00 Mango small 1 1 $5.00 $25.00 $25.00 $5.00 Coffee large 10 10 $50.00 $10.00 $100.00 $500.00 Clementino Soares Orange large 2 2 $100.00 $10.00 $20.00 $200.00 101 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Mango large 5 5 $100.00 $25.00 $125.00 $500.00 Coffee large 133 133 $100.00 $10.00 $1,330.00 $13,300.00 Significant Marcelo de Deus Coffee large 150 150 $10.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 Significant Pine large 8 8 - - Armando Soares de Deus Coffee large 423 423 $25.00 $10.00 $4,230.00 $10,575.00 Severe Pine medium 20 20 $50.00 - $1,000.00 Constantino Maia Soares Teak small 2 2 $20.00 $25.00 $50.00 $40.00 Orange large 3 3 $20.00 $10.00 $30.00 $60.00 Aicentru small 1 1 $20.00 - $20.00 Rui Alberto Soares Coffee large 100 100 $25.00 $10.00 $1,000.00 $2,500.00 Significant Gamalina large 8 8 $50.00 $25.00 $200.00 $400.00 Pine large 18 18 $50.00 - $900.00 Banana large 16 16 $15.00 $15.00 $240.00 $240.00 Rafael Soares maia Coffee large 250 250 $20.00 $10.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 Severe Guava small 6 6 $5.00 $4.00 $24.00 $30.00 Orange large 1 1 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 Teak large 2 2 $25.00 $25.00 $50.00 $50.00 Pine medium 36 36 $50.00 - $1,800.00 Banana large 1 1 $50.00 $15.00 $15.00 $50.00 Marcelino Rosario Soares Orange large 2 2 $25.00 $10.00 $20.00 $50.00 Banana large 4 4 $25.00 $15.00 $60.00 $100.00 Paulino Maia de F. Soares Teak small 1 1 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 Domingos de Deus Guava large 1 1 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 Teak small 1 1 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 Carolino Coffee large 30 30 $10.00 $300.00 $300.00 Pine medium 7 7 - - Duarte Soares Coffee large 50 50 $10.00 $500.00 $500.00 Significant Avocado large 1 1 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 Banana large 1 1 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 Mango large 1 1 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 Pine large 2 2 - - Bamboo large 1 1 - - Rosario Banana large 1 1 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 Avocado large 1 1 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 Antonio Salsinha Coffee large 400 400 $10.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 Severe Rui Albertu Maia Coffee large 600 600 $10.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 Severe Manuela de Deus Coffee large 643 643 $10.00 $6,430.00 $6,430.00 Severe Antonio Soares Coffee large 321 321 $10.00 $3,210.00 $3,210.00 Severe Carlito Soares Coffee large 654 654 $10.00 $6,540.00 $6,540.00 Severe Filomena Salsinha Coffee large 850 850 $5.00 $10.00 $8,500.00 $4,250.00 Severe 102 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Deolindo Soares Coffee large 910 910 $10.00 $9,100.00 $9,100.00 Severe Constatino Soares Coffee large 1956 1956 $10.00 $19,560.00 $19,560.00 Severe Pedro de Deus Coffee large 101 101 $10.00 $1,010.00 $1,010.00 Significant Filomeno Coffee large 63 63 $10.00 $630.00 $630.00 Significant Pine small 8 8 - - Armando de Deus Coffee large 39 39 $10.00 $390.00 $390.00 Banana large 6 6 $15.00 $90.00 $90.00 Jackfruit large 1 1 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 Mango small 8 8 $25.00 $200.00 $200.00 Bamboo large 1 1 - - Pine small 2 2 - - Monica de Fatima Coffee large 24 24 $5.00 $10.00 $240.00 $120.00 Pine large 11 11 $5.00 - $55.00 Banana large 2 2 $10.00 $15.00 $30.00 $20.00 Bamboo large 2 2 $10.00 - $20.00 Sezaltino Manuel de Deus Bamboo large 1 1 - - TOTAL 8656 8371 123 162 $85,529.00 $109,193.00 SECTION 3: LETEFOHO – GLENO Respondent Name Name of pohon / Diameter Number Tree Classification Owner Self Compensation Standard Potential Difference Vegetation / Height Estimate Proposed/Tree Compensation with Owners' Self- Value Estimate Coffee Fruit Timber and Non-Fruit SUCO HAUPU Felis Soares Guava large 2 2 $7.00 $14.00 $14.00 Mango large 1 1 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 Jose Soares Orange large 6 6 $10.00 $10.00 $60.00 $60.00 Guava large 10 10 $10.00 $4.00 $40.00 $100.00 Gamalina large 1 1 $10.00 $25.00 $25.00 $10.00 Pine large 10 10 $15.00 - $150.00 Carlos Soares coffee 40 40 $20.00 $10.00 $400.00 $800.00 pine 8 8 $40.00 - $320.00 orange 1 2 $20.00 $10.00 $10.00 $20.00 teak 2 2 $25.00 $30.00 $60.00 $50.00 jackfruit 1 1 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 SUCO GOULOLO Francisco de Deus S. de Jesus Mango small 1 1 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 Teak small 6 6 $5.00 $30.00 $30.00 103 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Bamboo grove 1 1 - - Teak small 2 2 $3.00 $6.00 $6.00 Pine large 2 2 - - Rumaun large 1 1 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 Guava large 1 1 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 Banana group 1 1 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 coffee large 30 30 $10.00 $300.00 $300.00 Lucio Pereira coffee large 80 80 $25.00 $10.00 $800.00 $2,000.00 Significant Guava large 1 1 $7.00 $7.00 $7.00 Mango large 1 1 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 Teak small 1 1 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 João de Deus Mango large 1 1 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 Orange large 1 1 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 Agustinho Madeira coffee large 88 88 $5.00 $10.00 $880.00 $440.00 Significant Bamboo group 3 3 - - Teak (Gamalina) small 1 1 $25.00 $3.00 $3.00 $25.00 Jackfruit small 3 3 $25.00 $15.00 $45.00 $75.00 Nespra (Fruit) small 2 2 $25.00 - $50.00 Armindo Mau-Loe Magalhaes Mango large 2 2 $25.00 $50.00 $50.00 Ai nespra (Fruit) small 1 1 - - Avocado large 1 1 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 Jackfruit large 1 1 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 Anita Reinaldo Ai nespra (Fruit) large 3 3 - - Ai centro large 2 2 - - Guava large 1 1 $7.00 $7.00 $7.00 Guava large 2 1 $4.00 $8.00 $8.00 Domingos Reinaldo dos Santos Samtuku large 3 3 $150.00 - $450.00 Severe coffee large 210 210 $35.00 $10.00 $2,100.00 $7,350.00 Damião Domingos de Deus Nespra (Fruit) large 1 1 - - Mango large 1 1 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 Coconut large 1 1 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 Banana group 1 1 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 guava large 1 1 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 Thomas de Deus Jackfruit small 1 1 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 Severe Mango small 1 1 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 Guava large 2 2 $7.00 $14.00 $14.00 Coffee large 320 320 $10.00 $3,200.00 $3,200.00 Mariana do Santos Bamboo group 1 1 - - Abel Soraes Limaun (Fruit) large 1 1 $10.00 - $10.00 Rumaun (Fruit) large 2 2 $10.00 $7.00 $14.00 $20.00 104 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Aimespra (Fruit) large 1 1 $10.00 - $10.00 Avocado large 1 1 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 Guava large 1 1 $10.00 $7.00 $7.00 $10.00 Tamarind large 1 1 $10.00 - $10.00 Pine large 1 1 $10.00 - $10.00 Guava large 3 3 $10.00 $4.00 $12.00 $30.00 Manggo large 1 1 $10.00 $25.00 $25.00 $10.00 Coffee large 4 4 $10.00 $10.00 $40.00 $40.00 Manuel Maia Coffee large 64 64 $10.00 $640.00 $640.00 Mango small 2 2 $25.00 $50.00 $50.00 Jackfruit small 1 1 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 Avocado large 1 1 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 Orange large 1 1 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 Banana group 1 1 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 Bendito Maia Coffee 5 5 $10.00 $50.00 $50.00 Guava large 1 1 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 Orange small 1 1 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 Pine small 1 1 - - Coconut large 1 1 $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 Avocado large 3 3 $10.00 $30.00 $30.00 Mango large 1 1 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 Nicolau P. de Jesus Guterres Avocado small 1 1 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 Guava small 1 1 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 Mango small 1 1 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 Cesaltino Jose de Deus Avocado large 1 1 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 Afonso de Araujo Felgueros Nespra (Fruit) large 1 1 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 Orange large 1 1 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 Alberto Manuel Maia Avocado large 1 1 $100.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 Orange small 4 4 $50.00 $10.00 $40.00 $200.00 SUCO ERAULO Remigio Soares Coffee large 176 176 $10.00 $1,760.00 $1,760.00 Jacinta Soares Coffee large 100 100 $10.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Mango large 1 1 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 Nespra large 1 1 - - Antonio Soares Coffee large 126 126 $10.00 $10.00 $1,260.00 $1,260.00 Guava large 4 4 $4.00 $16.00 $16.00 Beatriz de Deus Coffee large 8 8 $10.00 $80.00 $80.00 Samtuku large 2 2 - - Antonio Soares da Silva Banana grove 6 6 $15.00 $90.00 $90.00 Guava large 4 4 $4.00 $16.00 $16.00 105 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Orange large 2 2 $10.00 $20.00 $20.00 Joana Soares Martins Coffee large 350 350 $10.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 Severe Camilio Maia Coffee large 130 130 $25.00 $10.00 $1,300.00 $3,250.00 Significant Banana grove 5 5 $100.00 $15.00 $75.00 $500.00 Jackfruit large 2 2 $50.00 $15.00 $30.00 $100.00 Candlenut large 1 1 $100.00 $35.00 $35.00 $100.00 Samtuku large 1 1 $200.00 - $200.00 Judit de Deus Coffee large 140 140 $10.00 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 Significant Jackfruit large 1 1 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 Mango large 1 1 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 Guava large 3 3 $4.00 $12.00 $12.00 Fernando Carvalho Guava large 5 5 $4.00 $20.00 $20.00 Banana grove 5 5 $15.00 $75.00 $75.00 SUCO ESTADU Jacob de Deus Rose apple large 1 1 $7.00 $7.00 $7.00 guava large 4 4 $4.00 $16.00 $16.00 Banana grove 1 1 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 Agustinho de Jesus Coffee large 20 20 $10.00 $200.00 $200.00 Banana grove 4 4 $15.00 $60.00 $60.00 Mango large 9 9 $25.00 $225.00 $225.00 Fernando Salsinha Banana group 1 1 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 Bamboo groups 2 2 - - Jackfruit large 3 3 $15.00 $45.00 $45.00 Mahogany large 1 1 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 Teak small 1 1 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 Ai centro large 1 1 - - Zaqueu da Costa Lemos Coffee large 30 30 $10.00 $300.00 $300.00 Banana grove 4 4 $15.00 $60.00 $60.00 Avocado large 1 1 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 Mango large 1 1 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 José de Deus Suco (Riheu) Bamboo grove 2 2 - - Pine large 2 2 - - Mariano de Fatima Banana grove 6 6 $15.00 $90.00 $90.00 Mango large 2 2 $25.00 $50.00 $50.00 SUCO HUMBOE Moises Soares Coffee large 102 102 $25.00 $10.00 $1,020.00 $2,550.00 Significant Teak small 1 1 $25.00 $5.00 $5.00 $25.00 Orange large 1 1 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 Banana groups 20 20 $15.00 $300.00 $300.00 Avocado large 1 1 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 106 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Guava large 1 1 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 - - Luis da Silva Pinto Coffee large 112 112 $10.00 $10.00 $1,120.00 $1,120.00 Significant - - Jose Marcus Coffee large 400 400 $15.00 $10.00 $4,000.00 $6,000.00 Severe Jackfruit large 1 1 $10.00 $15.00 $15.00 $10.00 Marcus Flores Salsinha Coffee large 320 320 $10.00 $3,200.00 $3,200.00 Severe Jackfruit large 4 4 $15.00 $60.00 $60.00 Gamalina large 2 2 $25.00 $50.00 $50.00 Jose Xavier Amaral Coffee large 264 264 $10.00 $10.00 $2,640.00 $2,640.00 Severe Francisco Alves da Cruz Coffee large 50 50 $10.00 $500.00 $500.00 Jacinta Aranhaldo Coffee large 70 70 $25.00 $10.00 $700.00 $1,750.00 Severe Cacao small 200 200 $20.00 $15.00 $3,000.00 $4,000.00 Pineaple large 10 10 $1.00 $1.00 $10.00 $10.00 Orange large 25 25 $50.00 $10.00 $250.00 $1,250.00 Jackfruit small 1 1 $10.00 $15.00 $15.00 $10.00 Jose Cardoso Coffee large 480 480 $10.00 $4,800.00 $4,800.00 Severe Avocado large 9 9 $10.00 $90.00 $90.00 Jackfruit large 2 2 $15.00 $30.00 $30.00 Mango large 3 3 $25.00 $75.00 $75.00 Abrão Soares Coffee large 384 384 $10.00 $3,840.00 $3,840.00 Severe Samtuku large 1 1 - - Banana group 2 2 $15.00 $30.00 $30.00 Avocado large 6 6 $10.00 $60.00 $60.00 Thomas da Cruz Coffee large 70 70 $10.00 $700.00 $700.00 Bamboo group 4 4 - - Mango small 2 2 $25.00 $50.00 $50.00 Orange large 1 1 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 Avocado large 1 1 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 Jackfruit small 1 1 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 Jeferino Babo Coffee large 528 528 $10.00 $5,280.00 $5,280.00 Severe Abril Soares Coffee large 240 240 $10.00 $2,400.00 $2,400.00 Severe Fernando Soares Coffee large 240 240 $10.00 $2,400.00 $2,400.00 Severe Marcos da Cruz Coffee large 520 520 $10.00 $5,200.00 $5,200.00 Severe Duarte Salsinha Coffee large 560 560 $10.00 $5,600.00 $5,600.00 Severe Antonia Maria Fatima Babo Coffee large 72 72 $25.00 $10.00 $720.00 $1,800.00 Significant Pine large 5 5 $50.00 - $250.00 Jackfruit large 2 2 $25.00 $15.00 $30.00 $50.00 Coconut large 3 3 $25.00 $60.00 $180.00 $75.00 Mango large 7 7 $50.00 $25.00 $175.00 $350.00 107 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Lamtoro large 25 25 $20.00 - $500.00 Samatuku large 4 4 $50.00 - $200.00 lino Xavier Amaral Coffee large 750 750 $25.00 $10.00 $7,500.00 $18,750.00 Severe Lamtoro large 20 20 $20.00 $0.00 $400.00 Samutuku large 1 1 $200.00 - $200.00 Pine large 3 3 $150.00 - $450.00 Jackfruit large 3 3 $100.00 $15.00 $45.00 $300.00 Sebastião dos Santos Coffee large 180 180 $20.00 $10.00 $1,800.00 $3,600.00 Significant Jaime Amaral Ximenes Coffee large 400 400 $20.00 $10.00 $4,000.00 $8,000.00 Severe Jackfruit large 3 3 $50.00 $15.00 $45.00 $150.00 Mango large 3 3 $50.00 $25.00 $75.00 $150.00 Teak large 5 5 $100.00 $30.00 $150.00 $500.00 Hipolito Exposto Coffee large 480 480 $10.00 $4,800.00 $4,800.00 Severe Paulino Salsinha Coffee large 240 240 $10.00 $2,400.00 $2,400.00 Severe SUCO RIHEU Orlando Soares Coffee large 180 180 $15.00 $10.00 $1,800.00 $2,700.00 Significant Jackfruit large 4 4 $15.00 $60.00 $60.00 Mango large 2 2 $25.00 $50.00 $50.00 - - Osorio Soares Carvalho Coffee large 1040 1040 $15.00 $10.00 $10,400.00 $15,600.00 Severe Jackfruit large 8 8 $100.00 $15.00 $120.00 $800.00 Mango large 5 5 $100.00 $25.00 $125.00 $500.00 Bamboo group 2 2 $250.00 - $500.00 Avocado large 4 4 $100.00 $10.00 $40.00 $400.00 Orange large 6 6 $100.00 $10.00 $60.00 $600.00 - - Abel Rodrigues Bareto Coffee large 240 240 $15.00 $10.00 $2,400.00 $3,600.00 Severe Jackfruit large 4 4 $100.00 $15.00 $60.00 $400.00 group large 1 1 $250.00 - $250.00 - - Domingos Pereira Coffee large 1440 1440 $25.00 $10.00 $14,400.00 $36,000.00 Severe Jackfruit large 20 20 $50.00 $10.00 $200.00 $1,000.00 Mango large 10 10 $50.00 $25.00 $250.00 $500.00 Bamboo group 2 2 $250.00 - $500.00 Banana group 13 13 $25.00 $15.00 $195.00 $325.00 Carlos da Costa Pereira Coffee large 540 540 $10.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 Severe Samtuku large 2 2 - - Aleixo Dos Reis Gomes Pereira Coffee large 200 200 $25.00 $10.00 $2,000.00 $5,000.00 Significant Marcelino F. Soares Coffee large 480 480 $25.00 $10.00 $4,800.00 $12,000.00 Severe Samtuku large 4 4 $250.00 - $1,000.00 108 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Avocado large 2 2 $50.00 $10.00 $20.00 $100.00 Lucio do Santos Magalhaes Coffee large 100 100 $25.00 $10.00 $1,000.00 $2,500.00 Significant Coconut large 3 3 $100.00 $60.00 $180.00 $300.00 Rambutan large 6 6 $200.00 - $1,200.00 Mango large 1 1 $60.00 $25.00 $25.00 $60.00 Jackfruit small 6 6 $20.00 $15.00 $90.00 $120.00 Orange small 2 2 $30.00 $10.00 $20.00 $60.00 Avocado large 6 6 $20.00 $10.00 $60.00 $120.00 Samtuku large 1 1 $200.00 - $200.00 Agusto Soares Coffee large 700 700 $25.00 $10.00 $7,000.00 $17,500.00 Severe Samtuku large 6 6 $25.00 - $150.00 Jackfruit large 2 2 $50.00 $15.00 $30.00 $100.00 Joni Florindo Pereira Coffee large 240 240 $25.00 $10.00 $2,400.00 $6,000.00 Severe Ai parapa large 3 3 $500.00 - $1,500.00 Anastacio Coffee large 80 80 $10.00 $800.00 $800.00 Significant Jose Bareto Coffee large 70 70 $10.00 $700.00 $700.00 Significant Bamboo group 2 2 - - Jackfruit large 2 2 $15.00 $30.00 $30.00 Domingos Coffee large 100 100 $10.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Significant Fernando Coffee large 280 280 $10.00 $2,800.00 $2,800.00 Severe Domingos Pereira Coffee large 220 220 $10.00 $2,200.00 $2,200.00 Severe Julio Exposto Bamboo group 1 1 $250.00 - $250.00 Mango large 2 2 $50.00 $25.00 $50.00 $100.00 Jackfruit small 1 1 $50.00 $15.00 $15.00 $50.00 banana Group 1 1 $100.00 $15.00 $15.00 $100.00 Coconut large 5 5 $50.00 $60.00 $300.00 $250.00 orange large 4 4 $100.00 $10.00 $40.00 $400.00 Samtuku large 1 1 $150.00 - $150.00 banyan large 1 1 $100.00 - $100.00 Maria soares Coffee large 320 320 $10.00 $3,200.00 $3,200.00 Severe Alfredo do Santos Soares Coffee large 200 200 $25.00 $10.00 $2,000.00 $5,000.00 Severe Bamboo groups 2 2 - - Marcos Maia Salsinha Coffee large 140 140 $25.00 $10.00 $1,400.00 $3,500.00 Significant Gamalina large 1 1 $100.00 $25.00 $25.00 $100.00 Bamboo group 1 1 $100.00 - $100.00 Damião do Seu Soares Gamalina small 2 2 $200.00 $3.00 $6.00 $400.00 Banana group 13 13 $50.00 $15.00 $195.00 $650.00 Avocado large 2 2 $25.00 $10.00 $20.00 $50.00 Mango large 1 1 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 Pedro Afonso Soares Bamboo group 1 1 $250.00 - $250.00 109 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Jorge Vonseca Coffee large 30 30 $10.00 $300.00 $300.00 Mango large 4 4 $25.00 $100.00 $100.00 Aiyata large 5 5 $5.00 $25.00 $25.00 Augustos Castro Pereira Pohon kopi large 120 120 $10.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 Significant Samtuku large 2 2 $250.00 - $500.00 Ai Hanek large 1 1 $60.00 - $60.00 Banyan large 1 1 $60.00 - $60.00 Marciana Coffee large 160 160 $10.00 $1,600.00 $1,600.00 Significant Agusto Exposto Coffee large 60 60 $10.00 $600.00 $600.00 Miguel Jordão Coffee large 80 80 $10.00 $800.00 $800.00 Nelson pereira Coffee large 150 150 $10.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 Significant Alcino Pereira Coffee large 140 140 $10.00 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 Significant Samtuku large 1 1 - - Januario Texeira Coffee large 40 40 $10.00 $400.00 $400.00 Januario Branco Coffee large 660 660 $10.00 $6,600.00 $6,600.00 Severe Samtuku large 4 4 - - Mango large 1 1 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 Antonio Pereira Coffee large 640 640 $10.00 $6,400.00 $6,400.00 Severe Manuel do Ceu Coffee large 90 90 $10.00 $900.00 $900.00 Significant Albino Bareto Coffee large 160 160 $10.00 $1,600.00 $1,600.00 Significant Manuel Coffee large 80 80 $10.00 $800.00 $800.00 Significant Julio Salsinha Piadade Amaral Coffee large 1900 1900 $10.00 $19,000.00 $19,000.00 Severe Bamboo grove 3 3 - - Avocado large 5 5 $10.00 $50.00 $50.00 Pine large 2 2 - - TOTAL 20067 19263 631 173 $202,129.00 $312,037.00 110 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno ANNEX 5: ASSESSMENT OF SEVERITY OF IMPACTS (SEVERELY AND SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTED HOUSEHOLDS) Name Age Gender Notional Number STA Types of Impacts Impact Analysis Compensation Entitlements and Livelihoods Support Classification of Monthly of PAPs Impacts Income SECTION 1 Amelia Bossa 74 F $ 100 7 0+000-0+020 Loss of residential land Vulnerable and income disruption • Land compensation; Severe Loss of non-permanent kiosk impacts • Cash compensation at replacement values for loss of Loss of non-permanent kitchen Widow with 7 family members. No structures; resettlement required. • Livelihoods support Duarte de 38 M $ 100 12 0+810-0+900 and Loss of agricultural land (home Severe (50% and 60%), impacts on • Compensation at replacement costs and/or land replacement Severe Araujo 0+920-1+030 garden) livelihoods as farming serves as an with comparable agricultural productivity (to be consulted); income source • Temporary livelihoods support Rafael 40 M $ 100 -200 8 8+200-8+460 and Loss of agricultural land (home Severe (60%), impacts on livelihoods • Compensation at replacement costs and/or land replacement Severe Ximenes 6+750-6+830 garden) as with comparable agricultural productivity (to be consulted); farming serves an income source • Livelihoods support Alcino Pereira 30 M $ 500 -800 3 10+310-10+440 Loss of agricultural land (home Severe (95%) • Compensation at replacement costs and/or land replacement Severe garden) Farming as an income source with comparable agricultural productivity (to be consulted); • Livelihoods support Abel Ximenes 58 M $ 100 12 7+070-7+740 Semi-permanent residential Residential structure affected • Compensation at replacement costs (resettlement in situ); Significant structure • Temporary transitional support Armindo N/A M $ 100 -200 10 11+640-11+700 Semi-permanent residential Residential structure affected • Compensation at replacement costs (resettlement in situ); Significant Doutel structure • Temporary transitional support Sarmento SECTION 2 Jose de Deus 54 M $ 4000 - 6000 11 25+820-25+860 Permanent Residential Structure Residential structure affected, loss of • Resettlement in situ; Significant Coffee trees (540 trees) coffee trees and agricultural land will • Temporary transitional support Loss of agricultural land (13 impact on livelihoods. • Compensation for lost trees and replanting assistance percent of the total land holding) Sezaltino N/A M TBD Tbd 28+860-29+040 Semi-Permanent Residential Residential structure affected • Compensation at replacement costs (resettlement in situ); Significant Manuel de Structure • Temporary transitional support Deus Domingos do N/A M TBD Tbd 20+860 Permanent Residential Structure Total residential structure affected • Compensation at replacement costs (resettlement in situ); Significant Rosario • Temporary transitional support Ilda Soares 53 F $ 1000 - 1400 8 30+000-30+040 Residential Land Severe (30%) with small remaining • Compensation at replacement costs (resettlement in situ); Severe land (280 sqm) • Temporary transitional support Permanent Residential Structure Total residential structure affected Abilio de 36 M $ 200 - 400 7 30+020-30+030 Residential Land Severe (20%) with small remaining • Compensation for structure affected at replacement costs; Severe Araujo land (120 sqm) 111 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Permanent Residential Structure Residential structure affected • Land replacement; • Temporary transitional support Julião Soares 40 M $ 600 - 1200 7 30+030-30+050 Permanent Residential Structure Residential and commercial • Compensation for structure affected at replacement costs; Significant de Deus Semi-permanent workshop and structures affected, impact on (Resettlement in situ); garage livelihoods • Compensation for land loss • Temporary livelihoods and transitional support; Agustinho 40 M $ 200 - 400 10 30+080 Permanent Residential Structure Residential structure affected and • Compensation for structure affected at replacement costs; Significant Daci-mau hence need to relocate (Resettlement in situ); Soares • Cash compensation for land loss; • Temporary transitional support; Calistro de 34 M $ 1000 - 2000 6 30+080 Permanent Residential Structure Residential structure affected and • Compensation for structure affected at replacement costs; Significant Deus hence need to relocate (Resettlement in situ); • Cash compensation for land loss; • Temporary transitional support; Domingos de 53 M $ 1000 - 1400 10 30+060 Permanent Residential Structure Residential structure affected and • Compensation for structure affected at replacement costs; Significant Deus hence need to relocate (Resettlement in situ); • Cash compensation for land loss; • Temporary transitional support; Tomas Maia 54 M $ 285 - 785 8 30+100 Permanent Residential Structure Residential structure affected and • Resettlement in situ at replacement values (TBD); Significant Soares hence need to relocate • Cash compensation for land loss; • Temporary transitional support; Antonio De 59 M $ 200 8 30+080-30+100 Permanent Residential Structure Residential structure affected and • Compensation for structure affected at replacement costs; Significant Deus hence need to relocate (Resettlement in situ); • Cash compensation for land loss; • Temporary transitional support; Armanda de 53 F $ 1000 - 1200 5 30+100 Permanent Residential Structure Residential structure affected and • Compensation for structure affected at replacement costs; Significant Jesus Soares hence need to relocate (Resettlement in situ); • Cash compensation for land loss; • Temporary transitional support; Mario de 60 M $ 800 - 1200 7 30+140-30+210 Permanent Residential Structure Residential structure affected and • Compensation for structure affected at replacement costs; Significant Deus hence need to relocate (Resettlement in situ); • Cash compensation for land loss; • Temporary transitional support; Maria Teresa 58 F $ 5000 - 8000 10 30+240 Permanent commercial structure Livelihoods disruption, • Compensation for structure affected at replacement costs; Significant Martins affected, currently a widow with 10 family (Resettlement in situ); members • Cash compensation for land loss; • Temporary livelihoods and transitional support; Armando 48 M $ 100 - 200 8 26+200-26+260 Coffee trees (423) Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of • Compensation for loss of land, livelihoods and replanting Significant Soares de Agricultural land (6% of coffee trees assistance Deus landholding) Minimum impact on the overall agricultural land 41 M $ 100 8 Coffee trees (250) Significant 112 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Rafael Soares Agricultural land (1% of the Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of • Compensation for loss of land, livelihoods and replanting Maia overall landholding) coffee trees assistance Minimum impact on the overall agricultural land Antonio N/A M TBD TBD 27+120-27+240 Coffee trees (400) Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of • Compensation for loss of land, livelihoods and replanting Significant Salsinha Agricultural land (13% of the coffee trees assistance overall landholding) Moderate impacts on the overall agricultural land Rui Albertu 44 M $ 200 - 370 7 27+240-27+360 Coffee trees (600) Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of • Compensation for loss of land, livelihoods and replanting Significant Maia Agricultural land (13% of the coffee trees assistance overall landholding) Moderate impacts on the overall agricultural land Manuela de 30 F $ 400 - 500 8 27+360-27+400 Coffee trees (643) Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of • Compensation for loss of land, livelihoods and replanting Severe Deus Agricultural land (30% of the coffee trees assistance; overall landholding) Significant impacts on the overall • Land replacement (to be consulted) agricultural land Antonio N/A M TBD TBD 27+400-27+480 Coffee trees (321) Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of • Compensation for loss of land, livelihoods and replanting Significant Soares Agricultural land (10% of the coffee trees assistance; overall landholding) Moderate impacts on the overall agricultural land Carlito Soares N/A M TBD TBD 27+480-27+510 Coffee trees (654) Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of • Compensation for loss of land, livelihoods and replanting Severe Agricultural land (33% of coffee trees assistance; landholding) Significant impacts on the overall • Land replacement (to be consulted) agricultural land Filomena 49 F $ 362 - 500 7 27+520-27+660 Coffee trees (850) Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of • Compensation for loss of land, livelihoods and replanting Significant (TBD) Salsinha Agricultural land TBD coffee trees assistance TBD Deolindo N/A M TBD TBD 27+660-27+740 Coffee trees (910) Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of • Compensation for loss of land, livelihoods and replanting Significant Soares Agricultural land (10% of the coffee trees assistance overall landholding) Moderate impacts on the overall agricultural land Constatino N/A M TBD 5 27+740-28+000 Coffee trees (1956) Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of • Compensation for loss of land, livelihoods and replanting Significant Soares Agricultural land (19% of the coffee trees assistance overall landholding) Moderate impacts on the overall agricultural land SECTION 3 Thomas de 74 M $ 200 10 39+300-39+330 Residential Land Severe (50%) impact on residential • Resettlement in situ at replacement values (TBD); Severe Deus Permanent residential structure land and hence need to relocate in • Cash compensation for loss of land and coffee trees Coffee trees (320) situ. Elderly. Impacts on livelihoods • Temporary transitional support; Permanent kiosk due to loss of coffee trees. • Temporary livelihoods support Moderate impacts on the overall agricultural land 48 M $ 150 11 39+840-39+900 Coffee tree (210) Moderate 113 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Domingos Agricultural land (12 % of the Moderate impacts on the overall Compensation for loss of land, livelihoods and replanting Reinaldo dos overall land holding) agricultural land assistance Santos Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of coffee trees Joana Soares 57 F $ 80 - 200 7 41+560-41+660 Permanent Residential Structure Removal of residential structure and • Resettlement in situ at replacement values (TBD); Severe Martins Coffee tree (350) hence need to relocate in situ. • Cash compensation for land loss; A widow with 7 family members • Temporary transitional support; Remaining land is still viable. Marcus Flores 36 M $ 150 - 270 5 49+260-49+400 Coffee tree (320) Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of • Compensation for loss of land, livelihoods and replanting Moderate Salsinha Agricultural land (7% of the coffee trees assistance; overall landholding) Minimum impacts on the overall agricultural land Jose Xavier 46 M $ 250 - 500 9 49+980-50+040 Coffee tree (264) Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of • Compensation for loss of land, livelihoods and replanting Moderate Amaral Agricultural land (11% of the coffee trees assistance; overall landholding) Moderate impacts on the overall agricultural land Jacinta Soares 46 F $ 310 - 630 9 40+600-40+720 Residential Land Land will be severely affected (90%), • Compensation for loss of land and crops at replacement values; Severe Coffee tree (100) Moderate impacts on livelihoods • Temporary transitional support Jose Cardoso 65 M $ 50 - 80 4 49+040-49+140 Coffee (480) Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of • Compensation for loss of land, livelihoods and replanting Significant Agricultural land (3 % of the coffee trees assistance; overall landholding) Minimum impacts on the overall agricultural land Abrão Soares 46 M $ 50 -100 5 49+140-49+260 Coffee (384) Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of • Compensation for loss of land, livelihoods and replanting Significant Agricultural land (10 % of the coffee trees assistance; overall landholding) Moderate impacts on the overall agricultural land Quintão 45 M $ 2000 - 3000 8 40+800-40+840 Residential Land Severe (100%). Livelihoods disruption • Compensation for loss of land and kiosk at replacement Severe Soares Kiosk costs/land replacement TBD; • Temporary livelihoods support Beatriz de 68 F $ 100 - 130 5 40+520-40+600 Agricultural Land (Home Garden) Severe (50%), livelihoods disruption • Compensation for loss of land at replacement costs/land Severe Deus (no relocation) replacement TBD Widow with 5 family members • Temporary livelihoods support Josefa Soares 31 F $ 80 - 400 3 41+600 Residential Land Severe impacts (53%) with small • Land replacement and compensation for affected structures at Severe Semi-Permanent Residential remaining land (42 sqm) replacement costs (relocation in situ - TBD); Structure Divorced with 3 family members • Temporary transitional support; Total removal of residential structure • Temporary livelihoods support Camilio Maia 65 M $ 100 TBD 41+660-41+685 Residential Land Severe (68%) with small remaining • Compensation for loss of land, livelihoods and replanting Severe Coffee trees (130) land (120 sqm) assistance; Widower • Land replacement (TBD) Agricultural land affected TBD • Livelihoods support; Judit de Deus 56 F $ 100 5 41+560-41+660 Residential Land Severe 114 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Semi-Permanent Residential Severe (70%) with small remaining • Land replacement and resettlement in situ at replacement Structure land (300 sqm) values (TBD); Coffee trees (140) Widow with 5 family members • Compensation for loss of land, livelihoods and replanting Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of assistance; coffee trees • Temporary transitional support; Widow with 5 family members • Temporary livelihoods support; Jacinta 62 F $ 30 - 70 5 49+900-49+980 Semi-Permanent Residential Removal of residential structure and • Land replacement and compensation for affected structures at Severe Aranhaldo Structure hence need to relocate replacement costs (relocation in situ - TBD); Agricultural land (16 % of the Widow with 5 family members and • Temporary transitional support; overall landholding) suffers from disability • Temporary livelihoods support; Coffee (70), Cacao (200), Orange Moderate impacts on the overall • Compensation for loss of land, livelihoods and replanting (25), Pineapple (10), Jackfruit (1) agricultural land assistance; Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of productive crops Thomas da 63 M $ 100 - 600 9 48+440-48+520 Agricultural Land (Home Garden) Severe impact on agricultural • Land replacement and compensation for affected structures at Severe Cruz Coffee trees (70) land/home garden (52%) replacement costs (relocation in situ - TBD); Kiosk • Temporary transitional support; Permanent Residential Structure Removal of residential structure and • Temporary livelihoods support; hence need to relocate • Compensation for loss of land, livelihoods and replanting assistance; Jeferino Babo 56 M $ 200 - 500 7 48+580-48+640 Agricultural Land (Home Garden) Severe impact on agricultural land • Land replacement for agricultural land (TBD); Severe Kiosk (44%) and livelihoods (loss of coffee • Compensation for loss of land, livelihoods and replanting Coffee (528) trees). Livelihoods disruption (i.e. assistance; impact on the kiosk) • Temporary livelihoods support Abril Soares 40 M $ 1500 8 48+700-48+740 Coffee (240) Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of • Compensation for loss of land and livelihoods and replanting Severe Agricultural land (30 % of the coffee trees assistance; overall landholding) Significant impacts on the overall • Land replacement (TBD) agricultural land Fernando 42 M $ 250 8 49+400-49+440 Coffee (240) Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of • Compensation for loss of land, livelihoods and replanting Moderate Soares Agricultural land (12% of the coffee trees assistance; overall landholding) Moderate impacts on the overall agricultural land Marcos da 33 M $ 100 - 200 3 48+740-48+840 Coffee (520) Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of • Compensation for loss of land, livelihoods and replanting Significant Cruz Agricultural land (12% of the coffee trees assistance; overall landholding) Moderate impacts on the overall agricultural land Duarte N/A M TBD TBD 48+900-49+040 Coffee (560) Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of • Compensation for loss of land, livelihoods and replanting Significant Salsinha Agricultural land (12% of the coffee trees assistance; overall landholding) Moderate impacts on the overall agricultural land Paulino N/A M TBD TBD 48+640-48+700 Agricultural land (42% of the Significant Impacts on livelihoods due Significant Salsinha overall landholding) to loss of coffee trees 115 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Coffee tree (240) Significant impacts on the overall • Compensation for loss of land, livelihoods and replanting agricultural land assistance; • Land replacement (TBD) Jose Marcus 47 M $ 100 - 300 8 48+520-48+580 Coffee tree (400) Significant Impacts on livelihoods due • Compensation for loss of land, livelihoods and replanting Significant Agricultural land (30% of the to loss of coffee trees assistance; overall landholding) Significant impacts on the overall • Land replacement (TBD) agricultural land • Remedial measure as recommended in the tracer) Previously affected by GoTL’s Emergency Project (100 coffee trees and 30 sqm of land) Jose Xavier 46 M $ 250 - 500 9 49+980-50+040 Coffee tree (264) Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of • Compensation for loss of land, livelihoods and replanting Significant Amaral 2 semi-permanent kiosks coffee trees and affected kiosks assistance; Agricultural land (7% of the Minimum impacts on the overall • Compensation for affected structures at replacement costs; overall landholding) agricultural land • Temporary livelihoods support lino Xavier 52 M $ 170 - 200 8 50+500-50+600 Coffee (750) Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of • Compensation for loss of land, livelihoods and replanting Significant Amaral Agricultural land (9% of the coffee trees assistance; overall landholding) Minimum impacts on the overall agricultural land Jaime Amaral 33 M $ 600 - 700 3 50+240-50+320 Coffee (400) Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of • Compensation for loss of land, livelihoods and replanting Significant Ximenes Agricultural land (9% of the coffee trees assistance; overall landholding) Minimum impacts on the overall agricultural land Osorio Soares 39 M $ 150 5 50+320-50+500 Coffee tree (1040) Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of • Compensation for loss of land, livelihoods and replanting Significant Carvalho Agricultural land (9% of the coffee trees assistance; overall landholding) Minimum impacts on the overall agricultural land Abel 45 M $ 230 - 450 8 50+160-50+240 Coffee tree (240) Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of • Compensation for loss of land and livelihoods and replanting Moderate Rodrigues Agricultural land (6% of the coffee trees assistance; Bareto overall landholding) Minimum impacts on the overall agricultural land Domingos 51 M $ 120 - 320 9 52+150-52+420 Coffee tree (1440) Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of • Compensation for loss of land and livelihoods and replanting Significant Pereira 52+620-52+700 Agricultural land (8% and 2% of coffee trees assistance; the overall landholding) Minimum impacts on the overall agricultural land Domingos N/A M TBD tbd 51+680-51+720 Coffee tree (220) Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of • Compensation for loss of land and livelihoods and replanting Moderate Pereira Agricultural land (9% of the coffee trees assistance; overall landholding) Minimum impacts on the overall agricultural land Carlos da 42 M $ 100 - 400 tbd 51+460-51+600 Coffee tree (540) Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of • Compensation for loss of land and livelihoods and replanting Significant Costa Pereira Agricultural land (5% of the coffee trees assistance; overall landholding) Minimum impacts on the overall agricultural land 116 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Marcelino F. 48 M $ 250 - 300 5 51+740-51+860 Coffee tree (480) Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of • Compensation for loss of land and livelihoods and replanting Significant Soares Agricultural land (5% of the coffee trees assistance; overall landholding) Moderate impacts on the overall agricultural land Agusto Soares 48 M $ 100 - 150 9 51+860-52+000 Coffee tree (700) Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of • Compensation for loss of land and livelihoods and replanting Significant Agricultural land (13% of the coffee trees assistance; overall landholding) Moderate impacts on the overall agricultural land Joni Florindo 33 M $ 200 - 500 TBD 52+700-52+780 Coffee tree (240) Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of • Compensation for loss of land and livelihoods and replanting Moderate Pereira Agricultural land (13% of the coffee trees assistance; overall landholding) Moderate impacts on the overall agricultural land Fernando N/A M TBD TBD 51+620-51+680 Coffee tree (280) Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of • Compensation for loss of land and livelihoods and replanting Moderate Agricultural land (9% of the coffee trees assistance; overall landholding) Minimum impacts on the overall agricultural land Maria Soares N/A F TBD TBD 51+280-51+400 Coffee tree (320) Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of • Compensation for loss of land and livelihoods and replanting Moderate Agricultural land (4% of the coffee trees assistance; overall landholding) Minimum impacts on the overall agricultural land Alfredo do 32 M TBD 6 53+840-54+080 Coffee tree (200) Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of • Compensation for loss of land and livelihoods and replanting Moderate Santos Soares Agricultural land (4% of the coffee trees assistance; overall landholding) Minimum impacts on the overall agricultural land Januario N/A M TBD TBD 53+020-53+140 Coffee tree (660) Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of • Compensation for loss of land and livelihoods and replanting Significant Branco Agricultural land (14% of the coffee trees assistance; overall landholding) Minimum impacts on the overall agricultural land Antonio N/A M TBD TBD 52+140-52+380 Coffee tree (640) Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of • Compensation for loss of land and livelihoods and replanting Significant Pereira Agricultural land (5% of the coffee trees assistance; overall landholding) Minimum impacts on the overall agricultural land Julio Salsinha 45 M $ 310 7 54+080-54+380 Coffee tree (1900) Impacts on livelihoods due to loss of • Compensation for loss of land and livelihoods and replanting Severe Piadade Agricultural land (9% of the coffee trees assistance; Amaral overall landholding) Minimum impacts on the overall agricultural land 117 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno ANNEX 6: INITIAL TRACER REPORT FOR SECTION 3 A INTRODUCTION At the preparation stage of the Branch Road Project, the GoTL commissioned an “Emergency Roads” intiatives in select segments of the Section 3. This construction has been undertaken by the DRBFC of the MoPW to address road damages and blockages due to land slides. Construction activites cover road widening, basic reparation of the existing road infrastructure, which includes installation of road- side drainage and retaining walls in some critical/landslide prone segments. This Emergency Road Project started in 2017, initially with with repairing of road surfaces. However, since June 2018, the civil works have expanded and involved slopes-cutting and back-filling and road widening. Subsequent environmental and social impacts were reported, including community grievances due to improper management of soil disposal and slope cutting with observable impacts on community coffee plantations. Furthermore, improper land clearing and construction have also increased the risks of landslides, community health and road safety due to dust production, as well as increased run-offs with adverse impacts on spring water and ground sources. Operations of heavy vehicles and haul trucks along settlement areas have been attributed to minor damages in community infrastructure and properties (i.e. cracks). Some of the owners of affected trees (i.e. coffee) have not been compensated for their lossess. Furthermore, some impacts on private land as a result of the widening were reported but not documented. Following a joint PMU-World Bank Mission in October 2018, a Tracer Study for Section 3 was recommended. Following this mission, a tracer study was undertaken in November 2018 to document impacts that have been caused by the on-going GoTL’s emergency project. Once updated, this tracer will establish a baseline of impacts which will be re-validated following completion of the project. Remedial measures, including top-up compensations will be provided to the affected households. The World Bank has requested the GoTL to minimize potential impacts to the extent possibly by limiting road works within the existing alignment and carriageway. B SCOPE As of October 2018, Section 3 (Letefoho-Gleno) has been widened and repaired under the GoTL’s Emergency Road from STA 37+450 to STA 40+900 (3.45 km) and from STA 46+100 to STA 51+000 (4.90 km). Current observation indicates that road widening covered up to 6 meters, with a 1 to 1.5- meter shoulder on each sid. The widths tend to be larger on road curves. This road widening has affected Suco Goulolo and two aldeia (Baturema and Kailiti) affected by the Road widening from STA 37+450 to STA 40+900 (3.45 km). Another segment from STA 46+100 to STA 51+000 (4.90 km) affected three Socos (Eraulo, Estado, and Humboe). The Resettlement and Environmental team conducted a tracer study to identify and record environmental and social impacts caused by the Emergency Road Project in early November 2018. A corrective action plan has been included as part of the LARAP and is intended to aid the GoTL to address existing impacts caused by the Emergency Road Project in Section 3. Some of the segments in Section 3 which were included under this on-going road project cover STA 37+450 to STA 40+900 (3.45 km length) and from STA 46+100 to STA 51+000 (4.90 km length). 118 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Additional segment with the length of 5.6 km (from STA31+900 to STA37+500) has not commenced at the time of the TLBR project preparation. Hence no impacts have been reported. An impact survey will be undertaken for this road segment once the DED has been made available. The tracer study will be updated to document environmental and social impacts, including lost assets and land, prior to construction in Section 3. The total length of the Section 3 affected by the Emergency Road is approximately 8.35 km. This first phase of the tracer report covered impacts on the first two segments i.e. STA 37+450 to STA 40+900 (3.45 km) and from STA 46+100 to STA 51+000 (4.90 km). Any additional works by the GoTL under the emergency road project in Section 3 will need to comply with the World Bank’s safeguards policies. Management of potential environmental and social impacts, particularly pertaining to land acquisition must be carried out in conjunction with the TLBR’s Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) and Land Acqusition and Resettlement Action Plan (LARAP). C METHODOLOGY The following steps were conducted for the Tracer study, which is summarized as follows: a. Consultation with Community in Affected Sucos /Aldeias Initial consultations with affected Suco/Aldeia were undertaken to inform affected communities about the Tracer plan and subsequent processes needed to systematically identify and document impacts. These include the process for identifying affected people as well as verification processes. Such disclosure and consultations were undertaken in all affected Sucos/Aldeias afftected by the Emergency Road from STA 37+450 to STA 40+900 (3.45 km length) and from STA 46+100 to STA 51+000 (4.90 km length). Initial contacts were made with Suco and Aldeia chiefs. A snowball approach was adopted to identify possible PAPs and efforts were made to conduct interviews as thorough as possible. All PAPs met were informed about the tracer study plan, and confirmed a schedule for a follow up impacts assessment survey. b. Identification and Verification of Impacts Following the consultation and disclosure about the Tracer Study plan, detailed information of affected APs and assets impacted/claimed was collected through a series of structured interviews. Documentation was enriched with pictures and other other evidence and the combination of these was used to assess the damages/losses. The results of the assessment and validation of assets affected by the GoTL emergency road project were signed by PAPs and witnessed by Suco/Aldeia Chiefs. A Cut-off date (3x24 hours) was set to to provide an opportunity to absente affected peoples to submit their complaints / claims. Given the short timeline for reporting claims, the tracer warrants further assessment and validation once the on-going road project has been completed. D IMPACT ASSESSMENT A Detail Engineering Design of the Section 3 was not available at the time of the tracer assessment. A request of the DED for the on-going project was made to the civil work contractor. However, no written and official information was received. 119 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Transect walks on a sampling basis and graphic and spatial analysis of Section 3 were made to compare the road conditions before and after the construction intercepted by the Emergency Roads before and after the construction. This was confirmed with interviews with Suco/Aldeia and affected people. This information combined was used to set the boundary of the Tracer Study as well as the on-going project’s corridor of impacts. The total length of the Section 3 affected by the Emergency Roads (STA 37+450 to STA 40+900 and STA 46+100 to STA 51+000) is 8.35 km. The current conditions of the Emergency Roads segments varied in Goulolo and Eraulo. Most of civil works covering road widening, installation of retaining walls and drainages have been completed. In Estado, some minor civil works for improving drainages were observed. More extensive construction activities covering road widening, slope cutting and backfills, land compacting, installation of retaining walls and drainages are currently ongoing at the time of the assessment. In addition to immediate land taking for road widening, impacts on private properties were also reported to be associated with soil compacting and soil disposal. Some of the newly compacted and flattened land parcels have been occupied for temporary kiosks and semi-permanent houses, which present community hazards due to landslide risks. The pictures below illustrate typical impacts caused by the road widening and slope cutting activities under the GoTL emergency road project STA 37+450 to STA 40+900 (3.45 km) and from STA 46+100 to STA 51+000 (4.90 km). Pictures 1 and 2: slope cutting and backfilling practices 9-10 m wide ROW 9-10 m wide ROW 120 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno EXISTING ROAD ALIGNMENT Short cuts Road EXISTING GRADIENT a. Impact on Private Land and Structure The construction activities under the GoTL’s emergency road operations in the Section 3 affected 49 land owners who reside in Humboe, Goulolo and Haupu Socos (see Table 3). The scale of impacts varies. While some impacts are minor to the overall land holdings, some households experienced more severe impacts than the rest, as detailed in Table 1. Hence, furher livelihoods restoration support will be needed to address impacts on these households. The types of assistance and support will be further consulted and for the purpose of the resettlement planning, the LARAP budget follows the standardized resettlement entitlements as detailed in Chapter 3 of the LARAP document. 121 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno On the basis of the initial survey, the total claims of land affected cover 22,954 square meters (STA 37+450 to STA 40+900 (3.45 km) and STA 46+100 to STA 51+000 (4.90 km). Such impacts were mostly attributed to slope cutting as well as improper soil disposal on productive agricultural land. All identified 24 affected land parcels in Goulolo Suco and Haopu Suco are equipped with land ownership certificates issued by the Indonesia’s Land Agency (BPN), which is also recognized under the current GoTL’s law. These affected private land parcels were either expropriated or impacted without adequate compensation and required improvements such as retaining walls and/or land compaction to prevent and/or minimize risks associated with landslides as well as damage on private structure i.e. cracks. Such impacts have been documented in the Branch Road Project’s (BRP) ESMP. In Sucos where the status of land ownership could not be verified, such as in Suco Humboe, claimants were not previously consulted and hence adequately compensated. The tracer study indicates that there were some arguments on the establishment of a new boundary for the ROWs which were recognized as the government’s land and therefore, further consultations to settle land claims will need to be conducted prior to the BRP’s implementation. No claims on private structures impacted by the GoTL’s emergency road project were reported. Table 1 Severely Affected Peoples of the Land taken by the Emergency Road Construction Affected People Total Land Total Severity Ownership Suggested Mitigation Owned at Land Area Impacts Status Measure Project Site Affected on Land (m2) (%) 1 Filipe Salsinha 300 300 100% NA Compensation for land lost with LAR assistance 2 Abilio Soares 360 175 49% BPN Compensation for Vasconselhos Certificate land lost with LAR assistance 3 Luciano Soares 150 75 50% BPN Compensation for Certificate land lost with LAR assistance 4 Francisco Soares 260 210 81% BPN Compensation for Certificate land lost with LAR assistance 5 Carlos Soares 180 75 42% BPN Compensation for Certificate land lost with LAR assistance 6 Amelia Babo 180 50 28% BPN Compensation for Certificate land lost with LAR assistance 7 Celestino saores 528 320 61% BPN Compensation for Salsinha Certificate land lost with LAR assistance Source: Impact Assessment Survey, November 2018 122 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno b. Impacts on Productive Trees / Crops The Tracer indicates that there is no private structure directly affected or claimed. However, impacts on agricultural land, which subsequently affected productive crops and trees, including coffee, bamboo, banana, ai-kakeu, jack fruit, mango, avocado, and some different varieties of timber woods like ai-teka, ai-na and gemilina were reported. Since Ermera is known as a coffee growing area, there are 41 land owners whose coffee plantations have been affected by improper soil disposal as a result of the GoTL’s emergency road construction activities. Out of the 41 coffee farmers identified, 9 experienced more severe impacts than the others due to the number of trees impacted. Further assessments with regards to livelihoods impacts as a result of the GotL’s emergency project will need to be completed as part of the tracer updating process. About 40 percent of the coffee trees affected have been compensated at a value of $ 5.00 per tree. The remaining 60 percent of the coffee trees have not been or have been partially compensated. The contractors were reported to have promised to compensate landowners, which would warrant monitoring by the GoTL. Table 2 Affected Peoples and Significant Risk of Income / Livelihood Lost from Coffee Affected People Category Size Total Risk of Income Suggested Mitigation (tree) / Livelihood Measure Lost / Per harvesting (0.3 kg X $ 4 X Total trees) 1 Jose manuel de Coffee Big 710 $ 853.00 Top up compensation Deus Maia and Livelihoods Support 2 Eduardo Soares Coffee Big 400 $ 480.00 Top up compensation and Livelihoods Support 3 Fernanda Araujo Coffee Big 680 $ 816.00 Top up compensation dos santos and Livelihoods Support 4 Marciano Jose da Coffee Big 500 $ 600.00 Top up compensation Cruz and Livelihoods Support 5 Mario Maia Exposto Coffee Big 720 $ 864.00 Top up compensation and Livelihoods Support 6 Cpriano maia Coffee Big 673 $ 807.00 Top up compensation and Livelihoods Support 7 Aurora Mendonça Coffee Big 350 $ 420.00 Top up compensation and Livelihoods Support 8 João Lemos Maia Coffee Big 300 $ 360.00 Top up compensation and Livelihoods Support 9 Bendito Maia Coffee Big 250 $ 300.00 Top up compensation and Livelihoods Support 123 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno c. Lack of Consultation and Disclosure, Underpaid Compensation Value and Improper Damage Assessment by Local Contractors All affected land owners as well as Suco/Aldeia chiefs informed there was no public consultation conducted to inform about the Emergency Road construction activities in the area. Disclosure was only done through sign boards in front of the contractors’ office indicating the project duration, total budget, contractor name and budget amount and source. The tracer study also indicated that partial information was disseminated and access to information about project activities relied on project supervisers and contractors who interacted directly with affected communities. Compensation payments were made directly to complainers following agreements on damage assessment results and valuation of affected trees/crops. Only agricultural land parcels with productive crops and productive plants (i.e. coffee, banana, jack fruit, orange etc) were compensated. Timber trees which serve as shades for the coffee plantation, such as albasia and acacia. Except for these shade trees, the contractor used the same price standard for each tree, which is USD 5 per stem of trees. Payments were made in cash in two tranches (usually within 2 months). Lack of informed consent was also observed as reported below. “The contractor is required to calculate the total number of plants and trees affected based on information from the owners prior to any payments. Following this process, respective owners would cut down the trees after receiving payments from the contractor. However, this procedure was not consistently followed. An account from an affected person in Humboe named Mr. Eduardo Soares told his experience that the contractor acquired his land i.e. coffee plantation without permission from him. The contractor only met with his wife and informed that land will be taken for slope cutting. While compensation was provided, Mr. Soares mentioned that the Contractor settled payments without any negotiatation with him or his wife with regards to the total number of coffee trees as well as the size of his land parcels affected. In his view, the payments did not fairly compensate the losses that his family had to bear due to the project impacts. His brother received a greated amount although impacts were limited to coffee trees.” E CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN a. Top-up compensation and livelihoods restoration assistance GoTL has issued a standard price to value trees/crops affected by government projects. The standard price was issued in 2014 by State Ministry of Agriculture. On the basis of this standard pricelist, underpaid compensation values for trees /crops affected shall be re-assessed to determine the differences. Top up compensation values shall be made to cover the gap. Unpaid tress/crops shall be fully paid using the prevailing Standard Price for Trees/Crops applicable at the time of tree/crop cutting. A detailed inventory of affected trees/crops is provided in Table 4. Eight (9) affected people/households were assessed to be severely affected due to significant loss of incomes as indicated in Table 1 and hence, shall be entitled to livelihood restoration support. Available packages for such support will be further discussed in consultations with these affected people/households. 124 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Twenty-four (24) affected land owners with recognized land certificates (issued by Indonesia’s Land Agency) are entitled for full compensation of their private land parcels affected/expropriated by the GoTL’s Emergency Road Project. Similar to section 2, a negotiated settlement approach will be adopted and a standard compensation value for private land parcels will be issued by GoTL as a benchmark for negotiation. The same standard for compensation package and/ or agreed mitigation measures for the remaining of twenty five (25) affected land owners whose certificates of ownership will apply following due processes to verify and validate land ownership. b. Addressing grievances and strengthening consultations and community engagement For the upcoming additional construction activities under the GoTL’s Emergency Roads (from STA 31+900 to STA 37+500) or 5.9 km length, a standardized FGRM as well as consultation requirements under the Branch Road Project shall be applied to avoid and minimize potential adverse impacts. 125 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Table 3 Affected Land Areas on the Section 3 by the GoTL’s Emergency Road Construction Activities based on Tracer Survey of November 2019 Respondent National ID Age Road Aldeia Proof of Total Area of Total Area Severity Est. Land Value by Name No Side Ownership land (m2) affected (m2) Impact (%) Respective Owners SUCO HUMBOE 1 Jose manuel 0080194 34 L Borhei NA 10000 500 5% $.20.00 de Deus Maia 2 Eduardo 0080186 59 L Borhei NA 40000 1200 3% $.15.00 Soares 3 Julio 0066608 52 L Hatali NA 500000 200 0% $.10.00/Sqm Carvalho 4 Agustino da 0050708 42 R Hatali NA 8000 200 3% $.10.00/Sqm Conseição 5 Domingos 0080111 64 L Borhei NA 6000 60 1% $.15.00 Ximenes 6 Jose Marcus 0080037 47 L Borhei/ErdaLori NA 500 30 6% $.30.00 7 Joaquim 0080037 66 L Borhei-Gouulo NA 2000 300 15% $.15.00 Pinto 8 Eduardo do 0799746 36 L Borhei NA 8000 240 3% $.15.00 santos Pinto 9 Jose Mau- - 55 - Hatali NA 3500 250 $.15.00 Asu 10 Adriano da 0080667 69 - Hatali NA 120000 600 1% $.10.00 Cruz 11 Saturnino da - 35 L Hatali NA 20000 400 2% - Gloria Salsinha 126 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 12 Fernanda 0088313 56 - Borhei NA 5000 300 6% $.15.00 Araujo dos santos 13 Zeferino da 0080214 41 R Borhei NA 30 30 100% $.25.00 Costa Babo 14 Alarico 0080089 52 L Borhei NA 100000 600 1% $.20.00 Gomes pinto 15 Gabriel 0066579 39 L Hatali NA 8000 200 3% $.10.00 Carvalho 16 Marciano 0008003 48 L Borhei NA 60000 750 1% $.15.00 Jose da Cruz 17 Mario Maia 0080014 65 L Borhei NA 120000 1200 1% $.10.00 Exposto 18 Luis Cardoso 0256402 61 - Borhei NA 250000 300 0% $.15.00 19 Julio Salsinha 0066661 43 L Borhei NA 12000 180 2% $.15.00 20 Francisco - 50 - Hatali NA 1500 150 10% $20.00 Carvalho 21 Imercio do 0066647 53 - Hatali NA 2500 125 5% $20.00 Santos 22 Cpriano maia 0066609 65 - Borhei NA 200000 1200 1% $25.00 23 José de Deus 0080684 57 - Hatali NA 24000 480 2% $25.00 Bosco 24 Aurora 0066719 45 L Borhei NA 6000 1200 20% $20.00 Mendonça 25 Filipe 0066714 46 R Borhei NA 300 300 100% $25.00 Salsinha SUCO ESTADO SUCO GOULOLO 26 João Lemos 120/45/2010 29 L Goulolo BPN 20000 500 3% - Maia 27 Bendito Maia 0062758 48 L Goulolo BPN 20000 3000 15% - 127 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno SUCO HAUPU 28 Pedro de 0063649 60 L Raepusa BPN 5000 800 16% Deus 29 Abilio Soares 0063617 45 R Raepusa BPN 360 175 49% - Vasconselhos 30 Abilio Afonso 0063682 45 R Raepusa BPN 35 4 11% - 150 10 7% 31 Euzebio 0087591 41 R Raepusa BPN 30000 2000 7% - Alcino Maia 32 Luciano 0063685 37 R Raepusa - 150 75 50% - Soares 33 Francisco 0063688 59 R Raepusa BPN 260 210 81% - Soares 34 Carlos Soares 0063650 61 R Raepusa BPN 180 75 42% - 35 Felix Soares 0063627 74 R Raepusa BPN 30000 120 0.4% - 36 Amelia Babo 0063629 80 R Raepusa BPN 180 50 28% - 37 Silvino de 0063686 34 R Raepusa BPN 8250 50 1% - Deus 38 Esmael 0187774 28 R Raepusa BPN 4000 640 16% - Soares de Deus 39 Lucas da 0063654 36 R Raepusa BPN 9300 150 2% - Silva 40 Celestino 0063663 30 R Raepusa BPN 528 320 61% - Saores Salsinha 41 Pedro Soares 0819255 21 R Raepusa BPN 5500 300 5% - 42 Elias Paulo 0863802 22 R Raepusa BPN 60000 600 1% - Soares 128 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 43 Celestino do 0087630 35 R Raepusa BPN 1800 180 10% - Santos 44 Antonio 0099810 37 R Raepusa BPN 1600 40 3% - Soares 45 Abel Soares 0063662 88 R Raepusa BPN 15000 180 1% - de Deus 46 Luis Soares 0063656 58 R Raepusa BPN 15000 280 2% - 46 Francisco 0063703 35 R Raepusa BPN 8000 270 3% - Soares 48 Lourenço Da 0314311 32 R Raepusa BPN 45000 130 0% - conseição 49 Carlito 0063680 44 R Raepusa BPN 90000 1800 2% - Soares TOTAL 22,954.00 129 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Table 4 Trees/Crops on the Section 3 affected by the Emergency Road Construction Activities based on Tracer Survey of November 2019 Respondent Name Name of Tree / Diameter / Number Current Status Vegetation Height SUCO HUMBOE 1 Jose manuel de Deus Pohon Kopi Large 710 Total compensation entitlement is $.3.550.00 (710 x $.5.00) = Maia 180 coffee trees were compensated for $.900.00 530 coffee trees have not been compensated with an estimated value of $.2.650.00 Pine (Ai kakeu/Cemara) Large 10 Not yet compensated Jackfruit (Kulu) Large 1 Not yet compensated Ai Lantoro Large 11 Not yet compensated Mango Large 1 Not yet compensated 2 Eduardo Soares Coffee Large 400 Total compensation entitlement is $.2.000.00 (400 x $ 5.00) 100 coffee trees have been compensated for $.500.00 300 coffee trees have not been compensated with estimated value of $.1.500.00 Jackfruit (Kulu) Large 10 Not yet compensated Avocado Large 10 Not yet compensated Banana Large 10 Not yet compensated Bamboo Large 4 Not yet compensated 3 Julio Carvalho Coffee Large 28 Compensated for $ 140.00 Jackfruit (Kulu) Large 2 Not yet compensated Lamtoro Large 10 Not yet compensated 4 Agustino da Conseição Coffee Large 43 Compensated Ai sentru(tree) Large 1 Not yet compensated Ai kison(tree) Large 2 Not yet compensated 130 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Samtutu(tree) Large 1 Not yet compensated Jackfruit (Kulu) Large 1 Not yet compensated Mango Large 1 Not yet compensated Cassava Large 10 Not yet compensated 5 Domingos Ximenes Coffee Large 34 Compensated Jackfruit (Kulu) Large 2 Not yet compensated Mango Large 1 Not yet compensated Pine Large 4 Not yet compensated 6 Jose Marcus Coffee Large 100 Compensated 7 Joaquim Pinto Coffee Large 140 Compensated Avocado Large 2 Not yet compensated Samtutu(tree) Large 1 Not yet compensated 8 Eduardo do santos Coffee Large 81 Compensated (amount TBD), entitlement $ 405 Pinto 9 Jose Mau-Asu Coffee Large 46 Compensated (amoout TBD), entitlement $ 230 Petae Large 2 Not yet compensated Ubi kayu Large 50 Not yet compensated 10 Adriano da Cruz Lamtoro(tree) Large 5 Compensated for $.20.00/tree Petae Large 10 Not yet compensated Ubi kayu Large 1 Not yet compensated 11 Saturnino da Gloria Coffee Large 40 Compensated for $.20.00/tree Salsinha Manga Large 2 Not yet compensated Kulu jaka (Nangka) Large 2 Not yet compensated 12 Fernanda Araujo dos Coffee Large 680 178 coffee trees have been compensated (amount TBD) and 502 santos remaining coffee trees not yet compensated Bambu Large 1 Not yet compensated 131 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Kulu jaka (Nangka) Large 6 Not yet compensated Avokat Large 3 Not yet compensated Manga Large 1 Not yet compensated 13 Zeferino da Costa Babo Coffee Large 40 Not yet compensated Alarico Gomes pinto Coffee Large 170 Compensated (amount TBD) Manga Large 1 Not yet compensated 14 Gabriel Carvalho Coffee Large 10 Compensated (amount TBD) 15 Marciano Jose da Cruz Coffee Large 500 Not yet compensated 240 coffee compensated for $.1.200.00, remaining 240 coffee not yet compensated Kulu jaka (Nangka) Large 2 Not yet compensated Manggo Large 1 Not yet compensated 16 Mario Maia Exposto Coffee Large 720 140 coffee trees have been compensated for $ 700.00 and remaining 580 coffee not yet compensated Avocado Large 1 Not yet compensated Pine Large 4 Not yet compensated Lantoro Large 2 Not yet compensated Samtuku Large 1 Not yet compensated 17 Luis Cardoso Coffee Compensated 18 Julio Salsinha Coffee Large 100 40 coffee compensated for $ 200.00 and remaining 60 coffees not yet compensated. 19 Francisco Carvalho Coffee Large 100 Compensated 20 Imercio do Santos Coffee Large 200 100 coffees compensated for $ 500.00 but remaining 100 coffees not yet compensated. 21 Cpriano maia Coffee Large 673 Not yet compensated 240 Coffee compensated for $.1.200.00 and remaining 443 coffee not yet compensated Jeruk Large 2 Not yet compensated 132 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Avocado Large 4 Not yet compensated 22 José de Deus Bosco Coffee Large 20 Not yet compensated Teak (Pohon Jati) Large 4 Not yet compensated Banana Large 8 Not yet compensated Mango Large 5 Not yet compensated 23 Aurora Mendonça Coffee Large 350 100 coffee compensated for $ 500.00 and remaining 250 coffees not yet compensated. 24 Filipe Salsinha Coffee Large Unknown Received only $ 700.00 from $ 2.500.00 promised. Expected to total receive more compensation for his damaged coffee plantations. number of coffee trees affected as already covered by soils disposal SUCO ESTADO 25 Jose de Deus Teak TBD Not yet compensated SUCO GOULOLO 26 João Lemos Maia Coffee Large 300 Not yet compensated Samtuku (Albicia) Large 6 Not yet compensated 27 Bendito Maia Coffee Large 250 Not yet compensated Samtuku (Albicia) Large 20 Not yet compensated SUCO HAUPU 28 Pedro de Deus Coffee Compensated for $.5.00/tree 29 Abilio Soares Seedlings (TBD) Small 60 Not yet compensated Vasconselhos 30 Abilio Afonso Seedlings (TBD) Small 128 Not yet compensated 31 Euzebio Alcino Maia Coffee Small 30 Compensated for $.5.00/tree 32 Luciano Soares Coffee TBD Compensated for $.5.00/tree 133 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 33 Francisco Soares Coffee Large TBD Compensated for $.5.00/tree 34 Carlos Soares Seeds Small 11 Compensated for $.10.00/tree 35 Felix Soares Coffee Large TBD Compensated for $.5.00/tree 36 Amelia Babo TBD 37 Silvino de Deus Jeruk Small 7 Not yet compensated 38 Esmael Soares de Deus Coffee Large 120 Compensated for $.5.00/tree 39 Lucas da Silva Coffee Large TBD Compensated for $.5.00/tree Seeds (TBD) Small TBD Not yet compensated 40 Celestino Saores Coffee Large TBD Compensated for $.5.00/tree Salsinha 41 Pedro Soares Coffee Large TBD Compensated for $.5.00/tree 42 Elias Paulo Soares Coffee Large TBD Compensated for $.5.00/tree 43 Celestino do Santos Coffee Large TBD Compensated for $.5.00/tree 44 Antonio Soares Coffee Large TBD Compensated for $.5.00/tree 45 Abel Soares de Deus Seeds (TBD) Small TBD Not yet compensated 46 Luis Soares Seeds (TBD) Small TBD Not yet compensated Coffee Large TBD Compensated for $.5.00/tree 47 Francisco Soares Seeds (TBD) Small TBD Not yet compensated Coffee Large TBD Compensated for $.5.00/tree 48 Lourenço Da Conseição TBD TBD TBD TBD 49 Carlito Soares Coffee Large TBD Compensated for $.5.00/tree 134 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno ANNEX 7: STANDARD PRICE OF AFFECTED TREES/CROPS ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE OF TIMOR LESTE 135 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 136 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno ANNEX 8: CENSUS AND ECONOMIC SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE SOCIO- ECONOMIC SURVEY Branch Road Section Dili – Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Road Questionnaire No: ______________________ Date: ______________________________ Coordinates: Long: _____________________ Lat: ________________________________ STA Number __________________________ Picture Number/s: _____________________ Enumerator ___________________________ Supervisor __________________________ GENERAL IDENTIFACATION 1.1 Road Side: 1. Left ( ) 2. Right ( ) 3. From Start ( ) 4 From End ( ) 1.2 STA Km ……………………………… 1.3 i. District: ………………………………… ii. Postoadministrativo: ….…………………………… iii. Suco: …………………………………… iv. Aldeia: …….…………………………………… 1.4 Location: 1. Urban 2 Semi-Urban 3.Rural GENERAL SOCIAL CONDITIONS I. SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE Name of Respondent: ______________________________________________________________ National Identification Number________________________________________________________ Address ______________________________________________ Gender Male Female Marital Status Single Married Separated Widow/er Age: _____________________________ Years Married: ____________________________ If Muslim Write all Name of Wife and Age: Religion: Catholic Muslim Protestant Hindu Buddhist Others: _____________________ Cultural Affinity: _______________ Dialect _________________ Nationality: __________________ Name of Spouse: _________________________________________________ Age: __________ National Identification Number________________________________________________________ Gender Male Female Religion: 137 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Catholic Muslim Protestant Hindu Buddhist Others: ________________ Cultural Affinity: _________________________ Nationality: _______________________ Respondent Spouse How many people are member of the family (including respondent): _______ Number of Children _____ Names Sex Edu. Civil Status Depen Indepen Age M F Att (M. S) dent dent 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Educational Attainment: (Edu. Att) (a) No schooling (e) Senior High school (b) Elementary (f) College (Year ________) (c) Elementary graduate (g) College graduate (d) Junior High school (h) Others, pls. specify: _________________ Household Appliances: Television Refrigerator Car Gas Range Stereo Pickup/Van Sala Set Cell Phone Motor Bike Are there other families living the structure (a) YES (b) NO How many people leaving within the structure who are not a member of the family: _______ Relationship: (--) Relative (b) Renter (__) Helper d) Others_______________ If Relative Mother ( ), Father ( ), Brother ( ), Sister ( ), Uncle ( ), Aunties ( ), Cousin ( ), Sister in law ( ), Brother in law ( ), Mother In Law ( ), Father in Law ( ), Others_________________ 138 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 1. What is your livelihood skill? ______________________________________ 2 What is the primary livelihood skill of spouse________________________ 3) What is the primary livelihood skill of children? ______________________ Source of Income: Sex Estimated Monthly Income Est. Income Source Income Earner Primary Amt Other Amt Total a) Salary Livelihood Sources Monthly b) Business Income Respondent c) Remittances Spouse d) Pension Children e) Rentals f) Others (Specify) Estimated Income Range in US $ a) Below 100 (b) 100-200 (c) 200- 400 d) 401-600 (e) 601-800 (f) 801-1000 (f) 1001-2000 g) Above 2000 Source of Electricity: _______________________ Monthly Expenses ______________ • Metered/legal connection • No Electricity • From neighbor with legal connection • Others Toilet: Inside House (Private) No Septic Vault Outside House (Shared) With Septic Vault Public Flush Toilet None Pit Household Waste Disposal Regularly Collected by Garbage Truck Thrown anywhere / River Garbage Collection Spot Regularly Collected by Garbage Truck Burn Garbage Pit at Backyard Others Monthly Cost of Garbage Disposal ________ Common Household Illness Fever Fever Upper Respiratory (e.g. Cold, T.B etc) Skin Disease Others: Source of Medical Attention Home Private Hospital/Clinic Suco Health Center Herbal District Hospital Others 139 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Source of Water: __________________________ Monthly Expenses: ______________ Metered / Piped Delivered Owned Well Illegal Connection From neighbor with piped water Public Well Mineral Water Rain AFFECTED PROPERTY Ownership of Affected Land Owned Government Community Rented Religious Others What is the proof of Ownership: _____________________________________________? Issuing Agency ____________________________ Date Issued__________________ Other Possible Co-Owner of Land Name Sex Age Relationship Residence Contact Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Note: The land might be owned by more than 1 person (e.g. husband and wife, brothers and sisters Other Properties: ___________________ Area:______(sq/m)/Hec: Location_____________________________ Use_____________________ Yearly Income_______________________________ What is the total area of the land? Length_____ mts Width _________mts Area ________m2 What is the area that will be affected by the projects: Length _____ mts Width ______mts Area ____m2 How Many Years Staying in the farm: Value of the Land Suco Chief Estimate: US$ _______/m2 Owner Estimate: US$ _______/m2 Land Owner Private ( ) Government ( ) Name of Owner: ___________________ Address: _________________________ Identity Number: _________________ Crops Number of Harvest /Year Earning / Harvest Cost of Planting 140 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno STRUCTURE Construction Materials a) Permanent ( ) b) Semi-Permanent ( ) c) Temporary ( ) d) Concrete ( ) e) Wood & Concrete ( ) f) Wood ( ) g) GI Sheet ( ) h) Palm Leaves ( ) i) Others ( ) Type of Length mts Width mts Area Const. Materials No. of Value US$ Structure m2 Years House Kiosk Stall Fence Value: Owner Estimate (OE) Enumerator Estimate: (EE) NAME and Number of Trees Name of Tree / Dia. / Owner Est. of Enumerator Number Years Use Vegetation height Cost of Tree Estimate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Land Use: Irrigated Fish Pond Swamp Cultivated Not Irrigated Orchard Forest Idle Others: Years Idle Cost of Farm Inputs: Fertilizer Number of Harvest/year Seedlings Income / harvests Land Area Labor ______________ Sq. mts Maintenance Net Profit Total Net Loss Farm Workers : Are there other people working in the land ? Yes No 141 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Name and Category of Farm Workers Name Age Residence Income / Year Nature of Affiliation to the Land 1 a) Agricultural 2 Labor 3 b) Tenant 4 5 6 © Crop Sharing 7 Community Structure: Community Hall Trust Memorials Market School Others Type of Religious Structure: Church ( ) Temple ( ) Mosque ( ) Shrine ( ) Cemetery ( ) Mandir ( ) Crematorium ( ) Others ( ) Distance of structure from the center of carriage way ___________ meters GENDER PARTICIPATION IN HOUSEHOLD’S LIVELIHOOD ACTIVITIES 1. Family Structure 1 Nuclear (Father, Mother and Children) 2 Extended (including all relatives within the household) 2. Where does your family go during emergencies or in time of need? Please check ( √) where applicable Parents/Siblings Other Relatives Friends/Other People Male Female Male Female Male Female a. Financial b. Physical c. Spiritual d. Emotional Family Decision-making Father Mother Both a. Livelihood b. Family affairs c. Expenditures d. Community Affairs 3. Household Chores: Write W if Wife; H if Husband; GC if Girl Child; BC if Boy Child; OM if old man; OW if old woman. Please indicate the number of hours spent per day. Gawain Female Male No. of Hours Spent/day Cooking Laundry Taking care of children House cleaning 142 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Water Fetching Marketing for household requirements Participation in Economic/Livelihood Activities 5. Productive activities: (please check (√) appropriate entry) a. within the House Activity Female Male Livestock/swine production Vegetable production around the house Food preparation Others (Please specify) b. Jobs outside the home Work Female Male Office work Laborer/factory worker Selling Farming Others (Please specify) c. Access and control of resources and benefits. Please check (√) appropriate entry. Property/Benefits Who uses? Who Makes the decision Female Male Female Male Land Income from livelihood activities Credit from banks/financial institutions Money owed from others 5. Community Management Work/ Activities Female Male Participation in community meetings Participation in socu activities Repair of community infrastructures Participation in socu celebrations What are your concerns about the implementation of the project? 143 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno In your opinion, what are the best ways to address these concerns? If a Grievance Committee will be organized to help address the complaints of the Affected Persons, who are the 3 best people will you suggest? 1) ______________________________________ 2) ______________________________________ 3) ______________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ Name and Signature of Respondent Name and Signature of Enumerator Date: _________________________ 144 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno ANNEX 9: PHOTO FROM LAR CONSULTATIONS AND ATTENDANCE LIST 145 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 146 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 147 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 148 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 149 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 150 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 151 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 152 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 153 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 154 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 155 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 156 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 157 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 158 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 159 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 160 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 161 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 162 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 163 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 164 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 165 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 166 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 167 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 168 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 169 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 170 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 171 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 172 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 173 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 174 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 175 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 176 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 177 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 178 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 179 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 180 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 181 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 182 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 183 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno 184 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno ANNEX 10: NATIONAL PUBLIC CONSULTATION MINUTES The public consultation for Timor Leste Branch Road was held by the Government of Timor Leste on May 23, 3019 in Salão Paroquial São José Catedral, Vila Verde, Dili. The objective of public consultation was to enable public participation in the overall project design and enable affected stakeholders to express their views and raise their concerns to enable better and more inclusive design and project implementation in the future. The consultation was attended by 104 people (including 17 women) which consisted of representatives from the affected communities, central and district government officials, NGO/CSO, and academia. The Director General for Public Works Department of Road, Bridges and Flood Control and the Technical Support Team Leader from Project Management Unit facilitated the consultation and invited constructive feedback from all stakeholders. 185 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Speakers Comments and Suggestions Morning Session The National • Common issues related to land in Timor Leste often stem Directorate of from community claims. There is a need to collaborate Land Property with community leaders who will engage their and Cadastral constituents to support the project; Services • While the Land Law, while land rights are protected, (NDLPCS) there is an absence of further technical regulations and guidelines to act on such provisions; • The GoTL is planning to register land claims to ensure due compensation in the event of land acquisition; • There are often cases where communities along the existing road corridors misuse the land although there are Right of Way (ROW) codes of conduct, regulating land use along road corridors; • Key regulations to be endorsed by the parliament include law on land registration, land rights, as well as certification; • At the municipality level, the GoTL is also planning to start the process of land zonation to define and determine allowable land uses. The GoTL is in the process of deliberation to classify land uses; 186 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno The National • The Directorate is supportive of this project because road Directorate of upgrades will benefit the communities from improved Forestry access and connectivity; Conservation • Potential risks on the protected areas, including Mount and Water Ramelau as well as community coffee plantation will need to be carefully managed to minimize impacts; • The project can take stock of the previous project experiences (for instance Suai supply base); • The same (road construction) standard as applied by JICA should be replicated; • The project needs to enable collaboration with community leaders to support replanting to prevent construction-induced erosion and/or landslides; • Mount Ramelau represents an important tourism site and the GoTL is currently looking other potential tourism sites around the area; • Land clearing and tree cutting must be conducted in a manner that respect the overall ecosystem to minimize further impacts on other trees; • Selection of road alignment should consider the distance from protected areas to minimize and/or avoid potential impacts, this also includes the siting for quarries, stockpile and spoil disposal area and other associated facilities; • The project should foster local collaboration with community leaders, including with regards to management of potential impacts (i.e. replanting). • Concerns related to dust related issues, equipment Student installation, erosion/landslide risks, how to file grievances and what solutions the project can offer to minimize such potential impacts. Ministry of • The project should ensure adequate considerations to Tourism, Art minimize and/or avoid potential impacts on cultural sites; and Culture • There is a cooperation with WB in 2010 producing documentation on TL culture that can be used as a reference; • When impacts are envisaged on cultural sites, engagement with communities must be ensured. This includes supporting necessary rituals; • The project should involve relevant departments in the Ministry of Tourism, Art and Culture in the management of potential risks on cultural sites. 187 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Ermera district • The project in the future will also need cover the Old administrator Ermera town as suggested. Impact on coffee trees will need to be addressed, noting that prices for such trees may need to be differentiated based on productivity. • The same also applies to other trees which may warrant different pricing categories as well as other agricultural commodities, such as cassava. • The bottom line is to ensure differentiated price categories for trees affected based on their types and productivity. Responses by An initial impact assessment for the project has involved the Panel Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture. The assessment has consulted with PAPs on minimizing impacts, i.e. cases of traditional sites in Ermera in Section 3. The panel confirmed that the Ministry will always be involved during project implementation. Response from DG of DRBFC: the impact assessment has involved relevant parties. The questions and concerns raised by the participants are relevant to fill gaps in the current analysis. Community leaders (Suco Chiefs) have been and will continue to be engaged during project implementation. Response from the Ministry of Forestry: price classification for affected trees has been identified based on tree commercial values. If the trees are currently in the list of compensation, then the Ministry of Agriculture will further assess. The existing list has been provided to the Ministry of Public Works. Response from the road PMU: environmental related impacts will be discussed in the afternoon section. The list of compensation entitlements has been developed and is accessible for the public and can be requested from the PMU. There will be another phase where PAPs have the ability to negotiate pricing for trees, structures. In the case of land compensation, the prices will need to be determined by the National Directorate of Land and Property and Cadastral Services (NDLPCS) Department of Question whether there is any additional assistance beyond the compensation. For instance, replanting assistance. In Environment conducting impact assessment processes, the project needs to involve other line ministries 188 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno NGO Luta • There have been reports from the ongoing road project Hamutuk that PAPs were dissatisfied with the compensation. Not all trees affected were compensated. Other unidentified impacts, such as erosion, were also not properly addressed. • On the ground realities often differ from the plan. Suco Representative • Defined zones may not exist amongst Sucos, which tend to result in competing ownership claims by other Sucos. Panel Response Response from the DRBFC: • Clarifications were provided with regards to project impacts being raised by NGO Luta Hamutuk which refer to the GoTL-financed road projects, not the WB and ADB; • Additional compensation for unintended impacts will be paid by the contractor and/or GoTL; • Engineering team will be available on site and hence communities are able to report if there are issues or register their feedback; • Compensation payments will be made through Bank transfer to avoid/minimize leakages and/or unsolicited kickbacks; • There will be a rotation for labor to enable broader participation of the communities. Response from the NDLPCS: all land and associated properties on land fall under the responsibility of NDLPCS. Suco boundary demarcation has been made to minimize conflict and overlapping claims amongst Suco. Community • Question on the prevention and handling of landslides; Representative • Local workers will need to be sourced locally from each from Ermera Suco; • If there are potential negative impacts on cultural sites, the project must ensure that there are rituals prior to any construction works which result in such impacts. 189 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Administrator • There is an expectation that the road upgrades can be of Ermera extended to Fatubesi; Municipality • There are particular trees that are typically not compensated and hence, the communities need to better understand the methodology for calculating compensation, particularly coffee trees; • Road potholes which may get worsen during the rainy season may create public safety risks; • Existing drainage sometimes fails to accommodate increasing water volumes (run-offs). Retaining walls, if not constructed properly, may collapse in the event of heavy rains; • The project should have strong communication and engagement with community leaders to foster their buy- in. Such coordination also needs to be maintained with the district government as they have veto rights to halt the project. Ainaro District • Coordination issues between the Central and District Administrator governments were reported. Contractors often do not follow instructions from the district administration. Hence, a written authorization letter from the Central Government to the District Government is called for to enable the latter in the management of contractors; • Take the lessons learned from Dili-Ainaro road project to Branch Road project; • The project needs to strengthen its engagement with Suco leaders; The Police • The police involvement is needed to manage traffic and Department of ensure road safety. The police also provide security Ainaro services to local workers; • To be able to function effectively, an authorization and/or mandate in the management of contractors from the central government to district governments will be needed. • Consultations will also need to target potentially affected people and should be maintained during project implementation; • Communication processes with the community will need to be fostered to enable impact monitoring on the ground through their involvement; • Proper and regular coordination will be critical to prevent potential issues. The Police is often at the forefront of resolving issues and hence, prevention measures through proper communication with Suco and Aldea chiefs should be maintained. Previous projects have taken longer to complete due to poor coordination with Sucos. 190 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Afternoon Session Hatubuilico • While cooperation between central and municipal Administrator governments is key, there is also a strong need to enhance the capacity of municipal governments; • Construction activities should avoid sites of cultural significance such as graveyard in Hatubuilico; • More considerations on work life balance must be given particularly to local workers recruited by Chinese companies; • Management of slope cutting impacts, such as revegetation, will need to be included as part of the project design; 191 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Responses by Response from the Road PMU: the Panel • On the report of workers’ welfare, further understanding and clarifications from the companies concerned will be needed. The PMU will look into labor practices in currently operating companies, such as Chico; • At the time contracts were signed, contractors need to agree on labor management procedures, which includes a FGRM for workers; • Complaints can be addressed through community leaders, and if resolution cannot be achieved at the site level, issues can be elevated to the Central Government; Response from the DNCPA: • Consultation with DNCPA is required to understand management aspects with regards to protected areas, forests and fauna that may be at risk of being impacted by the project activities; • Engagement with communities will need to be fostered and prior compensation must be settled prior to any works; Responses from the National Authority of Oil and Minerals • The project needs to ensure that administrative requirements are prepared to enable timely implementation of the project; • Permits on gravel and sand extraction will be contingent upon tax settlements; • In collaboration with the DNCPA, extraction of rocks, and gravels must be equipped with valid licenses; • Fees and payments are regulated by law and are managed by the central government. 1 ton of rocks is priced at 3 USD, whereas sand is 2 USD. All mineral extraction fees will be returned to the public; Student • Environmental laws need to be strengthened as well as their enforcement to promote compliance. Department of • Question whether there is any classification of mineral Geology UNTL i.e. sand and gravel to determine their pricing; • Quarry extraction in mountainous areas need to operate in a careful manner to minimize impacts. 192 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Lecturer • If public utilities are potentially impacted, prior management (i.e. relocation) prior to any works must be ensured to avoid service disruption. Responses from Responses from DNCPA the panel • Any entities will be penalized if rules are not followed. The DNCPA has created an inventory of private enterprises operating in Timor-Leste on the basis of which regulatory compliance will be regularly tracked. • There needs to be a system to ensure management of environmental impacts in planning documents. A template has been created which companies can follow. Responses from the National Authority of Oil and Minerals • There is differentiated pricing for mineral extraction depending on the purposes (i.e. public versus private); • The National Authority of Oil and Minerals works hand in hand with the Ministry of Environment. A prior survey will be undertaken (composed of a geologist and an environmental specialist) to inspect sites proposed for extraction; • On the basis of such an initial survey, pricing will be determined. Responses from DRBFC • It is crucial to ensure that the budget is sufficient for the whole operations; • In the event of relocation of public utilities such as electricity poles, contractors will be required to ensure proper management of such relocation to avoid/minimize potential service disruption, including approval from EDTL (state electricity company); • If there are grievances from the communities, the project needs to empower community leaders in resolving such grievances, prior to elevating them to the central governments. 193 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Community • Socialization on environmental laws has not fully reached representative rural areas; from Ainaro • There is observed weak implementation of mineral licensing laws and thus it is critical to promote transparency for the government to ensure that information on licensing is widely disseminated; • Enabling communities to understand regulatory provisions should enable and empower them to participate in monitoring of project activities; Veteran • Veteran associations need capacity building to representative participate in bidding processes; from Ermera • Coffee farmers who may get affected due to loss of agricultural crops will need to be adequately compensated. Coffee • The project will greatly assist coffee farmers to access the Cooperative market in urban centers; • There is a need to further understand how the GoTL implement existing rules and regulations in rural areas; • The project needs to ensure quality design and construction in unstable soil conditions. Letefoho • Measures should be installed to avoid/minimize impacts community around the Church premises in Letefoho. representative Lecturer • The project needs to ensure adequate protection to the environment, including agricultural plantations; • The project needs to collaborate with the University of Dili and Public Works on geological assessments. 194 | P a g e Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Timor Leste Branch Road Project Branch Road Section Dili - Ainaro: Aituto – Hatubuilico – Letefoho – Gleno Responses from the Responses from the National Authority of Oil and panel Minerals • The law on mineral extraction was just passed in 2018 and hence socialization is yet to be completed. • All companies will need to pay retributions to the central government, not to community leaders Responses from the Road PMU • Workplace incidents, and community health safety risks tend to occur due to poor collaboration between communities and contractors Responses from the DRBFC • The project is expected to ensure participatory monitoring processes to enhance ownership and effective oversight, particularly processes involving affected communities and local governments 195 | P a g e