RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN (RAP) AND SOCIAL ECONOMIC STUDY OF THE PERSONS AFFECTED BY VOLCANOES NATIONAL PARK (VNP) EXPANSION PILOT PROJECT FINAL REPORT 09th October 2023 Acronyms & Abbreviations AP Affected Person AWF African Wildlife Foundation DP Development Partner EDPRS Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy EICV Integrated Living Conditions Survey ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework ESMU Environmental and Social Management Unit ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment ESMC Environmental and Social Management Coordinator ESMP Environmental and Social Management Plan FGD Focus Group Discussions FONERWA Rwanda’s Environment and Climate Change Fund GAP Gender and Anti-Gender Based Violence Action Plan GBV Gender Based Violence GHG Greenhouse Gases GoR Government of Rwanda GRC Grievance Redress Committee GRM Grievance Redress Mechanism HH Household ICT Information and Communication Technologies IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IGA Income Generating Activities IP Implementing Partner KI Key Informants KII Key Informant Interviews LODA Local Administrative Entities Development Agency LRP Livelihood Restoration Plan M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MINAGRI Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources MINALOC Ministry of Local Government MINECOFIN Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning MoE Ministry of Environment M&E Monitoring and Evaluation NAEB National Agricultural Export Development Board NSC National Steering Committee NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NISR National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda NLA National Land Authority PAH Project Affected Households PAP Project Affected Persons PIU Project Implementing Unit PSC Project Steering Committee RAB Rwanda Agriculture Board RDB Rwanda Development Board REMA Rwanda Environment Management Authority RPF Resettlement Policy Framework RS Relocation Site RURA Rwanda Utilities Regulatory Authorities RWF Rwandan Franc TCC Technical Coordination Committee ToR Terms of Reference SEA Sexual Exploitation and Abuse SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences VAC Violence Against Children VCRP Volcanoes Climate Resilience Project VNP Volcanoes National Park WB World Bank Page 2 of 208 GLOSSSARY AND DEFINITION OF KEY CONCEPTS ▪ Affected Household: All members of a household, residing under one roof and operating as a single economic unit that are adversely affected by the Project or any of its components. The household can include a single nuclear family or an extended family group. ▪ Project Affected Persons/People: (also Project Affected People or PAPs) - any person affected by Project- related activities which cause changes in use, or access to land, water, natural resources, or in some circumstances, can lead to loss of income and/or changes in livelihood. ▪ Assets: an asset could be land, structures, trees, crops, businesses and any combination of these assets. ▪ Census: It entails a socioeconomic survey within the defined project boundaries. A census provides complete count of the population affected by the project activity and includes demographic and socio-economic information. A census identifies and determines the number of Project Affected Persons (PAPs) and the nature and levels of the project impact on PAPs. ▪ Compensation: a payment in kind, cash or other assets given in exchange for the taking of land, or loss of other types of assets (including fixed assets) or loss of livelihood resulting from project activities. ▪ Cut-off date: This is the date when the census begins. The cut-off date refers to the date after which PAPs will NOT be considered eligible for compensation, i.e. they are not included in the list of PAPs as defined before the socio-economic survey of the PAPs ended. The cut-off date could also be established as the date when the project area was delineated. Beyond this date, any person who joins the project area afterwards and lays claim to land or assets affected by the project (not owned prior to the cut-off date) will not be eligible for compensation. ▪ Entitlement: Range of measures (including compensation, income restoration, transfer assistance, income substitution, and relocation) aimed at compensating affected people and restoring their economic and social conditions. ▪ Expropriation: refers to an “act based on power of Government, public institutions and local administrative entities with legal personality to remove a person from his/her property in the public interest after fair compensation.” ▪ Land Acquisition: refers to all methods of obtaining land for project purposes, which may include outright purchase, expropriation of property and acquisition of access rights, such as easements or rights of way. Land acquisition may also include: (a) acquisition of unoccupied or unutilized land whether or not the landholder relies upon such land for income or livelihood purposes; (b) repossession of public land that is used or occupied by individuals or households; and (c) project impacts that result in land being submerged or otherwise rendered unusable or inaccessible. ▪ Land: includes anything growing on or permanently affixed to land, such as crops, buildings and other improvements, and appurtenant water bodies. ▪ Livelihood Restoration: Compensatory measures provided under the Resettlement or Livelihood Restoration Policy Framework and which include measures to restore affected people’s livelihood to at least the “prior to the project” level or improve it. ▪ Physical displacement: Loss of shelter/residential structure and assets resulting from land acquisition triggered by a project that requires the affected person(s) to move to another location. Page 3 of 208 ▪ Economic displacement: Loss of income streams or means of livelihood resulting from land acquisition or obstructed access to resources (land, water, or forest) resulting from the construction or operation of a project or its associated facilities. ▪ Relocation: A process through which physically displaced households are provided with a one-time lump sum compensation payment for their existing residential structures and move from the Project Area. ▪ Replacement cost: is defined as a method of valuation yielding compensation sufficient to replace assets, plus necessary transaction costs associated with asset replacement. ▪ Transaction costs: include administrative charges, registration or title fees, reasonable moving expenses, and any similar costs imposed on affected persons. Page 4 of 208 Table of Contents ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 2 GLOSSSARY AND DEFINITION OF KEY CONCEPTS ...................................................................................................... 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................................. 8 LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................................... 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................................... 0 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE RAP ....................................................................................................... 6 1.3 SCOPE OF WORK AND TARGET AREA ............................................................................................................. 6 1.4 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY .......................................................................................... 7 1.4.1 Approach ............................................................................................................................................................ 7 1.4.2 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................................... 9 1.4.2.1 Socio-economic baseline study (SES) ............................................................................................................. 9 1.4.2.2 Asset inventory and valuation ........................................................................................................................ 11 1.4.2.3 Stakeholder Engagement and Information disclosure ................................................................................... 13 1.5 REPORT STRUCTURE ........................................................................................................................................ 14 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................................ 15 2.1 PROJECT RATIONALE ....................................................................................................................................... 15 2.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................................... 16 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ..................................................................................................................... 16 2.4 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED SMART GREEN VILLAGE FOR RELOCATION SITE .................................... 19 2.5 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................................................................... 22 2.6 PROJECT POTENTIAL IMPACTS ...................................................................................................................... 24 2.7 EXPECTED IMPACTS ......................................................................................................................................... 24 2.7.1 Potential positive impacts ................................................................................................................................. 24 2.7.1.1 Improving conservation and biodiversity. ....................................................................................................... 24 2.7.1.2 Reduction of incidences of human-wildlife conflict (HWC)............................................................................. 24 2.7.1.3 Reduction of risk of disease transmission to the VNP wildlife ....................................................................... 24 2.7.2 Negative/ adverse impacts ............................................................................................................................... 25 3. PROPOSED ENTITLEMENT MATRIX ..................................................................................................................... 29 4. SOCIO-ECONOMIC SURVEY .................................................................................................................................. 35 4.1. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY POPULATION .................................................................................... 35 4.1.1 Household heads sex, age and education ........................................................................................................ 35 4.1.2 Household size and population structure .......................................................................................................... 36 4.2. HOUSEHOLD’S ECONOMIC WELLBEING ................................................................................................................ 36 4.2.1 Land ownership ................................................................................................................................................ 36 4.2.2 House ownership......................................................................................................................................... 38 4.2.3 Main occupation of household head ................................................................................................................. 40 4.2.4 Sources of income over past 12 months .......................................................................................................... 40 4.2.5 Household assets ............................................................................................................................................. 41 4.2.6 Socio-economic categories and vulnerable groups .......................................................................................... 42 4.2.7 Project Vulnerable groups ................................................................................................................................ 42 Page 5 of 208 4.2.8 Historically Marginalised People (HMP) ........................................................................................................... 43 4.2.9 Poverty probability index................................................................................................................................... 43 4.3. FINANCIAL INCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................ 44 4.3.1 Use of financial services and products ............................................................................................................. 44 4.4. EXTENSION SERVICES........................................................................................................................................ 45 4.4.1 Extension training services ............................................................................................................................... 45 4.5. FARM PRODUCTIVITY ......................................................................................................................................... 46 4.5.1 Crop productivity ............................................................................................................................................... 46 4.5.2 Livestock productivity........................................................................................................................................ 47 4.5.3 Tree productivity ............................................................................................................................................... 49 4.5.3.1 Tree density and benefits ....................................................................................................................................................................49 4.5.3.1 Income from tree products ..................................................................................................................................................................50 4.6. HOUSEHOLD RESILIENCE AND COPING STRATEGIES ............................................................................................. 50 4.6.1 Food Security ................................................................................................................................................... 51 4.6.2 Household coping strategies ............................................................................................................................ 52 4.7. ACCESS TO SOCIAL SERVICES ............................................................................................................................ 53 4.7.1 Access to markets ............................................................................................................................................ 53 4.7.2 Access to education.......................................................................................................................................... 54 4.7.3 Access to health services ................................................................................................................................. 54 4.7.4 Access to water services .................................................................................................................................. 55 4.8. GENDER RELATIONS APPRAISAL ......................................................................................................................... 55 4.8.1 Household roles and participation .................................................................................................................... 55 4.8.2 Community leadership and participation ........................................................................................................... 57 4.9. RESETTLEMENT AND EXPROPRIATION PREFERENCES .......................................................................................... 57 4.9.1 Relocation and compensation preferences ...................................................................................................... 57 4.9.2 Livelihood restoration preferences.................................................................................................................... 59 5. POLICY, LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK ......................................................................................... 60 5.1 NATIONAL LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORKS....................................................................................................... 60 5.1.1 Relevant National Laws and policies ........................................................................................................... 60 5.2 WORLD BANK ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL STANDARDS (ESS) ......................................................................... 61 5.2.1 Land Acquisition, Restrictions on Land Use and Involuntary Resettlement (ESS5) .................................... 61 5.3 GAP ANALYSIS OF NATIONAL AND WB ESS AND RECOMMENDED GAP CLOSURE ................................................... 62 5.4 ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR RESETTLEMENT .......................................................................................................... 69 5.4.1 Cut-off Date ................................................................................................................................................. 69 6. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ...................................................................... 70 6.1 STAKEHOLDERS IDENTIFICATION ................................................................................................................................. 70 6.2 STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION METHODS ........................................................................ 70 6.2.1 Public Consultation meetings ........................................................................................................................... 70 6.2.2 Focus Group Discussion (FGDs) ...................................................................................................................... 71 6.2.3 Key Informants Interviews (KIIs) ....................................................................................................................... 73 6.2.4 Meeting procedure ............................................................................................................................................ 73 6.3 ISSUES RAISED AND MEASURES PROPOSED. ................................................................................................................ 74 6.4 NGO LANDSCAPING AND MAPPING .............................................................................................................................. 81 6.5 ELECTED GRIEVANCE REDRESS COMMITTEES (GRC)................................................................................................... 84 7. ELIGIBILITY, VALUATION AND COMPENSATION STRATEGY ........................................................................... 91 7.1 INTERNATIONAL BEST PRACTICES ....................................................................................................................... 91 7.2 GENERAL PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................................................ 91 7.3 ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR RESETTLEMENT .......................................................................................................... 91 7.4 INFORMATION AND CONSULTATION ON MODE OF COMPENSATION ......................................................................... 92 7.4.1 Payment of cash compensation .................................................................................................................. 93 7.4.2 Transaction costs and land security ............................................................................................................ 93 7.5 VULNERABLE GROUPS ....................................................................................................................................... 94 7.5.1 Specific risks for Vulnerable People ............................................................................................................ 94 7.5.2 Specific assistance to Vulnerable groups during all stages of the process ................................................. 94 Page 6 of 208 7.6 VALUATION PROCESS AND COMPENSATION RATES .............................................................................................. 96 7.6.1 Valuation for Land ....................................................................................................................................... 97 7.6.2 Valuation for residential houses and other Structures ................................................................................. 98 7.6.3 Valuation for Trees and perennial crops.................................................................................................... 100 7.6.4 Seasonal crops.......................................................................................................................................... 100 7.6.5 Summary of Valuation compensation cost for impact on land, houses and other structures, perennial crops and trees.................................................................................................................................................................. 101 8. LIVELIHOOD RESTORATION MEASURES .......................................................................................................... 102 8.1 INTERNATIONAL BEST PRACTICE ...................................................................................................................... 102 8.2 LIVELIHOOD RESTORATION AND STRENGTHENING PROGRAM (LRSP)................................................................. 102 8.2.1 Guiding Principles ..................................................................................................................................... 102 8.2.2 Livelihood Restoration Assistance Packages (LRAPs) ............................................................................. 104 8.2.3 Implementation Steps and Transition period ............................................................................................. 116 8.2.4 Budget for LRP implementation ................................................................................................................ 118 9. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISMS ........................................... 122 9.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................... 122 9.2 INSTITUTIONAL ROLE IN IMPLEMENTATION OF RAP .................................................................................................... 122 9.3 GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISMS .......................................................................................................................... 123 9.3.1 Grievance Redress Mechanisms............................................................................................................... 124 9.5 RAP DISCLOSURE .................................................................................................................................................... 129 10. RAP BUDGET .................................................................................................................................................... 130 10.1 PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................................................................................... 130 10.2 BUDGET COMPONENTS..................................................................................................................................... 130 10.3 SOURCE OF FUNDING ....................................................................................................................................... 131 11. RAP ARRANGMENT AND OPERATIONALISATION ....................................................................................... 132 11.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 132 11.2 RAP IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE ................................................................................................................... 132 11.2.1 Preparation and Surveying ........................................................................................................................ 132 11.2.2 RAP dissemination .................................................................................................................................... 132 11.2.3 Constituting and operationalizing the Resettlement administrative committees ........................................ 132 11.2.4 Awareness campaign ................................................................................................................................ 133 11.2.5 RAP verification and validation .................................................................................................................. 133 11.2.6 Agreement with the PAPs, compensation & relocation ............................................................................. 133 11.2.7 PAPs relocation and settlement process ................................................................................................... 133 11.3.1 Proposed RAP implementation timeframe. ............................................................................................... 134 12. RAP MONITORING AND EVALUATION ........................................................................................................... 135 12.1 PRINCIPLES ............................................................................................................................................................ 135 12.2 MONITORING FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................................................................... 135 12.2.1 Performance monitoring ............................................................................................................................ 135 12.2.2 Impact monitoring ................................................................................................................................... 136 12.3 PARTICIPATION OF THE PAPS IN MONITORING AND EVALUATION ............................................................................... 141 13. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................................... 142 13.1 CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................................................... 142 13.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 142 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................................. 143 NATIONAL LAWS ............................................................................................................................................................. 143 POLICIES AND STRATEGIES............................................................................................................................................. 143 WB DOCUMENT .............................................................................................................................................................. 143 OTHER DOCUMENTS ....................................................................................................................................................... 143 ANNEX 1: MINUTES OF STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT MEETINGS ........................................................................ 144 ANNEX 2: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS/ STAKEHOLDERS IN PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND FGD MEETINGS .......... 160 Page 7 of 208 ANNEX 3: PHOTOLOG OF STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENTS..................................................................................... 173 ANNEX 4: SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE TOOLS............................................................ 175 ANNEX 5: FGD AND KII GUIDING QUESTIONS. ........................................................................................................... 189 ANNEX 6: GRIEVANCE RESOLUTION AND REPORTING FORMS.............................................................................. 196 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Location of the VNP Pilot expansion area and relocation site .................................................................................. 6 Table 2: Coverage of the household survey.......................................................................................................................... 9 Table 3: Participants in focus group discussions ................................................................................................................ 10 Table 4 Key Informant Interview Respondents ................................................................................................................... 11 Table 5 Location of the VNP Pilot expansion area and relocation site ................................................................................ 17 Table 6 Analysis of Alternatives .......................................................................................................................................... 22 Table 7: Number of Houses to be affected in the project area and their types. .................................................................. 25 Table 8: Size of land to be affected by the project in Sqm. ................................................................................................ 26 Table 9: Category, type of impact and entitlement unit ....................................................................................................... 29 Table 10: Entitlement Matrix ............................................................................................................................................... 31 Table 11: Gender and ages of household heads ................................................................................................................ 35 Table 12: Household heads’ levels of education ................................................................................................................. 35 Table 13: Household sizes .................................................................................................................................................. 36 Table 14: Affected area population age structure ............................................................................................................... 36 Table 15: Households’ land ownership in project area ........................................................................................................ 37 Table 16: Households’ land sizes........................................................................................................................................ 37 Table 17: Ownership of houses .......................................................................................................................................... 39 Table 18: Main occupation of household heads .................................................................................................................. 40 Table 19: Sources of On-Farm income ............................................................................................................................... 40 Table 20: Sources of Off-Farm income ............................................................................................................................... 41 Table 21: Change in household income .............................................................................................................................. 41 Table 22: Ownership of household and farming assets ...................................................................................................... 41 Table 23: Socio-economic categories and wellbeing indicators .......................................................................................... 42 Table 24: Project Vulnerable group Households ................................................................................................................. 43 Table 25: Likelihood of being below national poverty line (100% of national poverty line) .................................................. 43 Table 26: Uptake of financial services and products ........................................................................................................... 44 Table 27: Reception of extension services and training ...................................................................................................... 45 Table 28: Households practicing crop production ............................................................................................................... 46 Table 29: Affected area crop production ............................................................................................................................. 46 Table 30: Households’ ownership of livestock .................................................................................................................... 47 Table 31: Livestock productivity and income....................................................................................................................... 48 Table 32: Households’ primary source of feed for livestock ................................................................................................ 48 Table 33: Change in availability of fodder ........................................................................................................................... 49 Table 34: Pasture management and livestock productivity improvement ........................................................................... 49 Table 35: Ownership of trees .............................................................................................................................................. 50 Table 36: Tree Products and earnings ................................................................................................................................ 50 Table 37: Household’s experience of food shortage and dietary diversity .......................................................................... 51 Table 38: Household’s food shortage coping strategies. .................................................................................................... 52 Table 39: Household’s purchase of portions of their staple food......................................................................................... 53 Table 40: Household’s access to markets........................................................................................................................... 53 Table 41: Average distance to education facilities .............................................................................................................. 54 Table 42: Average distance to health facilities .................................................................................................................... 54 Table 43: Households main sources of water for household use ........................................................................................ 55 Table 44: Change in access to social services. .................................................................................................................. 55 Table 45: Preferred compensation options ......................................................................................................................... 58 Table 46: Priority use of cash compensation ...................................................................................................................... 58 Page 8 of 208 Table 47: Livelihoods restoration options for replacement economic activity. ..................................................................... 59 Table 49: Comparison of Rwandan and World Bank standards on Resettlement and compensation ................................ 63 Table 50: Schedule for Public consultation meetings .......................................................................................................... 71 Table 51: Participants in focus group discussions .............................................................................................................. 72 Table 52 Key Informant Interviewed.................................................................................................................................... 73 Table 53: Summary of expected benefits, issues raised and mitigation measures proposed during stakeholder consultation ......................................................................................................................................................................... 74 Table 54 PAPs elected representatives at village level ....................................................................................................... 81 Table 55 Conservation NGO proposed support interventions to the project ....................................................................... 81 Table 56 Elected representatives for Conservation NGO on the project ............................................................................. 83 Table 57 Elected Grievance redress committee members. ................................................................................................ 84 Table 58: Stakeholder mapping .......................................................................................................................................... 86 Table 59: Stakeholder Engagement Plan during project implementation............................................................................ 88 Table 60: Special assistance recommended for livelihood restoration of the vulnerable PAHs. ......................................... 95 Table 61: Land size and Cost value .................................................................................................................................... 97 Table 62: Residential Houses, their location in the project area and value ......................................................................... 98 Table 63: Number of households owning residential houses and physically residing in project area. ................................ 99 Table 64: Value of Other structures affected by the project and their location. ................................................................... 99 Table 65: Trees and perennial crops and trees compensation rates and value ................................................................ 100 Table 66:Summary of assets inventories and their valuation cost .................................................................................... 101 Table 67: Livelihood Restoration Packages ...................................................................................................................... 105 Table 68: Activities to be implemented during the transitional period. .............................................................................. 116 Table 69: Implementation Steps of Cross-Cutting Activities.............................................................................................. 117 Table 70: Indicative Budget for LRP Implementation in the VNP expansion pilot Project ................................................. 119 Table 71: Institutional roles during the RAP implementation ............................................................................................. 122 Table 73: Grievances redress process.............................................................................................................................. 126 Table 75 Proposed transport, communication and capacity building of GRC committees. ............................................... 128 Table 76: Estimated RAP budget (in FRW)....................................................................................................................... 130 Table 77 Source of funding for RAP budget...................................................................................................................... 131 Table 78: Proposed indicative implementation timeframe for RAP implementation. ......................................................... 134 Table 79: RAP/LRP Monitoring and Evaluation Framework.............................................................................................. 137 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Volcanoes region and Virunga corridor. ..................................................................................................... 16 Figure 2 Location of the VNP pilot expansion area and relocation host site ................................................................ 18 Figure 3 Rendering image of the proposed houses for relocation site ........................................................................ 20 Figure 4 Floor plan of the house............................................................................................................................. 21 Figure 5 Proposed Relocation site zoning plan ........................................................................................................ 21 Figure 6: Months of most food shortages ................................................................................................................ 52 Figure 7: Households’ wellbeing decision-making .................................................................................................... 56 Figure 8: Households’ participation and decision-making in agricultural activities ........................................................ 56 Figure 9: Households’ roles in homestead chores .................................................................................................... 56 Figure 10: Perceptions of change of women’s roles in society ................................................................................... 57 Figure 11: Gender roles in community leadership .................................................................................................... 57 Figure 12: Focus group discussion with project affected persons in Nyarusizi cell ....................................................... 72 Figure 13: Proposed GRM structure ..................................................................................................................... 126 Figure 14 Proposed Funds flow scheme ............................................................................................................... 132 Page 9 of 208 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Government of Rwanda (GoR) under coordination of the Ministry of Environment has requested support from the World Bank and African Wildlife Foundation to implement the Volcanoes Community Resilience Project (VCRP) through various institutions including Rwanda Water Resources Board (RWB), Rwanda Development Board (RDB), Rwanda Forestry Authority (RFA), Rwanda Environment Management Authority (REMA), the Ministry of Emergency Management (MINEMA) and Rwanda Meteorological Agency (Meteo-Rwanda). The objective of this project is to strengthen climate resilience, reduce the risks of flooding, and improve the management of natural resources and tourism assets in the Volcanoes Region of Rwanda. The proposed VCRP contains four components: ▪ Component 1- Flood risk management, under which are sub-components: o Subcomponent 1a: Flood Risk Reduction Investments. o Sub-component 1b: Flood Early Warning System (FEWS) and community-level flood preparedness. ▪ Component 2: Landscape Restoration and Catchment Management containing the following sub-components: o Sub-component 2a: Integrated Catchment and Landscape Restoration o Sub-component 2b:Ecological Restoration of Priority Catchment o Sub-component 2c: Livelihoods Development. ▪ Component 3: Volcanoes National Park expansion and livelihood restoration, comprising of the following sub- components. o Subcomponent 3a: Integrated climate resilient green settlements, VNP expansion, and a model smart green village o Subcomponent 3b: Livelihood diversification and income generation activities. ▪ Component 4: Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation, and Capacity Building. A Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF), Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF), Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) and Environmental and social Commitment Plan (ESCP), Gender and Anti-Gender Based Violence Action Plan (GAP), Labour management Procedures (LMP) have been prepared as safeguard guides for the implementation of VCRP in a sustainable manner. This RAP refers to the RPF as a guiding document in its application to sub-components 3a and 3b. With special focus on component 3, sub-component 3a will support the expansion of the Volcanoes National Park (VNP) of an estimated 732.5 hectares. Phase one will entail the relocation of 510 households to a relocation area of 50 ha that is approximately two kilometres from the current site. As means of the livelihood restoration and social cohesion of PAPs physically residing in the VNP expansion area, houses shall be provided in the relocation site in addition to full replacement cash compensation for the loss of houses, land and perennial crops and trees. Subcomponent 3b will support resettled households with livelihood improvement activities. The activities are envisaged at three levels, individual household level, community level, and host community-resettled community level. The pilot project shall involve the VNP expansion targeting 450 ha of the Western area of the VNP in Musanze district, Kinigi Sector and 50ha for host relocation site still in Kinigi sector. To dispel the concern that the 50ha at the relocation site is not sufficient for housing and agriculture for the project affected households (PAHs), it is noted that though land shall be acquired for the VNP expansion area, it was established that this project acquired land accounts for 40% of all land owned by PAHs and they will still remain with 60% of their owned land for their own use, outside of the project area. Furthermore, from the cash compensation for land acquired by the project, the PAHs shall be able to purchase more land adjacent to the project area for crop and fodder production. As part of the initial steps of the VNP expansion pilot project planning process, preparation of a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) and socio-economic study of the persons affected by the expansion pilot project is required to ensure that adverse impacts on vulnerable people and local communities resulting from the project activities are identified, prevented, mitigated and redressed in conformity with the National expropriation law, World Bank Environment and Social Framework (ESF) 0 and the related Environment and Social Standards (ESS) specifically ESS 5 & 10,and AWF Policy and Standard for Rights- based Conservation. In this regard, Eco-Excellence Consulting Ltd was recruited to conduct the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for the VNP expansion pilot project. This report covers the component related to the preparation the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for the affected communities, land, houses, trees and crops as well as any other asset and services within the project area, to ensure that the planned activities are socially implemented in full compliance with Rwanda's laws and policies as well as World Bank Environmental and Social Standards. Project description The VCRP main objective is to reduce risk of flooding, improve land management, and improve livelihoods of people in the Volcanoes region. In order to achieve this objective, the proposed VCRP project shall be implemented in the four components presented above and specifically the VNP expansion and livelihood restoration under sub-component 3a as presented above. As mentioned above, under component 3, sub-component 3a, phase one of the VNP expansion will entail the relocation of 510 households to an area of 50 ha. As means of the livelihood restoration and social cohesion of PAPs physically residing in the VNP expansion area, houses shall be provided in the relocation site in addition to full replacement cash compensation for the loss of houses, land and perennial crops and trees. The proposed Volcano National Park (VNP) pilot expansion project involves land acquisition of an estimated 450ha located in the western area of Volcanoes national Park (VNP) and 50ha of the proposed relocation site located in Kinigi sector, Musanze District. It shall cover four villages in Kaguhu cell (Myase and Nyarusizi villages) and Nyabigoma cell (Gahura and Nyakigina) of Kinigi sector for the VNP expansion area and a relocation site located in the Kaguhu cell. Project impacts and mitigation measures Beyond the objectives and positive impacts of the project, this RAP has identified potential adverse impacts arising from of the project. These include loss of 644 houses and other associated structures owned by 541 project affected households (PAHs), 4,760,419.24m2 of private land, perennial crops and trees from land acquisition by the project. To mitigate the above impacts, this RAP proposes that the project will compensate all the affected properties at total replacement cost, except seasonal crop, for which owners will be given enough time for harvesting. A relocation site with houses has been proposed to host 510 PAHs that own houses and physically reside in the project area. Besides these, the project will allocate accompanying measures to all PAHs and additional special assistance to vulnerable groups. Further, the project shall provide the proposed livelihood measures to all PAPs based on the proposed livelihood restoration package in this RAP. The resettlement impacts are within the manageable limits and can be mitigated with the proposed resettlement management plans and payment of compensation, as well as suggested livelihood restoration measures. Stakeholder engagement Public participation and community consultation were taken up as an integral part of social assessment process of the project. Consultation was used as a way to inform the community and stakeholders and collect their views and concerns about the planned project. The stakeholder consultation applied different methods including: (i) 7 Public consultation meetings with PAPs where 327 stakeholders were engaged at seven different occasions, (ii) Nine Focus Group Discussion (FGD) comprising 64 PAPs with a 52% female representation to 48% male representation, and (iii) 22 Interviews with Key Informants (KIIs) comprising of representatives of local, central government institutions, development partners, conservation NGOs (both local and international) operating in and around the project area, as presented in chapter 6.2. Applicable Policies and Legal framework Relevant National Policies and Strategies: Vision 2050, National Strategy for Transformation (NST1), National Land Policy, Land Tenure System and Provisions in Rwanda, National Urbanization Policy. National Resettlement Regulations: The 1 Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda 04/08/2023, Land Valuation Law promulgated in 2010, Expropriation Law No. 32/2015 of 11/06/2015, N° 27/2021 of 10/06/2021 governing land in Rwanda - World Bank ESF especially ESS5: Land Acquisition, Restrictions on Land Use and Involuntary Resettlement. Asset valuation Based on the asset inventory and valuation of property that will be lost towards the project’s land acquisition, the table under the section “RAP cost and budget” hereafter, summarises the losses. Livelihood restoration measures As a mitigation measure for loss of livelihood by the Project affected Households (PAHs), livelihood restoration packages have been proposed for PAHs that comprise of; employment opportunities in project activities, businesses such as financial service agents, rural agro-logistics facilities in the transportation sector, poultry farming, community based tourism center (handcrafts, cultural art village), Irish Potato seed production (Under Green House and on open field), horticulture farming (Under Green House and on open field), Eco lodge (Affordable accommodation). The cost of livelihood restoration measures is estimated at 30,509,740,000 Rwf. Institutional arrangement and implementation plan The VCRP project governance arrangements at the national level are designed to build upon the institutional structure of Ministry of Environment (MoE) as overall coordinator and Implementing Partners (IPs) as the Executing Entities and are supplemented by: ▪ A Project Steering Committee (PSC) established by MoE, chaired by the Permanent Secretary. ▪ A project Technical Coordination Committee (TCC) established by MoE to provide ongoing technical support to project implementation. ▪ Project Implementation Units (PIUs) established in each IP or executing entity, where the Head of the Institution will be responsible for the financial management and overall project implementation at the level of the institution management. RDB will be the IP at national level implementing not only the RAP but also the VNP expansion project. Subsequently, RDB will establish a Project Implementing Unit (PIU). The PIU will have a project coordinator and a technical team that will include a finance specialist, procurement specialist, monitoring and evaluation specialist and an Environmental and social safeguard specialist. At the district level will be HUB I for Musanze and Burera Districts, which will have an Environmental and Social Safeguards officer who will be in charge of overseeing the implementation of the RAP of the VNP expansion. Grievance Redress Mechanism This RAP has proposed a Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM) to ensure that complaints are received, reviewed and addressed by the elected Grievance redress committee (GRC). The GRCs were elected by representatives of the Project affected people during the public consultation meetings held at the project area and in Musanze. The elected GRC is made up of at least 4 members at each cell level (i.e. President, Vice president, advisor and secretary, with at least a 30% representation of female in the committee) as presented in detail in table 57. There are three GRCs at cell level comprising; 1 GRC for Kaguhu cell and 2 GRCs for Nyabigoma cell. It is encouraged to resolve the issues at Cell and Sector levels, as they are so close to the affected communities, aware of and involved in the whole process. The unsolved grievances at the cell level can be referred to the sector and the authorities District committee. The relevant local administration will then attempt to resolve the problem (through dialogue, negotiation and mediation) within 7 days of the complaint being lodged at each stage. If a grievance is not resolved in this way, the dissatisfied party can refer the matter to the competent court. Local courts should be used. If not resolved, then the high court or court of appeal of Rwanda remains an avenue for voicing and resolving these complaints. RDB/District will follow up the aggrieved PAP at each level to ensure that the grievances are resolved and a legal advisor will be hired to support PAPs in this process. 2 The channels of receiving complaints include presentation of complaints via face-to-face meetings, written complaints, telephones, email communication, third party (e.g., farmers’ organizations, Church, private sector, etc). Implementation schedule The RAP anticipates that the project implementation schedule will consist of three phases namely preparation, implementation and post implementation. The proposed RAP implementation timeframe coincides with 60 months of project implementation. RAP costs and budget This RAP has provided a budget for its implementation which is estimated to be 43,964,140,876.85 Rwf.as elaborated in the table below. The RAP budget covers Compensation of land, houses, structures, perennial crops, trees, Disturbance allowances, livelihood restoration measures, assistance measures for vulnerable PAPs, disturbance allowances, implementation costs, and M&E costs. The budget for Compensation of land, houses, structures, perennial crops, trees, Disturbance allowances will be borne by GoR and its partners and the budget for livelihood restoration measures, assistance measures for vulnerable PAPs will be supported by mobilized fund under VCRP Project. S/No Impact Unit Quantity Frequency Rate Total (RWF) Description Compensation for Loss A1 Loss of Land Sqm 4,760,419.24 Once Determined per category 12,292,451,430.56 (see table 61) A2 Loss of trees and Pces - Once Determined per category 843,001,883 perennial Crops (see table 65) A3 Loss of Houses Number of 644 Once Determined per category 1,314,340,870.67 (residential) houses (see table 62) A4 Other structures Number - Once Determined per category 338,851,134.70 (kitchens, toilets, (see table 64) kraals, other structures, fences, etc) Sub-total 14,788,645,318.93 Disturbance allowances Once 5% 728,495,285.18 Sub-total A 15,654,194,675.85 Assistance to vulnerable groups and livelihood restoration B1 Measures of HH 240 3 Months 300001 21,600,000 special assistance for vulnerable PAPs B2 Livelihood Households 992 Determined in the livelihood 28,258,866,201 restoration for restoration plan (Table 70) PAPs and its monitoring SUB-TOTAL B. 28,280,466,201 C. Implementation Cost C1 Transport & Meeting - 24 Months Determined in the Table 75. 17,480,000 Communication & GRC Capacity building C2. RAP Monitoring Continuous LS 12.000.000 and Evaluation 1 This amount has been established by considering the monthly direct support financially given to Very poor and poor Households described as: Families who do not own a house or cannot pay a rent, have a poor diet and can hardly afford basic household tools and clothes or as: Having a dwelling of their own or are able to rent one, mostly get food and wages from working for others but rarely get full time jobs ,that are not able to work under the VUP social protection project. 3 S/No Impact Unit Quantity Frequency Rate Total (RWF) Description SUB-TOTAL C. 29,480,000 Grand RAP Budget Total A+B+C 43,964,140,876.85 Contingencies (20%) 8,792,828,175.33 GRAND TOTAL 52,756,969,052.18 Monitoring and evaluation This RAP has proposed a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) program to provide feedback to project management which will help keep the programs on schedule and successful. Monitoring provides both a working system for effective implementation of the RAP by the project managers, and an information channel for the PAPs to assess how their needs are being met. The proposed M&E covers the internal evaluation monitoring to be conducted by RDB and the external evaluation that will be carried out by the independent M&E expert. Recommendation The RAP recommendations are that: ◼ The project compensates fully all Project Affected People (PAPs) for loss of houses, other structures, land, perennial crops in time and it’s done before project work commencement. ◼ The project implements livelihood restoration packages proposed in the RAP towards restoration of livelihoods of Project affected households (PAHs) physically residing in the project area and relocation site, including special assistance measures proposed for the project vulnerable groups. ◼ The project to engage and support continuous stakeholder engagement process throughout project implementation and the entire Grievance redress mechanism during the entire project lifecycle. ◼ The project to conduct monitoring and evaluation and report on its performance and impact indicators of the project on the PAHs. 4 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The Government of Rwanda (GoR) under coordination of the Ministry of Environment has requested support from the World Bank to implement the Volcanoes Community Resilience Project (VCRP) through various institutions including Rwanda Water Resources Board (RWB), Rwanda Development Board (RDB), Rwanda Forestry Authority (RFA), Rwanda Environment Management Authority (REMA), the Ministry of Emergency Management (MINEMA), Rwanda Housing Authority (RHA) and Rwanda Meteorological Agency (Meteo-Rwanda). The objective of this project is to strengthen climate resilience, reduce the risks of flooding, and improve the management of natural resources and tourism assets in the Volcanoes Region of Rwanda. The proposed VCRP contains four components: ▪ Component 1- Flood risk management, under which are sub-components: o Subcomponent 1a: Flood Risk Reduction Investments. o Sub-component 1b: Flood Early Warning System (FEWS) and community-level flood preparedness. ▪ Component 2: Landscape Restoration and Catchment Management containing the following sub-components: o Sub-component 2a: Integrated Catchment and Landscape Restoration o Sub-component 2b:Ecological Restoration of Priority Catchment o Sub-component 2c: Livelihoods Development. ▪ Component 3: Volcanoes National Park expansion and livelihood restoration, comprising of the following sub- components. o Subcomponent 3a: Integrated climate resilient green settlements, VNP expansion, and a model smart green village o Subcomponent 3b: Livelihood diversification and income generation activities. ▪ Component 4: Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation, and Capacity Building. A Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF), Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF), Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) and Environmental and social Commitment Plan (ESCP), Gender and Anti-Gender Based Violence Action Plan (GAP), Labour management Procedures (LMP) have been prepared as safeguard guides for the implementation of VCRP in a sustainable manner. This RAP refers to the RPF as a guiding document in its application to sub-components 3a and 3b. The sub-component 3a will support the expansion of the Volcanoes National Park (VNP) of an estimated 733 hectares. Phase one will entail the relocation of 510 households to an area of 50 ha that is approximately two kilometres from the current site. As means of the livelihood restoration and social cohesion of PAPs physically residing in the VNP expansion area, housing shall be provided at the relocation site in addition to full replacement cash compensation for the loss of houses, land and perennial crops and trees. Subcomponent 3b will support resettled households with livelihood improvement activities. The activities are envisaged at three levels, individual household level, community level, and host community-resettled community level. To dispel the concern that the 50ha at the relocation site is not sufficient for housing and agriculture for the project affected households (PAHs), it is noted that though land shall be acquired for the VNP expansion area, it was established that this project acquired land accounts for 40% of all land owned by PAHs and they will still remain with 60% of their owned land for their own use, outside of the project area. Furthermore, from the cash compensation for land acquired by the project, the PAHs may be able to purchase more land adjacent to the project area for crop and fodder production. As part of the initial steps of the sub component 3a planning process, preparation of a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) and socio-economic study of the persons affected by the expansion pilot project is required to ensure that adverse impacts on vulnerable people and local communities resulting from the project activities are identified, prevented, mitigated and redressed in conformity with the World Bank Environment and Social Framework (ESF) and the related Environment and Social Standards (ESS) specifically ESS 5 & 10, and AWF Policy and Standard for Rights-based Conservation. 5 This report covers the component related to the preparation the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for the affected communities, houses, trees and crops as well as any other asset and services within the project area, to ensure that the planned activities are socially implemented in full compliance with Rwanda's laws and policies as well as World Bank Environmental and Social Standards. This Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) is part of the deliverables to be submitted to the client in line with this consultancy services. 1.2 Purpose and objectives of the RAP The objective of this assignment is to prepare a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for Project Affected persons (PAPs), acceptable to MoE, RDB and World Bank (WB) ESS. The targeted communities will be 600 HH directly affected by the land acquisition of 450ha for park expansion and 50ha at the relocation host community. The Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) is meant to ensure that the planned activities are socially implemented in full compliance with Rwanda's laws and policies as well as World Bank Environmental and Social Standards. The RAP will also ensure that the construction works do not impact the community and is implemented in an environmentally and socially sustainable manner in full compliance with Rwanda Law on Expropriation and Land ownership as well as relevant World Bank's environmental and social standards. Specifically, the RAP has the following objectives: ◼ To provide a baseline with regard to the socio-economic conditions of PAPs after field investigation. ◼ To identify the national and international legal framework to abide with as well as the institutional arrangements. ◼ To assess the potential impacts and their mitigation mechanism. ◼ To conduct public consultations with PAPs and other project Stakeholders. ◼ To provide the valuation and compensation strategies as well as livelihood restoration measures. ◼ To come up with an estimated budget for compensating the PAPs. ◼ To establish institutional framework as well as a grievance redress mechanism for effective project implementation and dispute resolution. ◼ To define the RAP operationalization set up and monitoring and evaluation frameworks. 1.3 Scope of work and Target Area This scope of the work specifically requires preparation of three (3) reports which include: ▪ A Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) which is the main report including associated livelihood restoration measures that were developed based on consultations with PAPs on a Livelihood Restoration Plan previously prepared for the project. ▪ Socio-economic study (SES) report and an Asset inventory and Valuation (AV) report, which shall be ancillary reports to the RAP. The scope of work shall involve the VNP expansion pilot project affected persons and plots of land located in Kinigi sector of Musanze District, Northern Province of Rwanda. The affected areas will include 4 villages across two cells of Kinigi sector in the VNP pilot expansion pilot project and 2 villages in the one cell in the relocation site. Table 1 shows the location of the pilot expansion area and the relocation host site. Table 1 Location of the VNP Pilot expansion area and relocation site Sector Cell Village Target # of Plots Myase 766 Kaguhu Nyarusizi 466 Kinigi Gahura 531 Nyabigoma Nyakigina 723 Project Site plots 2486 Rurembo 216 Kaguhu Rugeshi 76 6 Relocation site Plots 292 Total 2778 1.4 Approach and Methodology of the study 1.4.1 Approach The RAP covered the proposed project area of 450ha located in the western area of Volcanoes national Park (VNP) and 50ha of the proposed relocation site located in Kinigi sector, Musanze District. A Socio-Economic Study (SES) and an Asset inventory and valuation was developed as part of the RAP. The SES comprised of 992 of the Project Affected Households (PAHs) categorised as: 510 Physically Displaced PAHs and 482 Economically displaced PAHs. Physically displaced PAHs include both: ▪ those PAHs likely to lose their structures (i.e., residential houses) in the western area demarcated for the current VNP boundary of the pilot project area, and ▪ PAHs residing in their houses in the relocation site (RS). Economically displaced PAHs consist of Households (HHs) losing land, perennial crops, trees and any other sources of income, other than loss of their structures. As experienced in similar previous projects, the physically displaced HH tend to also be economically displaced, therefore for purposes of clarity, it was assumed that all physically displaced PAHs are also automatically economically displaced. However, during data reporting, physically displaced and economically displaced will be separated. The Resettlement Action Plan covered all aspects required under WB ESS 5 and 10 including: (i) identifying all people to be displaced; (ii) demonstrating that displacement is unavoidable; (iii) describing efforts to minimize resettlement, (iv) describing the regulatory framework; (v) describing the process of informed consultation and participation with affected people regarding acceptable resettlement alternatives, and the level of their participation in the decision-making process; (vi) describing the entitlements for all categories of displaced people and assessing risks to vulnerable groups of the various entitlements; (vii) enumerating the rates of compensation for lost assets, describing how they were derived and demonstrating that these rates are adequate, i.e., at least equal to the full replacement cost of lost assets; (viii) providing details on replacement housing; (ix) outlining plans for livelihood restoration; (x) describing relocation assistance to be provided where applicable; (xi) outlining the institutional responsibility for the implementation of the Resettlement Action Plan and procedures for grievance redress; (xii) providing details of the arrangements for monitoring and evaluation and Affected Communities’ involvement in this pilot pha se; and (xiii) providing a timetable and budget for the implementation of the Resettlement Action Plan. The key areas of the RAP preparation work are summarised below. 1. Cut-off date- The Socio-economic study (SES) and asset inventory and valuation (AV) commenced after a cut-off date had been established and announced. The district authorities public announced that the VNP project being a project of public interest, the process of expropriation would commence on the 18th February 2023. The initial process of expropriation would entail completion of the ongoing land weeks at Kinigi sector, meant to facilitate PAPs that legally own land in the project displacement area but that do not have land ownership title documents in order to acquire land ownership titles, before the socio-economic census study of all PAHs and an asset inventory and valuation of property likely to be displaced by the project, commences. The socio-economic census study commenced on the 18th February 2023, which was considered the Cut-off date. 2. Socio-economic Study (SES)- The purpose of the SES was to understand the current socio-economic status of HHs in the affected area and determine the eligibility of affected communities for compensation (as per WB ESS5). The SES involved a census survey of a 100% of households affected, collecting data on a number of indicators elaborated in the SES section hereafter. Data was collected on: the demographics of affected HHs, gender and age patterns, education status, occupation patterns, household assets, housing conditions, income and expenditure levels, agricultural production, access to market, livestock production, access to education services, health services, water and energy, community participation and gender roles. More detail of the SES approach is presented hereafter and the questionnaire tool used during the survey was included in Annex 4. 3. Data from the Asset inventory and valuation (AV) was used as part of the RAP to determine the impact of Land acquisition and involuntary resettlement arising from the pilot project. This section provided details on: the magnitude of households likely to be physically and economically displaced along with a quantification of assets 7 lost and cost of compensation. In line with ESS5, compensation for land and other assets was calculated at the market value of 2021 related to restoring the assets plus the transaction costs. 4. Stakeholder engagement/ consultation – The team undertook Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), key informant interviews (KIIs), public meetings, as methods of stakeholder engagement. This process involved informing affected people of the project objectives, their options and entitlements concerning relocation and involved them in a process that considers alternatives to the project that could minimize impact of displacement. The team canvassed opinions from the affected communities on how best the project can be designed and the issues that have to be addressed during the land acquisition and involuntary resettlement process. It involved Stakeholder mapping, planning and engagement. The Stakeholder engagement Plan (SEP) included details on: the stakeholder groups, the objective(s) of their engagement, which phase of the project to engage each stakeholder group, the required actions from each stakeholder and who is responsible for the engagement. The SEP will also be used as a tool in the grievance redress process during RAP implementation and project implementation. 5. Eligibility and Entitlement matrix - an entitlement matrix was developed using the Asset valuation and SES data to present the compensation entitlements for different categories of eligible households and properties affected by the physical and economic displacement impacts arising potentially from the Project. This included the type of asset losses, eligible groups, impact, entitlements and institution responsible for mitigating the impacts. 6. Analysis of Alternatives - Different technically and economically feasible alternatives for project implementation were assessed in terms of avoiding, minimising or offsetting the impacts of land acquisition and involuntary resettlement, to identify the most appropriate alternatives for the project design. This was based on an informed consultation and participation with affected people. 7. Propose mitigation measures - measures to mitigate the impact of land acquisition and resettlement process were developed as full replacement compensation, Livelihood Resettlement measures and a Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM). a. As the majority of PAP’s depend on the land for their livelihoods, the RAP considered a range of livelihood restoration measures as well as the proposed location of the resettlement and support for PAPs to minimise the impact of economic displacement and reduce the risk of impoverishment. In line with ESS5, preference was given to land-based resettlement strategies for physically or economically displaced persons whose livelihoods are land-based. The Livelihood Restoration Plan established the entitlements of affected persons and/or communities and will ensure that these are provided in a transparent, consistent, and equitable manner. b. Particular attention was paid to the needs of the vulnerable. The consultant ensured that the design of the Livelihood restoration measures is such that affected women, youth and men are given equal opportunities to benefit from any support. c. In line with ESS5, the proposed resettlement site was evaluated in consultation with the displaced persons in terms of locational advantage2, the standard of housing3 to be provided, the security of tenure, access to employment options, markets, and other means of livelihood such as agricultural fields or forests. The Site was checked to ensure they are not at risk of flooding or other hazards. 8. The grievance redress mechanism will be consistent with WB ESS 10 and was established as early as possible to enable the Project to receive and address specific concerns about compensation and relocation or livelihood restoration measures raised by displaced persons or members of host communities in a timely fashion, including a recourse mechanism designed to resolve disputes in an impartial manner. It was developed to be readily accessible to all including vulnerable groups. 9. Other relevant issues - these include consideration of: the institutional framework, monitoring and implementation plan and a SEP. The proposed alternatives and mitigation measures, along with the cost of compensating the PAPs (from the asset valuation) fed into the RAP budget. 2 In terms of availability of basic services and employment opportunities that enable the displaced persons to improve or at least restore their livelihoods and standards of living. 3 Measured by quality, safety, size, number of rooms, affordability, habitability, cultural appropriateness, accessibility, water, electricity, sanitation, health-care, and education and locational characteristics. 8 1.4.2 Methodology 1.4.2.1 Socio-economic baseline study (SES) The Household survey data collection tool (Questionnaire in Annex 4) was designed to ensure the SES gathers information relevant to measuring progress of all indicators relevant to the expansion pilot project’s work streams. The survey was administered through face-to-face interviews at household level. The survey was carried out according to professional and interviewing protocols as agreed with RDB and AWF while observing all COVID-19 protocols and Government guidelines for prevention of spread. The household survey was conducted as a census of all households physically present in the four villages covered by the pilot expansion project and the relocation site and neighbouring surroundings. The SES surveyed 992 PAHs physically present in the project area of expansion and relocation site and surrounding it that own 2,092 plots of the land in the pilot project area (PA) and relocation site (RS). Table 2: Coverage of the household survey Surveyed Surveyed Cell Village PAHs Plots Myase 242 571 Kaguhu Nyarusizi 166 356 Gahura 148 372 Nyabigoma Nyakigina 255 519 Project Site PAHs 811 1818 Rurembo 131 197 Rugeshi 30 54 Kaguhu Musingi 9 11 Kabeza 11 12 Relocation site PAHs 181 274 Total 992 2092 The preparation for fieldwork entailed identifying and communicating with RDB-VNP staff in Kinigi, local authorities from Musanze district, Kinigi Sector, Kaguhu and Nyabigoma Cells of the upcoming data collection process and activities. This was important in terms of obtaining the support, collaboration and mobilisation of households involved in the SES. A team of 16 enumerators and three supervisors was trained during the planning phase of the survey. They were trained on how to fill in the questionnaires on android tablets using the SURVEY123 Application, and how to conduct the census, ensuring no PAH is left out of the survey. The team of supervisors was assembled to ensure all aspects of the data collection process ranging from filling electronic forms, capturing GPS coordinates to assessing of perceptions and identifying observable facts and features are carried out correctly by the enumerators. The data collection tool was then tested in Musanze district, but outside the pilot area, on the 17th February 2023, to ensure all enumerators are well versed with the questions and methodology. Reliability testing of the tools was also undertaken at this stage. The questionnaire piloting and survey was conducted over 12 days by a team of 16 interviewers under the supervision of 3 supervisors and oversight of the lead SES consultant. On each data collection day, each enumerator was provided with a target number of households in their respective clusters and the supervisor ensured they fill the target number of households (at least six, per enumerator). The local authorities at village level guided the enumerators in identifying the boundaries of the selected clusters. To verify no household has been left out, through transect walks, teams of enumerators started from the centre of each village and walked in opposite directions, from where they cross-checked against list provided ensuring every household on the list was interviewed. Both supervisors coordinated between teams to also avoid duplication and ensure no lusted PAH is excluded. After deploying all enumerators, the supervisors randomly travelled around the village to track and confirm that all enumerators were gathering information from randomly selected households. The supervisor had a list of all 96 interviewees for the day and randomly visited the households to confirm if they have been interviewed and gather more qualitative data to corroborate the surveys. At the end of each workday, all interviewers submitted their tablets with completed forms to the supervisor. The supervisor would first of all confirm that the coding of each sheet has been done correctly. Following this crosscheck, the supervisor submitted all completed forms to the lead SES consultant who also validated the data gathered. The lead SES consultant confirmed the identities of the interviewed individuals with the location details. Clean questionnaires were then forwarded to the SURVEY123 server of AWF. The household survey aimed to conduct at least 96 interviews per day. 9 All quantitative data was captured using the SURVEY123 software on programmed android tablets. The aggregated data was exported from the SURVEY123 server to MS Excel Spreadsheets. The data was cleaned in Excel before being imported into Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for analysis. The cleaning of data involved running sets of frequencies to determine the accuracy and completeness of data entry, for instance, testing that the number of responses to a particular question does not exceed the number of respondents; or that there are no out of range values. In addition, we will ensure that each survey response is entered and crossed checked for accuracy. If discrepancies occur, the survey form will be extracted and examined carefully to determine and address the inconsistencies. Quantitative data analysis will commence once all data has been entered and cleaned. This will involve running a further set of frequencies, medians and statistical analysis to establish the number/proportions of respondents that answered questions in a particular way using SPSS software. The consultant aims to incorporate analysed responses to every question in a set of tables. Results will also be displayed graphically and through tables, so that they can be interpreted easily and allow for comparison. The information gathered using qualitative collection techniques was collated and analysed using grounded theory principles combined with triangulation of findings with existing primary and secondary data to reach the key findings and conclusions for the report. Qualitative analysis Under qualitative data collection and analysis, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and Key informant interviews (KIIs) were performed. Focus group discussions (FGDs) FGDs were conducted with selected groups of individuals at village level. Each FGD was conducted with between 16 and 7 individuals. The FGD participants were invited to the cell offices by the villages’ leaders or leaders of cooperative and were on arrival divided into groups based mainly on their primary activities or by location. In total 9 FGDs were conducted with 64 participants (31 males, 33Females) FGDs commenced with a general description of the VNP Pilot project to the participants, the project’s objectives, scope, and the purpose of the SES. Thereafter, discussions focused on participants describing their communities, with a focus mainly on economic activities, land ownership characteristics and general livelihood status. Using a Likert scale, individuals rated 6 different aspects of their communities including: economic livelihoods, agricultural production, land and water resources, access to social services and infrastructure, residential stability, and community relations. Based on the different perceptions, participants provided descriptions of their communities and concluded with suggestions on how the expropriation process and VNP expansion project could mitigate most of the potential negative impacts identified. FGDs participants were also tasked to rate a list of 12 potential income generating activities for inclusion in the livelihoods restoration plan. The findings from these ranking exercises are provided summarised later in table 47 in sub-chapter 4.9.2, with their elaborated reasons presented under FGDs in table 53, pg 89. Table 3: Participants in focus group discussions Category Location Nature of Activities Male Female Total ABISHYIZEHAMWE Nyarusizi Handcraft 3 10 13 Elected representatives of PAHs Nyarusizi Representation of PAHs interests 5 4 9 KAIKI cooperative Nyakigina Store House &Irish potatoes 1 3 4 ABABUNGABUNGA Nyakigina Community & Cultural Tourism 2 2 4 INGAGI&IBYIWACU cooperative TUZAMURANE Nyakigina Store house for Irish potatoes 2 1 3 PAHs from relocation side Rurembo Farmers 6 4 16 Kinigi model village residents Kampanga Farmers 3 3 6 ABAKUNDINZUKI Cooperative Nyakigina Beekeeping (beehives) 4 4 8 ABASERUKANASUKA Nyakigina Pyrethrum Plantation 5 2 7 Total 31 33 64 Key informant interviews (KIIs) In-depth interviews were conducted with mostly local leaders in all the affected cells and villages and representatives of different institutions from local and central government, development partners, conservation NGOs as shown in the table below, were interviewed during the data gathering. 10 Table 4 Key Informant Interview Respondents S/No Stakeholder consulted 1. Vice Mayor Musanze Economic Development 2. Executive secretary Kinigi sector 3. Executive secretary Nyabigoma cell 4. Executive secretary Kaguhu cell 5. Socio-economic development officer Nyabigoma cell 6. Socio-economic development officer Kaguhu cell 7. Socio-economic development officer Kampanga cell 8. Village leaders (Umukuru w’umudugudu) for 8 villages 9. Rwanda Development Board (RDB) Conservation wardens 10. Rwanda Development Board (RDB) representatives 11. African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) Country representatives 12. Ministry of Environment (MoE) representatives 13. Rwanda Environment Management Authority (REMA) representatives 14. Conservation NGOs in Musanze District with areas of focus in Mountain Gorilla conservation, protection and their scientific research (more detail on area of work can be found in table 55 of sub-chapter 6.4.) 15. Local NGOs in Musanze in Musanze District (with various areas of focus comprising; agriculture support, women empowerment, education in sustainability, species monitoring, climate change, community empowerment, education of youth in environment and climate change, tree planting, training in bee-keeping, surface water management, tourism, production and use of fuel energy saving cooking stoves, advocacy civil society organisation) (more detail on area of work can be found in table 55 of sub-chapter 6.4.) Qualitative data was analysed using three steps. ▪ Data reduction: coding and insertion of marginal remarks on FGDs and KII transcripts. The data reduction exercise was inductive and interactive. This marked the start of the analysis process, interpretation and denote meaning to data. ▪ Data display: data matrices were compiled and arranged to display the information processed from data reduction. Also, quantitative data from various available data sources were added to establish whether findings from formal and informal discussions could be corroborated. ▪ Conclusion drawing/verification: Emerging links of causality and processes were drawn. Feedback from the FGDs and KIIs was categorised into themes identified during the data reduction exercise and patterns/outliers and frequencies established. Thereafter, ‘analytic’ generalisations about the findings identified were done and where possible triangulation. ▪ Analysis included: Statistical comparison between households, for example male versus female-headed households income levels; and Development of recommendations, mitigation measures and an M&E framework to monitor key performance indicators derived from the data management. 1.4.2.2 Asset inventory and valuation The asset valuation provided the number and value of affected assets which will form the basis of monetary compensation for affected people. As set out in the ToR, the objective of the asset inventory and property valuation 4 is to assist RDB and AWF to determine the cost for compensation of assets that will be displaced by the VNP expansion pilot project. The asset valuation process is important as it provides a record of assets, which ensures that affected people know what compensation they are entitled to, and that once the RAP is implemented, they receive compensation at full replacement cost for affected assets. This ensures transparency in the acquisition process, which builds trust and support for the project among the affected people. Ultimately, this should reduce the number of complaints, including fraudulent complaints for increased compensation for assets installed after the cut-off date, which should not be compensated. At the time of commencement of the asset valuation, it was anticipated that the area for valuation would span 500 ha located, approximately 450 ha for the VNP expansion pilot project area and the remainder, 50ha for relocation site and livelihoods restoration of the project affected people (PAP). The asset inventory identified all affected assets including: ▪ Land, by type (residential, agricultural). 4 Valuation is the process of identifying the value placed on an asset for the purpose of calculating compensation. 11 ▪ Residential structures (houses, informal dwellings). ▪ Non-residential structures (barns, outside toilets, storage facilities, fences). ▪ Other physical assets (non-moveable assets such as trees, standing crops). The valuation of land and assets to be acquired for the pilot project was undertaken in compliance with WB ESS5, 2015 Rwandan Expropriation Law and the 2021 Rwanda land reference prices, according to the following principles: ▪ monetary compensation or replacement will be provided for land, dwelling houses and/or other structures acquired for the project or which must be abandoned. ▪ monetary compensation or replacement will be provided for all other useful structures including stalls, storage buildings, sheds, pens, fences, etc. ▪ the affected person will have the right to salvage material from the building to be expropriated without a reduction in the amount of compensation. The team of registered valuers visited all plots to measure, record, determine the value of assets and property (the term “property” includes the plot, buildings, external works and plants). Moving plot by plot the team prepare d a detailed inventory of items and details on the condition of the assets and property on each plot. For each plot, the valuers took measurements and made sketches and notes using a variety of equipment including GPS, digital cameras and tape measures to prepare an accurate record. Interim register of PAPs - an interim register of PAPs was developed with names, national identification numbers (IDs) and Unique Plot Identity (UPI) land plot numbers. This interim register is used as a reference for all subsequent stages of the process to ensure the process is systematic and organised. This interim register of beneficiaries also helps in the daily planning and deployment of field staff across the target area as it is used to provide each valuer with a list of specified properties and PAP names to evaluate. Plot identification and photography - before the physical measurements begun, the property was allocated a reference number and this number is physically written on the property and then recorded on a digital picture. Quantities and photographs for all structures/buildings and plantations were recorded and priced. A video recording of the property was also carried out and tagged with the reference number. The PAP was given a registration form bearing the reference number for the property which was then stamped and signed on by the registering clerk. A photo of the PAP was also taken in front of the property to avoid double counting of properties or to differentiate multiple plots belonging to one PAP. Topographic survey and community mapping - GPS was the default method for measuring land area because it was quick and accurate. The GPS coordinates were used to prepare a map of the expropriated area showing individual plots and their reference number. Measurements and sketches - for each plot, the team recorded descriptive data, took measurements and made sketches using a standard field data collection form to ensure data are collected in a uniform, orderly and standardised manner to ease the systematic processing and interpretation of data. Taking off quantities - the field data were then compiled in a dimension form to prepare “taking off” quantities (measuring and pricing all the listed property and assets) by a team of specialists. Following the preliminary inception site visit where the team was able to observe the types of assets and properties to be valued and considering the location and purpose of valuation, a combination of the following methods was used to value assets and property: ▪ Comparative method- For land, this is the simplest and most direct method of valuation because it is based on instances of other sales in the same area. In comparison to the 2021 land reference prices published by the Institute of Real property valuers in Rwanda (IRPV), the consultant also considered the most recent sale prices from the land office centre so that there is no rise in value of land during the intervening period of comparison. ▪ Cost detailed item method- for plantations, buildings and other structures, it was considered the best method to use because it gives the closest estimate cost. In this case the valuers take detailed measurements of the buildings or plantations and prepare bills of quantities for all the items used in the construction or classify the plantations according to age/ size and multiply them with the current unit rate to determine the cost. Key outputs of the asset valuation exercise include: ▪ A Valuation Report (with a photo of the property and owner) and Certificate for each plot. ▪ A register showing summaries of all property values. ▪ Maps of the area showing the plots and registration numbers; and ▪ photos and videos of each property with identification numbers (in digital format). 12 A detailed account of each property was recorded within a Valuation Report (with a photo of the property and owner) and Certificate. The report provides a comprehensive summary showing the size of affected plot, amount for affected plot, amounts for affected structures, compensation for disruption value and total amounts. After the computation of all the properties, a final form is generated for the PAP and authorities to sign (this takes place at the end of the asset valuation). It should be noted that, where expropriation would lead to 70% or more of a total plot being expropriated, the project would expropriate 100% of the plot and adjust the boundary accordingly. Where expropriation would lead to 30% or less of the total plot being expropriated, the project would expropriate 0% of the plot and adjust the boundary accordingly. 1.4.2.3 Stakeholder Engagement and Information disclosure The team ensured effective and transparent communications and consultation with the communities at all times in line with the process of stakeholder engagement described in WB ESS10. The purpose of consulting key stakeholders and the public was to both inform all interested parties about the project and its expected benefits and collect their views and concerns of the project activities. This early engagement was intended to enable affected households, communities and other stakeholders to fully understand the project and how it will impact on their lives and to actively participate in the associated planning processes. The process also solicited their views as well as highlight elements of the project that are still under design, so that the community was aware of the planned VNP expansion pilot project and the measures being taken to mitigate the impact of the project, in particular the displacement that would occur as a result of the land acquisition. The process was intended to create informed participation and iterative consultation with PAP viewpoints and suggestions incorporated into the decision-making process including the identification of project alternatives to minimize the need for resettlement, proposed resettlement planning milestones and mitigation measures (e.g. alternative resettlement site selection, eligibility criteria, design and layout of replacement housing and social amenities, timing of relocation and identification of vulnerable persons with the Affected Community), the sharing of development benefits and opportunities, livelihood restoration plans and resettlement implementation issues. The process entailed the development of consultation plans, methods and follow up and included: ▪ a list of stakeholders or audiences consulted referred in the SES section above are detailed in Annex 2. ▪ methods for reaching these stakeholders/audiences such as; FGDs, KIIs elaborated in the SES section above; ▪ the scheduling of consultation activities; and ▪ the analysis of stakeholder viewpoints, reported in the RAP and integrated into its implementation. The team kept records of the consultations to evidence the public consultation. These included but limited to: signed lists of participants, photos and outcomes of consultations. The stakeholder engagement included: ▪ Mapping out the stakeholders to be consulted, as indicated in the Chapter 6. ▪ Methods applied during the stakeholder consultation process including (detailed list can be referred in Annex 7): o public consultation meetings with affected communities, o FGDs with opinion leaders from the affected communities, CBOs, o Key informant Interviews with the RDB, AWF, VNP wardens, District, sector, cells and village authorities, conservation NGOs, private sector tourism within the area. ▪ The schedule for the stakeholder engagement included: o Issues raised in the consultations were reported in a summary table in sub-chapter 6.2.2 indicating; issues recorded, stakeholders affected, suggested adaptation or mitigation measures from stakeholders and any responses from the client’s or local authority representatives or consultants. A photolog of some of the stakeholder consultation was included in this annex 3 of the report. In the annex 2 of the RAP report, lists of stakeholders consulted was displayed as evidence. The team ensured that the concerns of women and vulnerable groups are adequately captured and factored into all key stages of resettlement planning and implementation. The engagement process adapted as needed to take into account their situations and ensure they have a role in decision making. Vulnerable groups were identified during the SES. As part 13 of the consultation effort, affected households and communities were also informed of the process for registering grievances. 1.5 Report Structure This report on Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) has the following sections, apart from the Executive Summary, introduction, conclusion and recommendations, of this RAP report are: ▪ Chapter 1 which provides a general background, objectives and project description area. ▪ Chapter 2 covers the Project description. ▪ Chapter 3 Proposed Entitlement matrix. ▪ Chapter 4 deals with the Socio-economic survey covering the project affected persons and social conditions and serves as project socio-economic baseline information. ▪ Chapter 5 documents on the policy and strategies; legal instruments, institutional arrangement and international framework under which the project will be developed. ▪ Chapter 6 covers Stakeholder engagement. ▪ Chapter 7 determines the eligibility, valuation of and compensation strategies. ▪ Chapter 8 Livelihood restoration measures ▪ Chapter 9 describes the institutional arrangement and grievance management and redress mechanisms for effective RAP implementation. ▪ Chapter 10 provides an estimated RAP budget. ▪ Chapter 11 caters for arrangement and operationalization of the RAP. ▪ Chapter 12 entails RAP monitoring the evaluation. ▪ Chapter 13 Conclusion and Recommendations. 14 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project rationale The Rwandan economy is heavily dependent on tourism for foreign exchange earnings. Tourism makes a major contribution to jobs and economic activity in Rwanda, famed for its mountain gorillas. In 2019, tourism generated foreign exchange earnings of $498 million, which is about double the combined earnings from tea, coffee, and minerals. This necessitates the development of the network of protected areas (PAs), more so, because the PAs are surrounded by areas with a high population density. The development of the PA network with an outward focus to maximize foreign exchange earnings will benefit people, as well as general ecosystem service delivery and biodiversity. Over the last four decades, different protected areas, mainly the Volcanoes National Park (VNP), Akagera National Park, Nyungwe National Park and Gishwati-Mukura Forest reserve have been degraded to the extent of reducing their size by more than 65 percent.5 This is due to high population densities near protected areas and resettlement strategy of the Government of Rwanda as well as continuous claims for agriculture land. In the VNP, human activities such as poaching, deforestation for farming and settlement are threats to mountain gorillas and have led to habitat loss.6 The ecological richness, which coincides with heightened human population pressure begs the need to improve land use planning with a focus on conserving biodiversity and maintaining ecological integrity more broadly. Generally, ecological integrity refers to the ability of an ecosystem to support native species, abiotic components, and ecological processes and maintains the variation of key ecological attributes.7 Mountain gorillas play an important ecological function by being large scale grazers and spreading seeds of trees which replenish forests.8 Over the last three decades, the Virunga Mountain gorilla population has increased, with approximately 1,004 gorillas in total that live exclusively in the Virunga area shared between Rwanda, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Uganda. Expanding the VNP will not only accommodate the mountain gorillas, but also aid in reversing the above-mentioned impacts. According to the Rwanda Development Board (RDB), the primary ecological challenge is the small size of the park with insufficient interconnected habitat space for mountain gorillas and other wildlife species. This is a critical long-term challenge the park expansion intends to address. An expanded park will improve gorilla habitat and support 15-20 percent increase in population size and a reduction in 50 percent of infant gorilla mortality. 12 Despite its significant conservation value, the VNP is small and isolated, with insufficient interconnected habitat for mountain gorillas and other wildlife species. There is an ongoing process to expand the park to secure existing biodiversity values and to improve connectivity with other priority conservation areas in the region. This need for expansion is highlighted as part of the Global Safety Net9, which includes areas regarded as essential for addressing the joint challenges of biodiversity and climate resilience. The project expansion area covers two regions in the north-western part of Rwanda: The Volcanoes Region and the Vunga corridor. The entire area is 3,890 square kilometres. Along the northern border of the project area is the VNP that covers an area of 160 square kilometres and is part of a unique transboundary network of protected areas in Rwanda, Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The VNP is an area of national and international importance, and supports globally significant wildlife, including one of only two remaining populations of the endangered mountain gorilla. Established in 1925, the VNP is an International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Category II National Park as well as a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Biosphere Reserve. Figure 1 shows the Volcanoes Region and the surrounding catchments, which the project will target. The Volcanoes and Virunga corridor regions considered for the VCRP spans the districts of Burera, Nyabihu, Rubavu, Gakenke, Muhanga, Ngororero, Musanze and part of Rutsiro District. 5 Rutagarama, E and Martin, A. (2006) “Partnerships for Protected Area Conservation in Rwanda,” The Geographical Journal, 172(4), pp. 291–305. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2006.00217.x. 6 Volcanoes National Park Rwanda. (2021). Rwanda to expand Volcanoes National Park. ( link). 7 Xu, N., Wu, W., Wang, G. (2021). National Park and Ecosystem Integrity. In: Filho et al. (eds). Life on Land. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Springer, Cham. 8 WWF. (2022). Mountain gorillas: close relatives at risk. (link). 9 Global Safety Net App. (2022). (link). 15 Figure 1 Volcanoes region and Virunga corridor. The current expansion proposal targets an area of 732.5 hectares as the first phase, while the remaining (2,749 ha) have been identified for future expansion. The expansion of the VNP coupled with effective management of park buffer areas will increase habitat for mountain gorillas and other species. Buffer zones around parks/reserves are designed to maintain ecological integrity and to ensure community participation in biodiversity conservation. The expansion area will also enhance opportunities for ecotourism, increase income for communities, reduce human wildlife conflict, help address disease and other risks of wildlife human contact, and provide a more diverse park with a broader altitude range that will help increase resilience to climate change. 2.2 Project Objectives The VCRP main objective is to strengthen climate resilience, reduce the risks of flooding, and improve the management of natural resources and tourism assets in the Volcanoes Region of Rwanda. 2.3 Description of the project The proposed VCRP project contains four components: ▪ Component 1- Flood risk management, under which are sub-components: o Subcomponent 1a: Flood Risk Reduction Investments. o Sub-component 1b: Flood Early Warning System (FEWS) and community-level flood preparedness. ▪ Component 2: Landscape Restoration and Catchment Management containing the following sub-components: o Sub-component 2a: Integrated Catchment and Landscape Restoration o Sub-component 2b:Ecological Restoration of Priority Catchment o Sub-component 2c: Livelihoods Development. ▪ Component 3: Volcanoes National Park expansion and livelihood restoration, comprising of the following sub- components. o Subcomponent 3a: Integrated climate resilient green settlements, VNP expansion, and a model smart green village . o Subcomponent 3b: Livelihood diversification and income generation activities. ▪ Component 4: Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation, and Capacity Building. This RAP applies to sub-components 3a and 3b. The sub-component 3a will support the expansion of the Volcanoes National Park (VNP) of an estimated 732.5 hectares. Phase one will entail the relocation of 510 households to an area of 16 50 ha that is approximately two kilometres from the current site. To improve the living conditions of poor or vulnerable persons who are physically displaced by the expansion of the VNP, the project will provide adequate housing in climate resilient green villages in addition to full replacement cash compensation for the loss of houses, land and perennial crops and trees. Subcomponent 3b will support resettled households with livelihood improvement activities. The activities are envisaged at three levels, individual household level, community level, and host community-resettled community level. To better understand the program and determine necessary adjustments to the plan and implementation of the expansion programme, the expansion will commence with the VNP pilot project targeting 450 ha located in the Western area to ease the population pressure in the high density Bisoke area, one of the eight volcanoes of the Virunga chain. This area will also be more easily incorporated in the 283ha land already donated by AWF and other partners to the expansion programme. The VNP expansion pilot project shall include land acquisition in villages across two cells of Kinigi sector. Table 5 and Figure 2 shows the location of the pilot expansion area and the relocation host site. Table 5 Location of the VNP Pilot expansion area and relocation site Sector Cell Village Target # of Plots Myase 766 Kaguhu Nyarusizi 466 Kinigi Gahura 531 Nyabigoma Nyakigina 723 Project Site Plots 2486 Rurembo 216 Kaguhu Rugeshi 76 Relocation site plots 292 Total 2778 17 Figure 2 Location of the VNP pilot expansion area and relocation host site 18 2.4 Description of proposed Smart green village for relocation site Reference made to the 2022 report on project proposal for climate adaptation in the volcano region of Rwanda, Annex 2C, prepared by a consortium of Vanguard economics, ERTEM Ltd and Mass design group, the proposed smart green village for the relocation site will have the following attributes: ▪ About 510 housing units with an average 75 square meters per family and plots of 300m 2 built in a 2-in-1 housing model by a procured contractor under the supervision of an engineering firm. ▪ Green homes: structurally sound seismically safe homes, built with locally sourced materials (e.g. Volcanoes rocks, timber and bamboo), with passive ventilation, climate responsive building siting/orientation, following latest Rwanda Building Code standards such as DRS 484 Adobe Block Specification, Technical Guidelines on Adobe Block Construction in Rwanda. ▪ Green infrastructure: water collection and recycling/reuse in homes and farmland, access to affordable and sustainable electricity such as solar, all units provided with clean water supply, zero- energy waterless composting toilets with waste revalorization with outputs of solid fertilizer as well as Nitrogen-rich liquid fertilizer, promoting a circular economy approach. ▪ Integrated Water Management: Water conservation and watershed management with Sustainable Drainage Systems, Bioswales, Rain-gardens, and Retention ponds. Stormwater design to naturally treat pollutants, provide erosion control and natural water filtration that prevents valuable soil runoff and provides more clean drinking water. ▪ Conservation agriculture: 0.1ha (1000m2) of agricultural land per family with increased agricultural productivity practices, with organic and local climate-resilient variety of seeds, and conservation best practices such as agroforestry that support increased biodiversity. ▪ Restorative landscape: Integration of edible landscape in village fabric along streets and pedestrian paths to maximise food production, provide shade, and sequester carbon. ▪ Regenerating Ecosystems: use of native plants to support biodiversity and ecological health integrated within the village design with natural corridors connecting with wider ecosystems. The village will have a series of public and civic buildings that will offer basic health and education services as well as opportunities for new off-farm jobs. These will include a health center, an early childhood center (nursery school), a Mini Market, a Multipurpose Hall with Office of local leaders, ICT Room and security station. The Multipurpose Hall will hold different meetings, events and ceremonies including for increasing community- awareness on climate-change and disaster risk mitigation, TVs, Historical and cultural events. The ICT room will have Irembo services, which is an on-line government portal for providing local and central government administrative services such as marriage certificates, tax declaration and driving permit. 19 Figure 3 Rendering image of the proposed houses for relocation site 20 Figure 4 Floor plan of the house Figure 5 Proposed Relocation site zoning plan 21 2.5 Analysis of alternatives The study conducted an analysis of alternatives considered to avoid and/or minimize impacts that could result from a proposal to acquire land for the VNP pilot expansion project. The table below elaborates criteria applied in analysing these alternatives. Table 6 Analysis of Alternatives Criteria of Alternatives analysed for the project Proposed alternative alternative analysis 1. Project Two alternatives were analysed, alternative 1 for implementing Alternative 1, to implement purpose the VNP pilot expansion project and “zero or no” project the VNP pilot expansion alternative. project was considered the ▪ Advantages of alternative 1 to implement the VNP pilot most optimal of the two, on expansion project comprise of; (i)improving conservation and grounds that its positive biodiversity by expanding the current VNP size by 23% impacts benefit wildlife and thereby increase habitat for the growing wildlife population biodiversity in the VNP and and minimise infant mortality from small space, (ii) reduction its immediate surrounding, of incidences of human-wildlife conflict (HWC) in plantations improves sustainable close to the park boundary by 80% from 400incidences per wildlife tourism and quality year, (iii) reduction of risk of disease transmission to the VNP experiences at the park but wildlife, (iv) Improving sustainable tourism and quality of also is of social and touristic experiences by increasing viewing opportunities of economic benefit to the mountain gorillas by up to 15% as the population continues to immediate population to the VNP and larger population grow or habitat use expands which could double direct of Rwanda. tourism revenues through increased visitation of 10% per year, (v) Improving livelihoods of local communities and Rwandans at large (i.e. estimated 7500 job creation, 3400new homes for the entire 732.5ha expansion plan, improved access to education, health services and water). These positive impacts are discussed in more detail in the chapter that follows. ▪ Disadvantages of alternative 1 are; displacement of people and property from about 500ha resulting in loss of land, houses, perennial crops, trees and mostly agricultural livelihood. These, however, shall be compensated and livelihood restoration measures have been proposed under this RAP. ▪ On the other hand, the zero or no-project alternative will mean, none of the positive and negative impacts mentioned above shall occur to the project area and the PAPs. 2. Relocation/ Three sites were selected and analysed to determine the most Based on the advantage resettlement optimal. The three sites were; site 1- in Nyonirama cell, site 2- in Site 2 has over the other site Kaguhu cell, site 3- in Muhabura cell. sites 1 and 3, site 2 at preference. ▪ Site 1- Nyonirima site was not suitable on grounds that it had Kaguhu cell was considered the most appropriate site for already been identified for the expansion of the Gorilla naming “Kwita Izina” centre and green recreational park. The a relocation site. 22 Criteria of Alternatives analysed for the project Proposed alternative alternative analysis site is currently a Rwanda Agricultural and animal resources Board (RAB) demonstration plot used for testing new plant seeds (wheat, snow peas and irish potatoes). ▪ Site 2- in Kaguhu cell was preferred to Site 3- in Muhabura cell for the following reasons; o Site 2 is closer to the VNP which would enable the community to participate in conservation activities. o Site 2 is ideally located to the community to be relocated about 2km compared to site 3. o Site 2 is located near a government administrative facilities. o Site 2 is located near the Kinigi tarmac road, there is power infrastructure near the site, there is evidence of piped water connection given the tourism infrastructure that exists near it, a telecommunication tower is adjacent to the site, health facility is nearby at Kinigi model village, hence close access to all these services. o For site 2 there is no evidence of built-up area, only cultivate land implying less disturbance during land acquisition (no physical displacement). o Site 2 is closer to a concentration of high-end tourism facilities and roads that access the VNP. 23 2.6 Project Potential Impacts During preparation of this RAP, consideration was given to the objectives of the project, its activities and the impacts they are likely to cause, both positive and adverse impacts. The sub-chapters that follow elaborated the potential positive and adverse impact of implementing the project. 2.7 Expected Impacts 2.7.1 Potential positive impacts The planned project activities are likely to generate positive impacts toward wildlife in the VNP, people living around the VNP, Tourists visiting the VNP, Rwandan economy and globally. The anticipated positive impacts are elaborated here. 2.7.1.1 Improving conservation and biodiversity. The VNP expansion pilot project will initiate the process of increasing the current size of the VNP by 3,740ha (23-25%) from the current 16,000ha and the greater Virunga Massif landscape by 10-15%. This will increase habitat for the growing wildlife population in the VNP. According to RDB, the current research and surveys show an increase in most wildlife species (mountain gorillas, antelopes, buffaloes and monkeys), with habitat and food availability becoming an issue. For instance, the habituated Mountain Gorilla population within Rwanda has increased from 269 Gorillas in 12 family groups in 2010 to 305 Gorillas in 20 groups in 2016. An official census data from 2003 to 2010 indicates a 26.3% increase in Gorilla total population (380 to 480), representing a 3.7% annual growth rate. Mountain Gorilla home range map and interaction data, as well as other wildlife conflict data, show that incidences are increasing and are predicted to continue increasing in the future. While carrying capacities for gorillas or other wildlife species has not been determined, there is evidence that the park may be nearing limits in some areas resulting in infanticide (i.e. the crime of killing a gorilla baby within a year of its birth by the mother. A current average of 11 mortalities per year for baby gorillas underage have been reported.) and aggressive interactions/ fights between family groups resulting in injuries. The primary ecological issue being that the park is becoming small space for the increasing gorilla population, with insufficient safe, suitable interconnected space for mountain gorillas and other wildlife species, a critical long-term issue that this project intends to solve. Improvement of Mountain Gorilla habitat by 15-20% could reduce infant mortality by 50%. 2.7.1.2 Reduction of incidences of human-wildlife conflict (HWC) Crop raids by gorillas, buffaloes, monkeys are a problem to the communities cultivating at the border line with the park boundary, even with a stone wall boundary wall in place. According to records by RDB, numbers of incidents increased to an average of 400 each year, leading to damage of crops, economically impacting farmers and cause the Government compensation claims for lost crops to the animals. As part of the VNP expansion project, a new boundary wall will be redesigned and constructed, potentially minimising HWC by 80% (reducing HWC by 320 incidences per year). 2.7.1.3 Reduction of risk of disease transmission to the VNP wildlife In the incident of crop raiding by park wildlife, interaction with humans and livestock increases the risk of exposure to disease transmission from domestic animal and humans to gorillas and other wildlife species in the park, an example of the flue or covid-19 pandemic. 24 Furthermore, insufficient space to roam in the park, means more interactions between mountain gorilla family groups, overlapping home ranges in small habitat, could increase the risk of diseases transmission if a disease outbreak were to occur. 2.7.1.4 Improving sustainable tourism and quality of touristic experiences. According to RDB, by VNP expansion, this will result in improved mountain gorilla viewing experiences inside the park, with potential to increase the types and quality of tourism experiences inside the park, including potentially increasing viewing opportunities of mountain gorillas by up to 15% as the population continues to grow or habitat use expands. This could double direct tourism revenues through increased visitation of 10% per year. Also, unique and improved tourism lodge experiences at VNP is anticipated with this expansion, by retaining and encouraging private sector redevelopment of existing lodges and resorts within and adjacent to the park to increase number of rooms to accommodate increasing tourist numbers, improve quality of services, requiring community-based benefits models, ensuring eco-friendly practices and operations, and supporting VNP conservation initiatives. 2.7.1.5 Improving livelihoods of local communities and Rwandans at large. Reference was made to the VNP expansion project proposal, preliminary estimates are that 3,400 families10 (about 17,000people) are currently living and working the proposed park expansion and adjacent buffer zone area of 10,350ha. The project anticipates to improve livelihoods in the following manner: ▪ By the VNP expansion, the project could support in skills development and create job opportunities for an estimate of more than 7,500 Rwandans within the tourism, agriculture, service and construction sector. ▪ Providing 3,400 new modern homes for estimated 3,400 families that will be displaced. ▪ Construct 1 new primary schools and upgrade 10 existing schools in areas in and surrounding relocation sites. ▪ Provide access to better health care services by constructing well equipped health clinics and upgrading existing ones. 2.7.2 Negative/ adverse impacts Beside the positive impact, the VNP pilot expansion project is also expected to have adverse impacts discussed hereafter. Of the 992PAHs surveyed during the census, 510 PAHs shall be physically and economically displaced and 482PAHs shall only be economically displaced. 2.7.2.1 Loss of houses The VNP pilot expansion project will affect 644 houses and associated other structures owned by 541 Project Affected Households (PAHs) as shown in the table below. All the houses will be fully affected. Table 7: Number of Houses to be affected in the project area and their types. SN Location Villages Number of houses 1 Myase 153 10 For clarity 3400 families are likely to be displaced across the various phases of planned park expansion and not only in this first phase. 25 2 Nyarusizi 138 3 Gahura 121 4 Nyakigina 231 5 Relocation site 1 Total cost 644 A list detailing the owners of the houses to be affected is appended to this report as Volume III for the Asset valuation report. Mitigation measures ✓ The affected houses will be compensated in cash at replacement cost plus additionally replacement houses for Project affected Households (PAHs) physically residing in the project area. ✓ Tenants will be entitled to continue utilizing affected house free of charge (rent free) for a period 120 days post compensation stage. ✓ House owners shall be allowed the right to salvage material. ✓ Disturbance allowance of 5% will be added to the value of the property to cater for any foreseen or unforeseen transaction fees. ✓ Provision of special assistance for Vulnerable PAHs elaborated in proceeding chapters of this RAP, including providing housing for those in the vulnerable group not owning houses. ✓ Job opportunities for all PAPs. ✓ Livelihood restoration measures 2.7.2.2 Loss of Land The project plans to acquire land as part of the pilot expansion of the VNP cover 4,760,419.4sqm, approximately 450ha, excluding land owned by Government, land donated by project development partners (e.g. AWF) and conservation partners willing to include parts of their land towards the park expansion. These 476ha are part of the RAP budget that shall be compensated at full replacement cost. Table 8: Size of land to be affected by the project in Sqm. Number of Size of land to be SN Location Villages plots affected (Sqm) 1 Myase 765 1,102,085 2 Nyarusizi 467 782,643.4 3 Gahura 523 643,913 4 Nyakigina 719 1,732,034 5 Relocation site 269 499,743.84 Total 2,743 4,760,419.24 A detailed list of landowners with names, ID and UPIs is appended to this report as Volume III for the Asset valuation report. Mitigation measures ✓ The affected land owners will be compensated in cash at replacement cost. ✓ Tenants entitled to continue utilizing acquired land portion free of charge (rent free) for a period 120 days post compensation stage 26 ✓ Disturbance allowances of 5% will be added to the value of the property to cater for any foreseen or unforeseen transaction fees. ✓ Compensated PAHs shall be assisted by sector and district local authorities to identify and buy alternative land and furthermore facilitated in land ownership registration. RDB PIU will also have close follow up on such facilitation towards PAHs. ✓ Provision of special assistance for Vulnerable PAHs elaborated in proceeding chapters of this RAP. ✓ Job opportunities to all PAPs ✓ Livelihood restoration measures 2.7.2.3 Loss of perennial crops and trees The project activities will lead to loss of perennial crops and tress and crops. Perennial crops and trees include those that take more than a year to reach full maturity and can be harvested over a long period of time. These include banana, avocado and other fruit trees. PAHs with standing crops that include trees on their plots within the defined project area are entitled to compensation. Each tree has been counted and will be compensated according to its market value and age of maturity; for instance, a mango tree that is fully matured and producing is compensated 100% of the compensation rate of the tree. A detailed list of the trees and perennial crops’ owners is appended to this report as Volume III for the Asset valuation report. Mitigation measures ✓ Compensation at full replacement cost for any perennial crop and trees, ✓ Disturbance allowances of 5% will be added to the value of the property to cater for any foreseen or unforeseen transaction fees. ✓ Provision of special assistance for Vulnerable PAHs elaborated in proceeding chapters of this RAP. ✓ Job opportunities to all PAPs ✓ Livelihood restoration measures 2.7.2.4 Loss of livelihood Project affected households (PAHs) in the project area depend mostly on agriculture and livestock-based livelihoods for income and feeding their families. Based on the socio-economic baseline study (SES), 91% of PAH have agriculture and livestock farming as their main occupation with an average annual on-farm income totalling 1,783,616Rwf. Land acquisition of about 500ha of mostly agricultural land will result in a significant impact on the land-based livelihood of PAHs. Mitigation measures ✓ Job opportunities to all PAPs in project activities ✓ Livelihood restoration measures as alternative sources of income to ensure household income is sustained or better. 2.7.2.5 Impact on Vulnerable groups The socio-economic baseline survey (SES) and subsequent analysis indicate that there are PAPs who are particularly vulnerable and are at greater risk of further impoverishment because of the implementation of the project. People with disabilities (physical or mental), elderly people living alone, women head of 27 household, widows, belonging to the poor socio-economic category of Households11. Referring to the mentioned criteria identifying the vulnerable groups, the SES shows that 240 PAHs are the identified as vulnerable. The identified vulnerable household heads will therefore get special treatment during the resettlement process. 11 Categorised as: Families who do not own a house or cannot pay a rent, have a poor diet and can hardly afford basic household tools and clothes or Categorised as: Having a dwelling of their own or are able to rent one, mostly get food and wages from working for others but rarely get full time jobs. 28 3. Proposed Entitlement Matrix Eligibility for compensation for this project is guided by legal provisions and policy guidelines according to the Rwandan Constitution (Article 29), the Expropriation Law of Rwanda (N° 32/2015 of 11/06/2015) and the World Bank’s ESS5. These documents regulate and give entitlement to the affected persons and institutions. Based on review and interpretation of laws relating to valuation in Rwanda in particular the Rwanda expropriation law and the constitution of Rwanda, the provisions in these key pieces of legal statues and legislative frameworks do not meet the standard of compensation at full replacement cost. One of the key gap identified is whereas ESS5 policy recognizes the affected persons as ‘one using the land at the time, whether or not they have written customary or formal tenure rights’, while according to Rwandan Expropriation Law the person whose land will be to be expropriated is defined as ‘any person or a legally accepted association operating in the country who is to have his or her private property transferred due to public interest as well as legally accepted local administrative entities’. ▪ Rwandan laws have to be supplemented by additional measures as provided to meet the replacement cost standard. The use of replacement cost valuation method for valuing assets is applied by World Bank ESS In this context, ‘Replacement Cost’ in relation t o agricultural land earmarked to undergo expropriation under this project was defined as the pre-project or pre- displacement, market value of land of equal productive potential or use located in the vicinity of the affected land, plus cost of preparing the land to levels similar to those of the affected land, plus the cost of any registration and transfer taxes whichever is higher. ▪ For land in urban areas, it is the pre-displacement market value of land of equal size and use, with similar or improved public infrastructure facilities and services and located in the vicinity of the affected land, plus the cost of any registration and transfer taxes. ▪ For houses and other structures, it is the market cost of the materials to build a replacement structure within an area and quality similar to or better than those of the affected structure, or to repair a partially affected structure, plus the cost of transporting building materials, to the construction site, plus the cost of any labour and contractors’ fees, plus the cost of any registration, building permit(s), and transfer taxes. In compliance with WB ESS5, “determination of aforesaid replacement cost”, would not take into account depreciation of the asset(s) and the value of salvaged materials. Similarly, the value of benefits to be derived from the project would not be deducted from cumulative value of the asset. In order to determine the entitlement matrix, the types of project impacts and their respective entitlement units were developed as presented in the table below. Table 9: Category, type of impact and entitlement unit S/N Category Type of Impact Entitlement Unit 1 Category A Loss of Residential / Dwelling Unit(s) Owner, Business Premises Owner, tenant, Commercial houses Lease holder (current user of the land) and squatter 2 Category B Loss of Residential Landowner, Tenant or lease holder (current user of the land) 29 3 Category C Loss of perennial crops and Landowner, tenant, Lease holder (current user of the land Tree Crops with standing crops/trees) and squatter 4 Category D Loss of Livelihood a. Current land users b. Affected Established and nascent entrepreneurs. a. Land based livelihoods: c. Squatters will be included for a and b b. Enterprise-based livelihoods (Affected Established and nascent entrepreneurs and artisans) Category E Vulnerable Groups PAP belonging to very poor or poor category12, with one or a combination of the following vulnerability factor: - Elderly - PWD - Widow and Widower - Orphans Category F Impact on Public Utilities by ▪ Telecommunications companies relocation of utilities. ▪ REG (Rwanda energy group) -Temporary Interferences of ▪ WASAC (water and sanitation corporation service provision. In view of the above entitlement impact and units, their proposed entitlements are as presented in Table_10 below. Categorised as: Families who do not own a house or cannot pay a rent, have a poor diet and can hardly afford basic household tools and clothes or 12 Categorised as: Having a dwelling of their own or are able to rent one, mostly get food and wages from working for others but rarely get full time jobs. 30 Table 10: Entitlement Matrix S/N. Potential Impact Entitlement Unit Entitlements A. Loss of residential and Commercial houses and other structures A1 Fully affected and remaining house/structure Owner ▪ Compensation for the structure at full replacement cost is non-viable ▪ 5% Disturbance allowance (to cater for transpiration expenses etc. or economic loss in case of a business premise) ▪ Right to salvage material. ▪ Advance notice to vacate (The law provides the owner with 120 days to prepare for relocation after receiving the compensation). However, none of them will vacate their homes until the alternative of a house in the green model village in the relocation site is ready and suitably availed for them by the project. ▪ Plus, replacement house in the relocation site for only those that physically reside in the project affected area. ▪ Entitled to proposed livelihood restoration measures for those resettled in the relocation site. A2 Loss of occupied portion Tenant and informal ▪ Tenant(s) entitled to continue occupying affected property(s) free of charge business tenants (rent free) for a period 120 days post compensation stage. ▪ During this period landlord/landlady has no authority to charge rent after compensation ▪ Incorporated into formal trading areas. ▪ Three (3) months paid rent for the new trading area. ▪ Advance notice to vacate in accordance with the tenancy agreement. ▪ Re-imbursement of remaining worth of deposit on rent if more than 3months. ▪ Entitled to proposed livelihood restoration measures for only those that physically reside in the project area. B. Loss of Land B1 Entire loss of land or partial loss where Title holder ▪ Cash compensation for entire land holding at full replacement cost. residual is not viable ▪ 5% Disturbance allowance replacement cost 31 S/N. Potential Impact Entitlement Unit Entitlements ▪ Entitled to continue utilizing area earmarked as expropriated for a period 120 days post compensation stage. ▪ Entitled to proposed livelihood restoration measures for only those that physically reside in the project area. ▪ Compensated PAHs shall be assisted by sector and district local authorities to identify and buy alternative land and furthermore facilitated in land ownership registration. RDB PIU will also have close follow up on such facilitation towards PAHs. The process of assisted land buying for PAHs shall comprise of: o The district and sector will work with the RDB PIU project team and GRCs to announce/inform all PAPs of the support available for assisted land buying. o The district and sector will set out a registration process for PAPs that want assistance to identify and purchase replacement land. o The district and sector will identify available land parcels. o The district and sector will support PAPs to buy land at reasonable market prices and support them in acquiring land titles for bought land. Tenant / Lease Holder ▪ Advance notice to vacate. ▪ Entitled to continue utilizing acquired land portion free of charge (rent free) for a period 120 days post compensation stage ▪ Given a maximum period to exploit this land based on the contract period. B2 Partial loss of land but residual is Title holder ▪ Cash compensation of the partial loss at full replacement cost. economically viable. ▪ A 5% Disturbance allowance ▪ Entitled to continue utilizing area earmarked as expropriated for a period 120 days post compensation stage Tenant / Lease Holder ▪ Advance notice to vacate. ▪ Tenants Entitled to continue utilizing acquired land portion free of charge (rent free) for a period 120 days post compensation stage ▪ Given a maximum period to exploit this land based on the contract period. 32 S/N. Potential Impact Entitlement Unit Entitlements C. Loss of perennial Crops and trees C1 Perennial Crops and trees All identified cultivators in ▪ Compensation at full replacement cost for any perennial crops and tree. the project area ▪ Entitled to proposed livelihood restoration measures for only those that physically reside in the project area. C2 Seasonal Crops All identified cultivators in ▪ Advance notice to stop growing crops. the project area ▪ Entitled to enough time to harvest in case the crops have been planted. i.e. 4 or 6 months depending on the seasonal crop harvesting period. D. Loss of Livelihood D1 Land based livelihoods; Agri-business Farmer Entitled to proposed livelihood measures, such as: ▪ Employment opportunities in project activities. e.g. rehabilitation of the VNP buffer zone, park wall, Tourist potters, guides, skilled and unskilled labour for D2 Wage based livelihoods Workers/employees of construction of the smart green village. affected area ▪ Developing Horticulture in Green Houses ▪ Developing Tree Nurseries D3 Enterprise-based livelihoods Affected Established and ▪ Developing Community Fruit Orchards nascent entrepreneurs and ▪ Promoting Community Handcraft workshops artisans ▪ Promoting Chicken Farming (eggs, meat, fertiliser) ▪ Developing Agro-logistics services (Transportation) ▪ Developing Construction Skills (Masonry & others) ▪ Developing Financial Service Agents (Momo, Banking agents) ▪ Developing Cultural Arts Village ▪ Government Extension services like veterinary care ▪ Link up with local NGOs and government entities providing trainings, small- scale credit facilities to finance star up enterprises. ▪ Sponsored entrepreneurship training in business planning, marketing, IGA, etc Procuring goods and services for the project from affected local suppliers. E. Special Assistance to Vulnerable Groups 33 S/N. Potential Impact Entitlement Unit Entitlements E1 Vulnerable households or persons PAP belonging to very poor or ▪ Housing in the relocation site for those who do not own houses in the project poor13, with one or a area or relocation site. combination of the following ▪ Assistance to move. vulnerability factor: ▪ Priority consideration in government sponsored social protection programs for - Elder vulnerable groups, such as VUP programs. - PWD ▪ Sponsored vocational trainings. - Widow ▪ Priority consideration for non-skill labour in the project. ▪ Facilitation of government provided medical services or insurance of free medical cover for at least 2 years from establishment in the green model village at the relocation site. F. Impact on Public Utilities F1 Relocation of utilities ▪ Telecommunications G. Redesigning, relocation and prompt repair of damaged utilities or service lines companies within project costs as per contractor’s terms of service. ▪ REG (Rwanda energy H. The relocation and repair will be done by the project contractor(s) in group) collaboration with the service providers progressively depending on how works ▪ WASAC (water and progress on the ground. sanitation corporation I. Provision of common service ducts on the project area F2 Temporary Interferences of service J. 3 to 4 months’ notice to relocate the services. provision K. Measures taken to ensure minimum service disruption Categorised as: Families who do not own a house or cannot pay a rent, have a poor diet and can hardly afford basic household tools and clothes or 13 Categorised as: Having a dwelling of their own or are able to rent one, mostly get food and wages from working for others but rarely get full time jobs. 34 4. SOCIO-ECONOMIC SURVEY This chapter describes findings pertaining to the social economic profile of respondents residing in and around the project area. It focuses on the socio-economic components such as demographic characteristics, living conditions of the populations (including health and safety), functioning of households (of income), economic activities and Basic infrastructure and services. The socio-economic survey (SES) was a census of 992 Project Affected Households (PAHs) located in around the pilot project area (811PAHs) and Resettlement site (RS) (181PAHs). 4.1. General characteristics of the study population This section of the socio-economic survey (SES) report provides a description of the project areas’ population’s demographic characteristic with respect to the population size, household dependency ratios and area population structure. 4.1.1 Household heads sex, age and education Majority (68%) of households are headed by males, this trend is observed in all affected cells with female household heads peaking at 32% in the pilot project area (Table 11). Most of the households are owned by young people with 52% between the ages of 31 and 50 years. However, there is also significant proportion of elderly household heads, with 21% above the age of 61 years. Table 11: Gender and ages of household heads Householder head gender Pilot Project Area (PA) Resettlement Site (RS) Tot. % Male 67.7 71.8 68.4 Female 32.3 28.2 31.6 Household Head’s age (Years) 21 - 30 12.0 4.4 10.6 31 - 40 30.7 24.3 29.6 41 - 50 22.7 22.7 22.7 51 - 60 13.6 27.6 16.1 61 and above 21.0 21.0 21.0 As shown in Table 12 below, the household heads’ levels of education in almost all the areas is very low with 87% of the heads having either only primary education levels or no education at all. No more than 5.9% of the household heads have either completed secondary education or have any tertiary education certification. Overall, the level of education among the affected communities is very low. Table 12: Household heads’ levels of education Level of education Pilot Project Area Resettlement Site Tot. % No education 34.5 33.7 34.4 Primary education drop out 30.3 24.8 29.3 Primary Education 22.2 26.0 22.9 Partial secondary 7.0 9.4 7.5 Completed secondary 4.9 3.9 4.6 Tertiary (college/ University) 1.0 2.2 1.2 Others 0.1 0 0.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Draft report: Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for Volcanoes National Park (VNP) pilot expansion project. 35 4.1.2 Household size and population structure The 992 households surveyed have a total of 4,187 people residing in the homes with an average household size of 4.2 members per household. The highest household density is observed in the PAHs with land in the RS with an average household size of 4.6 members. Observation and discussion indicate that the populations in the pilot project area vary considerably from the owners of land in the RS. For example, the area is characterised by relatively mobile populations. Many describe the sector as inhabited by several citizens that were resettled on already owned land after being relocated from areas demarcated for the VNP. Also given that the affected area is close to Uganda several owners of the land live across the border. As such, the population in the area varies all year round with many migrating in and out of the country or across district boundaries, usually depending on the prevailing economic situation associated with the weather and agricultural productivity. Table 13: Household sizes Household size Pilot Project Area Resettlement Site Total Total number of household members 3,347 840 4,187 Household with maximum member 15 14 15 Household with minimum member 1 1 1 Average household size 4.0 4.6 4.2 Table 14 below presents the area populations age structure by gender. The male and female populations are not very different with only slightly more females (51%) than males (49%). The population structure across both genders also follows the same trend with the highest proportions being between the 10 – 40 years. 41% of the population are youth, below the age of 30 years, and about 79% is below the age of 40 years, indicating a very youthful population in the area. Table 14: Affected area population age structure Years % Years <6 11.84 Minimum age 1 7-9 9.08 Maximum age 85 10-18 19.92 Median 21 18-30 23.55 Average 26 31-40 14.24 41-50 9.61 51-60 5.68 61 and above 6.08 4.2. Household’s economic wellbeing Households’ economic wellbeing and status are analysed through their main sources of income, income levels, perceptions of financial wellbeing, possession of land and other assets as well as the poverty probability index (PPI). 4.2.1 Land ownership As shown in table 15 below, 88.3% of the landowner surveyed have land titles in their own names while at least 11.7% claim they own the land on which they live and derive their economic livelihood, mainly from agriculture, but do not have land titles for various reasons. Above Half of the sampled households (8%) without land titles are able to provide various reasons for the lack or absence of land titles, with majority explaining how they have purchased land but not gone through the mutation process for various reasons including the cost, while most attribute this to the seller not being available after receiving payment. A few others mention inheriting land and not 36 having processed new titles in their names, others have never received land titles since they relocated from the previous park areas. 72.6% of the land households have lived and owned the land in the affected area for over ten years while 23.5 % have owned the land for not more 10 years. Only 3.9 % have been in the area for less than a year. Most of the households that have been in the area for less than one year are found to have purchased land from owners within the last year after hearing about the resettlement process or are from families that subdivided their land to be eligible for individualised expropriation. Table 15: Households’ land ownership in project area Land titles owned Pilot Project Area Resettlement Site Total Own land title 86.5 91.7 88.3 Maximum number of land title owned 20 8 2 Duration on land Less than 1 year 3.5 5.5 3.9 1 - 10 years 25.9 12.7 23.5 More than 10 years 70.5 81.8 72.6 Beyond the socio-economic survey, the project was able to determine amount of land owned by PAPs outside the project area but within the vicinity of the project area. This was established from the District database of land ownership. The purpose of this exercise was to determine whether by loss of land to the project, PAPs are left with land or no land to sustain them beyond what is offered in the project relocation site. From this exercise and as shown in the table 15.1 below, the PAPs’ land that will be affected by the project is 40% of what they own in and around the project area, implying that PAPs remain with 60% of their land after the project has acquired part of their land and fully compensated them for it. Table 15.1 Households’ land ownership beyond the project area S/No Project Affected Total land Land owned by Land owned by % of Households (PAHs) owned by PAHs in project PAHs outside affected by Village location PAHs (sqm) area (sqm) project area (sqm) land 1 Gahura 981,652.00 248,134.00 697,414.00 25.3 2 Myase 1,723,854.00 667,816.00 1,024,333.00 38.6 3 Nyakigina 2,706,342.00 1,183,193.00 1,413,215.00 43.7 4 Nyarusizi 1,164,697.40 533,240.40 599,078.00 45.7 6,576,545.40 2,632,383.40 3,734,040.00 40 The land sizes below are based on landowners Knowledge of their plots and not the from the valuation mapping exercise that provides more precise plot sizes. Some of the plots might be over or underestimated by property owners as during sight visits some indicated boundaries beyond or under what was indicated on their land titles. Based on this, the average plot sizes reported are 3,900 m2. Most of the land owned by 74% of the PAHs is less than 5000 m2 and its only 8% with more than 1ha. Generally, most of the affected households are small landowners with the smallest surveyed being 100 m2. Table 16: Households’ land sizes Land size (ha) Pilot Project Area Resettlement Site Total ha Less than 0.5ha 71.4 82.9 73.6 Max 4.80 0.51 – 1.0 ha 19.7 12.7 18.4 Median 0.05 1.1 - 5 ha 8.9 % 4.4 8.0 Mean 0.39 Total 100.0 % 100.0 100.0 Mini 0.01 37 4.2.2 House ownership 66.7% of the PAH in the affected areas own at least one house in the pilot project, the 33.4% with no houses in the project area are mostly those residing outside the affected cells but own mostly farmland within the affected area. 90% of those that own the houses in the affected area live in them while the 12% either rent out the houses they own or have family members residing in these houses that are in most cases located on the same plots on which they live. All PAHs with land in the RS own houses out of the RS but it is only one case with a house on land in the RS. Only 4.4% have houses outside the affected area. The pilot project area and relocation site does not have land squatters since there is no abandoned or unoccupied land or buildings in the area, instead the land and houses is occupied by the actual owners, relatives to the owners or rented out to tenants for specific periods. While the asset valuation determined that 644 houses shall be displaced, it was observed during the census survey that 541 PAHs own those houses in the project area (one or more houses) as shown in the table below. However, it was also noted that while most of these PAHs own and physically reside or have relatives living in their houses (i.e. 510PAHs), there are PAHs that own houses but do not live in the project area (living as far away as Musanze town, Kigali, eastern provinces and far places from the project area) with no intention of moving to the relocation site or anywhere adjacent to the project area (31PAHs). All 541 PAHs that own houses in the project area shall be given full replacement compensation for the loss of their houses, however, the project further proposes that only those who own houses and physically reside in the project area (510PAHs) can be given replacement houses in the relocation site in addition to the house compensation. It was therefore important to determine the PAHs that own houses and physically reside in them and those that own houses but do not physically reside in the project area. This is to ensure house owners that do not physically reside in the project area and only own houses that they rent out or have for land care takers are only compensated for loss of houses but not given replacement houses in the relocation site. In this case, the PAHs house owners that physically reside in the project are those categorised in the table below as households that; “live in it only”, “live in it and rent out other”, “live in it and relative live in other”, “live in one, rent one out, relatives live in other”, totalling to 510 PAHs. 38 Table 17: Ownership of houses % # of households House ownership by village Relocation Tot. PAHs house ownership PA RS PA RS Tot Myase Nyarusizi Gahura Nyakigina site Total % Rurembo Own House (one) - 479 0 479 59.1 48.3 134 95 94 156 479 Own house (more than one) 61 1 62 7.5 0.6 6.3 16 14 10 21 1 62 no house in the project area14 271 180 451 33.4 99.4 45.4 Total 811 181 992 100.0 100.0 Status of use of their house % # of households house use status by Village Use of house owned in the affected Tot. PA RS PA RS Tot Myase Nyarusizi Gahura Nyakigina Rurembo Total area % Live in it only 90.0 0.2 90.2 487 1 488 131 93 97 166 1 488 Rent it out only 3.0 0.0 3.0 16 16 6 5 0 5 0 16 Relatives live in it only 1.5 0.0 1.5 8 8 2 1 4 1 0 8 Live in it and rent out other 2.2 0.0 2.2 12 12 3 6 1 2 0 12 Live in it and relatives live in other 1.7 0.0 1.7 9 9 2 2 2 3 0 9 Live in one, rent one out, relatives live 0.2 0.0 0.2 1 1 in other 0 1 0 0 0 1 Rent out one and relatives live in other 0.2 0.0 0.2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 Other (Sector rent other house for them) 1.1 0.0 1.1 6 6 5 1 0 0 0 6 99.8 0.2 100.0 540 1 541 150 109 104 177 1 541 14While they do not own a house in the project area, most of them own houses outside the project area in the vicinity of the project area. Draft report: Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for Volcanoes National Park (VNP) pilot expansion project. 39 4.2.3 Main occupation of household head 91% of the households consider crop production with some livestock as their main economic activity with equal proportions in both the pilot project area and RS. Many of these are small-scale staple crop producers (scale of production is discussed later under farm productivity). Off-farm employment, though very low, is observed mainly among households located in the pilot project area. Most of these are observed to work in cultural tourism. The survey found only 9.4% engaged in off-farm jobs. Table 18: Main occupation of household heads Main occupation(s) of the household head Pilot Project Area Resettlement Site Tot. % Agriculture 42.3 42.5 42.3 Agriculture & Livestock production 48.7 45.9 48.3 Transport services (bike, Moto, Taxi) 0.4 0.6 0.4 Tourism services (potter, guide etc) 0.6 0.6 0.6 Vocational services (tailor, carpenter etc) 0.5 0.6 0.5 Hospitality services (restaurant, hotels) 0.5 1.1 0.6 General Commerce (trader, shopkeeper) 0.7 - 0.6 Construction services (Masonry) 1.0 1.1 1.0 Public Service 1.2 2.2 1.4 Private employee 0.5 1.7 0.7 Unemployed 1.1 2.1 1.3 Other 2.5 1.6 2.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 4.2.4 Sources of income over past 12 months 88% of the PAHs report earning incomes from their agricultural activity. Sale of crop produce is the commonest source of income for most (81%) of the households in the pilot project area. This is closely followed by sale of livestock (37%). The median total annual income from agricultural activities is 1,783,612 Rwf in the entire project area. Irish potato production and sale are observed as the main economic activity for the PAHs. Table 19: Sources of On-Farm income Main sources of on-farm income Tot. % Annual Average (Rwf) Median (Rwf) Sale of Crops 80.4 1,818,344.6 900,000 Sale of Livestock 36.5 366,485.5 140,000 Sale of Livestock products 8.7 249,365.9 150,000 Wage labour 21.4 271,986.5 180,000 Sale of other agro products 10.2 443,081.0 138,000 Total annual on-farm income 88.1 1,783,616 984,500 Only 32% of the households in the project areas acknowledge they earn incomes from off-farm sources as shown in table 20 below. The most frequently mentioned source of off-farm income is casual earnings, reported by 13% of the respondents in all areas. It is observed that this casual earning is mostly income earned from casual labour provided to farms other than household owned farmland. Also, a considerable proportion of respondents earn from regular salaries and wages (11%). Financial support received through Government social protection programmes, specifically the Vision Umurenge Programme (VUP) is not common among the affected households, with only 2% mentioning direct support (DS) from the social protection programme. Highest off-farm average annual income is observed from trade and other business (1,258,667 Rwf). It is observed that most of this includes cultural tourism work which many of the affected households earn income from in addition to agriculture activity. Draft report: Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for Volcanoes National Park (VNP) pilot expansion project. 40 Land leasing is mostly practiced in the project area but only reported by 6% of the respondents, hence a considerable source of households’ income but rates are very low (about RWF 30,000 per year). Small businesses, mostly in trading households’ consumables and foodstuffs is also a notable source of income with at least 8% of households engaged in small businesses and earning a median annual income of 600,000 Rwf. Overall, the median annual income among all households reporting off-farm income sources is 430,000 Rwf. Table 20: Sources of Off-Farm income Main sources of off-farm income Tot. % Average (Rwf) Median (Rwf) Formal Wages/Salaries –Non-Farm wages 11.1 705,438.7 480,000 Other casual earnings – Non-Farm Labour 12.9 426,791.8 285,000 Cash remittances (relatives/friends) 2.8 239,964.2 200,000 Rent/Land Leased received 5.5 314,358.2 200,000 Other business/Trade incomes 7.7 1,258,666.6 600,000 Pensions/ Government support/VUP/FARG 1.9 156,309.5 135,000 Total annual off-farm income 32.4 325,998 430,000 61% of the households in the project area report their household incomes to have increased over the past three years. The highest proportions of respondents that confirm increased income over the last three years are observed mainly among owners of land in the RS (65%). More households in the affected areas note a decline or no change in their financial wellbeing over the last three years. Most groups consulted during FGDs attribute declining annual incomes to increasing incidence of extreme weather, pests and disease, wild animals, especially buffaloes, that negatively affected mainly their crop and livestock outputs and the increasing cost of living (household expenditures). Table 21: Change in household income Income stability Pilot Project Area Resettlement Site Tot. % Increased 59.5 65.3 60.7 Decreased 24.9 20.9 24.2 Stay the same 15.6 13.8 15.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 4.2.5 Household assets To gauge the economic status of households in the project affected areas, an inventory of assets owned by the households was developed and ownership of the assets recorded. The cut-off for wellbeing is the ownership of at least 3 of the listed assets. As shown in table 22 below, 55% of the PAHs own 3 or more assets with no significant differences between the pilot project areas and RS mobile phones and foam mattresses are the most owned assets. Table 22: Ownership of household and farming assets Assets Pilot Project Area Resettlement Site Tot. % Bicycle 8.4 12.2 9.1 Mobile phone 85.6 86.2 85.7 Radio 50.8 48.1 50.3 Television 11.1 15.5 11.9 Radio cassette player 11.5 11 11.4 Sewing machine 1.1 1.7 1.2 Motorcycle 1.4 3.3 1.7 Car/truck 0.6 1.1 0.7 Refrigerator 0.9 0.6 0.8 Foam mattress 64.9 71.8 66.1 41 Gas/electric stove 3.5 6.6 4.0 Furniture Suite (wooded chairs) 34 38.1 34.8 >3 asset 53.6 58.5 54.5 4.2.6 Socio-economic categories and vulnerable groups All households in Rwanda are classified under four socio-economic categories15 to enable national programming and as a mechanism of identifying the social and economic wellbeing of citizens to inform national programmes such as the social protection support programme “VUP”. Socio-economic category one of the very poor is the most vulnerable and four is the most well-off category. The SES utilises the national socio-economic categorisation of citizens and households to benchmark levels of vulnerability within the affected households. In addition, the numbers of households receiving social protection support packages as well as presence of people living with disabilities (PWDs) are used to identify and estimate the vulnerability levels within the project affected households. Table 23: Socio-economic categories and wellbeing indicators Socio-economic Categories Pilot Project Area Resettlement Site Tot. % One 13.3 12.7 13.2 Two 35.3 22.7 33.0 Three 50.8 64.6 53.3 Four 0.6 0.0 0.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Wellness indicators VUP support 9.6 10.5 9.8 FARG registered 16 1.1 1.1 1.1 Health insurance registered 94.8 96.7 95.2 People living with disabilities Households with PWDs (%) 11.6 13.8 12.0 People with disabilities in households (#) 94 25 119 As shown in table 23 above, the 53% of PAHs that own land in the affected area are generally not in the most vulnerable categories of the country population as they are categorised in Socio-economic category three. 95% of the households have health insurance and 12% are beneficiaries of the national social protection programme (VUP). At least 119 cases of people with disabilities were identified in 12% of the surveyed households. Most of these are cases of physically and mentally handicapped adults. During consultations with local leaders and focus groups with PAHs when tasked to identify the most vulnerable groups in the community, most referred to the elderly and households with PWDs as the most vulnerable. It is these same households that mostly fall in the Socio-economic category one and those that receive VUP support. 4.2.7 Project Vulnerable groups Building on the above sub-chapter on socio-economic categories and for purposes of identifying which households could be considered as vulnerable groups that will be entitled to special assistance beyond what all other PAHs 15Cat.1: Families who do not own a house or cannot pay a rent, have a poor diet and can hardly afford basic household tools and clothes. Cat. 2: Have a dwelling of their own or are able to rent one, mostly get food and wages from working for others but rarely get full time jobs. Cat. 3: Those who have a job and farmers who go beyond subsistence farming to produce a surplus that can be sold; Cat. 4: Includes people who earn high incomes; people who own houses; people who can afford a luxurious lifestyle, (not targeted by the project). 16 Genocide Survivors Assistance Fund (FARG) 42 are entitled to, the RAP categorises vulnerable groups as Households (Hh) that possess at least one more of the following beyond being under Socio-economic category 1(very poor) and 2(poor)17: • Having People with disabilities (PWDs). • Elderly household head (60 years and above). • Female headed household. Based on these criteria above, the number of households considered as vulnerable for this project in both the pilot project area and resettlement site and entitled to special assistance are presented in the table below. Table 24: Project Vulnerable group Households #Hh in Socio- #Hh headed by Total# Hh in Socio- #Hh headed by economic # Hh headed Under 60yrs but project economic male Category 1& by Female with PWD vulnerable Categories elderly(60yrs+) 218 group One 131 77 9 7 93 Two 327 101 28 18 147 Total 458 178 37 25 240 4.2.8 Historically Marginalised People (HMP) There are no communities of Historically marginalised People (HMP) in the project area and this was ascertained by: ▪ Stakeholder consultations through the Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), where participants informed the consultations that the historically marginalised people (HMPs) do not reside within the affected pilot project area. ▪ Furthermore, consultation with COPORWA, a non-governmental organization for the Community of Potters of Rwanda that deals with such vulnerable groups, informed the consultant that they do not have any members in the that project area. 4.2.9 Poverty probability index Using the simple Poverty Probability Index (PPI) Scorecard (poverty assessment tool) based on the 2016/17 national integrated household living standards survey (EICV 4), the SES estimates the proportions of households with the likelihood of having consumption below Rwanda’s national poverty line 19. As shown in table 25 below, 100% of the households in the target areas of operation have between 83.2% and 0% likelihood of being below the national poverty line. Therefore, the project area of operations’ group average poverty rate 20 is estimated at 3.3%. This low level of extreme poverty can be attributed to affected population’s access to productiv e arable land and is also reflected in the median household income earnings that are markedly higher for the small land sizes as well as production statistics that indicate high Irish potato and pyrethrum productivity. Table 25: Likelihood of being below national poverty line (100% of national poverty line) % Probability below PPI Score Pilot Project Area Resettlement Site Total poverty line 0–4 99.5 0 0 0 5–9 93.4 0 0 0 17 Categorised as: Families who do not own a house or cannot pay a rent, have a poor diet and can hardly afford basic household tools and clothes or Categorised as: Having a dwelling of their own or are able to rent one, mostly get food and wages from working for others but rarely get full time jobs. 18 Categorised as: Families who do not own a house or cannot pay a rent, have a poor diet and can hardly afford basic household tools and clothes or Categorised as: Having a dwelling of their own or are able to rent one, mostly get food and wages from working for others but rarely get full time jobs. 19The national poverty line (sometimes called here “100% of the national line”) is the average total consumption for households whose actual food consumption is within ±10 percent of the food line. For Rwanda on average during the 2010/11 EICV, this is RWF 402 per adult equivalent per day. 20 Poverty rate of a group = Sum (corresponding % Probability × # of Households with PPI Score corresponding to % Probability) ÷ # of households with % probability between 99.5% and 0.9% 43 10–14 90.3 0 0 0 15–19 83.2 1.1% 1.7% 1.2% 20–24 71.2 3.7% 1.7% 3.3% 25–29 63 9.1% 8.8% 9.1% 30–34 50.2 17.0% 12.2% 16.1% 35–39 34.7 17.1% 10.5% 15.9% 40–44 27.7 14.8% 12.7% 14.4% 45–49 17 9.6% 17.1% 11.0% 50–54 11 8.9% 9.9% 9.1% 55–59 6 5.4% 11.0% 6.5% 60–64 2 6.7% 7.7% 6.9% 65–69 0.9 3.8% 2.2% 3.5% 70–74 0 1.6% 1.7% 1.6% 75–79 0 0.5% 1.7% 0.7% 80–84 0 0.6% 1.1% 0.7% 85–89 0 0 0 0 90–94 0 0 0 0 95–100 0 0 0 0 Poverty Rate 3.2% 3.8% 3.3% 4.3. Financial Inclusion A potential positive impact of the VNP resettlement programme is the effect the project will have on formal employment as well as household incomes. Hence, understanding households’ financial habits is considered an essential component of this SES. This financial inclusion section therefore benchmarks the affected households’ uptake a nd use of various financial services and products (FSPs) available in Rwanda. 4.3.1 Use of financial services and products Working through cooperatives is one of the primary channels of doing business promoted by the Government of Rwanda (GoR). As shown in table 26 below, 33% of the PAHs are in cooperatives, while the majority (71%) are in village associations. 85% of household heads in the project-affected areas confirm that they are members of village savings and loans associations (VSLAs) or savings groups. The proportion of household heads with accounts in formal financial institutions is quite high with 82% confirming using formal financial institutions, mostly SACCOs (65%). Commercial banks are used by only 29% and this is mostly attributed to the high costs of transactions rather than accessibility. In-depth discussions with FGD participants indicate that not many PAHs use informal financial services and products, mostly attributed to the lack of trust among people. Therefore, most of the PAHs save their money in SACCOs and access most of their credit from SACCOs as well. Its only in a few cases such as the cultural tourism cooperatives that the study identified internal lending within the VSLAs. Table 26: Uptake of financial services and products HH use of financial services & products Pilot Project Area Resettlement Site Tot. % Hh head in cooperative 32.9 34.3 33.2 Hh head in village association 70.5 72.9 71.0 Hh head in VSLA 82.9 86.2 85.0 Hh head use formal financial services 81.6 84.5 82.2 Hh uses commercial bank 29.1 28.2 28.9 HH uses SACCO 64.6 67.4 65.1 HH uses MFI 2.8 2.2 2.7 HH uses mobile money 71.8 71.8 71.8 44 HH uses money lenders 8.0 11.0 8.6 Hh keeping money in secret place at home 41.6 40.3 41.3 Hh keeping money with trusted individual 11.1 9.9 10.9 Hh has savings 64.4 71.8 65.6 Hh has loans 26.0 33.7 27.4 4.4. Extension Services Given that the PAH are a predominantly agricultural community, access to effective and efficient extension services is essential for continued productivity. Therefore, the VNP expansion programme is anticipated to impact the existing agricultural extension services system mainly through capacity building interventions and other technical support services that could be integrated in the livelihoods restoration activities. The SES therefore benchmarks the households that have accessed extension services as well as the main service providers in the areas targeted by the project to enable future monitoring and evaluation of the projects impact in contributing to capacity building and overall professionalization of agriculture and related activities in the relocation areas. 4.4.1 Extension training services 37% of respondents in the project affected areas confirm that they have attended an agriculture related training events in the last 12 months, additionally, at least 5% also confirm a household member other than the household head has attended similar training. The most common agriculture trainings attended include trainings in, agricultural value chain addition (22%), livestock management (6.4%) and crop management (6.3%). Also, trainings in mainly advocacy, public participation and engaging with local government (21%), not necessarily in relation to agriculture is also a very common type of training attended by most respondents. Government extension services are the most common in the project affected areas with 47% of the respondents confirming having interacted and/or received different support from government extension services providers, such as the sector veterinarian and agronomist. This is distantly followed by NGOs (8.5%) and private sector (3.2%) hardly present in extension services. Table 27: Reception of extension services and training Extension services Pilot Project Area Resettlement Site Tot. % Hh Head attended training 35.4 43.7 36.9 Trainings attended Livestock management/feeding/husbandry 5.9 8.3 6.4 Agriculture value addition value chain and marketing 20.6 25.4 21.5 Agroforestry 3.3 3.3 3.3 Crop management 6.2 6.6 6.3 Financial inclusion 3.1 5.0 3.4 Advocacy, public participation, engaging local 12.5 10.5 12.1 government Entrepreneurship and Enterprise development 1.7 3.9 2.1 Cooperatives management 2.5 3.9 2.7 Conservation and tourism 3.0 1.1 2.6 Vocational skills training 1.0 43.6 0.8 Others 0.7 1.7 0.9 No Training 0.4 43.6 0.3 Don't Know 0.1 43.6 0.1 Training Providers 45 Government extension services 45.6 52.5 46.9 NGO extension services providers 7.9 11.0 8.5 SACCOs and financial institutions 3.3 3.9 3.4 Private service providers 3.3 2.8 3.2 Others 1 - 0.8 4.5. Farm Productivity The VNP pilot project is expected to impact mostly crop and livestock productivity of all economic activities in the area. The SES therefore benchmarks the affected households’ crop and livestock productivity by establishing the sizes of the population involved in different agricultural activities, the sizes and yield of the most prevalent activities as well as climate-resilient practices present within the affected households. 4.5.1 Crop productivity 93% of the sampled households in the affected areas confirm that they are involved in crop production for either sale (81%) or home consumption (19%) only. Further discussions indicate that although majority mention that they have sold part of the staple crop they produced over the previous 12 months, for many of mainly the small holder farmers, i.e., less than 1 ha in this context, most of their crop produce is primarily for sell. Only 58% describe crop productivity as having increased over the past 3 years (Table 28). The majority who acknowledge increased production attribute it to mainly the Government’s crop intensification program (CIP) that included subsidies such as improved seed and inorganic fertilisers and overall improvements in the national agriculture extension system, specifically “Twigire Muhinzi” and “Tubura”. Table 28: Households practicing crop production Crop production Pilot Project Area Resettlement Site Tot. % Hh growing crops 91.6 98.9 92.9 Hh selling portion of crop produce 79.0 91.2 81.3 Hh confirming increase in crop production 56.0 67.4 58.1 PAHs explain how since the government CIP policy took effect and the area was demarcated for Irish potatoes and pyrethrum, they have realised a significant increase in production and productivity of these two crops. Although data was gathered for 7 cereal crops and at least 15 cash crops, the details presented in table 29 below reveal that among the PAHs only 9 crops were reportedly grown by the households in the affected areas. The assessment shows that the most common crop is Irish potatoes grown on an estimated 171ha and PAHs report to have harvest 6.082 metric tons in the last one year. Pyrethrum is grown on approximately 146ha and an estimated 1.372 metric tons were reportedly produced in the last year. It shall be noted that Irish potatoes and pyrethrum are grown interchangeably in the two seasons of the year. The rest of the crops are grown in low quantities and mostly through mixed cropping. Table 29: Affected area crop production Main Cash crops # % Total Production Area (Ha) Total Production (Kg) Irish Potatoes 805 81.1 171.4 6,082.1 Pyrethrum 555 55.9 146.2 1,372.0 Other 37 3.7 9.0 73.1 Sweet potatoes 6 0.6 0.7 9.8 Cabbage 3 0.3 0.2 0.5 Peas 3 0.3 0.6 0.5 Onions 2 0.2 1.0 4.0 46 Wheat 1 0.1 1.9 0.1 Beans 1 0.1 Insignificant Insignificant No cash crop21 315 31.8 - - 4.5.2 Livestock productivity 55% of the households in the project-affected areas own one or more types of livestock (LS). Sheep are the most owned livestock by 37% of the PAHs, followed by mixed dairy (9.4%) and exotic dairy cattle (7.6%). Altogether, the surveyed households in the affected area own a total of 512 heads of cattle, which are owned unevenly among 155 households. The other common livestock are chicken (3.3%) and pigs (2.6%). Among key factors contributing to the widespread availability of cattle among many of the households is the Government’s one cow per family “Girinka” programme that has contributed to increasing the total national herd stock, especially exotic dairy cows. However, the proportion of households with cows in the affected area appears disproportionate, there is considerably uneven distribution of cattle among the landowners. 41% of the livestock-farming households in the project affected areas consider their livestock productivity to have increased in the last three years, while a few perceive it to have either reduced (9%) or have observed no change (5%) in livestock productivity. Farmers who consider livestock productivity to have improved attribute it to mainly improved access to veterinary services and increased availability of fodder. While those noting a decline attribute it to the high cost of livestock feed, prolonged dry seasons, extreme cold and limited availability of land to graze livestock. Some respondents in the area also attribute the increase to mainly the increase in total number of cows, mainly distributed through the “one cow per family” national program, rather than the net production per cow. Table 30: Households’ ownership of livestock Ownership of livestock Pilot Project Area Resettlement Site Tot. % Own livestock 55.3 55.2 55.2 Hh confirming increase in livestock 40.0 43.6 40.6 production Type of livestock % Hh # LS % Hh # LS % Hh # LS Exotic Dairy Cattle 6.9 122 10.5 45 7.6 167 Local Dairy Cattle 5.5 71 9.9 37 6.4 108 Mixed Dairy Cattle 9.4 148 9.4 37 9.4 185 Exotic Beef Cattle 1.8 20 0.6 1 1.6 21 Local Beef Cattle 0.9 13 0.0 0 1.8 13 Mixed Beef Cattle 1.5 15 1.7 3 1.5 18 Chickens 3.5 92 2.8 45 3.3 137 Goats 1.8 61 5.0 24 2.4 85 Pigs 2.5 39 3.3 15 2.6 54 Sheep 37.1 1,297 33.7 209 36.5 1,506 Other 1.6 38 3.3 11 1.9 49 As assessed in previous sections, average and median annual incomes from livestock and livestock products are among the highest within the affected areas. Table 31 below presents the average annual earnings among households that report having earned income from their different livestock in the 12 months prior to this assessment. Overall, average annual earnings are highest among livestock owners with dairy cattle. Average annual earnings from mixed dairy cattle (588,947 Rwf) are slightly higher than those from local (485,370 Rwf) and exotic dairy cattle (435,922 Rwf). However, this also varies across the pilot project area and the RS, with average earnings from mixed 21 Respondents indicated that they had no cash crop beyond crops mentioned above. 47 dairy cattle (639,133rwf) in the pilot project area compared to the local dairy cattle (400,750Rwf) in the RS. Although sheep are the commonest livestock, earnings from sheep production are among the lowest. Those in sheep production explain how this is because the breeds are not very productive and most sales come from flesh and not other bi-products like fur. Other earnings from livestock are lower than 100,000 Rwf and are mostly produced by smallholders that are mostly vulnerable households for which livestock production is not a major economic activity, as they mostly rely on crop production. Table 31: Livestock productivity and income Pilot Project Area Resettlement Site Total Livestock Sales # Hh Ave. (Rwf) # Hh Ave. (Rwf) # Hh Ave. (Rwf) Exotic Dairy Cattle 24 483,457 8 314,444 32 435,922 Local Dairy Cattle 21 430,500 6 642,143 27 485,370 Mixed Dairy Cattle 27 639,133 11 400,750 38 588,947 Exotic Beef Cattle 15 500,000 4 211,250 19 378,421 Local Beef Cattle 13 405,417 4 332,000 17 383,824 Mixed Beef Cattle 10 453,636 3 185,000 13 412,308 Chickens 3 25,500 0 94,300 3 48,433 Goats 6 82,600 1 80,000 7 81,857 Pigs 5 161,429 3 58,000 8 148,500 Sheep 171 99,998 34 103,951 205 103,247 Other 13 39,050 1 43,250 14 40,250 15% of households confirm that many of them source fodder for their livestock from their own grazing land (Table 32 below). However, given that national regulations require livestock owners to rear them on their own land, the largest proportion (35%) of PAHs practice zero grazing, but still collect most of the livestock’s fodder from their own farmland and surrounding shrubs and grasslands in their villages. Most of the livestock observed in kraals are fed on elephant grass grown around households’ farmlands and in untended shrubs. Lack of alternative sources of fodder such as planting of short-term trees along boundaries and other agroforestry practices is attributed by FGD participants to the lack of knowledge of alternative sources of fodder as well as limited access to seeds and seedlings of recommended fodder trees. Also, inadequate financial capacity to establish structures to accommodate substantial numbers of cattle has limited livestock owners from expanding the practice of zero grazing, as most confirm higher milk productivity from cattle in kraals compared to those in free range. Table 32: Households’ primary source of feed for livestock primary source of feed for grazing livestock Pilot Project Area Resettlement Site Tot.% Grazing on your own farmland 14.2 17.2 14.7 Grazing around village 5.2 - 4.2 Grazing away from village 0.5 1.7 0.7 Purchasing fodder 0.1 - 0.1 Zero grazing – feed collected & brought 35.1 35.4 35.2 Other 0.1 - 0.3 No livestock 44.8 44.8 44.8 Total 100.0 99.1 100.0 Regarding change in the availability of fodder over the past three years, as shown in table 33 below, 15% of the livestock owners confirm “no change” as the quantity and quality available is still the same. Meanwhile, a smaller proportion of 9% also perceive the quality of fodder to have substantially reduced over the years. This is attributed to mainly significant reduction in the availability of pastureland and fodder trees. Also new Government regulations 48 limiting access to gazetted forestland is identified as a contributor to the reduction in availability of fodder. However, largely 32% of the livestock owners confirm how the quantity and quality of fodder is better than in previous years mostly because of the favourable weather. 34% of the PAHs perceive fodder is easier to access and 29% consider costs to have dropped in the last 3-5 years. Table 33: Change in availability of fodder Access to fodder Pilot Project Area Resettlement Site Tot.% Easier to find 33.9 35.4 34.2 Cheaper to Purchase 28.1 33.1 29.0 Quality of fodder Better than previous years 30.7 34.8 31.5 No change from previous years 14.5 14.5 14.5 Worse than previous years 10.0 6.1 9.3 N/A 44.7 44.7 44.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Farmers in the affected areas practice different techniques to improve the productivity of their livestock. The most common practices identified include the cross breeding (27%), artificial insemination (13%) and purchasing improved livestock feed (12%). These livestock improvement practices are attributed to mainly Government livestock improvement programmes that have over the last 3 – 5 years increased farmers’ access to improved cattle breeds, mainly imported and increased access to artificial insemination services at sector levels. Also, the number of commercial livestock feed producers has considerably increased in the last five years, which has enhanced availability of stock feed. However, many farmers still admit being unable to afford commercial feeds and increased availability of their own sources would be preferred. Table 34: Pasture management and livestock productivity improvement Productivity improvement practices Pilot Project Area Resettlement Site Tot.% Artificial Insemination 12.5 13.8 12.7 Use/Purchase Improved Livestock Feed 12.1 8.8 11.5 Crossbreeding 26.3 28.7 26.7 Other 4.4 3.9 4.3 N/A 44.7 44.8 44.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 4.5.3 Tree productivity Tree cover and ownership is another aspect this assessment identified from the onset to be impacted by the project. In addition to altering of tree cover to clear way for the park expansion and related infrastructure, a yet to be established amount of land clearing is expected to be implemented to provide acreage for bamboo establishment and other tourism and conservation associated facilities. Therefore, the SES benchmarked various parameters including tree ownership, quantities, location and trees’ uses and incomes for households earning from tree. 4.5.3.1 Tree density and benefits 81% of the PAHs confirm allowing trees to grow on their land. The PAHs surveyed reportedly own an estimated 447,118 trees planted on a total estimate of 185 ha. 82% of these trees are located within the pilot project area, while the remaining 18% are within the RS and its surrounding. Most of PAH grow trees in their crops fields (502), around their houses (394) and in woodlots (328). However, the highest number of trees are in woodlots (64%). PAHs in FGDs express concern over the idea that they will be relocated to an area that will not allow them to have equivalent space to plant trees. Discussions with residents of the existing resettlement site in kampanga cell, share this as one of the most significant negative impacts of relocation on their livelihoods. They explain how before 49 relocation they owned trees including fruit trees, fodder trees and trees for timber and poles that not only provided them with alternative sources of income but also building material and food. With the new resettlement arrangements, they are not able to benefit from trees among the other natural resources that sustained their incomes. Table 35: Ownership of trees Pilot Project Area Resettlement Site Total Location of trees # hh Area # hh Area # hh Area # trees # trees # trees (Ha) (Ha) (Ha) Around the house 303 3,673 13.3 91 2,093 4.2 394 5,766 17.5 In crop fields 132,24 405 93,639 78.5 97 38,607 24.9 502 103.4 (Scattered) 6 In grazing fields 29 4,722 6.3 5 134 0.3 34 4,856 6.6 (Scattered) Along field 11 1,653 2.6 34 5104 10.4 45 6,757 13.0 boundaries 251,42 287,59 253 36.3 75 36,168 7.0 328 43.4 In a woodlot 4 2 On Communal 13 9,698 1.1 2 203 0.1 15 9,901 1.2 Land 364,80 447,11 638 138.1 163 82,309 47.0 801 185.0 Total 9 8 4.5.3.1 Income from tree products 24% of the households in the project affected areas confirm that they earn incomes from trees and tree products. As shown in table 36 below, the main tree products from which households earn income in the project area are fruits. The average annual income from fruits in the affected area ranges 138,487 Rwf and 428,535 Rwf. Other common tree products include firewood, poles and timber. Fruits and timber are the highest earning tree products for those reporting derive incomes from trees and tree products. Table 36: Tree Products and earnings Pilot Project Area Resettlement Site Total Tree products # hh Qnty (Kgs) Rwf /yr Qnty (Kgs) Rwf /yr Qnty (Kgs) Rwf /yr Fruits 59 6,436.7 138,487.8 63,283.0 428,535.7 19,868.8 207,022.3 Honey 4 492.9 4,541.4 0.1 357.1 3,797.9 3,552.7 Firewood 64 641.0 46,846.9 17.0 6,267.5 494.0 50,587.7 Sawn timber 71 10,147.0 51,601.6 61.3 317,857.1 7,764.3 114,514.3 Poles 33 3,081.0 33,640.8 908.3 51,967.8 2,568.0 37,971.3 Seeds 2 5,530.0 1,413.2 3.5 3,035.7 4,224.2 1,796.6 Handicrafts 5 11.0 5,883.9 1.2 892.8 8.9 47,046.0 Fodder 1 2,762.0 8,287.0 0.0 0.0 2,109.0 6,329.0 Other 4 995.0 3,591.1 642.0 2,890.0 2,279.0 27,426.0 4.6. Household resilience and coping strategies The VNP project will potentially impact food security at sector, district and national levels by mainly reducing crop and livestock production area. The SES assesses levels of food security among the PAHs to establish a means of monitoring the project impact in the long-term. This benchmarking is done through establishment of incidence of 50 food shortages, severity of the food shortages, dietary diversity and households coping mechanisms during times of food scarcity. 4.6.1 Food Security Although PAHs report that there have been repeated food shortages in the target areas over the last 12 months, with 40% reporting having experienced food shortages in that last year, it is evident that most of the shortages were not severe. Households in FGDs describe food shortages as periods when they did not have enough food to meet their households’ needs or when they had to eat less frequently than usual, no more than 2 meals a day. Households that experienced the food shortage did so for an average of 3.8 months in the last 12 months. There is not much difference in food shortage between the households in the pilot project area and resettlement site. Most food shortages affected availability of meals mainly at night as, 24% explain how most frequent food shortages resulted in many of them going to sleep hungry. Only 19.8% accept that frequent food shortages that resulted in lack of food during both day and night, often occurred. 23% accept that all-day shortages occurred as well, but not very often. As shown in table 37 below, of the less than half (40%) of the households in the affected area that experienced food shortages in the last 12 months, only 1.5% of all households are considered to have encountered severe hunger over the last year. 80% of the rest that reported shortages only encountered little to no hunger. In addition to assessing the households’ hunger scale, dietary diversity is analysed by computing the proportions of households that consumed at least 4 out of 11 food groups the day before the survey. As shown below, 50% of the PAHs have sufficient dietary diversity, with no significant differences between the pilot project areas and the RS. Table 37: Household’s experience of food shortage and dietary diversity Experience food shortage % Pilot Project Area Resettlement Site Total Food Shortage in last 12 months 41.1 35.9 40.1 Average number of months of food shortages 3.8 3.7 3.8 Household Hunger categories 22 Little to no hunger (0 - 1) 79.0 87.7 80.4 Moderate hunger (2 - 3) 19.5 10.8 18.1 Severe hunger (4 - 6) 1.5 1.5 1.5 Dietary Diversity Hh Consuming food from ≥ 4 food groups 50.1 51.3 50.4 The figure 6 below summarises the percentages of households reporting experiencing food shortages in the different months of the last one-year (2022). Highest incidence of food shortage occurred between June and September, and late December to mid-February. These two seasons are typically the long and short dry seasons in this area. Most food shortages reported are consistent with the weather patterns in the areas with most shortages occurring during towards the end of the rainy seasons, right after prolonged dry seasons and during the planting seasons. FGD participants attribute the reported food shortages to two main factors. Prolonged dry seasons destroy produce in fields resulting in crop losses and food scarcity. There are also reports of heavy rains that usually happen at the start of planting seasons that are known to destroy planted crops and affect harvest at end of the season. Also, farmers lack skills, knowledge and facilities to reduce post-harvest losses and increase food storage. Therefore, even in times of surplus, many sell at lower prices because of limited storage options, with emphasis on Irish potatoes and other vegetables (perishables) as examples. 22 Household hunger scale = Sum of Frequency of the three food shortages (no food, Night hunger, day and night hunger) per household, where rarely=0, sometimes=1, and often=2 51 80.0% 74.4% 70.0% 60.0% 54.3% 49.2% 50.0% 43.5% 40.0% 33.2% 30.9% 30.0% 23.4% 23.9% 20.0% 18.1% 16.1% 8.5% 10.0% 6.8% 0.0% January February March April May June July August September October November December Figure 6: Months of most food shortages 4.6.2 Household coping strategies Resilience and coping strategies and their extent of occurrence are considered as indication of households’ wellbeing. As shown in the table 38 below, the most used coping strategies during times of food and financial shortages are seeking credit and doing casual labour, both at 37.3% are the commonest coping mechanisms during times of food and financial shortages. Selling livestock (27.4%) and doing casual labour (27.6%) are also popular strategies. FGD participants emphasize how livestock, especially short-legged animals, are a major lifeline for most of them. Many explain how selling livestock, especially for meat, helps save most of them during times of food shortages, mostly in prolonged dry seasons. Casual labour is described as part-time work that includes among others; ploughing other people’s farms, laborer’s in mainly construction projects in peri-urban areas and others. This casual labour usually provides extra income that is then used to meet households’ needs such as repurchase of staple food and school fees. The other common coping strategies include, selling household assets (17%) and seeking help from relatives (19%). Table 38: Household’s food shortage coping strategies. Possible solution for coping the food Pilot Project Area Resettlement Site Total shortages Seek help from relatives 18.6 21.5 19.2 Seek credit/loan 34.3 50.8 37.3 Sell livestock 27.7 26.0 27.4 Sell firewood Timber or charcoal 5.4 5.5 5.4 Seek food aid 5.2 4.4 5.0 Casual labour 38.1 33.7 37.3 Sell assets 15.7 20.4 16.5 Reduce number of meals/ portions 28.5 23.8 27.6 Collect wild foods 0.1 - 0.1 Other 2.7 4.4 3.0 Repurchasing one’s staple food is indication of the extent or effects of food insecurity with regards to availability, quantity and cost of the staple crops grown in the area during times of scarcity. The assessment in table 39 presents the extent to which households repurchased their staple food in the month before the survey as well as provides indication of the quantities purchased (demand) and the average unit prices (expenditure). 88% of the households purchased portions of their staple crops to meet their household food needs over the month prior to this assessment. Irish potatoes are the most purchased staple food, with an average household consumption 52 of 1,416 Kgs per year. This translates to an average household daily consumption rate of 3.6 Kg of potatoes per day. The other commonly purchased staple food crops include maize (792 kgs per Hh per year) beans (732 kgs per Hh per year), sweet potatoes (720 kgs per Hh per year) and vegetables (46 kgs per Hh per year). All these repurchased staples are bought for between 200 – 900 Rwf per Kg, with rice being the most expensive staple (660 Rwf per Kg). Most of these staple foods range between 355 and 1815 Rwf per kg. Table 39: Household’s purchase of portions of their staple food Pilot Project Area Resettlement Site Tot. % Purchase portions of their staple food 87.1 94.5 88.4 Staple crops Ave (Kg) Rwf Ave (Kg) Rwf Ave (Kg) Rwf Maize 66 876 74.6 1,217 67.3 934 Sorghum 36 740 37.7 736 36.9 740 Rice 53 1,396 59.5 1,373 53.9 1,392 Millet 17 985 19.4 939 17.7 977 Wheat 21 930 20.5 924 21.2 929 Beans 61 1,167 61.0 1,149 60.8 1,164 Soya beans 31 999 39.5 959 32.5 991 Sweet potatoes 60 335 76.2 321 62.1 333 Irish potatoes 118 422 119.3 440 117.9 424 Cassava 38 429 37.6 458 37.9 434 Peas 21 1,357 16.0 1,463 19.8 1,376 Groundnuts 12 1,811 12.6 1,809 12.1 1,811 Bananas 51 355 50.3 354 51.2 355 Vegetables 55 383 52.9 514 53.6 403 Coffee 16 1,205 5.4 1,400 14.3 1,242 Other 21 1,815 25.6 1,987 22.0 1,837 4.7. Access to social services Availability and access to social and economic infrastructure and services are anticipated to be affected both directly and indirectly by design and implementation of the VNP project. Hence the SES identifies the existing social and economic infrastructure available in the affected areas and benchmarks the affected household’s use and access to these services and infrastructure for future monitoring purposes. 4.7.1 Access to markets There is generally limited commercial markets infrastructure with most of the PAHs traveling to the Kinigi trading centre, or Musanze town to sell their produce. Selling points are within 1 – 6 km of most of the farmers. Out of all the households surveyed 71% confirm producing with selling of produce as their main purpose, indicating low prevalence of subsistence agriculture. Subsequently, only 13% confirm selling their produce in the existing nearby markets, with some travelling to mostly Musanze town to sell their produce. Overall, majority of households that produce for sell, rely on middlemen who purchase their produce from their farms (51%). Participants in FGDs elaborate how this reliance on middlemen for selling of agricultural produce continues to negatively affect the profitability of their agriculture, with most reference made to the selling of Irish potatoes. Table 40: Household’s access to markets Access to markets Pilot Project Area Resettlement Site Tot. % Hh selling farm produce 69.5 78.5 71.2 53 Selling Points Village market 12.2 14.9 12.7 Traders (Middlemen) 50.1 55.8 51.1 On the roadside 5.1 2.8 4.6 Other places 2.2 5.0 2.7 Do not sell produce 30.5 21.5 28.8 Distance to selling Points (Km) Maximum 6 6 6 Minimum 1 1 1 Average 1.46 1.51 1.48 4.7.2 Access to education As presented in previous sections, primary school enrolment in the area is high with 100% of children between 6 and 12 years reported to be enrolled in school. This is consistent with the findings in table 41 below where households using primary school is the highest at 58% of the PAH. Primary school enrolment is closely followed by secondary level education (27%) but registration of household members in pre-primary (13%) and tertiary education (4%) are noticeably low in the affected areas. The low enrolment of children in pre-primary is attributed mainly to the limited availability and accessibility of the necessary Early Childhood Development (ECD) services in the area, while that at tertiary level is attributed to mainly the increasing cost of education as one graduates from primary to secondary levels, which is unaffordable for most households. Table 41: Average distance to education facilities Hhs have children attend Pilot Project Resettlement Tot. Average Distance School/Education Area Site % (Km) Pre-School 13.1 14.9 13.4 1.1 Primary 58.3 57.5 58.2 1.3 Secondary/TVT 24.8 35.4 26.7 7.2 Tertiary 3.5 8.3 4.3 60.3 4.7.3 Access to health services The population in the affected areas have fair access to health services through mainly one health centre and health posts. 91% of the PAHs identify the Kinigi health centre as the most frequented health facility in the area. The health posts are used by no more than 2% but are the closest and most accessible to many of them. Despite health posts being most accessible, majority of households describe them as not having adequate health support services hence mostly use the area health centre. The closest General Hospital to the project area is the Musanze Hospital, which 6% mention having used only after referral from the area health centre. Very few (1%) households confirm using private clinics and none was identified within the project area during this assessment. Table 42: Average distance to health facilities Pilot Project Resettlement Health facility used Tot. % Average Distance (Km) Area Site General Hospital 6.5 5.0 6.3 2.0 Public Health Centre 90.8 91.2 90.8 1.0 Health Post 1.7 1.1 1.6 1.0 Private Clinic 0.5 - 0.4 1.0 Traditional Healer 0.5 2.8 0.9 N/A 54 4.7.4 Access to water services This section assesses access and availability of water for household use (washing and drinking). Water for agricultural purposes is addressed in earlier sections of this report. As shown in table 43 below, 56% of the households rely mostly on water accessed from existing communal standpipes in the project area and private water suppliers (32%). There is generally ready access to safe water for at least 88% of the PAHs that live within 5Km of the water source. Table 43: Households main sources of water for household use Water Source Pilot Project Area Resettlement Site Tot. % Borehole 2.0 0.6 1.7 Private tap at house 6.5 7.2 6.7 Rain collected at homestead 4.2 1.7 3.7 Communal standpipe 54.6 62.4 56.0 Well /spring 0.1 0.1 0.2 River/Stream 0.1 - 0.1 Water sold by other people 32.3 27.6 31.5 Other 0.1 - 0.1 Distance to water source <1Km 66.3 70.2 67.0 1-5Km 31.8 28.7 31.3 5-10Km 1.0 0.6 0.9 The overall perceptions regarding access, affordability and quality of social services and infrastructure is that over the last three years, availability has increased (87%) and quality has also increased (76%), and the cost of accessing and using these services has decreased (50%). These improvements are mostly attributed to the revenue sharing model with the tourism and conservation programmes run by the GoR that contribute to social and economic development in the communities surrounding VNP. Table 44: Change in access to social services. Access Increased Decreased Stay the same Availability 87.3 6.4 6.3 Cost 28.2 50.3 21.5 Quality 75.6 13.1 11.3 4.8. Gender relations appraisal Ensuring implementation of gender responsive project practices is a key element in ensuring equity in positive project impacts. Therefore, understanding the gender relations and dynamics in the project affected areas is essential not only for measuring changes in attitudes and norms over the life of the project but also to keep the project aware and enable it to address critical gaps in gender equality and women’s empowerment, wherever applicable to the project context. In this regard, the SES conducted a rapid appraisal of gender relations and perception at household and community levels. In particular, the project has also developed a Gender and Anti-Gender Based Violence (GBV) Action Plan (GAP) that will guide for gender inclusion and fight against GBV. 4.8.1 Household roles and participation As shown in figure 7 below, in almost all aspects of decision-making about key household affairs such as use of income, 62% of the respondents confirm that men and women participate equally. This shared responsibility also applies to attendance of village activities with 56% confirming that men and women participate equally. Notably, a considerable percentage of households (25%) mention how mostly or only women in most cases decide how 55 household income is used compared to 5.5% only men taking such decisions. Similarly, 24% of households also mention how it’s mostly or only the women of the home who represent the household in village activities compared to 9.9% only men attending village meetings or activities. Overall indicating a positive trend in sharing household financial management responsibilities and representation, with a slight tendency of more female participation and/or representation. Household member attends village 55.7 meeting/activities Household member deciding with family 61.7 income - 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Figure 7: Households’ wellbeing decision-making As shown in figure 8 below, 47% of households report equal participation of men and women in agriculture trainings. However, 48% mention equal participation in farming activities with majority confirming mainly women spend most time in farming activities (26%). Overall, majority of respondents agree that women and men play equal roles in decision-making about agricultural activities such as where to plant cash (58%) and staple crops (57%). Household member decision on plant cash 58.1 crops Household member decision on plant staples 57.3 Household member spend most time in 48.4 agricultural activities Household member participate in agricultural 46.9 training - 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Figure 8: Households’ participation and decision-making in agricultural activities Unlike the above areas where men and women appear to share roles equally, for matters concerning unpaid care work, majority of the respondents accept that mostly or only women are usually responsible for such work. 79% and 59% of respondents consider food preparation for the households and childcare as work for women only, respectively. As shown in figure 9 below, only 29% perceive childcare and 16% perceive preparation of household meals as an equally shares responsibility between men and women in a household. Household member takes care of the children 29.5 Household member mostly prepares food 15.6 - 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Figure 9: Households’ roles in homestead chores 56 As presented in figure 10 below, overall, between 95.7% and 95.8% of respondents accept that women’s roles in decision-making at both household and community level increased respectively over the last four years. Consultations with local leaders attribute this increasing role of women to mainly legal reforms and affirmative action by the GoR, that have contributed to gender equality and women’s empowerment. There are repeated examples of the new land laws that require equal sharing of land ownership by both spouses and the revised succession law that allows for inheritance of land and other property by female heirs, which were previously not the case. Change in womens role in community 95.7 decision making Change in womens role in household 95.8 decision making 80.0 100.0 Figure 10: Perceptions of change of women’s roles in society 4.8.2 Community leadership and participation Regarding gender roles in community leadership, majority of the respondents accept that men and women lead equally at community level. 68% confirm that men and women equally lead village meetings, 77% accept that they equally represent their villages at national level and 68% acknowledge that both manage community finances equally. Even though majority of the respondents confirm that men and women equally participate and speak in village meetings, considerable proportions of respondents confirm that mostly or only men speak (11%) but 11% say more women attend these meetings. Leads most village meetings 68.1 Particpates in most village meetings 78.6 Speaks in most village meetings 77.3 Represents village at national level 76.8 Controls village funds / finances 67.9 - 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Figure 11: Gender roles in community leadership 4.9. Resettlement and expropriation preferences Establishment of the VNP will involve expropriation of more than 1,000 landowners spread over the designated pilot project expansion areas. The expropriation modalities at the time of this SES had not been finalised, hence this study analysed the landowners preferred expropriation arrangements that they suggest would least negatively affect their social and economic livelihoods. 4.9.1 Relocation and compensation preferences Although expropriation is considered as the removal of a person/s from his/her property in public interest after fair compensation, the general perception that most landowners are unwillingly removed from their land does not hold 57 in this case. All FGD participants expressed willingness to be relocated. Many explained how in the first place many of them had moved to this area in search for work in cultivating pyrethrum a long time ago and over the years cultivating on this land, they eventually were given free land by the GoR. Therefore, they have always known a day would come when they have to move. What remains under contestation is the form of compensation before relocation. Household survey respondents were asked, as part of the survey questionnaire, which option of compensation they preferred, between cash compensation or replacement of land/house (in-kind) for both affected land and houses. In the table below response to these questions are presented. Table 45: Preferred compensation options Housing compensations options Pilot Project Area Resettlement Site Tot. % Cash compensation 17.8 2.8 15.0 Replacement housing 48.0 2.8 39.7 Other 34.3 94.5 45.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Land compensations options Cash compensation 66.0 80.7 68.5 Replacement land 26.0 16.6 24.4 Other 8.0 2.8 7.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 The House and landowners surveyed were asked to further elaborate what special conditions and or forms of compensation they would opt for that would least negatively affect their social and economic wellbeing. As shown in table 45 above, 39% of the landowners with houses in the affected area would prefer compensation with replacement houses which they can relocate into. FGD participants explain how this is the most preferred option as they would not have to worry about the affordability of acquiring new land or construction costs. A small proportion of 15% mention the preference for cash in compensation for the replacement houses. It is observed that the PAHs that tend to opt for cash compensation have more than one house, with other houses located outside the affected area. In addition, 45% choose the “other” option which all describe the option of providing them with both cash and replacement housing. The rationale most of them use is that housing would only meet their accommodation needs but would not replace their sources of income, therefore would need cash compensations equivalent to the lost houses to be used as startup capital that can be used to start new businesses or purchase replacement land to continue their crop production activities. For lost land, 69% of respondent prefer to receive cash compensations equivalent to the land lost. A smaller proportion of 24% opt for replacement land preferably within Kinigi sector. They justify the replacement land option by explaining that because of the large number of landowners that will be displaced, the cost of land in the area will rise because of the increased demand. Because of this, it is highly likely that the cash compensation will not be able to afford replacement land. 7.1% opt for the “other” option which a combination of replacement land and cash compensation. This is rationalized by the view that they will need capital to start farming on that land, and if they are offered only land replacement, they will have to get into credit facilities that many are not eager to pursue. Table 46: Priority use of cash compensation Housing compensations options Pilot Project Area Resettlement Site Tot. % Buy Farmland 85.6 93.4 87.0 Buy a house 9.5 2.8 8.4 Pay household bills (fees) 0.2 0.6 0.3 58 Invest in a business 2.2 1.7 2.1 Don't Know 2.1 0.0 1.6 Other 0.4 1.7 0.6 87% of the PAHs that mention the preference for cash compensation explain how they will use the money to purchase replacement land. This opinion is held mostly by the PAH from the RS that stand to lose only land. Those from the pilot area also consider purchasing additional housing would be a viable option, mostly to supplement their incomes once there are in the RS and have less agriculture activity on which to depend. It is important to note that according to the National expropriation law no. 32/2015, article 35, it is stated that fair compensation can be paid in monetary form in the Rwandan currency or in any other form mutually agreed upon by the expropriator and the person to be expropriated. In order for the expropriation to be authorized, the fair compensation must be paid to the expropriated person before he/she relocates. Article 36 goes on to state that the approved fair compensation will be paid within a period not exceeding one hundred and twenty (120) days from the day of its approval by the District or City of Kigali Council or the relevant Ministry. If fair compensation is not paid within the period, expropriation will become null and void unless otherwise agreed upon between the expropriator and the person to be expropriated. Any expropriator that retracts his/her project for expropriation in the public interest after the valuation of the property or fails to pay fair compensation within the period provided, under Article 36 of this Law, will be bound to pay compensation of five per cent (5%) of the agreed fair compensation. 4.9.2 Livelihood restoration preferences Using a list of 12 economic activities derived from the 2022 livelihood’s implementation action plan for the green village that had been prepared by a joint venture of Vanguard Economic- ERTEM Ltd and Mass Design, groups of as many as 63 individuals during the FGDs were asked to rank the 12 activities in a 4-point Linkert scale. 4 was for very relevant and 1 was of very irrelevant. Following the independent rating all 12 activities were rated individually as shown in the table below. As shown, the three most prefer economic activities are developing horticulture green houses, developing bamboo production and tree nurseries, and establishing fruit orchards. Table 47: Livelihoods restoration options for replacement economic activity. Livelihood restoration preferences Respondents Score (4) 1 Developing Horticulture Value Chain 63 3.6 2 Developing Bamboo production and Tree Nurseries 60 3.1 3 Developing Community Fruit Orchards 63 2.9 4 Promoting Community Handcraft workshops 61 2.7 5 Developing Tailoring Businesses 64 2.6 6 Promoting Chicken Farming (eggs, meat, fertiliser) 62 2.6 7 Developing Agro-logistics services (Transportation) 62 2.4 8 Developing Construction Skills (Masonry & others) 63 2.3 9 Developing Digital trade and Ecommerce 59 2.1 10 Developing Cultural Arts Village 59 1.7 11 Promoting Pig Farming (eggs, meat, fertiliser) 59 1.4 12 Promoting Rabbit production 64 1.3 59 5. POLICY, LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK This chapter describes relevant policies, legal instruments and institutional arrangements applicable to land property and compensation entitlements in Rwanda. Applied National laws, regulations, and local rules governing the use of land and other assets in Rwanda as well as World Bank Environmental and Social Standard (ESSs) in the RAP and the assessment of how these standards and policies apply to the project can be cross referenced in the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) of the entire VCRP. 5.1 National Legal and policy frameworks To avoid duplication in presenting the project relevant national legal and policy frameworks and World Bank ESS, this RAP proposes cross-referencing these frameworks as presented in the RPF. 5.1.1 Relevant National Laws and policies A significant number of legal instruments/laws have been enacted to ensure effective resettlement, land acquisition, and compensation in the context of infrastructure projects. The following laws can be cross-referenced to the RPF in relevance and compliance to the RAP of this project: ▪ The Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda, 4th August 2023. ▪ Law N° 27/2021 of 10/06/2021 Law governing land in Rwanda. ▪ Expropriation law N° 32/2015 of 11/06/2015. ▪ Law No.17/2010 of 12/05/2010 Establishing and Organizing the Real Property Valuation Profession in Rwanda: Furthermore, relevant policies that can be cross referenced from the RPF relevant to the RAP of the project include: ▪ Vision 2050. ▪ National Gender policy, 2021. ▪ National Social protection Policy, 2020. ▪ National Land Policy, 2019. ▪ National Strategy for Transformation, 2017-2024. ▪ National Occupational Safety and Health Strategy, 2019. ▪ National Health Policy, 2016. 60 5.2 World Bank Environmental and Social Standards (ESS) In addition to the above cross-referenced national legal and policies application the RPF, World Bank Environmental and social Standards (ESSs) will be also applied. WB was adopted new environmental and social framework with 10 Environmental and social standards replaced existing WB/OP. The ten Environmental and Social Standards establish the standards that the borrower and the project will meet through the project life cycle. Among of these ESS1-10 of World Bank ESSs, the works meant to the project will require to meet with five Environmental and Social Standards: ESS1: Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and Impacts; ESS2: Labour and Working Conditions; ESS4: Community Health and Safety; ESS5: Land Acquisition, Restrictions on Land Use and Involuntary Resettlement; and ESS10: Stakeholder Engagement and Information Disclosure. Below are the details of ESSs applicable to RAP: 5.2.1 Land Acquisition, Restrictions on Land Use and Involuntary Resettlement (ESS5) ESS5 has the following objectives: ▪ To avoid involuntary resettlement or, when unavoidable, minimize involuntary resettlement by exploring project design alternatives; ▪ To avoid forced eviction; ▪ To mitigate unavoidable adverse social and economic impacts from land acquisition or restrictions on land use by (a) providing timely compensation for loss of assets at replacement cost, and (b) assisting displaced persons in their efforts to improve, or at least restore, their livelihoods and living standards, in real terms, to pre-displacement levels or to levels prevailing prior to the beginning of project implementation, whichever is higher. ▪ To improve living conditions of poor or vulnerable persons who are physically displaced, through provision of adequate housing, access to services and facilities, and security of tenure. ▪ To conceive and execute resettlement activities as sustainable development programs, providing sufficient investment resources to enable displaced persons to benefit directly from the project, as the nature of the project may warrant. ▪ To ensure that resettlement activities are planned and implemented with appropriate disclosure of information, meaningful consultation, and the informed participation of those affected. According to ESS5 during the implementation of the project the following keys are required: a) Eligibility classification: Affected persons may be classified as persons: (a) Who have formal legal rights to land or assets; (b) Who do not have formal legal rights to land or assets but have a claim to land or assets that is recognized or recognizable under national law; or (c) Who have no recognizable legal right or claim to the land or assets they occupy or use. b) Project design: The Borrower will demonstrate that involuntary land acquisition or restrictions on land use are limited to direct project requirements for clearly specified project purposes within a clearly specified period of time. The Borrower will consider feasible alternative project designs to avoid or minimize land acquisition or restrictions on land use, especially where this would result in physical or economic displacement, while balancing environmental, social, and financial costs and benefits, and paying particular attention to gender impacts and impacts on the poor and vulnerable. c) Compensation and benefits for affected persons: When land acquisition or restrictions on land use (whether permanent or temporary) cannot be avoided, the borrower will offer affected persons Draft report: Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for Volcanoes National Park (VNP) pilot expansion project. 61 compensation at replacement cost, and other assistance as may be necessary to help them improve or at least restore their standards of living or livelihoods. d) Community engagement: The borrower will engage with affected communities, including host communities, through the process of stakeholder engagement described in ESS10. e) Grievance mechanism: The Borrower will ensure that a grievance mechanism for the project is in place, in accordance with ESS10 as early as possible in project development to address specific concerns about compensation, relocation or livelihood restoration measures raised by displaced persons (or others) in a timely fashion. Where possible, such grievance mechanisms will utilize existing formal or informal grievance mechanisms suitable for project purposes, supplemented as needed with project- specific arrangements designed to resolve disputes in an impartial manner. f) Planning and implementation: Where land acquisition or restrictions on land use are unavoidable, the Borrower will, as part of the environmental and social assessment, conduct a census to identify the persons who will be affected by the project, to establish an inventory of land and assets to be affected, to determine who will be eligible for compensation and assistance, and to discourage ineligible persons, such as opportunistic settlers, from claiming benefits. g) Physical displacement: In the case of physical displacement, the Borrower will develop a plan that covers, at a minimum, the applicable requirements of this ESS regardless of the number of people affected. h) Economic displacement: In the case of projects affecting livelihoods or income generation, the Borrower’s plan will include measures to allow affected persons to improve, or at least restore, their incomes or livelihoods. The plan will establish the entitlements of affected persons and/or communities, paying particular attention to gender aspects and the needs of vulnerable segments of communities, and will ensure that these are provided in a transparent, consistent, and equitable manner. 5.3 Gap analysis of National and WB ESS and recommended gap closure In a number of cases, as shown in table below, the World Bank requirements are more comprehensive and explicitly favourable to PAPs than the provisions of the Rwandan Law. All in all, in the event of divergence between the two, the most stringent will take precedence. 62 Table 48: Comparison of Rwandan and World Bank standards on Resettlement and compensation S/N Category of Rwandan law WB ESS5 Recommendations to fill the PAPs/types of gaps lost assets 1 Landowners According to the National Land Policy, all Identification of PAPs is done through census Landowners will be (loss of land) Rwandese enjoy the same rights of access to and socio economic surveys of the affected compensated as per the land, implying no discrimination Against women. population, PAPs with title as well as PAPs principles of ESS5 except for All land should be registered for security. The who do not have a formal title but have instances where land is scarce Title is tradable, but not if it fragments plots below customary and traditional right recognized and therefore land for land is 1 hectare. Compensation for non-transferable under Rwandan law or who have a no longer possible, hence property is based upon market value. recognized claim to the land at time the leading to cash compensation Landowners, under Rwandese Law, receive census begins – are entitled to compensation for land lost. cash compensation based upon market value. for land that they lose (besides other assistance) Land-for-land exchange is the preferred option; compensation is to be based on replacement cost 2 Land Squatters Land squatters must be compensated for Consider all forms of Tenancy Rwandan legislations entitle only those who are (i.e. those who houses and other structures whatever the based on formal or informal “landholders” with legal possession of property have no legal recognition of their occupancy. Entitled rights/ agreements between land tenants, under Rwandan law, are entitled to recognizable to compensation for loss of crops, and landowner and tenants as well compensation based upon the amount of rights legal right of assistance for relocation, as the case may be, as those not legally they hold upon land under relevant laws. The claim to the land and assistance for restoration of livelihoods. recognized as long as they Organic Land Law recognizes existing rights, that they are exist, will be compensated as whether written or unwritten, under both civil law occupying. per the principles of ESS5. and customary practices through new national land tenure arrangements. Efforts are being made under the Law (Article 7) to formalize land ownership, especially those acquired through customary means. For instance, rural populations with customary/indigenous land rights are being encouraged to register their land through decentralized land institutions like the District Land Bureau, Sector Land Committees and Cell Land Committees (Ministerial Order N° Draft report: Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for Volcanoes National Park (VNP) pilot expansion project. 63 S/N Category of Rwandan law WB ESS5 Recommendations to fill the PAPs/types of gaps lost assets 001/2006 of 26/09/2006 determining the structure of Land Registers, the responsibilities and the functioning of the District Land Bureau). (Ministerial Order N° 001/2006 of 26/09/2006 determining the structure of Land Registers, the responsibilities and the functioning of the District Land Bureau). 3 Land Users/ Land users, in some cases, have some form of No specific provisions to land compensation. Will be compensated for their Land secured tenure extended to them under new Entitled to compensation for crops, entitled to immovable properties and Sharecroppers / Laws. In other cases, land users are not entitled relocation assistance as the case may be and activities present on the Tenants (These to Compensation for land, entitled to income must be restored to at least pre- expropriated land or property. include family compensation for crops and any other economic project levels. members, and/or assets. Land users are entitled to compensation tenants or any for crops and any other economic assets. other persons using the land to grow crops 4 Owners of non- Owners of “non-permanent” buildings are entitled Families should be Consulted Recommends in-kind compensation or cash Permanent on and offered options to compensation at full replacement cost to cash compensation based on market value or buildings choose from between in-kind including labor. Recommends resettlement entitled to new housing on authorized land under assistance compensation or cash government (state or local) housing programs. compensation at full Replacement cost including labour. 5 Owners of Owners of permanent buildings are entitled to Entitled to in-kind compensation or cash Owners of permanent permanent cash compensation based on market value. compensation at full replacement cost buildings will be compensated buildings including labour and relocation expenses, as per principles of ESS5. prior to displacement. 64 S/N Category of Rwandan law WB ESS5 Recommendations to fill the PAPs/types of gaps lost assets 6 Perennial and Perennial crops are compensated with cash Market value for lost crops. Income Follow the ESS5 guidelines annual Crops based upon rate calculated as an average net restoration assistance (such as land and principles. agricultural income. preparation, credit facilities, training etc). Land for land compensation allows people to re-establish annual crops immediately. 7 Seasonal crops There are no explicit provisions on livelihood Livelihoods and living standards are to be Follow the ESS5 restoration restored in real terms to pre-displacement levels or better offer support after displacement, for a transition period, based on a reasonable estimate of the time likely to be needed to restore their livelihood and standards of living (for ex. land preparation, jobs, credits facilities); 8 Timing of Resettlement must take place only when PAPs Implement all relevant resettlement plans Follow the ESS5 guidelines compensation have been fully and fairly compensated, and before site handover and provide and principles. payments Compensation has to be completed within 120 resettlement entitlements before days after the valuation report is submitted and displacement or restriction of access. For decision taken by the expropriator. projects involving restrictions of access, impose the restrictions in accordance with the timetable in the plan of actions. 9 Consultation and The Expropriation Law governs the specifics of Consult project-affected persons, host Follow the ESS5 Guidelines Disclosure land acquisition. The law provides for public communities and local NGOs, as appropriate. and principles. dissemination on the importance of the project to Provide them opportunities to participate in be established and the need for expropriation. In the planning, implementation, and monitoring addition to dissemination, the Expropriation Law of the resettlement program, especially in the requires prior consultative meetings and process of developing and implementing the examination of the project proposal involving procedures for determining eligibility for expropriation, with a view to avoid eventual compensation benefits and development prejudice on the person or entity subject to assistance (as documented in a resettlement expropriation. Normally, a consultative meeting is 65 S/N Category of Rwandan law WB ESS5 Recommendations to fill the PAPs/types of gaps lost assets held within 30 days after receipt of the application plan), and for establishing appropriate and for expropriation. Based on these consultations, accessible grievance mechanisms. the relevant Land Commission or Committee (from the Cell level to the National level) takes a decision to approve the project within a period of 15 days. 10 Relocation The person to be expropriated is defined to mean Avoid or minimize involuntary resettlement Resettlement facilitation and assistance and any person or legal entity who is to have his or and, where this is not feasible, assist support to follow WB ESS5 resettlement her private property transferred due to public displaced persons in improving or at least requirements. assistance interest, in which case they shall be legally restoring their livelihoods and standards of entitled to payment of compensation. living in real terms relative to pre- displacement levels or to levels prevailing prior to the beginning of project implementation, whichever is higher. Moving allowances 11 Vulnerable The Rwandan expropriation law has no special ESS5 paragraph 26 demands that during the Resettlement facilitation and groups provisions for vulnerable groups. preparation of the resettlement action plan support to follow WB ESS5 Particular attention be paid to gender aspects requirements. and the needs of the poor and the vulnerable and paragraph 27 demands that provide relocation assistance be suited to the needs of each group of displaced persons. 12 Grievance The Expropriation Law Article 233&34 stipulate ESS5 paragraph 19: The Borrower will ensure Requirements of ESS5 will be mechanism and the process and procedures for contesting the that a grievance mechanism for the project is followed for the establishment dispute valuation by individuals dissatisfied with the value in place, in accordance with ESS10 as early of a GRC. In case of resolution of their Compensation. The Law stipulates that as possible in project development to address escalation of disagreement on the dissatisfied person has a period of 30 days specific concerns about compensation, compensation cost the after the project approval decision has been Relocation or livelihood restoration measures Rwandan expropriation law taken to Appeal (Article 19). raised by displaced persons (or others) in a will be applied to settle the timely fashion. Where possible, such grievance. 66 S/N Category of Rwandan law WB ESS5 Recommendations to fill the PAPs/types of gaps lost assets grievance mechanisms will utilize existing formal or informal grievance mechanisms suitable for project purposes, supplemented as needed with project specific arrangements designed to resolve disputes in an impartial manner. 13 Displacement The notification period under national legislation Requires that displacement must not occur Rwandan law and WB requires that property must be handed over 120 until all necessary measures for resettlement operational policies require days after financial compensation has been paid are in place. that project affected persons must be compensated and facilitated to resettle before displacement 14 The cut-off date Article 2 of the Rwandan expropriation law ESS 5 In conjunction with the census, the Requirements of ESS5 will be demands the expropriating entity to inform the Borrower will establish a cut-off date for followed. persons to be expropriated in the public interest eligibility. Information regarding the cut-off of the expected start date of measurement of date will be well documented and will be land and inventory of property incorporated disseminated throughout the project area at thereon. Such a communication shall be made regular intervals in written and (as through an announcement posted on the office of appropriate) non-written forms and in relevant the Cell of the place designated for the local languages. This will include posted implementation of the project. The warnings that persons settling in the project communication shall also be made through at area after the cut-off date may be subject to least one radio station with a wide audience in removal. Rwanda and at least one of Rwanda-based newspapers with a wide readership for the relevant parties to be informed thereof. If necessary, use shall be made of any other means of communication. Article 17 of the expropriation law states that after the publication of the decision on expropriation in the public 67 S/N Category of Rwandan law WB ESS5 Recommendations to fill the PAPs/types of gaps lost assets interest and the list of holders of rights registered on land titles and property incorporated on land, the land owner shall not develop any other long- term activities on the land. Otherwise, such activities shall not be compensable during expropriation 68 5.4 Eligibility criteria for resettlement The article 3 of the Law N° 32/2015 of 11/06/2015 relating to Expropriation in the Public interest, stipulates that he or she should receive just compensation for it. This entitlement is based on the figure arrived at by the independent valuer. Through mutual arrangement, both parties can determine the mode of payment. Land acquisition and compensation will be undertaken according to national legislation with particular reference to the Law on Expropriation for Reasons of Public Use. The eligibility for classification as affected are based on the following three criteria: a) Who have formal legal rights to land or assets; b) Who do not have formal legal rights to land or assets, but have a claim to land or assets that is recognized or recognizable under national law (including if they hold claims for adverse possession and or if they have customary or traditional tenure arrangements); or c) Who have no recognizable legal right or claim to the land or assets they occupy or use. PAPs, from poor socio-economic households23, shall be compensated for the land they lose and everything they have on it, and benefit from any other assistance under the World Bank ESS5 to enable them to recover and improve their previous livelihoods. PAPs under the latter category receive resettlement and livelihood assistance and compensation for assets they own, in lieu of compensation for the land they occupy, in order to achieve the objectives of the standard, provided that they have occupied the land in the project area before the cut-off Date. 5.4.1 Cut-off Date The establishment of a cut-off date is required to prevent opportunistic invasions/rush migration into the chosen land areas. Normally, this cut-off date is the date the census begins. During public consultations with PAPs, it was communicated that the cut-off date is 18th February 2023, which coincides with the first day when the census begun i.e. socio-economic survey and valuation of affected assets. 23 Categorised as: Families who do not own a house or cannot pay a rent, have a poor diet and can hardly afford basic household tools and clothes or Categorised as: Having a dwelling of their own or are able to rent one, mostly get food and wages from working for others but rarely get full time jobs. Draft report: Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for Volcanoes National Park (VNP) pilot expansion project. 69 6. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION This section provides a summary of anticipated benefits and issues raised during the stakeholder consultation of the RAP and a stakeholder engagement plan that could be applied during project implementation. Public participation and community consultation have been taken up as an integral part of social assessment process of the project. Consultation was used as a way to inform stakeholders and collect their views and concerns about the proposed action both before and after the development decisions were made. This participatory process enables the participation in the decision-making process. Initial Public consultation has been carried out in the project areas with the objectives of informing the PAPs about the project, its components, potential positive and adverse impacts, it also involved collecting their views and concerns about the project and possible strategies to minimize probable adverse impacts. 6.1 Stakeholders identification The consultant begun by identifying the key stakeholders who would be consulted depending on whether they could be affected by or would influence project activities. This list of key stakeholders was presented at the RAP inception report stage and agreed upon during its validation. Involving stakeholders through participatory direct or indirect consultations is central to preparation of the RAP. The stakeholders were those who have an interest in the project (both positive and negative), and who will be involved in the further consultative process. The main groups of stakeholders met at local level include the following: ▪ Project Affected Persons (PAPs). ▪ Local community authorities at village, cell, sector and District level. ▪ Conservation NGOs (both local and international) and Civil society organisations; and ▪ Project development partners. e.g. AWF, RDB, MoE, REMA. ▪ Key stakeholders, such as; Rwanda Housing Authority (RHA), Water and Sanitation Corporation (WASAC), Rwanda Electricity Group (REG), Rwanda Cooperation Agency (RCA), Rwanda Transport Development Agency (RTDA). 6.2 Stakeholders consultation and public participation methods During the Stakeholder’s engagement and public consultations, the study applied different participatory methods, including: (1) Public consultation meetings with PAPs, (2) Focus Group Discussion (FGD), and (2) Interviews with Key Informants (KIIs). 6.2.1 Public Consultation meetings Public consultation meetings with PAPs which were held from the 7th to the 9th September 2022 and 2nd November 2022, as shown in the schedule below. With regard to gender representation in consultation, female participants represent 47.6% while male represent 52.6% of participants as represented in the table below. Lists of participants in public consultation meeting at local Draft report: Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for Volcanoes National Park (VNP) pilot expansion project. 70 level are appended to this report as annex II. The table below shows the schedule by which the public consultation was conducted and participants disaggregated by gender. Table 49: Schedule for Public consultation meetings S/N Date Meetings avenue Participants from: Meeting # of Participants Time M F 1 7th September, La Palme, Musanze Local authorities from 8 9am-12:35 30 2 2022 villages, 2 cells of Kaguhu pm and Nyabigoma, Kinigi sector leader, Vice Mayor Musanze District, AWF representative, RDB park wardens. 2 7th September, Nyarusizi village centre Local communities of 2:30- 25 49 2022 Myase and Nyarusizi 4:45pm villages from Kaguhu cell. Vulnerable group of the 5- 6pm 6 9 local communities met 3 8th September, Nyakigina village open Local communities of 8:40- 22 43 2022 grounds Nyakigina and Gahura 10:45am villages from Nyabigoma cell. Vulnerable group of the 11am-1pm 8 7 local communities met 4 8th September, Nyabigoma Cell Office Local communities of 2:30-4:45 28 41 2022 grounds Karyusenge and Cyabirego pm villages from Nyabigoma cell. Vulnerable group of the 5-6pm 8 8 local communities met 5 9th September, La Palme, Musanze Conservation NGOs and 9:05am – 22 2 2022 project relevant local NGOs 1:20pm of VNP 6 9th September, La Palme, Musanze Sector land managers 2:15-3:30pm 16 5 2022 7 2nd November, Fatima, Musanze Elected representatives of 10am- 4pm 29 13 2022 the villages, local authorities from villages, cells and sector, Vice Mayor in charge of the economic affairs of Musanze District, AWF Project manager, representatives of independent lawyers from MAJ, the District good governance official Total 327 172 155 % by gender 100 52.6 47.6 6.2.2 Focus Group Discussion (FGDs) 71 FGDs were conducted with selected groups of individuals at village level. Each FGD was conducted with between 16 and 7 individuals. The FGD participants were invited to the cell offices by the villages’ leaders or leaders of cooperative and were on arrival divided into groups based mainly on their primary activities or by location. In total 9 FGDs were conducted with 64 participants (31 males, 33Females) FGDs commenced with a general description of the VNP Pilot project to the participant s, the project’s objectives, scope, and the purpose of the SES. Thereafter, discussions focused on participants describing their communities, with a focus mainly on economic activities, land ownership characteristics and general livelihood status. Using a Likert scale, individuals rated 6 different aspects of their communities including: economic livelihoods, agricultural production, land and water resources, access to social services and infrastructure, residential stability, and community relations. Based on the different perceptions, participants provided descriptions of their communities and concluded with suggestions on how the expropriation process and VNP expansion project could mitigate most of the potential negative impacts identified. FGDs participant were also tasked to rate a list of 12 potential income generating activities for inclusion in the livelihoods restoration plan. The findings from these FGDs are summarised in table 52 hereafter and partly in table 47 presented earlier. Figure 12: Focus group discussion with project affected persons in Nyarusizi cell Table 50: Participants in focus group discussions Category Location Nature of Activities Male Female Total ABISHYIZEHAMWE Nyarusizi Handcraft 3 10 13 Elected representatives of PAHs Nyarusizi Representation of PAHs interests 5 4 9 Vulnerable group of the local Nyarusizi Vulnerable groups 6 9 15 communities met KAIKI cooperative Nyakigina Store House &Irish potatoes 1 3 4 72 ABABUNGABUNGA Nyakigina Community & Cultural Tourism 2 2 4 INGAGI&IBYIWACU cooperative Vulnerable group of the local Nyakigina Vulnerable groups 8 7 15 communities met Vulnerable group of the local 8 8 Nyabigoma Vulnerable groups 16 communities met TUZAMURANE Nyakigina Store house for Irish potatoes 2 1 3 PAHs from relocation side Rurembo Farmers 6 4 16 Kinigi model village residents Kampanga Farmers 3 3 6 ABAKUNDINZUKI Cooperative Nyakigina Beekeeping (beehives) 4 4 8 ABASERUKANASUKA Nyakigina Pyrethrum Plantation 5 2 7 Total 31 33 64 6.2.3 Key Informants Interviews (KIIs) Interviews with Key Informants (KIIs) which were held continually through the RAP report preparation. Relevant stakeholders consulted were informed about the proposed project and by using guiding questionnaires (interview guide), the consultant was able to guide the discussions and obtain relevant information on the likely impacts of the project activities (i.e. positive and negative impacts). Stakeholders were asked to raise their concerns about the proposed project. An issue raised by one individual or a group of people was cross-checked by discussing it over with other individuals or groups amongst the different kind of stakeholders. Table 51 Key Informant Interviewed S/No Stakeholder consulted 1. Vice Mayor Musanze Economic Development 2. Executive secretary Kinigi sector 3. Executive secretary Nyabigoma cell 4. Executive secretary Kaguhu cell 5. Socio-economic development officer Nyabigoma cell 6. Socio-economic development officer Kaguhu cell 7. Socio-economic development officer Kampanga cell 8. Village leaders (umukuru w’umudugudu) for 8 villages 9. Rwanda Development Board (RDB) representatives 10. African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) Country representatives 11. Ministry of Environment (MoE) representatives 12. Rwanda Environment Management Authority (REMA) representatives 13. Conservation NGOs in Musanze District 14. Local NGOs in Musanze in Musanze District 15. COPORWA- Local NGO for the Community of Potters of Rwanda 6.2.4 Meeting procedure All meetings begun with the Consultant introducing his team to the attendees, where they are coming from and purpose of their visit. Those consulted would also introduce themselves and the stakeholder engagement agenda generally followed this structure: ▪ Project introduction- This included introducing; the Project objectives, Components proposed project interventions and areas of influence. ▪ Issues faced by the stakeholders consulted were then presented. 73 ▪ Opinions on proposed project interventions for each component. ▪ Suggestions on their expectations of the project intervention areas ▪ Benefits expected from the project. ▪ Risks and adverse impacts from project activities ▪ Proposed mitigation measures or adaptation measures to the adverse impacts. ▪ Understanding of the socio-economic baseline of the Local Sector of project intervention 6.3 Issues raised and measures proposed. Opinions, questions and concerns from the stakeholders were recorded and where necessary responses given to questions raised. Follow up on those questions that were not answered was also included. A summary of the expected benefits and issues raised by stakeholders is presented in the table_32 below along with the mitigation measures proposed by stakeholders during the consultation. Table 52: Summary of expected benefits, issues raised and mitigation measures proposed during stakeholder consultation Benefits and Issue recorded Stakeholders Suggested mitigation measures by stakeholders, that participated where mentioned Benefits expected 1. VNP expansion will improve conservation and RDB during KIIs biodiversity by increasing the VNP park size by 23% and effectively increasing habitat function of the National Park. This will enable increase in population size of mountain gorillas and other wildlife and reduce infant mortality. 2. It will also reduce in number Human wildlife conflicts by RDB during KIIs a minimum of 80% through redesign and construction of a new boundary wall. 3. The project could also improve conservation-based RDB during KIIs tourism opportunities, experiences and economic benefits. For instance, 15-20% increase in viewing opportunities of Gorilla mountains, doubling direct tourism revenues through increased visitation of 10%per year, improving and diversifying national park experiences. 4. The project could also improve quality of lives, for RDB during KIIs example, skills development and jobs for 7,500 Rwandans within the tourism, agriculture, services and construction services, estimate of 3,400 new modern homes for those displaced in the 10,350ha of park expansion. 5. PAPs expect diverse employment opportunities with the PAPs in FGDs However, they expressed concern of reduced jobs in emerging VNP expansion project compared to the earning from hired work in agriculture, reduced income current common jobs that are only agriculture based. from collecting and selling fuel wood. From employment, they anticipate increased household They were also concerns that migrating workers could take income. up such jobs thereby denying them such opportunities. In this regard, participants proposed the project considers a first preference approach for PAPs in job opportunities. 6. It is foreseen that communities could benefit from Local increased income from increased sell of locally made Cooperatives handicrafts and artefacts to the increased number of during FGDs tourists. 74 7. Basing on the Tourism revenue sharing in Rwanda, Local Cooperatives working in the cultural village see the Cooperatives revenue shared back to them to increase with increase during FGDs in number of visitors. 8. By redesigning and constructing a new boundary wall Local and creating a buffer zone, destruction of crops by Cooperatives buffaloes and monkeys could be greatly reduced, if not during FGDs completely avoided. 9. It is anticipated that replacement houses shall be better PAPs during than the ones currently owned by PAPs. They expect FGDs that these houses will be better in structure requiring less or no regular renovation works compared to their current houses. 10. PAPs expect that with the project comes access to PAPs during better and improved health and education services, FGDs infrastructure (roads, electricity, water connectivity) and businesses. 11. PAPs anticipate that with relocation to a single PAPs during community settlement, there are opportunities to large FGDs masses to sell to different merchandises, provide paid for services, hence a potential market. Issues raised Stakeholders Suggested mitigation measures by stakeholders that participated and/or responses from relevant authorities Issues raised during public consultation meetings by PAPs and vulnerable groups amongst the PAPs 1. A question was raised on whether those with houses on PAPs Response given was that compensation is normally paid land they do not own will be compensated. against a land ownership title, for such a case, the asset is valued against the land title with indication of who actually owns the house. Written agreement notified at the sector level office between the landowner and house owner is prepared. At the time of compensation, the landowner will transfer the paid amount to the house owner as per the written agreement. 2. Another question was raised of how cash compensation PAPs Suggestions were made for local and relevant authorities would be managed to avoid previous incidences to start educating and advising their local communities on observed of local community members that misused how to handle the compensation and potential investments compensation funds from a private buyer, Bisate lodge, of their compensation. ending up poorer than they were before selling their land. 3. One of the participants wanted to know how PAPs Here the participants were informed that social family compensation of property owned by families that are not related laws and policies shall be considered. officially married, will be handled. 4. A question was raised on land compensation prices. PAPs In response, the participants were informed that Now that some of the locals were aware of the prices compensation is based on the 2015 Expropriation law as private investors, like Bisate lodge, Ellen de generes, a legal reference. Land prices are revised every 2 years Singita, had offered for the land acquired, were the based on the how land was sold in that particular area prices going to be similar. during that period, the latest pricing was done in 2021. They were informed that if affected communities closely observed there could be more benefits for those involved in this project, for instance, in addition to the compensation for their land and property, there are plans for additional livelihood measures, relocation houses and investable initiatives for PAPs. 5. An inquiry on whether the compensation for a house PAPs Response to this inquiry was that in addition to the would be deducted from the cost of the new relocated compensation for the house, there was a new house for house as a form of house for house. relocation. 6. Worries from one of the participants were expressed PAPs It was suggested that the relocation process is expedited, that this project has been on long enough since 2018 at compensation is done quickly, and the project is implemented. 75 studies level, with no assurance when those in affected areas will be displaced for the project to take off. 7. PAPs mentioned issues observed from the completed PAPs It was proposed that in the design of the relocation site, Kinigi model village near the relocation site, for instance, common rooms, meeting halls are included where families were given houses but when they hosted formidable number of people can meet to avoid social informal events of about 30 visitors, they failed to fit inconveniences. them in their homes, sometimes becoming an inconvenience to the neighbours. 8. A question was raised on households with sizable PAPs Response given at the time was that house for house household members (more than 5) who might not be replacement involved 3 house typologies of 2,3,4 able to fit in the proposed relocation house, will be bedrooms respectively in addition to living rooms, kitchen handled. and toilets, which shall be provided to families depending on the size of the Household. However, it was also noted that since households would be compensated at full replacement for their land, houses and perennial crops and trees, this cash compensation was at the choice of the Project Affected Person (PAP) to find another location apart from the proposed relocation site to build or buy a new house suitable to the family size. 9. Questions were raised on how the issue of people who PAPs Response to this from the district authority and Kinigi bought land but had not made legal land title transfers Sector land manager, was that these are issues sought to and only had agreements between the buyer and seller be solved by the proposed land weeks of the 17 th-28th of land, would be handled. October 2022, where all those with issues of incomplete land title ownership would be facilitated to obtain them. 10. A question was raised on cases of people who PAPs Response on how such a case would be handled was that purchased land and have agreements with people that since it was not within the powers of the National Land have since left the country but had not yet made legal Authority(NLA) to make such a land transfer from the seller land title transfers by the time the seller left the country. to the buyer, under such circumstances, it was an issue that would be addressed to the courts of law, which would then instruct the NLA to implement the terms of that agreement and make the legal land title transfer to the buyer in the absence of the seller. 11. Further on, a question was raised of how siblings could PAPs In response to this question, the community was informed sub-divide ownership of a land title under the names of that this would be considered as succession or inheritance their deceased parents. case to be handled during the proposed land weeks, where all siblings would have to be present and would be required to mutually agree amongst themselves on how they wish the land can be divided. Upon agreement, the NLA would then proceed to prepare each one’s land title. Short of the mutual agreement amongst the siblings on a fair land division, would require the siblings to address the issue with the courts of law. 12. A question was raised for support in covering PAPs The local communities were informed that this would be transaction fees involved in getting their land titles, fees looked into on how this can be facilitated for those of about 30,000Rwf, which the PAPS proposed could be observed not to be capable by virtue of their household later be deducted from what they would be income levels. compensated. For instance, to transfer fragmented land, the landowner is required to pay 35,000Rwf for the survey to fragment and establish demarcations of the new fragmented pieces of that land and then an additional amount of 30,000Rwf for transfer of land so as to have new separate land ownership titles. This was quite costly and therefore reason a number of PAP owners of fragmented land were not able to participate in land week exercise of certifying land titles. 13. A question was asked of what would happen to land or PAPs To this, the communities were informed that public notices property owners that do not reside in the area and might announcing and informing the public of the project and key not be informed of the VNP park expansion project and dates of the preparation process to relocate property 76 preparations to relocate those with property neighbouring the VNP, would be prepared and presented. neighbouring the park. These notices would be placed at District, Sector and Cells offices for information and public announcement made. The local communities were also encouraged to directly inform owners of property in the area that are not residing in the area, of the upcoming relocation process and the key dates mentioned above. However, for owners that will not be found and since a project of public interest cannot be stopped on the absence of a property owner, the procedure is such that asset inventory and valuation is conducted for that property, the money for compensation is placed on a District escrow account for the property owner to claim whenever they appear with proof of property ownership. 14. Furthermore, a question was raised of how an issue of PAPs The communities were informed that such cases should be land co-owned by a husband with more than one wife raised with the sector land manager who would orient them would be handled, where the husband has since left the on how and where to go to solve them. country not to return and the first wife has the land ownership title with written co-ownership between her and her husband. 15. An individual within the community participants that PAP In response, the communities were informed that there is attended the public consultation meeting, informed the a current proposed Livelihood Restoration Plan that bares meeting that he did handcraft as a source of income at income activities for household level, collective household level and not in an association or cooperative level and business investor level. Any cooperative. The question he had, was whether he interested PAP would be accommodated at any of these would be included in the proposed livelihood restoration levels. plans. 16. One of the participants inquired where the boundaries PAP In response, the communities were informed that phase 1 of the project area proposed for phase 1 land acquisition land acquisition covered 4 villages for now, which names were. were given. Furthermore, AWF would prepare maps with land identification numbers (Unique Plot Identifications- UPIs) to be placed at public notices at the sector and cell offices for reference by the communities. 17. There was a request that priority is given to people from PAPs For this, the local communities were assured of such the project affected local communities on job affirmative prioritisation in job allocation. They were also opportunities emanating from the VNP expansion informed that as part of the current proposed Livelihood project. Restoration Plan, a component of skills development for local communities had been proposed to eventually match the skills required during the VNP expansion project activities. Issues raised during Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) Stakeholders Suggested mitigation measures by stakeholders that participated and/or responses from relevant authorities 18. Regarding livelihood restoration of Project affected RDB Park A suggestion was made to plan for a tourism school within households (PAHs). wardens the vicinity of the project area as part of the livelihood restoration measures for affected communities, since the main source of income could be related to touristic attraction of the VNP. In addition, a proposal to develop skills, a school or some form of training and provide opportunities on off-farm activities since most of those that will be relocated are on-farm dependent livelihoods and by then land will have been reduced from project displacement. This was noted and would be reviewed in preparing the Livelihood restoration plan. Information was shared that there is a school training skills initiatives currently proposed in the Livelihood Implementation Plan (LIP). To avoid duplication and proximity of schools at the existing Kinigi model village education facilities, the LIP proposes a technical school to 77 complement it by introducing skills training in application of local material for construction as was done for at the Ellen de Generes campus. 19. Still regarding livelihood restoration of Project affected RDB Park As part of the livelihood restoration plan, it was proposed households (PAHs). wardens that an initiative similar to the home-made solution Sakola should be considered. The idea is to see how they can apply Sakola along with hotel investors. Also look at the community revenue sharing, which increases as the park viewers increase. Also considering the majority are the youth, there is need for technology-based income earners versus the agriculture dependent activities. A youth centre was also proposed to be included as part of the project design. 20. Appreciation towards the intention from the project to Conservation NGOs and local leaders were requested to ensure they continuously communicate the project progress, NGOs have a clear and harmonised understanding of the project however, awareness of the local communities is seen to objectives and planned activities in order to explain to the be low and requires more mobilization. local communities and build their awareness. 21. Communication of Project objectives and activity. Conservation It was also advised that a clear communication strategy NGOs needed to be developed of how information will be disseminated on project objectives, benefits, progress to the public to avoid miscommunication on the project. This would involve how to manage social media or other forms of communication. As for the communication strategy, this was planned as part of what the Project management at AWF are preparing. It was agreed that the project management would be the main source of information dissemination. 22. Cultural shock of change in housing by PAPs, which Coordinator of Advice was given that the project considers initiation could make it difficult to adapt to the new housing in the Kinigi model trainings to PAPs on how to live and take care of the new proposed smart green village. For instance, new village houses before they relocate into them, as was done for the knowledge that the house requires daily cleaning, Kinigi model village, which is about 5km from the relocation indoor kitchen compared to it being separate from the site. house is the case in their current houses, cooking on It was also proposed to assign an estate coordinator who energy saving stoves from current use of the 3 stone can support all residents in the relocation site to adapt to open stoves, how to use a waterless composite toilet living in their houses as was done for the Kinigi model from currently using an outside dry latrine,etc. village. Issues raised during Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) Stakeholders Suggested mitigation measures by stakeholders that participated and/or responses from relevant authorities 23. Concerns of compensation payment delayed. PAPs during PAPs proposed that compensation money is paid early FGDs enough to enable them purchase replacement land. 24. PAPs suggested that in addition to compensation for PAPs during Those physically residing in the village will be supported to houses, land and crops, they are considered for FGDs get a house in the smart green village. replacement housing in the relocation site. This would allow them adequate amounts of cash to acquire similar, if not more assets in land and houses. 25. With the loss of land to the project, loss of livelihood is PAPs during PAPs proposed that the projects plans for skills training in expected since PAPs livelihoods are mostly reliant on FGDs alternative sectors, both on-farm and off-farm, for PAPs to agriculture. endeavour in diverse areas so as to increase their income base from jobs other than agriculture based. PAPs were informed that as part of the project plans are livelihood restoration measures that involve, modernised agriculture intense on small sizes of land. e.g. a green house, alternative agriculture such as mushroom cultivation on small area sizes and alternative off-farm income generating livelihoods. 26. PAPs expressed worry that land prices in the PAPs during neighbouring villages out of the VNP pilot expansion FGDs 78 area had begun to increase, based on speculation of compensation for land acquired by the project for pilot expansion. What this meant is that PAPs worry that compensation money for land might be sufficient to purchase an equivalent size of land in the neighbourhood. 27. For some food security might become an issue, PAPs during PAPs were informed that livelihood measures could be considering they currently produce their own food for FGDs alternatives sources of food and income to ensure food home consumption from this land. i.e. irish potatoes, security. green beans and also are able to use the same land by intercropping to produce wheat and pyrethrum for sell in On the other hand, PAPs proposed to include green order to afford food. If land is acquired by the project, houses as part of the project livelihood initiatives as an they could be losing this direct food source and could alternative towards intensive agriculture in a smaller area eventually be required the same food at a higher price. with higher productivity. 28. Concerns that replacement houses could have PAPs during PAPs were informed they would be given house ownership contracts that do not allow them to sell them before a FGDs titles for the replacement houses. certain period. 29. Concerns of compensation money misused mostly by PAPs during PAPs proposed that the project plans for financial husbands, resulting in a household poorer than before FGDs management training of PAPs as a means of minimising the project land acquisition. misuse of compensation money. Some PAPs proposed that compensation money is placed on the owners’ account but supervised withdrawal of money backed by its planned use is conducted to minimise muse of such money. 30. Potential conflicts of sharing compensation money for PAPs during PAPs during the public consultation had been informed by polygamy families, where men have more than 1 wife. FGDs local authorities that by Rwandan family law, only spouses legally married are entitled to the property, hence the law will prevail for such circumstances. 31. Concerns were raised for Households that owned PAPs during During public consultation, PAPs had been informed by houses with their families on land they don’t own, FGDs the local authorities that families with houses in the project whether they would be considered to benefit from area were eligible to a replacement house in the relocation replacement houses at the relocation site. site. 32. This concern above too was raised for families where parents had given their married children houses within their pieces of land. FGDs participants’ opinions on Livelihood restoration Stakeholders Suggested mitigation measures by stakeholders packages/options presented in the LIAP 2022 report that participated and/or responses from relevant authorities During FGDs, Livelihood restoration packages/options proposed in the Livelihood Implementation Action Plan (LIAP) 2022 report prepared for the VNP expansion project by Vanguard Economics, ERTEM Ltd and Mass Design, were presented to participants for their opinions and these were their feed back 33. Employment opportunities as livelihood restoration PAPs during Participants suggested that an affirmative policy is availed package, for instance, during preparation of the VNP FGDs with first preference of job opportunities given to PAPs for buffer zone, construction of the smart green village, as any project activities. tourist guides with the park expansion. Participants were happy with initiative as an alternative income source. They were concerns that migrating workers could take up such jobs thereby denying them such opportunities. 34. Developing Financial service agents was proposed as PAPs during Suggestions were made to include general merchandise livelihood restoration option/package in the LIAP 2022 FGDs trade as part of livelihood restoration packages that the report, such as; MTN momo, Airtel money, bank agents, project may support. ejo heza, irembo agents. Opinions from some of the FGD participants were that such financial service 79 agents options could have a low uptake because they are opportunities that can be done by youth and those with a minimum level of education, however they admitted that such digital financial services were very much required for daily activities. 35. Promoting Rabbit farming was another livelihood PAPs during Suggestion made were that It’s appropriate for youth with restoration package proposed in the LIAP 2022 report. FGDs little start-up capital and farming experience as Rabbits Opinions from some of the FGD participants were that can multiply fast. Rabbits don’t do well in cold areas, having a high mortality rate in cold areas and the project area is a cold area. Rabbits also require a lot of fodder to feed, now with limited land and limited wild grasses they could struggle to feed them. Rabbits like dry foods, here it is wet most of the year so it would be difficult to work. 36. Developing tailoring businesses for PAPs as a livelihood PAPs during Proposal was made to include hair saloons in the livelihood restoration package. This was a package appreciated FGDs restoration packages. on grounds that there is sufficient market for garments, such as uniforms for schools, clothes for local community and mementos for visiting tourists. 37. Developing construction skills (e.g. masonry) were PAPs during proposed as alternative livelihood restoration options. FGDs Some participants thought it difficult to shift from farming to acquiring construction skills. 38. Developing Agro-logistics services (e.g. Owning a Tri- PAPs during cycle for transportation of goods from rural areas to FGDs markets and vice versa). Participants concerns were that with reduction of agro-produce from loss of land, could result in less produce requiring transportation to the market and therefore losses to the transport business ventured into. 39. Promoting Chicken Farming for eggs, meat and manure PAPs during as a livelihood restoration package. This was an option FGDs acceptable for participants with afew constraints on rising costs of chicken feed. 40. Promoting Pig/pork Farming for meat as a livelihood PAPs during Participants proposed alternatives of sheep and livestock restoration package. This was a new skill, with FGDs farming which they currently are used to. participants a little pessimistic on whether it could work. 41. Developing Bamboo production and Tree Nurseries as PAPs during a livelihood restoration package. Participants FGDs appreciate the tree nurseries and bamboo production initiative as an opportunity to provide trees to the new project buffer zone area that will be reafforested. 42. Promoting Community Handcraft workshops as a PAPs during They proposed that they are supported to form their own livelihood restoration package. Participants appreciated FGDs handicraft cooperatives or associations to start this this initiative as a lucrative business. business since membership fees for joining existing handcraft cooperatives are quite costly. 43. Developing a Cultural Arts Village was another PAPs during To achieve this, participants proposed space within the proposed livelihood restoration package. Participants FGDs VNP project area so as to access tourists visiting the park. expressed appreciation of this as a profitable option as they had observed during a field trip to learn from other PAPs near the Akagera National Park that benefitted from a similar initiative. Participants expect to earn a lot from tourists, visitors and exhibitions hiring such services. 44. Developing Horticulture as a livelihood restoration PAPs during package in Green Houses. Participants showed a lot of FGDs interest in farming in green house as highly productive 80 and can be done by old and young people and those with disabilities. Despite worries expressed by PAPs, participants appreciated the overall purpose of the VNP expansion project and hope to receive support to restore their livelihood. Detailed minute of public consultation and details of participants list are appended to this report as annex II. During the public consultation, PAPs elected representatives at village level representing on matters relating to the VNP expansion project. The table below presents the PAP representatives by village and gender. Since sub- component 3 is the most advanced of VCRP components, it is proposed that these already elected PAP representatives can be considered for the Community Consultation Committee (CCC) for Kinigi sector, where the VNP expansion and green village relocation site shall be established. Table 53 PAPs elected representatives at village level S/N Names Gender Contact MYASE VILLAGE 1 HARERIMANA Boniface M 0780696009 2 UWINGENEYE Charlotte F 0782236570 NYARUSIZI VILLAGE 3 SEBAZUNGU Felicien M 0783892503 4 KURADUSENGE Marie Louise F 0785320289 NYAKIGINA VILLAGE 5 MUNYEMANA Claude M 0783116920 6 MUSABYIMANA Beatrice F 0785320262 NYAGAHURA VILLAGE 7 TUYISENGE Emmanuel M 0786546117 8 NYIRAMAHORO Marie Chantal F 0781630181 KARYASENGE VILLAGE 9 SERUHUNGO Emmanuel M 0785232667 10 NYIRABURETERI Claudine 0781478512 CYABIREGO VILLAGE 11 IRADUKUNDA Desire M 0788414050 12 MUKANDORI Drocelle F 0782569695 6.4 NGO landscaping and mapping Also, during the stakeholder engagement, at public consultations and KIIs, local and international conservation NGOs operating in the VNP area, informed each of their respective major areas of work and how they see themselves contribute to the implementation of the livelihood restoration of PAPs relocated by the VNP expansion pilot project. Below is the table showing the NGOs, their area of work and proposed areas of project intervention. The proposed potential interventions suggested by the NGOs were applied under the chapter 8 on livelihood restoration packages as part of the support systems available. Table 54 Conservation NGO proposed support interventions to the project NGOs Areas of work Proposed areas of project intervention 1. Partners in conservation Education, community empowerment, environmental and Development of the right tree species for climate justice the buffer zone, planting and nurseries 81 NGOs Areas of work Proposed areas of project intervention 2. Rwanda Youth in action Educate youth, students on environment and climate They propose to use games and plays as a means of communicating the project objectives and activities. 3. Fatrade ihumure Cultivation of mushrooms that cover small areas and Mushroom production, bamboo harvesting value addition of these mushrooms. and bamboo value addition. Work on Bamboo outside of the VNP, planted in their plantations and along the riverbanks. Train on techniques of harvesting adult bamboo trees and value addition like making chairs, tables, lamps, etc 4. REDO (Rural Tree planting, environment awareness, agriculture, micro Support in bee-keeping and promoting Environment and projects (e.g. bee keeping) agro-forestry. Development Organisation)- 5. AVERDURE Manage surface water management by applying They could support storm water infiltration techniques. management of the relocation sites in smart villages for storage, treatment and recycle of water by applying Natural based solutions. 6. Virunga health life clubs Education for sustainability, species monitoring, climate Project awareness, education on change and tourism, with such awareness in schools. sustainability and tree nursery They also manage tree nurseries. management. 7 Safer Rwanda Environmental protection integrating in livelihood Supplying low-cost fuel energy saving improvement by giving cattle, building biogas as an cooking stoves. alternative source of energy to fuel wood resulting in Financial inclusion of communities. deforestation. Produce fuel energy saving cooking stoves at subsidised cost that save up to 80% fuel energy use. Facilitate communities in the formation of Voluntary saving association (VSOs) groups 8. Conservation heritage- Educate schools neighbouring the VNP on ecosystem Supporting in handicrafts. Turambe protection through demonstrations, field schools. Also support youth to plant bamboos. 9. Wildlife conservation Currently, rehabilitating Mukungwa wetland into an eco- They wish to support the project by Initiative (WCI) park awareness on importance of park expansion and have a big team to handle, to prepare nurseries and seedlings and follow up on the tree growth 10.Rwanda Development Support farmers in farm to market of their agricultural To provide support in use of small pieces Organisation (RDO)- produce. of land for agriculture. e.g. mushrooms and poultry farming, financial management income 11.SAKOLA Is the group of communities neighbouring the VNP, Provide support in community covering Nyange and Kinigi sector. They build houses for mobilization, youth and women off-farm vulnerable groups, provide cattle and short-legged skills training, provision of small start-up livestock. They provide youth with skills training. e.g. girls capital at low or no interest from their trained in knitting, women are given small start-up capital revolving fund. at no interest that is a revolving fund, provide school feeding, human sanitary support (Toilets built). 82 NGOs Areas of work Proposed areas of project intervention 12. RCCDN- Rwanda It is an advocacy civil society organization. Offered to support in harmonising Climate Change information, mobilization of public opinion Development Network through information campaigns and broad outreach, representation of the voiceless through constructive dialogues, response capacity to manage shocks by building capacity to respond faster to shock, legitimization of decision-making mechanism which is all inclusive. 13. Redrox initiative They conserve the environment with tourism for They wish to support by providing touristic community development. approach to culture for example eco- tourism and cultural art villages. Youth and women empowerment by skills development. e,g. youth in artefacts, handicrafts, carpentry, knitting, tailoring and link them to established markets for these works 14. ARECO- Rwanda Focus mainly on women empowerment in park Support in Women empowerment, land Nziza conservation. They do land restoration through restoration through agroforestry and agroforestry and nurseries establishment. They also got nursery establishment, bamboo planting into bamboo plantation and processing activities value and value addition processing. addition. They wish to support/contribute the project by; awareness creation focusing on women and youth, play a role in information, advocacy and fund mobilization, contribution to bamboo value chain strengthening, research on suitable species for land restoration and value addition, facilitate quality improvement of bamboo products and marketing, introduction of new bamboo products including drinks. 15. International Gorilla Has had 30years in conservation with a mission to save IGCP shall continue to conserve mountain Conservation Programme the future of mountain gorillas. IGCP engages gorillas, engage communities through (IGCP)- communities through Mountain gorilla conservation and Mountain gorilla conservation and tourism, tourism, contribute substantially to community contribute substantially to community development and livelihood improvement in the region. development and livelihood improvement Supported building the buffalo stone wall around the park in the region. to minimise Human wildlife conflict. 16.Dian Fossey Has had 55 years in Gorilla research. The foundation It shall continue to support in; daily Gorilla foundation/ Karisoke deals mainly in; daily Gorilla protection, scientific research protection, scientific research mainly on research mainly on Gorilla life, trains the next generation of Gorilla life, trains the next generation of conservationists and VNP staff and support park conservationists and VNP staff and neighbouring communities in educating them on support park neighbouring communities in conservation programs and support in meeting their educating them on conservation programs immediate basic needs. and support in meeting their immediate basic needs. During the stakeholder engagement with NGOs, four (4) representatives of the conservation partners were elected to represent the rest in the project implementation process going forward. Those elected were: ARECO, REDO ROCKS, Rwanda Youth Inaction, SAKOLA as presented in the table below. Table 55 Elected representatives for Conservation NGO on the project 83 S/N Names Type of representation Contact LOCAL NGOs 1 REDO ROCKS INITIATIVE/ MUHINDA Charles Generally, all NGOs 0788564505 2 ARECO/ MUKAKAMARI DANCILLA Women 0788521732 3 SAKOLA/NSENGIYUMVA Pierre Celestin Local community 0788854067 4 Rwanda Youth In Action /MBONYINSHUTI Youth 0788305540 6.5 Elected Grievance redress committees (GRC) Furthermore, during the stakeholder engagement meeting on grievance redress consultation and awareness held on the 2nd November 2022, beyond an awareness elaboration of existing grievance redress mechanisms (GRM), proposals on appropriate GRM for the project by participants, the 24 elected representatives for PAPs, elected a Grievance redress committee (GRC) at cell level and liaison coordinator for GRM. Table 56 Elected Grievance redress committee members. GRC at cell level Villages represented GRC members Kaguhu Myase, Nyarusizi • Sebazungu Felicien (President), • Kuradugenge Marie louise (Vice President), • Nuwengenye charlotte (Secretary), • Harelimana Boniface (Advisor). Nyabigoma Gahura, nyakigina, karyasenge • Tuyisenge Emmanuel (President), • Musabyimana Beatrice (Vice President), • Seruhungu Aime (Secretary), • Munyemana Jeand Claude (Advisor). Nyabigoma Mitobo, kabatwa, cyabirego. • Hakizimana Innocent (President), • Munyanfura Leonidas (Vice President), • Nyirimanzi Emmanuel (Secretary), • Mukantoheri Venantia (Advisor) Coordinator/ liaison of all committees • Jean claude Munyemana 6.6 Stakeholder’s Engagement during project implementation In order to clearly develop a systematic and effective means of engagement during project implementation, stakeholders should be identified in relation to the project components to be undertaken and mapped out to understand their interests in these development activities, from which a plan is drawn on how to continuously engage with these stakeholders as the project is implemented. Under this section, a stakeholder mapping and a stakeholder engagement plan have been developed. Stakeholders identified and mapped for inclusion in engagement activities under the Project meet one or more of the following criteria: i. have an interest in the various Project activities. ii. would potentially be impacted by or have an influence on the various Project activities (negatively or positively); or iii. could provide commentary on issues and concerns related to the various Project activities. 84 Stakeholders were categorised, based on their various needs, interests, vulnerability and potential influence on the project as outlined here in. 85 Table 57: Stakeholder mapping Stakeholder Group Interests in Project/ objective of engagement Significance of influence Significance of Interest Project affected persons in the communities located in the • Loss or damage of property. High VNP expansion area. High • Physical and/or economic displacement. Comprising. • Affected by project impacts. • Home/house owners. • Benefiting/Participation in their livelihood • Landowners. restoration. • Crop owners. Project affected persons in the communities located in the • Loss or damage of property. High Host community of the relocation site. • Physical and/or economic displacement. High Comprising. • Affected by project impacts. • Home/house owner. • Benefiting/Participation in their livelihood • Landowners. restoration. • Crop owners. Central Government Agencies: • Government representatives for the project High High • Rwanda Development Board (RDB). preparation and implementation. • Funds transfer and management. • Compliance enforcement. Local Government: • Community mobilization. High High • Musanze District • Local community interests in the project. • Kinigi sector • Facilitation in property valuation and Project affected parties • Kaguhu cell compensation. • Nyabigoma cell • Facilitation in livelihood restoration implementation of PAPs. • Grievance redress. • Permit and licensing. • Inspection of construction works. • Compliance enforcement. Central Government (Ministries and Agencies): • Overseeing Environment management in the Medium Medium • Ministry of Environment (MoE). country and specifically for the protected park Other Interested • Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources and its buffer. (MINAGRI). • Replacement of agriculture area for VNP • Rwanda Agriculture Board (RAB) expansion. Parties • Rwanda Environment Management Authority (REMA) • Compliance enforcement. • Permit and licensing. Draft report: Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for Volcanoes National Park (VNP) pilot expansion project. 86 Stakeholder Group Interests in Project/ objective of engagement Significance of influence Significance of Interest Local and International Entities in the project area: • Local project mobilization. Medium High • Conservation NGOs (Local and International). • Support in implementation of proposed livelihood • Cooperatives. restoration initiatives for the PAPs. • Civil Society Organisations (CSOs). • Protection/conservation of VNP wildlife and plant species in and around the park. • Grievance Management. Private sector • Provide packages for touristic and cultural Medium Medium • Private tourism operators. experiences. • Tourism hotels and lodges • Professional and technical services to the • Contractors and sub-contractors. projects. • Cultural troops and site operators. International Development Partners • Project grant/loan financing. High High • African Wildlife Foundation (AWF). • Environmental and social safeguard compliance. • Wilderness Safari (WS). • World Bank. Media, Political Parties/groups, Religious Organisations • Key role in disseminating information on the Low Medium • District Media (radio stations). efforts and results of the project to the public. • National and international Media (newspapers, television • Influence on public views and opinions on the and radio stations). projects. • Religious denominations. Law Enforcement Agencies • Security Low Medium • District Administration Security Support Organ (DASSO) • Rwanda National Police. 87 Stakeholder Group Interests in Project/ objective of engagement Significance of influence Significance of Interest Vulnerable Persons/Groups: • Inadequate ability to cope with negative project Medium High • Project Affected Households (PAHs) identified as very impacts. Disadvantaged/ Vulnerable poor and poor24, • Inadequate ability to enjoy project benefits • PAHs headed by elderly in addition to being in very poor unaided. and poor category25, identified during the socio- • Special needs different than the rest. economic study, • People with Disabilities (PWDs) in addition to in very poor and poor category26 , identified during the socio- economic study. groups • Child headed households identified during the socio- economic study. The following Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) outlines the purpose of engagement, communication channels, platforms of engagement, how frequent and who is responsible for stakeholder engagement during project implementation. Table 58: Stakeholder Engagement Plan during project implementation Project stage/phase Communication channel Purpose Platform/ venue of Frequency Responsibility Stakeholder Group engagement Project affected persons in • Compensation of displaced • Project site offices. Monthly for RDB PIU the communities located in • Beneficiary Dialogues assets. • Local government public meeting HUB I the VNP expansion area • Preparation • Grievance redress • Livelihood restoration. offices. (Village, and weekly for and host community at the mechanisms • Resolving project related cell, sector and any relocation site. • Implementation • Public meetings grievances. district offices) grievances.. • Digital platforms. 24 Categorised as: Families who do not own a house or cannot pay a rent, have a poor diet and can hardly afford basic household tools and clothes or Categorised as: Having a dwelling of their own or are able to rent one, mostly get food and wages from working for others but rarely get full time jobs. 25 Categorised as: Families who do not own a house or cannot pay a rent, have a poor diet and can hardly afford basic household tools and clothes or Categorised as: Having a dwelling of their own or are able to rent one, mostly get food and wages from working for others but rarely get full time jobs. 26 Categorised as: Families who do not own a house or cannot pay a rent, have a poor diet and can hardly afford basic household tools and clothes or Categorised as: Having a dwelling of their own or are able to rent one, mostly get food and wages from working for others but rarely get full time jobs. 88 Project stage/phase Communication channel Purpose Platform/ venue of Frequency Responsibility Stakeholder Group engagement Central Government • Reaching out to potential • RDB offices. Every 3 months. RDB PIU ministries and Agencies: • Official Meetings beneficiaries and those • Project site offices. • Preparation • Survey studies affected • Local government HUB I • Implementation • Beneficiary Dialogues • Understanding PAPs social offices. (Village, • Post implementation • Disclosure meetings profiles. cell, sector and • Grievance redress • Understanding issues arising district offices) mechanisms from project actions • Digital platforms. • Implementing Compensation • Project area. of displaced assets. • Implementing Livelihood restoration of PAPs. • Resolving project related grievances. Central Government • Preparation • Official meetings • Providing regular updates • Institutions’ offices. Quarterly MoE PIU (Ministries and Agencies): • Implementation • Project implementation • Monitoring project • Digital platforms. Official • Post implementation support activities implementation progress coordination RDB PIU • Supervision missions to the • Organizing Capacity building. meetings. project site • Ensuring compliance is met. • Opening and closing Monthly Project meetings monitoring team • Disclosure meetings meetings. • Digital communication tools Visits and supervision missions: As needed Local Government: • Preparation • Implementation • Public consultations • Post- meetings • Keeping stakeholders • Meetings and Public Implementation Musanze District • Beneficiary Dialogues informed notices at local Kinigi sector • Opening and closing • Providing regular updates. government offices. Weekly. meetings • Resolving grievances arising • Digital Platforms. HUB I • Digital communication from project activities tools. 89 Project stage/phase Communication channel Purpose Platform/ venue of Frequency Responsibility Stakeholder Group engagement Local and International • Conservation of VNP wildlife Entities in the project area • • Beneficiary Dialogues • Meetings and Public Preparation and ecosystem. (Conservation NGOs • • Public consultations notices at their local Implementation • Supporting PAPs. (Local and International), • meetings offices. Post- • Keeping stakeholders Musanze District Cooperatives, Civil Society • Opening and closing • Meetings at other Monthly Implementation informed Organisations (CSOs). meetings public venues. • Providing regular updates. • Digital communication • Digital Platforms. • Resolving grievances arising tools. from project activities Private sector • Advertisement of touristic Quarterly (Touristic operators, hotels packages. and lodges, cultural • Advertisement of cultural • Offer Touristic and hospitality • Web sites. centres, Contractors and RDB PIU packages. experiences. • Hotels, lodges or sub-contractors. • Tourism and/or cultural • Offer cultural experiences. Offices. Potential investors in Touristic operators exhibitions. • Procurement of technical and • Tourist exhibitions project activities.) • Implementation • Tender announcements consultancy services. • Cultural Hotel and lodge and contract award. • Project commencement and exhibitions. owners. • Opening and closing handover. • Site offices. meetings. • Providing regular project • Digital platforms. Contractors • Site meetings updates. • Supervision missions to the project sites. International Development • Official meetings Bi-annually • RDB Office MoE PIU Partners • Disclosure meetings • Ensuring compliance is met. • Preparation • AWF office RDB PIU • Opening and closing • Collecting regular updates on • Implementation • Site offices AWF meetings project progress. • Digital Platforms World Bank • Digital communication tools Media • Press releases. • Audio-visual stories • Project websites • To keep the stakeholders and • Social Media Channels the public informed Implementation developed for the Project. • To provide regular updates Digital platforms Quarterly RDB PIU • TV/Radio about the Project • Project e-mail address • Press conferences. • Digital communication tools 90 7. ELIGIBILITY, VALUATION AND COMPENSATION STRATEGY This chapter provides some of the international best practices pertaining to compensation, general applicable principles, eligibility entitlements as well as the cut-off and household moves. 7.1 International Best practices As per ESS 5, when land acquisition or restrictions on land use (whether permanent or temporary) cannot be avoided, the project will offer affected persons compensation at full replacement cost, and other assistance as may be necessary to help them improve or at least restore their standards of living or livelihoods. Compensation standards for categories of land and fixed assets were disclosed and applied consistently. In all cases, a clear basis for calculation of compensation has been documented, and compensation will be distributed in accordance with transparent procedures. 7.2 General principles The Article 4 of the National Law N° 32/2015 of 11/06/2015 relating to Expropriation in the Public interest, provides that every project, at any level, which intends to carry out acts of expropriation in the public interest, shall budget for valuation of the property of the person to be expropriated and for fair compensation. 7.3 Eligibility criteria for resettlement Eligibility for compensation as a result of expropriation is enshrined in the National constitution under article 35 and the 2015 National Expropriation Law. The two laws regulate and give entitlement to those affected, whether or not they have written customary or formal tenure rights. The person whose land will be expropriated is defined under article 2(8) of the Expropriation Law (Law N° 32/2015 of 11/06/2015) to mean any person or legal entity who is to have his or her private property transferred due to public interest, in which case they shall be legally entitled to payment of compensation. The WB ESS5 categorizes those eligible for compensation and resettlement in three groups as shown below. ▪ Those who have formal legal rights to land (including customary and traditional rights recognized under the laws of the country). ▪ Those who do not have formal legal rights to land at the time the census begins 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 action plan (house owners, itinerant farmers or sharecroppers) and; ▪ Those who have no recognizable legal right or claim to the land they are occupying but own property on the land. As per article 26, the owner of land designated for expropriation in the public interest shall provide land titles and documentary evidence that he/she is the owner of property incorporated on land. If the landowner is married, he/she shall also provide a civil status certificate and a document evidencing his/her chosen matrimonial regime in case of a married person. For landowners that are not married, they will provide a civil status certificate showing they are 91 not married. These certificates of civil status take a few hours and no more than a day to get. They are digitally obtained via the GoR Irembo website upon paying 500Rwf, hence not causing a delay in the RAP process. It is also noted for couples cohabiting that do not have an official marital status, the Kinigi sector level shall support them in obtaining official civil marital status as a means of facilitating the RAP process. PAPs occupying the land, with no land titles shall be facilitated by district, sector and cell authorities through existing land committees for certifying the land ownership using a form known as “Form 1b” provided by the district one Stop Centre. Once the ownership is certified, PAPs shall be also eligible for compensation of land and property incorporated on land. The totally relocating PAPs can be compensated in three forms, be allocated alternative sites if available and/or given materials to replace their structures affected by the project or paid for such replacements in cash. The PAPs were informed of the different options available during the disclosure process and most well indicated that they would prefer cash compensation for land, house and crops, with some requesting for replacement houses. Among the PAPs, the most vulnerable PAPs (widows, PWDs, elderly, very poor or poor socio-economic state27, etc.) will receive special assistance in establishing their replacement land and structures. Compensation and entitlements will be triggered by particular and specific impacts resulting from the project. Using a holistic approach, these general impacts emanating from the project shall include losses at household. Losses will mainly fall into the beneath categories: ◼ Loss of land. ◼ Loss of assets (structures and agricultural land). ◼ Loss of livelihood. The project proponent conducted the valuation of all assets affected by the project as required under the laws. The assets valuation methods included consultation with the affected individuals together with their representatives, to assess the adequacy and acceptability of the proposed compensation and to ensure the economic rehabilitation of all the affected people. 7.4 Information and Consultation on mode of compensation This RAP study assessed the potential positive and negative social impacts of the proposed VNP pilot expansion project and mitigation measures that could in effect minimize the resettlement and resultant impacts. Here are only addressed the PAPs information regarding their compensation choice. The following steps will be implemented: ◼ Dissemination of information to the local PAPs at the start of the project on the compensation measures by local authorities, project team and PAPs committee. ◼ Based on the final valuation, identification of specific situations by household depending upon the amount of land they are left with (economically and physically displaced). ◼ The choice of likely options (resettlement site, compensation in cash or in kind) presented to each PAP, when it comes to the head of household of the family and his (her) spouse. Categorised as: Families who do not own a house or cannot pay a rent, have a poor diet and can hardly afford basic household tools and clothes or 27 Categorised as: Having a dwelling of their own or are able to rent one, mostly get food and wages from working for others but rarely get full time jobs. 92 ◼ The establishment of a document certifying the information, choice and consent of the head of the family and his (her) spouse on the types, amount and terms of payment of compensation. ◼ Support to the decision of a witness to observe and certify the proper implementation. All the information process, presentation of the alternatives available to the PAPs until the final choice will be organized in such a way to guarantee to PAPs their Free and Enlightened Prior Consent. 7.4.1 Payment of cash compensation In line with the mode of compensation, compensation will take a monetary form. The monetary compensation will not be a simple payment without tracking: mechanisms are proposed to ensure that the compensation is used for ensuring the PAPs income restoration to a level at least equivalent, e.g. reconstructing an agricultural capital or starting up of a new business. Since the compensation cash will be transferred to the PAPs bank account, mainly Sector’s Sacco Account, the local leadership (Executive secretaries of sector) together with Bank Managers and the recipients will always find a remedial mechanism. The collaboration between local authorities, PAPs, PAPs and bank/SACCO Managers in implementing strategies intended to help recipients use compensation cash with benefit. Terms of payment As prescribed in the Expropriation Act of Rwanda, no cash payment will be made: all cash compensation will be paid by check on a bank account opened by the PAP (Article 23). This will have the dual effect of preventing ill- timed expenses and mostly this will secure the household members against all attempts of robbery or assault that possibly could occur. Opening of bank accounts for PAPs Some PAPs might not have an active bank account. They will be encouraged to use Umurenge SACCO, as it appears to be quite easy and inexpensive to open one at Umurenge SACCO or a microfinance institution in the respective areas of residence for PAPs. If the spouses are legally married, they receive their compensation on a joint account (Article 25 of the Expropriation Act). It will be advisable to extend this to all households legally married or not. Specific attention, by the local authorities (i.e. sector and cell authorities) and Umurenge SACCO, will be given to supporting women to open bank accounts so that they are not disadvantaged at the time of payment of compensation. 7.4.2 Transaction costs and land security All transaction costs related to the land transfer will be borne by the project. In practice, this will concern households that shall be resettled by the project as well as households that buy the land with their compensation money. All land to be purchased by farmers or plots of the resettlement site will be recorded in the Land Office/district one stop centre of Musanze District following the proceedings and the costs of registration will have been covered by the project. There is a possibility to issue a transferable and assignable "land certificate" worth legal recognition. The cost of the certificate will be covered by the project. This should be discussed in the District Council and a decision made 93 by the District authorities before starting the project. This will be a powerful incentive to ease the in-kind compensation and buy the land for the PAPs. 7.5 Vulnerable Groups 7.5.1 Specific risks for Vulnerable People The main risks associated with the implementation of any project affecting the lives of people because of the loss of land and loss of their homes is: ▪ Become landless. ▪ Become unemployed. ▪ Become homeless. ▪ Deterioration of living conditions level. ▪ Food insecurity / malnutrition ▪ Social disintegration by breaking the bonds of solidarity. These risks weigh more than proportionally to certain categories of vulnerable persons. Vulnerable people are those based on gender, age, physical or mental disabilities, their social or economic status may be more affected by the loss of land, assets and / or resettlement than other PAPs. They are therefore less able to take advantage of the support and development measures that will be offered as part of the RAP. By vulnerable, we denote People in the lowest National income levels (Socio-economic I and II categories28 with the following additional issues: ▪ People with disabilities PWDs (physical or mental); ▪ Households headed by Elderly people, greater than or equal to 60 years, living with other or alone. ▪ Households headed by a child. ▪ Households headed by a woman. ▪ Households headed by Widows, widowers and orphans. For that reason, therefore, measures specifically targeting these groups to prevent falling into extreme poverty should be adopted. These measures consist in the accompaniment that will take several forms. 7.5.2 Specific assistance to Vulnerable groups during all stages of the process Advisory support at all stages of resettlement and compensation to these persons will be provided: trading, payment and moving. It must be ensured that these Vulnerable Persons can fully participate in various programs of restoration and improvement of the living conditions that will be implemented, in terms of training, experience sharing, micro-credit, and be ensured that the concerns, claims, complaints that they can make against the Project or other institutions within the framework of resettlement, compensation and restoration, are duly considered. In addition to compensation allowances, the poorest vulnerable people will be facilitated to get reestablishment of livelihood activities (provision of agricultural inputs, and financial credits for equipment, health insurance, etc). The Categorised as: Families who do not own a house or cannot pay a rent, have a poor diet and can hardly afford basic household tools and clothes or 28 Categorised as: Having a dwelling of their own or are able to rent one, mostly get food and wages from working for others but rarely get full time jobs. 94 project will also work with the district to ensure that vulnerable people within the project area are included among the vulnerable groups getting government support for their livelihoods under the VUP social protection framework. In addition, the project team shall ensure that consultation meetings are organized in the vicinity of vulnerable groups, and provide required assistances (transport, appropriate communication channel) to allow their participation. The skills training program will be designed during project implementation. The following measures will be implemented according to the listed needs and demands of vulnerable people and their households: Table 59: Special assistance recommended for livelihood restoration of the vulnerable PAHs. S/N Livelihood Description Comment Time frame restoration options 1 Assistance in the The project team will proceed This will ensure that During the negotiations for for verification that the choices vulnerable groups compensation compensation are freely made so that these among the PAPs are period people are not influenced or provided with fair marginalized by the rest of the compensation family members. 2 Assistance in all The project will ensure that This will ensure that During the procedures necessary assistance is vulnerable groups compensation related to the provided. For example, help among the PAPs are period payment of with the opening of the bank provided with all compensation account, help to secure the necessary withdrawal of money to buy assistance during assets, land registration compensation procedures). 3 Access to medical The project will closely work This will ensure All year of the insurance with local administration to continued physical project ensure the vulnerable PAPs health to the implementation receive National medical vulnerable PAPs insurance. i.e. Community Based Health Insurance (CBHI)- “mutuelle de sante” 4 Off Farm Training Provide training to earn This will open up new First 12 Months of income in non-agricultural options for the PAPs the project work (e.g. financial services to start other income implementation agents, artifacts and generating activities handcrafts production), construction with local material (volcanoes rocks, timber), provision of and facilitation to access financial credit for equipment 5 Improved Provision of chicken for poultry First 12 Months of Agriculture and farming, dairy farming and the project livestock farming production, training to implementation 95 S/N Livelihood Description Comment Time frame restoration options generate more production of from livestock and training to produce cash crops on small plot areas, such as mushrooms. 6 Option of other Severely affected PAPs and First 12 Months of trainings of PAPs those from vulnerable groups the project choice will be given the option to implementation select any training they wish, which would help them to maintain and/or improve their income generation potential. The skills training program will be designed during project implementation. 7 Direct Financial Monthly support to the First 3 months of Support household as they acquaint moving to the themselves with the new relocation site livelihood in the Relocation site 7.6 Valuation process and Compensation rates As per the 2015 National Expropriation Law, all people affected by expropriation must receive fair and just compensation. The calculation of fair and just compensation is to be calculated by independent valuers. Without prejudice to other laws, the value of land and property incorporated thereon to be expropriated in the public interest shall be calculated on the basis of their size, nature and location and the prevailing market rates. In this regard, the article 22 of the Law N°32/2015 of 11/06/2015 governing the expropriation stipulates that Land values and prices for property incorporated on land consistent with the prevailing market rates provided under this Law shall be established by the Institute of Real Property Valuers (IRPV) in Rwanda. The Valuation approach deployed is the full replacement cost approach and the principles are fully in line with the Institute of Real Property Valuers (IRPV) Valuation reference prices documents and International Valuation Standards and the reference is the prices for land, and buildings, trees and crops as published in the Official Gazette No. Special of 01/12/2021 (Rwanda land reference prices 2021). It is presented as volume III to the RAP, as the Asset valuation report. With regard to the targeted shapefiles of designed area, after processing them using ArcGIS for the purpose of analyzing and identifying plots to be affected; Affiliated table of Assets Registry comprising property detailed value, location of property with province, district, sector, cell, village, affected area, and UPI of which property is from, is presented as volume III to the RAP, as the Asset valuation report. Adequate compensation rates have been drawn by the proponent based on the prevailing market rates of the affected facility in the RAP document. The established compensation rates have been applied throughout the 96 project components with consistency in the respective project phases with allowances for adjustment for a case of the staggered compensation payments. 7.6.1 Valuation for Land This covers all plots on which all project land shall be acquired and relocation site, with regards to the value of the land related to the area, compensation based on the existing market land rates. Above mentioned Official Gazette has a list of the land compensation prices in Kigali city and outside Kigali from district level up to village level, the village level prices depended on the following: ▪ The IRPV price to be considered for maximum, minimum and or average. ▪ Existing Land use. ▪ Location of land. ▪ Neighbouring settlement. ▪ Infrastructures. In summary, the process of determining the value of land followed the following steps used to get the land value. ▪ Land location identification: district, sector, cell and village. ▪ To determine the size of the land affected ▪ To determine the cost per sqm with reference to Land Prices per location set by the Institute of Real Property Valuers (IRPV) by setting an average price based on the location of the land, land use, neighbouring settlement and infrastructure present in the vicinity. With reference to official gazette Special Nº of 01/12/2021, the average cost of Land in different sectors, cells and villages in the project have been applied. ▪ To adapt the cost per sqm of the land computed in (3) and to make the individual file and combine it with other potential assets to be affected if any. ▪ A total land value was presented plus the 5% disruption fee as instructed by the 2015 National expropriation law to cater for any foreseen or unforeseen transaction fees by the PAP. The table below summarises the number of plots, plot owners, land size and valued cost for compensation that the VNP pilot expansion project proposes to acquire. Table 60: Land size and Cost value Location Number Number of Size of land to be Cost (Rwf) SN Villages of plots landowners (HH) affected (Sqm) 1 Myase 765 430 1,102,085 1,998,127,780.00 2 Nyarusizi 467 243 782,643.4 1,994,958,026.60 3 Gahura 523 260 634,913 2,254,745,911.00 4 Nyakigina 719 419 1,732,034 4,311,008,332.00 5 Relocation site 269 189 499,743.84 1,733,611,380.96 Total 2,743 1,541 4,760,419.24 12,292,451,430.56 Disruption fees (5%) 620,628,147.53 General land value 13,033,191,093.09 97 According to the WB, compensation for land is primarily land for land i.e. the project must look for a similar piece of land under similar conditions and similar size when compensation the loss of land. However, it is expected that, in case of this project, such land for land is not possible for reason of land scarcity in Rwanda. The next option is cash compensation for land loss. 7.6.2 Valuation for residential houses and other Structures There are different options for compensating houses and structures on land that will be expropriated. In-kind by house for house compensation, cash compensation at full replacement value or any other form mutually agreed upon by the expropriator and the person to be expropriated are some of them (as referred in article 35 of the Rwandan expropriation law No 32/2015 of 11/06/2015). Replacement costs was based on: ▪ Sizes of structures and materials used. ▪ Average replacement costs of different types of structures based on information on the numbers and types of materials used to construct different types of structures. ▪ Prices of materials used in the structure based on local market rates. ▪ Transportation costs for delivery of these materials acquired for replacing the structure. ▪ Estimates of construction of new buildings including labour required. ▪ Any associated costs including rates, taxes, and registration fees among others. Stages adopted to reach replacement cost are the following: 1. Identification of structure to be affected. 2. Inspection with detailed drawing measurements. 3. Categorization of house per construction materials (e.g. Durable bricks, Mud bricks, etc..). 4. Categorization of house per use of the house: residential or commercial. 5. Calculation and computations of replacement earth work, quantity of materials, labour, etc. 6. Calculation of prices for transportation, materials, labour, and other related costs. 7. Formulation of individual files (all individual files are present in the annex). The types of houses identified in the project area during asset inventory and valuation likely to be displaced by the project, and a detailed list of PAPs and their properties presented as volume III to the RAP, as the Asset valuation report. During the asset inventory and valuation, the following number and cost of residential houses were identified within the project area as shown in the table below. A more detailed spread sheet including houses and other structures (such as kitchens, kraals, fences, beehives, etc) are presented as volume III to the RAP, as the Asset valuation report. Table 61: Residential Houses, their location in the project area and value Number of residential Cost (Rwf) of residential houses SN Location Villages houses 1 Myase 153 256,290,814.96 2 Nyarusizi 138 261,503,652.66 3 Gahura 121 254,772,818.22 98 4 Nyakigina 231 540,628,918.11 5 Relocation site 1 1,144,666.72 Total cost 644 1,314,340,870.67 Disruption fees (5%) 65,717,043.5 General Total cost for Houses 1,380,057,914.17 The above table will be used to compensate owners at full replacement cost for their residential houses, however, it shall be noted that there are owners of residential houses that do not physically reside in them and either rent them out or have their relatives take care of them. In order to determine the number of Households that physically reside in the residential houses and that will be entitled additionally to replacement houses in the resettlement site, the RAP turned to data from the socio- economic study (SES), table 17 mentioned earlier. The number of households owning houses in the project area and physically residing there are 510Households (Hh), who are entitled to replacement houses in the resettlement site, as elaborated in the table below. Table 62: Number of households owning residential houses and physically residing in project area. Physically residing PAHs residing in project area by Village Relocation Use of house owned in the affected area Myase Nyarusizi Gahura Nyakigina Total site Live in it only 131 93 97 166 1 488 Live in it and rent out other 3 6 1 2 0 12 Live in it and relatives live in other 2 2 2 3 0 9 Live in one, rent one out, relatives live in other 0 1 0 0 0 1 Total #Hh physically residing and entitled to a replacement house in the Resettlement site 136 102 100 171 1 510 Also, the value of other structures beyond the residential houses (such as kitchens, kraals, fences, beehives, etc) are presented in the table below, again for purposes of computation of the full replacement cost of structures that will be displaced by the project. Table 63: Value of Other structures affected by the project and their location. SN Location Villages Cost (Rwf) of other structures 1 Myase 60,866,935.11 2 Nyarusizi 50,944,846.32 3 Gahura 80,179,985.68 4 Nyakigina 146,302,826.71 5 Relocation site 556,540.88 Total cost valued 338,851,134.70 Disruption fees (5%) 16,942,556.74 General Total cost for other structures 355,793,691.44 99 As the Rwanda is implementing grouped settlement, affected people will be offered completed houses at the proposed smart green village relocation site by the project. House sizes will be allocated based on the size of families. Proposed conceptual designs of the houses at smart green village relocation site are of 3 typologies: 2, 3 or 4-bedroomed houses each with a living room, kitchen and toilets. 7.6.3 Valuation for Trees and perennial crops Compensation for trees both perennial and seasonal will be done on the basis of the requirements of Rwandan law. Under this law, landowners and leaseholders are entitled to be compensated at market value referring to published reference prices for trees and perennial crops on the land that they owned or rented. Stages adopted to reach the cost for Trees and perennial crops are the following: ▪ Identification of Trees and/or perennial crops to be affected. ▪ To count the number of Trees and/or perennial crops. ▪ Identification of prices from the Perennial Crops and Trees reference price provided by the Institute of Real Property Valuers (IRPV). ▪ Computation of total price by multiplying the number of trees and perennial crops with its unit rate. The following table shows the number of identified trees and the perennial crops along with their valued cost in each respective location as shown in table below. Table 64: Trees and perennial crops and trees compensation rates and value SN Location Villages Cost of Perennial crops & Trees (Rwf) 1 Myase 153,569,890.5 2 Nyarusizi 111,881,128.5 3 Gahura 121,833,186.5 4 Nyakigina 386,255,922.5 5 Relocation site 69,461,755 Total cost 843,001,883 Disruption fees (5%) 42,150,094.15 General Total cost value 885,151,977.15 7.6.4 Seasonal crops Seasonal crops are mainly those that take less than six months to reach total maturity to be fully harvested and the land cleared, for instance, irish potatoes, pyrethrum, maize, beans, vegetables, sweet potatoes, etc. PAPs with seasonal crops will not be compensated for the loss of these crops, instead they will be allowed to harvest their crops before project commencement. By the expropriation law they are given 120days after land compensation. Public notice must be provided to all PAPs with seasonal crops within the project area to alert them on when to stop cultivating once they have been compensated for loss of land. If they have already cultivated, they must be allowed to harvest their crops prior to start of upgrade active construction. Beyond this, seasonal crops owners shall also be allowed the capacity building offered to others, for those interested. 100 7.6.5 Summary of Valuation compensation cost for impact on land, houses and other structures, perennial crops and trees The table below provides a summary of valuation compensation cost for land, houses and other structures, perennial crops and trees: Table 65:Summary of assets inventories and their valuation cost S/N Category of Impact Unit Quantity Valued Cost (Rwf) 5% disruption Total compensation fee cost (Rwf) 1 Land Sqm 4,760,419.24 12,292,451,430.56 620,628,147.53 13,033,191,093.09 2 Houses (residential) Number 644 1,314,340,870.67 65,717,043.5 1,380,057,914.17 3 Other structures (kitchens, - - 338,851,134.70 16,942,556.74 355,793,691.44 toilets, kraals, other structures, fences, etc) 4 Trees and Perennial crops - - 843,001,883 42,150,094.15 885,151,977.15 General Total 14,788,645,318.93 728,495,285.18 15,654,194,675.85 101 8. LIVELIHOOD RESTORATION MEASURES 8.1 International Best Practice As per WB ESS5, when land acquisition or restrictions on land use (whether permanent or temporary) cannot be avoided, the project will offer affected persons compensation at replacement cost, and other assistance as may be necessary to help them improve or at least restore their standards of living or livelihood. In the case of physical displacement, the project will develop a plan that covers, at a minimum, the applicable requirements of the ESS regardless of the number of people affected. The plan will include, among other things, a resettlement budget and implementation schedule, and establish the entitlements of all categories of affected persons. Particular attention will be paid to gender aspects and the needs of the poor and the vulnerable. In the case of projects affecting livelihoods or income generation, the project’s plan will include measures to allow affected persons to improve, or at least restore, their incomes or livelihoods. Economically displaced persons will be provided opportunities to improve, or at least restore, their means of income-earning capacity, production levels, and standards of living: ◼ For persons whose livelihoods are land-based, replacement land that has a combination of productive potential, locational advantages, and other factors at least equivalent to that being lost will be offered where feasible. E.g. Irish potatoes seed and horticulture production under green houses and open field. ◼ For persons whose livelihoods are natural resource-based and where project-related restrict access to those resources, measures will be implemented to either allow continued access to affected resources or to provide access to alternative resources with equivalent livelihood-earning potential and accessibility. ◼ If it is demonstrated that replacement land or resources are unavailable, the Borrower will offer economically displaced persons options for alternative income earning opportunities, such as credit facilities, skills training, business start-up assistance, employment opportunities, or cash assistance in additional to compensation. e.g. employment opportunities in project construction stage, ecolodge, financial services community based tourism centre (handcraft, tourism reception and tourism guides) and Agro logistics. 8.2 Livelihood Restoration and strengthening Program (LRSP) In addition to compensation, the following livelihood restoration plan has been developed, with specified packages, budget as well as implementation and monitoring arrangements. 8.2.1 Guiding Principles The development of livelihood restoration programs was guided by, and is consistent with, the following principles recommended by international best practice: ◼ Plan and negotiate livelihood restoration and improvement activities with displaced persons: Due to the complexity involved in sustainable livelihoods, restoration and improvement activities cannot be a purely technical exercise but require a high level of interaction with displaced people as well as communal land users in order to develop the most feasible and desirable activities. 102 ◼ Livelihoods restoration is individual: The goal is that no person will suffer a Project-induced economic loss. Thus, to the extent possible, restoration activities will be planned to account for each context. Women and men within a displaced household will be considered to have equal entitlement – and equal benefit – to any livelihood restoration activity. If it is determined that individuals or groups of individuals are unable to access and benefit equally -- within or outside the household -- supplementary activities will be provided. ◼ Implement pilot activities where possible: Livelihood displacement may have complex, unpredictable, and, often, immeasurable effects. As such, even lower-risk livelihood interventions are not guaranteed to succeed. Therefore, livelihood interventions should be based on initiatives and practices employed elsewhere in the Project Area and Rwanda. Insofar as possible, interventions that are new to the area will be tested through pilot or demonstration activities. This will enable any potential technical or human issues to be identified prior to full-scale implementation. By basing pilot activities on the actual relocation site and under the ownership of displaced households, demonstrations can help all displaced persons make more informed choices while creating community-based ‘champions' able to educate and support displaced persons to make informed choices of alternative activities. ◼ Focus on investments rather than direct interventions – As cash compensation forms a significant portion of the compensation package, livelihood interventions will incentivise the use of compensation funds towards household and community investments that contribute towards livelihood outcomes. International best practice has demonstrated that incentive-based livelihood approaches have greater sustainability than interventions that prioritise in-kind assistance. ◼ Prioritize the replacement of existing livelihood activities – Subject to consultations with displaced persons, livelihood mitigation measures have been planned according to the following hierarchy: ✓ Category 1 – Existing Livelihood Restoration: Generally, the lowest-risk option is to re- establish existing livelihoods so that displaced persons can continue doing what they know best and what is known to work in the local situation. ✓ Category 2 – Existing Livelihood Intensification: For land-based livelihoods, if there is insufficient available replacement land of at least equal quality, in many cases a viable option is to bring about a permanent, sustainable intensification of land use, so that a smaller area of land can be made to produce as much or more than the original land base, net any additional labour or other costs on an ongoing basis. In case of this project, replacement land was insufficient and hence the option of sustainable intensification of land use was applied. E.g. Irish potatoes seed and horticulture production under green houses and open field. ✓ Category 3 – Introduction of Alternative Livelihoods: The substitution of a new type of livelihood (for example, doing business) for an existing one (for example, farming) should only be considered when there is no feasible way of restoring the existing livelihood means. e.g. employment opportunities in project construction stage, ecolodge, financial services community based tourism centre (handcraft, tourism reception and tourism guides) and Agro logistics. 103 ✓ Create, foster, and enhance networks with government and existing civil society organisations and stakeholders – To maximise in-place programme sustainability, it is vital to develop and strengthen social support networks, primarily from government agencies, but also from multilateral agencies and NGOs. In this regard, PAPs meeting the requirement will be reintegrated in the existing social protection programme such as VUP. For purposes of this project, category 2 and 3 were observed to be the most suitable. 8.2.2 Livelihood Restoration Assistance Packages (LRAPs) In developing Livelihood Restoration Assistance Packages (LRAPs) for the eligible PAHs, packages under the two main categories were considered. i) Land-based Category- The package under this category focused on boosting agricultural and livestock production in the following areas: Poultry farming, Value addition to agricultural produce, among others. ii) Non-land-based Category- Packages under this category focused on employment opportunities in the project, offering financial services, financial literacy, Micro-credit schemes, handicrafts, among others. Reference was made to the Livelihood Restoration Plan (LRP) for the VNP expansion project prepared in 2022 by Vanguard economics and its partners Entrem Ltd and Mass design. In that LIP, Livelihood restoration package options were presented on household and community level. The proposed livelihood restoration package options in this LIP, were presented to participants of the FGDs conducted during this RAP to capture their opinions on these packages, which ones they appreciated, those of concern, and other potential livelihood restoration package options that could be included for this project. Reference was also made to information collected and presented under the stakeholder engagement chapter 6, of potential support systems of existing NGOs for the proposed livelihood restoration packages. In the table below, the consultant presents the outcome of the above exercise in the following manner; the proposed Livelihood restoration package options proposed, impressions collected during the FGDs and potential support systems for each of the packages. 104 Table 66: Livelihood Restoration Packages Package and its description Constraints and opportunities Impression from FGD Support systems available Interested PAPs in the as per the LIAP by 2022 participants and socio- package Vanguard economics et al economic study (SES) findings A- Livelihood restoration package/options on the household level 1. Employment opportunities Opportunities- Job opportunities • PAPs expect diverse • RDB. • All PAPs comprising Job opportunities as an affirmative arrangement of (both unskilled and skilled) by employment opportunities • Contractors. male and female of first priority to PAPs for employment in the different VNP expansion project activities with the emerging VNP • Local NGOs working age. project activities, for instance; employment in and related eco-tourism activities expansion project o Partners in construction of the smart green relocation village, and off-farm activities. compared to the current conservation. cleaning of the VNP expansion area to remove common jobs that are only o Wildlife contaminants that could affect wildlife once the Constraints- Insufficient skill by agriculture based. From conservation park is expanded, preparation and planting of the PAPs to maximise on available employment, they Initiative (WCI) park buffer zone landscape, preparation of plant jobs, Influx of migrating skilled anticipate increased o Redrox initiative nurseries, tourist potters and guides, employment workers that could take up PAPs’ household income. o Conservation by other eco-tourism related activities such as potential job opportunities. • Constraints foreseen are heritage- cultural troupes, production of handicrafts, etc. migrant workers taking Turambe. these jobs. o AVERDURE • Constraint of low levels of • A Labour Management education by HH heads, Procedures (LMP) 87% either only primary instrument is being education or no education prepared, to the effect that at all as per SES. preference to employment • The above concerns are in the project should be addressed by the given to PAPs and in proposition that the project alignment with ESS2. The takes on a first preference LMP states that approach for PAPs in job contractors are obliged to opportunities. put forward a preference • Also, casual labour for local manpower and earnings are not new to the make it known to the project areas, as 13% of surrounding communities those surveyed earn from it and establish a quota for as per SES. They could vulnerable groups. This then fit well similar project will significantly job opportunities. economically empower local communities while 105 Package and its description Constraints and opportunities Impression from FGD Support systems available Interested PAPs in the as per the LIAP by 2022 participants and socio- package Vanguard economics et al economic study (SES) findings preserving social cohesion. Contractors shall thrive to meet at least 30% in terms of women employment on the project. 2. Financial service agents Opportunities- 5.5million Adults • FGD participants • MTN Rwanda • Youth PAPs Opportunities are available to generate income as of about 7million use financial mentioned that such • Airtel Rwanda. agents in the financial services sector, where services, including products from financial service agents’ • Bank of Kigali (BK). Individuals involved in this business have options bank sector and non-bank options could have a low • Equity Bank. to work as agents for banks, insurance companies, sectors. Digital services are uptake, scoring it 2.1 out of • Irembo. and telecom companies. Financial services and currently the country’s drive and 4, because they are • Ejo Heza programme as a products play an important role in promoting faster, hence an opportunity for opportunities that can be Pension scheme. broad-based economic growth, and poverty proposed financial service done by youth and those • Access to Finance (AFR). reduction in Rwanda. The presence of households agents. with a minimum level of • Local NGO- Safer Rwanda working in financial services as agents create education, however they easier and faster access to financial services by Constraints- Interested admitted that such digital people in the Volcano Region community. Based individuals require starting financial services were on the 2020 Rwanda Finscope, In total, 93% capital plus increased financial very much required for (about 7 million adults) in Rwanda are financially education of the VNP daily activities. included (including both formal and informal communities of financial services • The above concern is financial products/services). Gender gap in in easing transactions. addressed by the facts that financial inclusion is closing with only 8% excluding the SES shows that 79% is women compared to 7% amongst male below the age of 40 years, counterparts. indicating a very youthful population in the area. • Also, as per SES, 82% Hh use formal financial services that will need financial service agents 106 Package and its description Constraints and opportunities Impression from FGD Support systems available Interested PAPs in the as per the LIAP by 2022 participants and socio- package Vanguard economics et al economic study (SES) findings and 41% Hh keep money in secret places at home which could be kept safer on their phone numbers mobile money or bank accounts. 3. Tailoring Opportunities- Selling to tourists’ • From FGDs, this was a • Local NGO: • Female PAPs Training and financially supporting interested mementos visiting the park, package appreciated, o SAKOLA households in tailoring business was proposed. selling in tourism exhibitons, scored 2.6 out of 4, on o Redrox Initiative. Sewing products such as clothing, footwear and made in Rwanda drive is also a grounds that there is o ARECO-Rwanda jewellery products. market opportunity for locally sufficient market for Nziza. The garments and tailoring sector in Rwanda made garments. garments, such as comprise of micro and small businesses and self- uniforms for schools, employed tailors. Constraints- Interested clothes for local community The sector has an abundance of women, young individuals require capacity and mementos for visiting women and young men who work as independent building in sewing skills and tourists. tailors. Tailoring profession is suitable for low- starting capital plus • SES shows tailoring, as a skilled youth with limited employability on labour strengthening existing vocational service, to be market, given the sector’s low entry barriers. associations or cooperatives in done by 0.6% of those the tailoring business. surveyed, a skill known by not many Hh heads. • Since it is appreciated and scored well, it is a package that can be implemented with skills training provided and start-up capital. 4. Rabbit farming Opportunities- Market from the • From FGDs, participants • Rabbit breeder farms. • None Rabbit farming is proposed to be implemented in rabbit meat consumption locally. scored it lowest with 1.3 • RAB under small legged cages. It will provide meat, household income from out of 4, indicated that livestock development rabbits don’t do well in cold plan. 107 Package and its description Constraints and opportunities Impression from FGD Support systems available Interested PAPs in the as per the LIAP by 2022 participants and socio- package Vanguard economics et al economic study (SES) findings selling rabbit, rabbit fur for potential carpet Constraints- Skills training on areas, having a high production, rabbit refuse for manure for farms. rabbit rearing and start-up capital mortality rate in cold areas for rabbit farming. and the project area is a cold area. Rabbits also require a lot of fodder to feed, now with limited land and limited wild grasses they could struggle to feed them. • Based on PAPs impression and constraints mentioned in the LIAP, this RAP doesn’t recommend the project pursuing this package. 5. Rural Agro-logistics Opportunities- Solving affordable • FGD participants scored it, • RMC- a company that • Male PAPs and male Households that own tri-motorcycles would transport from farm gate to 2.4 out of 4, though with assembles motorcycles youth. potentially play an important role in bringing markets, locally assembled concerns that with locally. transportation solutions for farm harvests and farm motorcycles in Rwanda making reduction of agro-produce • Ampersand- assembles inputs, as well as generating income for them cheaper to buy. from loss of land, could electric motorcycles. themselves. result in less produce • FONERWA/Rwanda Constraints- Affordability of tri- requiring transportation to Green fund- which could motorcycle by household. the market and therefore support electric and losses to the transport sustainable mobility. business ventured into. • On the other hand, this concern is overlapped by the SES that showed that regarding access to market, 51% of PAHs relied on middlemen to sell their produce due to access to the right market, with a negative effect on 108 Package and its description Constraints and opportunities Impression from FGD Support systems available Interested PAPs in the as per the LIAP by 2022 participants and socio- package Vanguard economics et al economic study (SES) findings the profitability of their agriculture. • Considering, resettlement of the scattered PAHs in the clustered settlement at the Relocation site, there could be potential of a business of transporting produce and returning with merchandise directly to and from Musanze for PAHs without requiring middlemen. B- Livelihood restoration package/options on the community level 6. Poultry production (Chicken farming) Opportunities- High demand for • FGD participants scored it, • RAB. • Female PAPs and Investment in poultry fits the smart green village for chicken meat and eggs in the 2.6 out of 4. This was an • Local NGO- Rwanda youth PAPs. the relocation site and Rwanda’s small size, even area, Rwanda and immediate option acceptable for Development Organisation for farmers without big acres of land. Eggs from region. e.g. DRC. VNP close participants with a few (RDO). layer hens are a stable and affordable source of proximity to a large market in constraints on rising costs • Presence of hatcheries in protein as well as potential source of income when DRC. Improved nutrition to the of chicken feed. Rwanda. commercialized. PAHs could be an added PAHs. • SES shows chicken • Feed mills and chicken opportunity for out grower schemes that allows farming, to be done by feeds production and more farmers to raise chickens on a small scale. Constraints- Increasingly high 3.3% of those surveyed. distribution centres. Based on the MINAGRI annual report 202-2021, poultry feed prices, start-up • Since it is appreciated and • Meat and egg medium and the next 10-year projection shows a shift in meat capital is required, limited funds scored well, it is a package large-scale buyers. production with 32% of total meat to come from for farmers who prefer to invest that can be implemented chicken from 22%. in storage facilities so as to sell with skills training provided when prices have gone up. and start-up capital. 7. Pig and pork production Opportunities- High demand for • FGD participants scored it, • RAB. • None Pig breeding in pig sheds was proposed. Pigs pork in the area, Rwanda and low with 1.4 out of 4, on • Local NGO- Rwanda have relatively lower feed requirements than beef. immediate region. e.g. DRC. grounds that this was a Development Organisation They are more suitable for smallholder VNP close proximity to a large new skill, with participants (RDO). households. market in DRC. Improved a little pessimistic on The piggery sector has potential to be turned into nutrition to the PAHs. whether it could work. many high value products with higher durability. Participants proposed 109 Package and its description Constraints and opportunities Impression from FGD Support systems available Interested PAPs in the as per the LIAP by 2022 participants and socio- package Vanguard economics et al economic study (SES) findings The 2011-2020 national piggery population has Constraints- start-up capital is alternatives of dairy or grown annually at the rate of 8.2%. The pig required, limited funds for cold sheep farming which they population in Rwanda is currently estimated at 1.8 chain storage, limited knowledge currently are used to. million pigs. Pigs contribute 14% to meat on sustainable value chain • SES shows pig farming, is production. With right investments and addition. done by 2.6%, mixed dairy interventions, 48% of total meat is forecasted to (9.4%) and exotic dairy come from pigs by 2031. cattle (7.6%) and sheep In addition, A livestock master plan by RAB and farming by 37% of those MINAGRI elaborates the need for an increase of surveyed. 239% of pig meat in the next 5 years. • Although sheep are proposed, the FGDs, revealed that though sheep are the commonest livestock, earnings from sheep production are among the lowest. Those in sheep production explain how this is because the breeds are not very productive and most sales come from flesh and not other bi- products like fur. • Based on PAPs impression, this RAP recommends that pig farming is replaced by dairy farming and potentially livestock farming. 110 Package and its description Constraints and opportunities Impression from FGD Support systems available Interested PAPs in the as per the LIAP by 2022 participants and socio- package Vanguard economics et al economic study (SES) findings 8. Mushroom farming Opportunities- Mushrooms don’t • No Comments made. • Local NGO: • Female PAPs and Mushrooms are grown indoors. The main keys to require much land to grow. o Rwanda youth. growing mushrooms at home are establishing the There is a growing premium Development right growing conditions and acquiring mushroom market for mushrooms in Organisation spawn, which is the material used to propagate Rwanda. There are significant (RDO). mushrooms. Mushrooms are grown year-round, imports of canned button o Fatrade across the nation, and don’t require much land. On mushrooms which can now be ihumure. average, one square foot of space in a mushroom supplied locally. bed can produce 6.55 pounds of mushrooms. In fact, one acre of land can produce 1 million pounds Constraints- mushrooms require of specific temperature, humidity mushrooms. Consumers can purchase fresh, and light limits and canned and dried mushrooms. predetermined aeration. Farmers will need technical skills training, assistance and to some extent startup capital. Mushroom shelf life is short and therefore requires quick sells. 9. Community handcrafts Opportunities- Access to raw • FGD participants • PSF and MINICOM trading • Female PAPs and According to the handicraft and sector 2022 report, materials in the VNP area such appreciated it, scoring it platforms. youth PAPs. although small, the handcraft sector is a growing as, clay, wood, reeds, bamboo, forth highest, 2.7 out of 4, • RDB’s Visit Rwanda sector in Rwanda. Handcrafts portray Rwanda’s animal skin. Handcrafts are on grounds that this promotion campaigns. cultural heritage and are unique with originality of popular on the local market, initiative is a lucrative • Private investors, ventures their own. online websites, export markets business. and NGOs working with Extensive range of handcrafts that are made in and most importantly sell easily • Since it is appreciated and rural artisan cooperatives: Rwanda include: wood products; ceramics and to tourists as mementos and scored well, it is a package Gahaya Links, Inzuki, and pottery; hand textiles and hand-loomed products; tourism exhibitions. that can be implemented Global Women Artisans for embroidery and woven products; basketry and with skills training provided instance. mats. Constraints- Inadequate funding and start-up capital. • Cooperatives Agaseke is one of the hand-woven products that and empowering interested ABISHYIZEHAMWE have gained international applause. Handcrafting people, especially women and • Local NGOs: offers opportunities for income generation through youth, partnering with well- o Redrox initiative. production of market-oriented, high-quality established e-commerce o Conservation products. platforms. Inadequate skills heritage- Turambe 111 Package and its description Constraints and opportunities Impression from FGD Support systems available Interested PAPs in the as per the LIAP by 2022 participants and socio- package Vanguard economics et al economic study (SES) findings As an emerging sector it employs a good number training in preparing fine finishing of people especially youth and women. to handicrafts. The VNP regions offer vast access to raw materials needed for handcrafting: wood, bamboo, reeds, animal skins, banana fiber, clay, stones, etc. And the tourists visiting the park offer a huge market for handicraft memento produced by community handicraft later on export market. 10. Cultural Arts Village Opportunities- Venues hosting • Though FGD participants • RDB • Both female and Rwanda is potentially rich in cultural industries and events allocate time for expressed appreciation of • Ministry of Youth and male PAPs is a tourism destination country with a good performers welcoming and this as a profitable option culture. experienced in number of cultural and touristic attractions. The entertaining guests. Integration as they had observed • Cooperative cultural arts. existence of cultural art villages plays an important of rural community life into the during a field trip to learn ABABUNGABUNGA role in exhibiting the region’s unique culture eco-tourism packages to from other PAPs near the INGAGI&IBYIWACU through arts. increase their income. Akagera National Park that • Local NGOs: “Iby’Iwacu” Cultural Village is an example of a benefitted from a similar o Redrox initiative community of individuals in Kinigi, Musanze who Constraints- Involving private initiative through tourists, attract visitors (both international and local tourists) sector to support the process of visitors and exhibitions by performing for them and guiding them with delivering cultural tourism hiring such services, they tours. products and information at scored it low at 1.7 out of Cultural art villages are areas where culture and cultural sites, getting local 4, with concern for a place artifacts of Rwanda are exhibited comprising of consumers to understand that visible for tourists and traditional dance troupes, cultural artifacts and tells the cultural product is payable visitors to approach them of Rwandan culture. These are areas where like other consumable products, within the VNP expansion culture is exhibited to tourists and locals visiting assisting artists financially and area. the region. helping them to work with • With an approachable Increasing the number of vocational training financial institutions as this space by tourists and schools and centres for creative arts training could sector is still neglected. visitors for a cultural arts benefit the PAHs. village, skills training and start-up capital, this could be considered as a lucrative option. 11. Horticulture- growing berries Opportunities- Berries have a • FGD participants • Buyers, such as Urwibutso • All PAPs of working local market, especially the appreciated this option entreprise ltd, an agri- age. 112 Package and its description Constraints and opportunities Impression from FGD Support systems available Interested PAPs in the as per the LIAP by 2022 participants and socio- package Vanguard economics et al economic study (SES) findings Rwanda strawberry is a red-coloured fruit made up URWIBUTSO Enterprise and scoring it third highest, 2.9 business entrepreneur that of rough-textured, heart-shaped berries that grow other dairy industries. out of 4, on grounds such produces juices from fruits. in a cluster. The fruit goes under the typical term farming in green house for berries in Kinyarwanda, namely Inkeri. In Constraints- Fragility of the fruits, could be highly productive Rwanda, favourable climate conditions are in the sensibility for many diseases, and can be done by old Northern Province of Rwanda, where the VNP low salt tolerant, perishable, and young people and project lies. production is water intensive those with disabilities. The berries have value propositions as they are hence need for irrigation, seeds • Since it is appreciated and grown on a small scale and can be performed at may not be affordable, farmers scored well, it is a package household level. need training on phytosanity that can be implemented measures of how to handle them with skills training provided to avoid or mininise multi- and start-up capital. diseases. 12. Horticulture- Tree Tomatoes Opportunities- According to • FGD participants • NAEB • All PAPs of working The package here is to grow and sell tree NAEB, there is strong demand appreciated this option • DUHAMIC-ADRI an NGO age. tomatoes. for tree tomato on the local scoring it third highest, 2.9 with horticulture projects. The raw materials to grow tree tomatoes are market and international out of 4, on grounds such • PROFEMMES TWESE accessible through seed companies in the country, markets, particularly in the UK, farming in green house HAMWE supports women such as Holland Greentech importing and Germany, the Netherlands and could be highly productive entrepreneurs in distributing high-quality seeds and other Agri- Spain, and especially if it is and can be done by old horticulture. equipment. Organic manure is available at organic. There are also several and young people and • Local NGOs: homesteads and recommended fertilizers are value addition options on tree those with disabilities. o ARECO- available in the Rwandan Market. tomatoes; it can be processed • Since it is appreciated and Rwanda Nziza. Markets for Tree tomato are extremely large in into juices, concentrates, jams, scored well, it is a package segments but equally in volume. gelatins and sweets. that can be implemented According to the Horticulture catalog 2020, from with skills training provided Jan-December 2019, the country exported to Constraints- Training on and start-up capital. Belgium and UAE 54516 Kgs and the total Agronomy pest and diseases Revenue was about 8,363,759 USD. At household control related training are level, tree tomatoes are used often to make food required. Farmers will constantly for babies. need to be trained on post- harvest handling technologies for profit maximization. Macro economy 113 Package and its description Constraints and opportunities Impression from FGD Support systems available Interested PAPs in the as per the LIAP by 2022 participants and socio- package Vanguard economics et al economic study (SES) findings 13. Bed and breakfast facility Opportunities- Increased number • No comments made. • RDB • Youth PAPs of high-end hospitality services • Local NGOs: in Kinigi, create an opportunity of o SAKOLA affordable alternaties for people who are visiting the area but have a tight budget. Constraints- Inadequate access to start-up capital. 14. Tourism reception (bar, restaurant and Opportunities: At the relocation • No comments made. • Youth PAPs coffee shop, art and craft workshop and site, there is a viewpoint where skills centre, and storytelling) tourist can go to have a view of the volcanoes range. This is a tourist attraction point. The community can be supported and craft workshop and skills with required skills to run such a facility combined with bar and restaurant services. In a separate space, there can be a kind of small museum where people tell the stories of locals for example: what they believe, how they come up with the names for volcanoes, etc. Constraints- Inadequate access to start-up capital. 15. Tourism services (Tour and hiking guides Opportunities: There is a • Considered as part of • Youth PAPs and conservation guides) growing market demand of employment opportunities guides in Kinigi due to high discussed above. visitors in the area. guides and conservation guides). By building capacity of the individuals, the community can tap into this opportunity. 114 Package and its description Constraints and opportunities Impression from FGD Support systems available Interested PAPs in the as per the LIAP by 2022 participants and socio- package Vanguard economics et al economic study (SES) findings Constraints- Inadequate access to start-up capital. 115 8.2.3 Implementation Steps and Transition period The first step of implementation will be to receive applications for the desired Livelihood Restoration Assistance Package by the project affected households (PAHs), followed by assessment of applications by the Project Implementation unit (PIU) along with local authorities and selected members of the PAPs, to determine if eligibility criteria for the applied LRAP has been met. Applicants will then be given feedback on their applications and get enrolled into the LRAPs. The established Cell-level Committee (Livelihood Restoration Plan Implementation Committee-LRPIC), RDB, District will implement LRP activities and closely monitor the progress over a twenty-four-month period. The Cell-level authorities will furnish the district with quarterly progress reports which will be transmitted to RDB. The first twelve months will primarily entail, bringing service providers on board, implementing the livelihood restoration programs and monitoring progress, while the other twelve months will entail assessing the outcomes of the administered LRAP interventions and making improvements to realize better outcomes for PAPs. The Livelihood Restoration Plan Implementation Committee (LRPIC) shall be composed as follows: ◼ Chairperson of the cell council ◼ PAP representative ◼ Women PAP representative ◼ Youth PAP representative ◼ Project representative Table 67: Activities to be implemented during the transitional period. SN Activity Responsible Duration 1 Musanze District Notice to stop cultivating seasonal crops and harvesting perennial crops 2 Identification and engagement of other service providers (BDF, RDB, Musanze District 120 days FONERWA, SACCOs, Local NGOs, etc.) 3 PAPs mobilisation RDB, Musanze District 4 Preparation of the implementation of the LRP RDB, Musanze District 5 Establishment and training of the LRPIC RDB, Musanze District For the project to kick-off (actual works), some preliminary activities are required, thus a transition period between vacating from VNP expansion area to the new livelihoods will be required to ensure smooth implementation. The table below captures specific activities to be carried out during the transitional period. 116 Table 68: Implementation Steps of Cross-Cutting Activities Activity Element(s) Responsibility Duration LRP disclosure - Preparation and distribution of simple LRP RDB, District, One month period information sheet to each village(umudugudu) LRPIC. (1st month) during or Cell the transition - Preparation and distribution of application period forms - Disclosure of LRP and eligibility requirements in public meetings, to visited households, display of brochure in administrative offices, local media etc. - Sensitizing PAPs on application process and submission of filled application forms to umudugudu or Cell. Applications for desired - Accessing all eligible PAPs proactively rather RDB, District, Cells, One month period programs than waiting for their application. Village (through the 1st - Assisting PAPs to complete application forms (Umudugudu), and 2nd month) - Follow up with PAPs to ensure they properly fill LRPIC. during the forms and submit to Village (Umudugudu) or transition period, Cell however - Collecting filled application forms from applications to Umudugudu heads and Cell leaders remain open for - Review of application forms and ensuring all interested PAPs supporting documents are provided Providing feedback on - Provide feedback directly to all applicants. RDB, District, Cells, One month period applications - Support PAPs who did not identify a suitable Village (2nd and 3rd month) program to select suitable options (Umudugudu), during transition LRPIC. period Engaging service - Contacting and signing agreements with RDB, District. One month period providers to deliver service providers (3rd month) livelihood restoration - Preparation of simple work plans for delivery of programs the programs. - Agreeing with service providers on reporting and documentation of activities Enrolment of PAPs into - Signing of consent forms with PAHs RDB, District, One month period livelihood restoration - Give direct prior information to PAHs on all LRPIC. (3rd month) programs aspects of the programs, including delivery schedules Delivery of livelihood - Rapid assessment of needs of enrolled PAHs RDB, District, Within one (1) year restoration programs and aligning with delivery of programs. LRPIC, service *for trainings, - Explaining objectives of the program to enrolled providers. refresher sessions PAHs and obtaining their expectations of the may be organized programs. if deemed - Delivery of each program enrolled for by PAPs necessary in a manner corresponding to identified needs. Monitoring and - Internal monitoring to be performed monthly RDB, District and Monthly; Reporting and quarterly by RDB, District, with the support LRPIC, M&E Quarterly; Semi- of LRPIC, while external monitoring is to be Consultant annually performed semi-annually by M&E Consultant. LRP Completion Audit - Conduct an end-term evaluation of the LRP External M&E Last quarter to either independently, or as part of the overall Experts project end RAP Completion Audit 117 8.2.4 Budget for LRP implementation Based on the budget proposed for sub-component 3a and 3b for the VCRP, the table below indicates the income generative activities/ livelihood restoration packages that could be financed. The budget in table below includes cost estimates for disclosure of LRP and formation of the LRP implementation committees, training and capacity building of the committees, package-delivery costs, monitoring and evaluation costs. The costs are therefore indicative, to allow room for flexibility and adjustment as may be determined by emerging needs of the participating households. The costing of LRP items take into account the possible need for further assistance which will be determined by the findings of the monitoring and evaluation by the LRPICs, Districts and the Monitoring and Evaluation Consultant. Should such a need arise, any savings and the contingency amount could come in handy. 118 Table 69: Indicative Budget for LRP Implementation in the VNP expansion pilot Project No. Item Unit No. of Unit Price Cost (RWF) Notes Units (RWF) A. Disclosure of LRP and Formation of Committees 1 Disclosure of LRP and formation of Days 6 25,000 150,000 Indicated costs are field allowances for RDB and LRPICs local administration staff to participate in the exercise in 14 days (two villages per day for 6 villages). Although included in the budget, it is expected that RDB and the local administration allowances will be drawn from their usual field mission budget following their mission policy. 2 Training and capacity building of Cell-level 8 20,000 40,000 Indicated costs are for preparation of training LRPICs on the LRP committees materials and allowances for four (4) members in each of the 2 cell LRPICs to attend trainings at the rate of 5000 RWF per person. The participants shall converge at the most central cell office for ease of logistics. It is expected that RDB and local administration allowances will be drawn from their usual field mission budget. 3 Application and enrolment of PAHs PAHs TBD Lump sum 500,000 Application and enrolment costs can include into packages disseminating information to PAPs to submit applications, making physical visits to homes of most vulnerable PAPs to assist them to correctly complete application forms, costs for collecting the completed application forms from Umudugudu heads and Cell leaders and costs for providing direct feedback to all applicants. 4 LRP Implementation Committee Months 24 40,000 960,000 Indicated costs are allowances for four (4) (LPRIC) meetings members in each of the 2 cell LRPICs at the rate of 5000 RWF per person in 2 cells covered by the Project. Meetings should be held at least once a month throughout the two-year (24 months) implementation period. Sub-Total (A) 1,650,000 B. Package Costs 119 No. Item Unit No. of Unit Price Cost (RWF) Notes Units (RWF) 5 Employment Positions To be N/A N/A No definite costs to be borne by the project are determined foreseen at this stage. (TBD) 6 Financial services Gadgets 15 7,046,68929 105,700,338 Start-up capital for interested PAPs in offering digital financial services, such as; MTN, Airtel, BK, Equity bank, Cogebanque Agents, Irembo agents. The cost was derived from Livelihood Restoration Plan (LRP) 2022 for the VNP expansion done by Vanguard Economics, ERTEM Ltd and Mass Design for FONERWA. 7 Rural Agro-logistics Tri-cycle 20 5,425,15830 108,503,173 Start-up capital for a tri-cycle for rural agro- logistics serving to transport goods from the local area to Musanze community. The cost was referred from the LIAP 2022 for the VNP expansion. 8 Irish Potatoes Seed production under Green house 2 217,426,49731 434,852,994 Referred from the VCRP PAD. green house 9 Irish Potatoes seed production on open field 5 6,781,65432 33,908,270 Referred from the VCRP PAD. open field 10 Horticulture production under green Green house 1 587,608,05033 587,608,050 Referred from the VCRP PAD. house 11 Horticulture production on open field ha 10 3,763,80734 37,638,070 Referred from the VCRP PAD. 12 Poultry farming facility 1 344,074,05035 344,074,050 Referred from the VCRP PAD. 13 Community based tourism centre Handicrafts making 1 235,001,53436 235,001,534 Referred from the VCRP PAD. (Handcraft, Tourism reception, tourism and training guide) cottage industry. 29 Referenced from the VCRP Project Appraisal Document (PAD), where the unit cost for digital financial services was 6,423.6$, hence the equivalent costing presented here at an exchange rate of 1USD=1,097Rwf. 30 Referenced from the VCRP Project Appraisal Document (PAD), where the unit cost for agro-logistic was 4,945.45$, hence the equivalent costing presented here at an exchange rate of 1USD=1,097Rwf. 31 Referenced from the VCRP Project Appraisal Document (PAD), where the unit cost for a greenhouse was 198,201$, hence the equivalent costing presented here at an exchange rate of 1USD=1,097Rwf. 32 Referenced from the VCRP Project Appraisal Document (PAD), where the unit cost for open field was 6,182$, hence the equivalent costing presented here at an exchange rate of 1USD=1,097Rwf. 33 Referenced from the VCRP Project Appraisal Document (PAD), where the unit cost for a greenhouse was 535,650$, hence the equivalent costing presented here at an exchange rate of 1USD=1,097Rwf. 34 Referenced from the VCRP Project Appraisal Document (PAD), where the unit cost for open field was 3,431$, hence the equivalent costing presented here at an exchange rate of 1USD=1,097Rwf. 35 Referenced from the VCRP Project Appraisal Document (PAD), where the unit cost for poultry farm was 313,650$, hence the equivalent costing presented here at an exchange rate of 1USD=1,097Rwf. 36 Referenced from the VCRP Project Appraisal Document (PAD), where the unit cost for Community based tourism centre was 214,222$, hence the equivalent costing presented here at an exchange rate of 1USD=1,097Rwf. 120 No. Item Unit No. of Unit Price Cost (RWF) Notes Units (RWF) 14 Ecolodge/Affordable accommodation Affordable B&B 1 953,979,72237 953,979,722 Referred from the VCRP PAD. facilities Affordable accommodation to be managed by a private and income distributed back to community using the SACOLA model. Smart green 1 25,395,550,00038 25,395,550,000 A replacement house in the relocation site for Replacement Housing in smart green 22 village only those that physically reside in the project village affected area. Sub-Total (B) 28,236,816,201 C. Monitoring and Evaluation 24 Monitoring by LPRIC, RDB and District Years 2 1200,000 2,400,000 This is to cater for any expenses associated with continuous monitoring to be done during LRP implementation. This amount does not cater for any allowances of LRPICs or another party 25 Monitoring and Evaluation by Frequency Semi- 2,500,000 10,000,000 Wherever possible, this semi-annual activity will Consultant annually be executed within ongoing M&E contracts at RDB over the two-year implementation period. If a separate consultancy is to be designed to carry out this task, these estimates may provide a guideline. 26 LRP Completion Audit Frequency Once Lump sum 8,000,000 It is recommended that an external Monitoring and Evaluation Expert is contracted to conduct the completion audit in the last quarter of LRP implementation. The actual costs for the assignment will be determined at a later stage, though these estimates ay provide a guideline. Sub-Total (C) 20,400,000 Overall LRP budget 28,258,866,201 37Referenced from the VCRP Project Appraisal Document (PAD), where the unit cost for the Ecolodge was 869,626$, hence the equivalent costing presented here at an exchange rate of 1USD=1,097Rwf. 38Referenced from the VCRP Project Appraisal Document (PAD), where the unit cost for construction of the green village was 22,000,000$ and its supervision was 1,150,000US$, hence the equivalent costing presented here at an exchange rate of 1USD=1,097Rwf. 121 9. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISMS 9.1 Introduction The preparation and implementation of the resettlement strategies will involve the participation of several institutions at different levels. Coordination of the participating institutions will be critical to a successful resettlement program. It is therefore important have the institutional arrangements clearly mapped out and understood by all those involved early into the project cycle, so that all participating parties are made aware of each other’s responsibilities, lines of reporting, communication channels, expectations and authority l imits. 9.2 Institutional Role in Implementation of RAP Overall project coordination will be the responsibility of RDB. In RDB, there will be a Project Implementing Unit (PIU). Responsibilities of the PIU include major tasks covering technical, procurement, Environmental and social standards, M&E, financial management and accounting aspects of the Project. It will also ensure the PIUs’ planning and budgeting procedures are carried out at appropriate times and that Annual Work Plans are prepared and project investments included in the budget and subsequently approved. The PIU will have a Coordinator and a technical team that will include an Environmental and Social Management Unit comprising an Environmental Specialist and a Social Safeguards Specialist who will be in charge of overseeing the implementation of this RAP. The table below outlines the roles of each institution in the implementation of this RAP. Table 70: Institutional roles during the RAP implementation S/N Institution Roles/ Responsibilities 1 RDB ✓ RDB will oversee the implementation of the VNP expansion project. ✓ Oversee the overall implementation of the RAP. ✓ Avail the RAP Budget through government budget cycle. ✓ Management of the expenditure of the allocated funds for resettlement costs. ✓ Payment of compensation through PAPs’ individual bank account. ✓ Providing regular reports pertaining to RAP implementation physical and financial progress. ✓ Environmental and Social Safeguards Implementation. ✓ Informing and engaging citizens. ✓ Resolving Grievances and complaints. 2 Musanze District ✓ Community mobilisation for effective project ✓ Work closely with RDB to ensure that the RAP process is implemented successfully. ✓ Work together with the GRCs to ensure that complaints are dealt with and that the RAP is implemented smoothly and efficiently. ✓ Follow up and monitor the relocation and settlement of PAPs. Draft report: Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for Volcanoes National Park (VNP) pilot expansion project. 122 5 Ministry of The MoE will be responsible for developing institutional and human resources Environment capacities in the sector of environment and natural resources and sub-sectors (MoE) during the implementation and governing resettlement arrangements through the Land Bureaus. 6 National Land NLA key responsibility is registering land, issuing and keeping land authentic deeds Authority (NLA) and any other information relating to land. NLA will ensure that PAPs have timely access to their land documents to enable them receive their compensation packages. 7 Council for The valuation during the RAP processes will be carried out by locally certified Regulation of the valuers. In order to be recognized as a real property valuer in Rwanda, a person Real Property must be a member of the Institute. A Council for the Regulation of the Real Property Valuation. Valuation Professionals in Rwanda is established as a regulatory agency. The Institute proposes regulations, guidelines and standards for valuation while the function of approval lies with the Council. A register of real property valuers is maintained by the Council who can enter or remove a real property valuer from the register of certified valuers. The Chairperson of the Council approves valuation and is equivalent to the Chief Government Valuer in other jurisdictions. 8 District Land District Land Offices (DLOs) The DLOs will be responsible for ensuring activities Offices (DLOs) undertaken comply with the National and District level Land Use Master Plans. They will assess the validity of land tenure rights of affected persons and eventually provide the land use permit for the new activity proposed by the project. In addition, they will be responsible for ensuring that effective and independent grievance mechanisms are in place. They will also be used During the preparation of the RP so as to ensure that grievances are reduced at an early stage. The District Land Offices’ activities will be monitored by the district authority. During RAP implementation RDB will play a key role in holding consultation meetings, approving the list of people to be affected by the VNP expansion pilot project, disclosing the RAP and compensation plan, following up the resettlement and compensation planning, implementation and monitoring. At the local level, Musanze district authorities of the project area will play a role in supervising the project resettlement and compensation planning, implementation and monitoring. The key actors on the ground involved in implementation will be the social safeguard team from and representatives from Musanze District and at Kinigi Sector and Kaguhu and Nyabigoma Cells level. This team will coordinate the implementation of RAPs as well as develop and implement consultation and grievance mechanisms via district authorities and project coordinator. 9.3 Grievance redress mechanisms During the implementation of the project activities, it is likely that disputes/disagreements between the project implementers and the affected persons will occur especially in terms of boundaries, ownership of land or use of land/ properties, houses, crops, compensation values, delay in disbursement of the compensation packages, to 123 name a few. It will therefore be necessary to establish channels through which aggrieved people could file their complaints so as to ensure successful project development and implementation. The Article 33 and 34 of the Expropriation Law N° 32/2015 of 11/06/2015 provides complaints procedures for individuals dissatisfied with the value of their compensation. Article 33 of the expropriation law stipulates that, within seven (7) days after the approval of the valuation report by the expropriator, any person to be expropriated who is not satisfied with the assessed value of his/her land and property incorporated thereon shall indicate in writing grounds for his/her dissatisfaction with the valuation report. However, for record, the following mechanism may be adopted. ◼ Registration of the complaint, grievance or dispute case by the District Grievance Redress Committee (GRC); ◼ Processing of the grievance or dispute until closure is established based on evidence that acceptable action was taken by GRC; and ◼ In the event where the complainant is not satisfied with the action taken by GRC, an amicable mediation can be triggered involving a mediation committee independent from the Project. 9.3.1 Grievance Redress Mechanisms Grievance redress mechanisms will be required to ensure that project affected people (PAPs) are able to raise complaints or concerns, without cost, and with the assurance of a timely and satisfactory resolution of the issue. The procedures also ensure that the entitlements are effectively transferred to the intended beneficiaries. All stakeholders will be informed of the intention to implement the grievance mechanism, and the procedure will be communicated before the starting of civil works. The Grievance redress mechanism is one of the strategies that are put in place to monitor and resolve complaints that may arise during or after the Project implementation by the affected people. a) Established procedures for Grievance redress mechanism. The Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM) ensures that complaints are received, reviewed and addressed by the elected Grievance redress committees (GRC). As mentioned in chapter 6 of the stakeholder engagement, GRCs were elected at cell level and liaison coordinator for GRM as presented in the table 57. All grievances concerning compensation, non-fulfilment of contracts, or seizure of assets without compensation shall be addressed to the GRC at cell level and resolved in coordination with the Sector and District Administration. In practice, grievances and disputes that are most likely during the implementation of a resettlement program are the following: ◼ Misidentification of assets or mistakes in valuing them. ◼ Disputes over plot limits, either between the affected person and the Project, or between two neighbours. ◼ Dispute over the ownership of a given asset (two individuals claim to be the owner of the same asset). ◼ Disagreement over the valuation of a plot or other asset. ◼ Successions, divorces, and other family issues, resulting in disputes between heirs and other family members, over ownership or ownership shares for a given asset. 124 ◼ Disagreement over resettlement measures, for instance at the resettlement site, on the type or standing of the proposed housing. ◼ Disputed ownership of a business (for instance where the owner and the operator are different persons), which gives rise to conflicts over the compensation sharing arrangements. ◼ Dispute over offsite impacts (for instance, runoff water from the site causing downstream damages). b) Grievance resolution approach ◼ It is encouraged to resolve the issues at Cell and Sector levels, as they are so close to the affected communities, aware of and involved in the whole process. The unsolved grievance at the cell level can be referred to the sector and the District good governance department. ◼ The relevant local administration at the sector or district, will then attempt to resolve the problem (through dialogue, negotiation and mediation) within 7 calendar days of the complaint being lodged. ◼ The complaint will be escalated to MAJ to facilitate in mediation of the complaint. MAJ is Access to Justice Bureau, where at the district they are 3 lawyers that sent by MINIJUST, who provide advisory services on conflicts but do not take a resolution. They perform mediation and do arbitration for those with conflicts. They also explain to people their entitlements as per law of whatever conflict raised. It is a level that tries to reduce court cases. The MAJ service is free of charge. ◼ If the grievance is not resolved in this way, the dissatisfied party can refer the matter to the competent court. Local courts should be used. If not resolved, then the high court or court of appeal of Rwanda remains an avenue for voicing and resolving these complaints. ◼ RDB and the District will follow up the aggrieved PAP at each level to ensure that the grievances are resolved. ◼ The channels of receiving complaints include presentation of complaints via face-to-face meetings, written complaints, telephones, email communication, third party (e. g., farmers’ organizations, Church, private sector, etc). The figure below presents the grievance or dispute resolution process by showing each step to be followed and responsible actors. 125 Figure 13: Proposed GRM structure c) Grievances redress process The above proposed GRM structure (figure 13 above), is detailed and can be in the grievance redress process as described in table below. Table 71: Grievances redress process Level Description of the process Duration 1 Since most of the complaints that may occur either during execution of works, will involve the contractor and client, at first the Aggrieved Party (AP) will take his/her grievance to the Construction Site Manager (CSM) of the relevant subproject who 24Hours will endeavour to resolve it immediately. The site Manager will inform the environmental/ social safeguard officer or the appointed focal project at RDB/VNP project level. Where AP is 126 Level Description of the process Duration not satisfied, the complaint will be transferred to the Grievance Redress Committee (GRC) at cell level. For complaints that were satisfactorily resolved by the CSM, he/she will inform the GRC and the GRC will log the grievance and the actions that were taken. There is also a possibility that the AP takes his/her complainants directly to the GRC without going to the CSM first. In this case, the GRC will solve it working with the CSM or social and environmental officers of RDB/ VNP project. 2 On receipt of the complaint, the GRC at cell level will log it and 7 working days at cell level, 7 endeavour to resolve it immediately. In case the GRC at cell level working days at sector level fails to solve the complaint, it will be escalated to the GRC at Sector level. If unsuccessful, the GRC or the complainant then notifies Sector Authority in charge of social affairs. If not resolved at the sector level, then the complaint is escalated to the District level to the department of good governance. 3 The District Good governance department will endeavour to At District level (7 working address and resolve the complaint and inform the aggrieved days) party. In case, at the district the complaint is not resolved, the At MAJ (7working days) District Authority will refer the complaint to MAJ for mediation and arbitration. 4 If it remains unresolved or the complainant is dissatisfied with the 7 Working days outcome proposed by the District and MAJ, he/she is free to refer the matter to the court. 5 If the issue remains unresolved through the courts, then the Not fixed ultimate step will be for the ombudsman’s office. The decisions at this level are final. 6 The dimension represented in “thick blue arrow” in figure 13 1-12 hours above is strictly for GBV related matters. The AP will approach directly the Isange OSC to ensure her/his anonymity and safety. However, in case the complaint was addressed first to the Site Manager, the latter is required to immediately refer it to the task force. The Isange OSC will work with competent authorities to ensure that it is reported through judicial processes Gender based related complaints. Complaints related to GBV are directed to the Isange One Stop Centers (IOSC). IOSCs are specialized free-of- charge referral centers where GBV survivors can access comprehensive services such as: medical care; psychosocial support; police and legal support, and collection of legal evidence. IOSCs work closely with community police stations, sector, cell and village leaders and hospitals and health centers across the country. The project safeguards staff will work closely with the woman representative in the GRC to ensure that GBV complaints are well handled and reported through the right channels and refer the victims to them as required by the law. The elected GRC members will receive training from Isange One Stop Centre on how to handle and channel GBV cases and will also participate in the awareness campaigns on GBV, SEA, SH and VAC around the project intervention areas. It is important to note that any complaints related to GBV will follow a channel separate from 127 resettlement-related complaints (with focus on confidentiality and a survivor-centered approach), directly to Isange One stop centre within 12 hours, as shown in figure 13 above. d) Monitoring of complaints In addition to the Grievance Resolution Form, a grievance register will be kept by the project implementers indicating the date the complaint was lodged, actions to be taken and personnel or team responsible for the complaint. Grievance Log The GRC (Grievance Redress Committee) will ensure that each complaint has an individual reference number and is appropriately tracked, and recorded actions are completed. The log will contain record of the person responsible for an individual complaint, and records dates for the following events: ◼ Date the complaint was reported. ◼ Date the Grievance Log was added onto the project database. ◼ Date information on proposed corrective action sent to complainant (if appropriate). ◼ The date the complaint was closed out; and ◼ Date response was sent to complainant. The Grievance resolution and report forms that shall be used to record complaints at the cell GRC level can be referred annex 6. The Social Safeguard Specialist from RDB VNP expansion pilot project will monitor and document the progress of all complaints through monthly grievance resolution reports. RDB and the District Project team will be responsible for: ◼ Providing reports from the cell GRC on a bi-weekly basis detailing the number and status of complaints. ◼ Any outstanding issues to be addressed; and ◼ Monthly reports, including analysis of the type of complaints, levels of complaints, actions to reduce complaints and initiator of such action. Transport and communication incentives and capacity building of grievance redress committee is estimated at 17,480,000 Rwandan francs. Table 72 Proposed transport, communication and capacity building of GRC committees. Lot Allowance/ #of meetings Period/months Members of GRC Total amount meeting (Rwf) per month to be paid Lot 1 10,000 4 2439 13 12,480,000 GRC capacity building LS 13 5.000,000 Total 17,480,000 39 This period is indicative, it can be adjusted based of the exact duration of the project. 128 Furthermore, for quicker grievance redress, the project will explore the use of “case management system known as “BAZA MoE” used by the Ministry of Environment (MoE). It is a system that helps project stakeholders of MoE an instant channel to provide feedback, express their concerns or grievances linked to the Ministry's services, and get appropriate and effective remedies/response. This system would be assessed and adopted by the project for effective grievance management. 9.5 RAP disclosure After final approval of the RAP, RDB will disclose this RAP through its website in English and with executive summary translated in Kinyarwanda, and by making copies available at its head office and in District/ Sectors/ Cell where the project is situated. The copies shall also be made available to the different government’s agencies, and other stakeholders. The Government of Rwanda will also authorize the World Bank to disclose this RAP electronically through its Info Shop. 129 10. RAP BUDGET 10.1 Principles In the event of loss occurring to an individual of different type of properties, houses, land, crops, as a result of displacement by project activities, a budget for compensation and livelihood restoration must be drawn. The article 3 (2) of the law N°32/2015 of 11/06/2015 governing expropriation stipulates that he or she should receive just compensation for it. This entitlement is based on the figure arrived at by an accredited Institute of Real Property Valuers in Rwanda. Article 35 of the Expropriation Law provides that through an agreement between the person to expropriate and the one to be expropriated, just compensation may either be monetary, alternative land or a building equivalent, as long as either option equates to fair and just monetary compensation. In case the determination of ‘just’ compensation exceeds in value the alternative land given to the expropriated person, the difference will be paid to the expropriated person. In this context, based on PAHs’ preferences, monetary compensation will be used for the payment of affected properties in the project area. 10.2 Budget components The RAP budget covers all types of properties to be affected by the project, cost related to measures of livelihood restoration, RAP implementation and monitoring and evaluation costs. The budget shall mainly comprise of the following: ▪ Compensation of land, houses, structures, perennial crops, trees. ▪ Disturbance allowances (transition costs, moving allowances) ▪ Measures for vulnerable PAPs in form of special assistance ▪ Livelihood restoration Plan ▪ Implementation costs ▪ M&E costs The RAP budget below has been established by considering the compensation entitlement as per national and world bank standards (ESS5). Table 73: Estimated RAP budget (in FRW) S/No Impact Unit Quantity Frequency Rate Total (RWF) Description Compensation for Loss A1 Loss of Land Sqm 4,760,419.24 Once Determined per category 12,292,451,430.56 (see table 61) A2 Loss of trees and Pces - Once Determined per category 843,001,883 perennial Crops (see table 65) A3 Loss of Houses Number of 644 Once Determined per category 1,314,340,870.67 (residential) houses (see table 62) A4 Other structures Number - Once Determined per category 338,851,134.70 (kitchens, toilets, (see table 64) kraals, other structures, fences, etc) 130 S/No Impact Unit Quantity Frequency Rate Total (RWF) Description Sub-total 14,788,645,318.93 Disturbance allowances Once 5% 728,495,285.18 Sub-total A 15,654,194,675.85 Assistance to vulnerable groups and livelihood restoration B1 Measures of HH 240 3 Months 3000040 21,600,000 special assistance for vulnerable PAPs B2 Livelihood Households 992 Determined in the livelihood 28,258,866,201 restoration for restoration plan (Table 70) PAPs and its monitoring SUB-TOTAL B. 28,280,466,201 C. Implementation Cost C1 Transport & Meeting - 24 Months Determined in the Table 75. 17,480,000 Communication & GRC Capacity building C2. RAP Monitoring Continuous LS 12.000.000 and Evaluation SUB-TOTAL C. 29,480,000 Grand RAP Budget Total A+B+C 43,964,140,876.85 Contingencies (20%) 8,792,828,175.33 GRAND TOTAL 52,756,969,052.18 10.3Source of funding The budget for Compensation of land, houses, structures, perennial crops, trees, Disturbance allowances will be borne by Government of Rwanda (GoR) and its partners through its RDB and the budget for livelihood restoration measures, assistance measures for vulnerable PAPs will be supported by mobilized fund under VCRP Project in the following manner. Table 74 Source of funding for RAP budget S/No Budget item Amount Source of Fund A1 Compensation for loss 15,654,194,675.85 Government of Rwanda A2 Livelihood restoration 28,280,466,201 VCRP Project- WB funding A3 RAP monitoring & Evaluation 29,480,000 Government of Rwanda Sub-total 43,964,140,876.85 Contingencies (20%) 8,792,828,175.33 GRAND TOTAL 52,756,969,052.18 40 This amount has been established by considering the monthly direct support financially given to Very poor and poor Households described as: Families who do not own a house or cannot pay a rent, have a poor diet and can hardly afford basic household tools and clothes or as: Having a dwelling of their own or are able to rent one, mostly get food and wages from working for others but rarely get full time jobs ,that are not able to work under the VUP social protection project. 131 GoR and WB RDB (RAP budget) PAP’s Individual Bank Account Figure 14 Proposed Funds flow scheme 11. RAP ARRANGMENT AND OPERATIONALISATION 11.1 Introduction The RAP anticipates that the project implementation schedule will consist of three phases namely preparation, implementation and post implementation. It will mainly include works such as clearing bushes, cutting trees and removing properties including demolishing any compensated property in the delineated VNP pilot expansion project area. The resettlement schedule for land acquisition, house demolishment and relocation will be coordinated by RDB in close collaboration with the Musanze District, Kinigi sector, the two cells and villages. Briefly, the RAP process will follow the following steps. 11.2 RAP Implementation Schedule 11.2.1 Preparation and Surveying During the RAP preparation, the first activity was the operationalization of the VNP pilot expansion project. In this regard, consultant’ experts conducted field investigation to identify the number of PAPs, their socioeconomic conditions and their properties located in the project area. All stakeholders (local administrative and community representatives at district, sector, cell and village level, cooperative leaders, etc.) were involved through stakeholder engagement. In addition, in the course of RAP preparation, the consultant conducted the census, socio-economic survey, valuation of assets as well as asset inventory. As result, the consultant came up with a RAP budget, RAP implementation arrangement, livelihood restoration plan and monitoring framework. 11.2.2 RAP dissemination After the RAP preparation and approval of this RAP, information about the RAP, its related total cost, mode of compensation, proposed livelihood restoration packages, will be disseminated to all project stakeholders including affected PAPs. 11.2.3 Constituting and operationalizing the Resettlement administrative committees 132 The administration of this RAP will require a close collaboration between different actors. RDB will be coordinating, approving and monitoring of activities related to the project. In this regard, all reports either technical or implementation wise will be handed over to and first be approved by RDB. At grassroots level or at the sites, the social safeguard team from RDB, district, sector and cell officials will play a day-to-day management role to assure smooth project implementation. 11.2.4 Awareness campaign Continuous awareness campaigns will be of paramount relevance in informing residents about the project to be undertaken, the RAP and the compensation process and the already established cut-off date. The contractor shall be responsible for organizing regular awareness campaigns on relevant dangers, to safety measures, HIV/AIDS and other transmitted diseases provided to minimize the impact of transmission of STDs from migrating workers. 11.2.5 RAP verification and validation After the RAP dissemination of the specific number of PAPs and their properties likely to be affected by the project, RAP verification will be conducted by district officials in collaboration with grassroots level leaders (sector, cell and village) and village committees. The district will thereby send a succinct report to RDB for comparison of the PAPs and their properties presented in the RAP report. RDB will therefore approve and recommend moving to the next course of action if the reports of District match with that of the RAP. If a difference is observed in the two reports, then claims of the complainants will be taken care of by GRM process mentioned earlier. In case compensation funds are not immediately available, the RAP will be updated as result of possible discrepancies that might occur between this RAP and the actual situation in the project at the time of RAP implementation. 11.2.6 Agreement with the PAPs, compensation & relocation RDB in collaboration with Musanze District will, after identification of PAPs and the project affected properties, sign an agreement with each of them related to the compensation. This agreement will be related not only to the compensation but also to the cut -off date for related claims and the relocation of PAPs from the VNP pilot expansion project boundaries. 11.2.7 PAPs relocation and settlement process After the agreement with PAPs and their compensation, the PAPs will be given 120 days to prepare for relocation. More time may be allocated to the PAPs until the housing at the relocation site is complete then the next step will be the relocation of PAPs. This action is managed by Musanze District, Kinigi sector and the two cells with special attention paid to vulnerable people among the PAPs. For instance, the district will make sure PWDs, elderly and widow PAHs have been properly settled before commencement of any work on the VNP pilot expansion area. 11.3 Post-VNP pilot expansion project period In the post- VNP pilot expansion period, the monitoring of PAPs progress and VNP pilot expansion project construction process among others will be done by the RDB/ PIU in close collaboration with district and local leaders. 133 11.3.1 Proposed RAP implementation timeframe. The proposed RAP and livelihood restoration implementation timeframe coincides with 60 months during the project implementation, as shown in table below. Table 75: Proposed indicative implementation timeframe for RAP implementation. Implementation bench marking benchmarking Month 0 for 22nd to 54th 10th Month 11th Month 12th Month 13th Month 14th Month 15th Month 16th Month 17th Month 18th Month 19th Month 20th Month 60th Month 21st Month 54th to 56th Schedule of activities: livelihood measures 2nd Month 2nd Month 3rd Month 3rd Month 4th Month 5th Month 6th Month 7th Month 8th Month 4th Month 5th Month 6th Month 7th Month 8th Month 9th Month 1st Month 1st Month Month 0 Month Month RAP RAP approval Disclosure of RAP on RDB website, AWF website and World Bank InfoShop Sensitization of PAPs on resettlement and project impacts as per world ESS10 Formation, operationalization and capacity building of GRCs Validation and disclosure of asset valuation/values to PAPs Signing or fingerprinting approved individual valuation sheets by PAPS Compensation of PAPs in affected sectors Relocation site construction works Relocation of PAPs Grievance management Livelihood restoration RAP & LRP monitoring RAP &LRP Audit RAP Completion Audit (to be done at end of project cycle.) Review and approval of RAP Completion Audit by the Bank Draft report: Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for Volcanoes National Park (VNP) pilot expansion project. 134 12. RAP MONITORING AND EVALUATION 12.1 Principles A monitoring and evaluation (M&E) program is required to provide feedback to project management on the efficiency of implementing the RAP and the impact it has on the PAPs. Monitoring provides both a working system for effective implementation of the RAP by the project managers, and an information channel for the PAPs to assess how their needs are being met. Arrangements for monitoring and evaluation are to ensure, firstly, that the proposed actions are implemented within the time limits, and, secondly, that the expected results are achieved. When deficiencies or difficulties are observed, monitoring and evaluation are used to initiate appropriate corrective action. The main objective of the Resettlement Action Plan is to ensure PAPs living standards and conditions are equivalent or better than before the project. Thus, monitoring and evaluation of the actions proposed in the RAP should focus primarily on achieving this goal. 12.2 Monitoring framework The purpose of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) plan is to provide continuous feedback on implementation of the RAP/LRP, and to identify problems and successes as early as possible to facilitate timely adjustment of implementation arrangements. The M&E plan has four specific objectives: a) to capture the progress, success, and shortcomings of the implementation of the Project resettlement action plan (RAP) and the livelihoods restoration interventions/plan (LRP). b) to inform the Project’s management decisions, strategic planning and risk management. c) to measure the outcomes and impacts of the RAP and LRP and to determine whether these have been achieved within time and cost effectively; and d) to provide accountability to all stakeholders of the Project. The M&E plan includes indicators for both performance and impact monitoring based on the mitigation measures recommended in the RAP. Impact monitoring will provide stakeholders with a means to assess both the outcomes and effectiveness of the interventions while Performance monitoring will focus on measuring progress against the schedule of actions defined in the RAP/LRP. 12.2.1 Performance monitoring Performance monitoring will track how well the activities are being managed to deliver the required results, whilst providing cost efficiency. Performance monitoring is an internal management function allowing the organization responsible for resettlement to measure physical progress against milestones. As such, it should be integrated within the overall project management system to synchronize it with other project implementation activities. The following performance milestones have so far been completed: 1) Consultation meetings held with PAPs during RAP development and implementation in line with the requirements of the Stakeholder Engagement Plan. 2) Grievance redress procedures in place and functioning. 3) Establishment of functioning institutional frameworks aligned with the relevant phase of the resettlement process. 4) Completion of census, assets inventories, and socioeconomic baseline studies. Draft report: Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for Volcanoes National Park (VNP) pilot expansion project. 135 5) Agreement on livelihood restoration schemes with affected communities. The following performance milestones are proposed: 6) Detailed livelihood restoration plans in place and livelihood restoration activities initiated. 7) Compensation of all PAPs. 8) Implementation of livelihood restoration measures. 9) Employment of PAPs in project activities tracked on a quarterly basis. 10) Skills training and facilitation provided to support PAHs transition into alternative livelihoods. This will be critical for the success of the project and should be introduced as early as possible, e.g., following the compensation of PAPs. 11) Monitoring and evaluation reports submitted on a quarterly basis. 12.2.2 Impact monitoring Impact monitoring will gauge the effectiveness of the RAP and its implementation in meeting the needs of the affected people against the baseline (from the SEB). The purpose of impact monitoring is: (i) to provide the agency responsible for RAP implementation (i.e., RDB) with an assessment of the effects of resettlement on the affected communities; (ii) to verify internal performance monitoring; and (iii) to identify adjustments in the implementation of the RAP and LRP as required. The table below includes a set of indicators for each level of the results chain. 136 Table 76: RAP/LRP Monitoring and Evaluation Framework S/N Results Objectively Measurable and Baseline 2023 Data Methods Frequency Responsibility verifiable Indicators Source 1 Project Adverse social and OC1: % Affected population 13.2% Category 1 PAHs Socio-Economic Annually External Evaluator Outcomes economic impacts poverty rate (Socio-economic 33% category 2 Survey from land use categorization) 53.3% Category 3 change 0.5% Category 4 OC2: Number of PAH 992 PAHs Socio-Economic Annually External Evaluator Survey OC3: Number of PAP 4,187 PAPs Socio-Economic Annually External Evaluator Survey OC4: Number of Vulnerable 240 PAHs Socio-Economic Annually Annually PAHs Survey OC5: Household population Medium PAPs Socio-Economic Annually External Evaluator density 4 persons per HH Survey OC6: PAHs average annual off- Frw 325,998 PAPs Socio-Economic Annually External Evaluator farm income Survey OC8: Number of grievances 0 Area Primary literature Quarterly Project coordinator logged reports review OC9: % of grievances resolved 0 Area Primary literature Quarterly Project coordinator reports review OC10: Number of GBV related 0 Area Primary literature Quarterly Project coordinator grievances logged reports review OC11: % of GBV grievances 0 Area Primary literature Quarterly Project coordinator resolved reports review 2 Output 1 Resettlement 1.1: Number of meetings held Project Primary literature Quarterly Project coordinator 0 activities are and minuted with PAPs. reports review implemented with 1.2: Number of PAPs that have Project Primary literature Quarterly Project coordinator appropriate participated in consultative reports review 0 disclosure of meetings during RAP & LRP information, implementation consultation, and 1.3: % of economically Project Primary literature Quarterly Project coordinator the informed displaced PAH reports review 0 participation of those affected. 3 Output 2 Living conditions 2.1: % of economically affected Male:49% PAPs Household Annually External Evaluator among households that are/were Female: 51% Survey economically supported through livelihood Draft report: Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for Volcanoes National Park (VNP) pilot expansion project. 137 S/N Results Objectively Measurable and Baseline 2023 Data Methods Frequency Responsibility verifiable Indicators Source affected persons restoration plan (disaggregated are improved by Female/male HH) through the 2.2: % of PAHs whole primary Project Socio economic Annually External Evaluator livelihood source of income is agriculture 48.3% reports survey restoration and livestock measures 2.3: % of PAH with electricity as 0% source energy for lighting 2.4: Average Distance used by PAPs Socio economic Annually External Evaluator - Health Post: 1km to reach the nearest Health survey - Health Centre:1km facilities (Health post, Health - General Hospital: 2km centre, District hospital, referral hospital 2.5 Average Distance used by - Pre-primary: 1.1km PAPs Socio economic Annually External Evaluator to reach the nearest Education - Primary: 1.3Km survey facility (Pre-primary, Primary, - Secondary:7.2km secondary and tertiary) - Tertiary: 60.3km 2.6: % of PAHs’ main sources - Private Tap at PAPs Socio economic Annually External Evaluator of water house:6.7% survey - Communal standapipe:56% - Water sold by other people:31.5% 2.7: Distance to water source - <1km: 67% PAPs Socio economic Annually External Evaluator - 1-5km: 31.3% survey - 5-10km: 0.9% 2.8: Access to markets - Maximum PAPs Socio economic Annually External Evaluator distance:6km survey - Minimum distance:1km - Average distance: 1.48km 4 Output 3 The livelihoods and 3.1: % of eligible households Project Field data Quarterly Project coordinator standards of living participating in livelihoods reporting collection 0 of displaced restoration activities as defined persons are in the LRP/Entitlements Matrix 138 S/N Results Objectively Measurable and Baseline 2023 Data Methods Frequency Responsibility verifiable Indicators Source improved or (disaggregated by restored. Female/male headed HH) 3.2: Number of PAPs and non- Project Field data Quarterly Project coordinator PAPs that have received skills 0 reporting collection training from the project 3.3: Number of PAPs employed Project Field data Quarterly Project coordinator during construction of the reporting collection Smart green village Relocation 0 site ((disaggregated by Female/male headed HH) 3..4: Number of PAPs Project Field data Quarterly Project coordinator employed in the entire VNP reporting collection pilot expansion project (disaggregated by (i) 0 Female/male (ii) Temporary employment, (iii) Full time employment, (iv) Total labour resources. 3.5 % of PAH supported under Project Field data Quarterly Project coordinator financial service agent reporting collection package. 0 (disaggregated by Female/male headed HH) 3.7: % of PAHs supported to Project Field data Quarterly Project coordinator provide agro-logistic reporting collection transportation 0 (disaggregated by Female/male headed HH) 3.8: % of PAHs supported to do Project Field data Quarterly Project coordinator poultry/chicken faming reporting collection 0 disaggregated by Female/male headed HH) 3.12: % of PAHs supported to Project Field data Quarterly Project coordinator do communal handcrafts reporting collection 0 (disaggregated by Female/male headed HH) 139 S/N Results Objectively Measurable and Baseline 2023 Data Methods Frequency Responsibility verifiable Indicators Source 3.13: % of PAHs involved in a Project Field data Quarterly Project coordinator cultural arts village reporting collection 0 (disaggregated by Female/male headed HH) 3.14: % of PAHs involved in a Project Field data Quarterly Project coordinator Horticulture fruits production reporting collection 0 (disaggregated by Female/male headed HH) 3.16: % of PAHs with house Project Field data Quarterly Project coordinator member employed as tourist reporting collection potter, guide, hospitality service 0 (disaggregated by Female/male headed HH) 140 12.3 Participation of the PAPs in monitoring and evaluation The PAPs will participate in monitoring / evaluation in different ways: ▪ Collection of simple data concerning their activity. ▪ Participation of the elected representatives of PAPs in meetings on programming, monitoring and evaluation, including through their Community Coordination Committee (CCC). ▪ Participation of the elected representatives of PAPs in meetings from the development of work programs and the evaluation of the previous program. ▪ Inquiry of RDB, of the Mission of Environmental and Social Monitoring in case of dissatisfaction vis-à-vis the implementation of the RAP and methods for the operator intervention. ▪ Participation of PAPs representatives to the reception of investments concerning them. ▪ Opinion surveys in the evaluations. A program of participatory monitoring and evaluation will also be developed by the expert on the basis of monitoring data. This program will complement more the quantitative monitoring program mentioned above. This program has the immense advantage of PAPs closely involved as key actors in their assessment, the development of indicators relevant for them and collecting data. This type of participatory monitoring and evaluation is essential to the PAPs capacity building and their organizations tool. It is also a key tool to help them identify their measures that are the most appropriate for the restoration of their living conditions and to improve them. Draft report: Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for Volcanoes National Park (VNP) pilot expansion project. 141 13. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13.1 Conclusion The proposed Volcanoes National Park (VNP) pilot expansion project is of major importance with positive impact such as; improved conservation and biodiversity of the VNP by increasing it by 23%, improved conservation-based tourism opportunities, experiences and economic benefits, improved quality of lives of Rwandans living around the VNP through improved homes, schools, access to health care, employment opportunities, skills development, alternative incomes sources other than those from on-farm. However, while the project has positive impacts, there are adverse impacts that result from the land acquisition and displacement of 476ha (426ha in the VNP park expansion area and 50ha in the relocation site). The RAP presented here has investigated likely adverse impacts, conducted a socio-economic baseline survey of PAPs physically residing in the project area and its surroundings, asset inventory and valuation of property likely to be affected by the project (i.e. land, houses, perennial crops and trees), stakeholder engagement through public consultations, FGDs, KIIs to disseminate to PAPs the project objectives and activities and collect their concerns and suggestions on how best the project can be implemented in a more sustainable manner. From these engagements, the RAP shows that 644 houses, other structures (such as kitchens, kraals, fences, etc), 4,760,419.24sqm of land, perennial crops and trees shall be affected by the land acquisition by the VNP pilot expansion project, resulting in a full replacement compensation cost of 15,654,194,675.85Rwf. As mitigation measures to minimise adverse impacts arising from the project land acquisition, the RAP has presented a number of measures comprising; compensation at full replacement cost valued for every property lost, implementation of livelihood restoration packages for project affected households (PAHs), a grievance redress mechanism to address complaints arising from project implementation and stakeholder engagement plan during project implementation. With the compensation cost combined with the above-mentioned mitigation measures, the proposed RAP and livelihood restoration budget will cost 43,964,140,876.85 Rwf. A monitoring and evaluation plan for RAP implementation has also been presented for performance and impact monitoring. 13.2 Recommendations The RAP recommendations are that: ◼ The project compensates fully all Project Affected People (PAPs) for loss of houses, other structures, land, perennial crops in time and it’s done before project work commencement. ◼ The project implements livelihood restoration packages proposed in the RAP towards restoration of livelihoods of Project affected households (PAHs) physically residing in the project area and relocation site, including special assistance measures proposed for the project vulnerable groups. ◼ The project to engage and support stakeholder engagement process and the entire Grievance redress mechanism during the entire project lifecycle. ◼ The project to conduct monitoring and evaluation and report on its performance and impact indicators of the project on the PAHs. 142 REFERENCES National Laws 1. The Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003, revised in 2015. 2. Law N° 27/2021 of 10/06/2021 Law governing land in Rwanda. 3. Expropriation law N° 32/2015 of 11/06/2015. 4. Law No.17/2010 of 12/05/2010 Establishing and Organizing the Real Property Valuation Profession in Rwanda: Policies and Strategies 1. Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, Vision 2050, December 2020. 2. Ministry of Family and Gender promotion, Revised National gender Policy, February 2021 3. Ministry of Local government, National Social protection Policy, June 2020. 4. Ministry of Environment, National Land Policy, June 2019 5. Government of Rwanda, National Strategy for Transformation, 2017 6. Ministry of Public Service, National Occupational Safety and Health Strategy, 2019 7. Ministry of Health, National Health Policy, 2016 8. Ministry of Infrastructure, Transport Policy, 2008 WB document 1. The world Bank: The world Bank Environmental and Social ((ESSs) Framework, 2017 2. AWF Policy and Standard for Rights-based Conservation. Other documents 3. RDB: Volcanoes National Park Expansion program proposal in Rwanda, Africa, 2018. 4. Vanguard economics et al, 2022: Livelihood Implementation Action plan (LIAP). 5. Vanguard economics et al, 2022: Vulnerable community resettled in green villages- Annex 2C. 143 ANNEXES Annex 1: Minutes of Stakeholder engagement meetings Minutes of the Stakeholder engagements held between the 7 th to the 9th September for the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for the Volcanoes National Park (VNP) expansion pilot project On the 7th September 2022, stakeholder engagement for the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for the Volcanoes National Park (VNP) expansion pilot project begun. This stakeholder engagement commenced by consultations with local authorities from Musanze District comprising of; Musanze District Vice Mayor, Executive secretary of Kinigi sector, Coordinators of Nyabigoma and Kaguhu cells, village leaders of the 8 villages (Myase, Nyarusizi, Nyakagina, Gahura, Karyasenge, Cyabirego, Kabatwa, Mitobo villages) that will be involved in the land acquisition of the VNP expansion pilot project. The stakeholder engagement continued on the same day with a public community consultation with project affected persons (PAPs) from Myase and Nyarusizi villages of Kaguhu cell. Herein are the minutes of the consultations held. Minutes of the stakeholder engagement meeting with local authorities from Kinigi sector, Kaguhu and Nyabigoma cells and the eight (8) villages that will be affected by the VNP expansion project, held on the 7th September 2022 at La Palme hotel in Musanze town. The consultation meeting commenced with introductions from all participants. It was followed by the Vice Mayor in charge of economic affairs of Musanze introducing the project, its objectives and importance of the project of the Volcanoes National Park (VNP) expansion project to the local community of Kinigi sector, Musanze District and the country at large. The local authorities in their different capacities were informed that the project had the following main objectives; (i) A high population growth of wildlife in the VNP was leading to increased infant mortality rate of the wildlife, the VNP expansion project was proposed to conserve wildlife in the VNP by increasing the size of the VNP and thereby reducing mortality of wildlife in the VNP, (ii) The project was proposed to avoid and minimise conflict between wildlife from the VNP and local communities neighbouring, born from wildlife(e.g. buffaloes and monkeys) encroaching their plantations at the boundaries of the VNP and some people encroaching the VNP for items like honey, bamboo, (iii) to improve the socio-economic livelihoods of the communities neighbouring the VNP through opportunities arising from wildlife and biodiversity conservation of the park, tourists visiting the VNP and shared revenues from the VNP tourism, (iv) an opportunity of increased revenues from increased touristic viewers as a result of increased wildlife populations and reduced wildlife infant mortality. This was followed by an in-depth elaboration, by the AWF Program manager, of the VNP expansion project components, key objectives and proposed activities, studies on the project so far conducted and those that are on-going and the project development partners. Though not exhaustive, the development partners for the VNP expansion pilot project mentioned comprised of; AWF, Gorillas doctors, Karisoke research, FONERWA and potentially the World Bank. Subsequently, the consultant was given an opportunity to inform the local authorities that the VNP expansion project phase 1 would involve land acquisition of about 1000ha in areas neighbouring the VNP, resulting in the relocation of the local communities from 8 villages (Myase, Nyarusizi, Nyakagina, Gahura, Karyasenge, Cyabirego, Kabatwa, Mitobo villages) to a relocation site in Rurembo afew kilometres away. In order for relocation to occur, the local authorities were informed that a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) that involved socio-economic study, asset valuation and Stakeholder consultations in form of Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) had to be conducted to guide the relocation process. This RAP preparation and its implementation would need to be conducted with their full participation and support in order to guide the process of how they could be compensated at full replacement cost, measures would be taken to ensure their livelihoods are restored or even improved and any arising grievances would be addressed. 144 Local authorities were informed of the key dates in preparation of the relocation process- RAP and requested to be hugely involved. The dates are: o The Land week to sort out land title document to the largest extent would be from the 17 th October to 29th October 2022. o The Cut-off date was set for the 18th February 2023 when the census survey would begin, upon which date only those with property within the VNP expansion pilot project designated area will be the only eligible Project affected persons (PAPs). o From the 18th February 2023, site specific socio-economic census survey, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) shall be conducted, followed by the asset inventory and valuation process shall be conducted. Once the relevant project aspects had been explained to the participants, the floor was opened to a questions and answer session on opinions of how the process of resettlement can be handled and what could be viewed in designing the livelihood restoration of project affected people. Herein is the record of this consultative session. A suggestion was made to plan for a tourism school within the vicinity of the project area as part of the livelihood restoration measures for affected communities, since the main source of income could be related to touristic attraction of the VNP. In addition, a proposal to develop skills, a school or some form of training and provide opportunities on off-farm activities since most of those that will be relocated are on-farm dependent livelihoods and by then land will have been reduced from project displacement. This was noted and would be shared with the team preparing the Livelihood restoration plan. An example was shared of one of the school training skills initiatives currently proposed in the Livelihood Implementation Plan (LIP). To avoid duplication and proximity of schools at the existing Kinigi model village education facilities, the LIP proposes a technical school to complement it by introducing skills training in application of local material for construction as was done for at the Ellen de Generes campus. A question was raised on whether those with houses on land they do not own will be compensated and whether those renting would be compensated. Response given was that compensation is normally paid against a land ownership title, for such a case, the Project Affected Person (PAP) would find time to meet the sector land manager who would facilitate the process. While for those renting, no compensation would be provided. Another question was raised of how cash compensation would be managed to avoid previous incidences observed of local community members that misused compensation funds from a private buyer, Bisate lodge, ending up poorer than they were before selling their land. In response, local authorities were requested to start educating and advising their local communities on how to handle the compensation and potential investments of their compensation. One of the participants wanted to know how compensation of property owned by families that are not officially married, will be handled. Here the participants were informed that social related laws and policies on how families with people co-habiting and not married shall be considered. Suggestions by participants were that since the largest number of conflicts likely to arise as a result of land acquisition by the project revolve around land ownership for compensation, could the project and local authorities take advantage of the land week to minimise or avoid these conflicts. This suggestion was noted and participants were reminded of the proposed 17th – 29TH October land weeks, where they would be facilitated to obtain legal land ownership titles for those who genuinely own land in the project area but had not yet acquired their titles. Furthermore, participants informed the meeting that it had been observed that new houses were being built on speculation of compensation anticipated from project displacement. It was proposed that expediting the project will minimise effects of such speculations and hence minimise unnecessary expenses during compensation if the project resettlement actions are delayed. Suggestion was made by participants to find out, understand and use what was learnt from previous projects that involved land acquisition and issues that can be avoided or minimised, for example, who has the right to a house 145 as a result of relocation, how to manage the cash compensation to avoid misuse and families disintegrating, an action plan on how proposed livelihood restoration ideas can be implemented. Local authorities were urged to use such forums, consultation meetings, to encourage communities to transparently discuss their worries related to the project activities. One of the participants encouraged others to see if they can developer a quicker plan to make this pilot project a success than the one proposed by the project, especially since, this is the phase 1 of VNP park expansion and if it fails then the subsequent phases will no longer be feasible. He encouraged his fellow local authorities to move house to house to collect information on any issues ahead of time in order to minimise on potential grievances during relocation related activities and project implementation. As part of the livelihood restoration plan, it was proposed that an initiative similar to the home-made solution Sakola should be considered. The idea is to see how they can apply Sakola along with hotel investors. Also look at the community revenue sharing, which increases as the park viewers increase. Also considering the majority are the youth, there is need for technology-based income earners versus the agriculture dependent activities. A youth centre was also proposed to be included as part of the project design. A question was raised on land compensation prices. Now that some of the locals were aware of the prices private investors, like Bisate lodge, Ellen de generes, Singita, had offered for the land acquired, were the prices going to be similar. In response, the participants were informed that compensation is based on the Expropriation law as a legal reference. Land prices are revised every 2 years based on the how land was sold in that particular area during that period, the latest pricing was done in 2021. They were informed that if affected communities closely observed there could be more benefits for those involved in this project, for instance, in addition to the compensation for their land and property, there are plans for additional livelihood measures, relocation houses and investable initiatives for PAPs. An inquiry on whether the compensation for a house would be deducted from the cost of the new relocated house as a form of house for house. Response to this inquiry was that in addition to the compensation for the house, there was a new house for relocation. Worries from one of the participants were expressed that this project has been on long enough since 2018 at studies level, with no assurance when those in affected areas will be displaced for the project to take off. It was suggested that the relocation process is expedited, compensation is done quickly and the project is implemented. Issues observed from the completed Kinigi model village project were highlighted, for instance, families were given houses but when they hosted informal events of about 30 visitors, they failed to fit them in home, sometimes becoming an inconvenience to the neighbours. It was proposed that in the design of the relocation homes, common rooms, meeting halls where formidable numbers can meet to avoid social inconveniences. A question was raised on households with sizable household members (more than 5) who might not be able to fit in the proposed relocation house, will be handled. Response given at the time was that house for house involved 3 house typologies of 2,3,4 rooms respectively, which shall be provided to families depending on the size of the Household. However, it was also noted that since households would be compensated at full replacement for their land, houses and perennial crops and trees, this cash compensation was at the choice of the Project Affected Person (PAP) to find another location apart from the proposed relocation site to build or buy a new house suitable to the family size. Additional information was given that in regard to the park boundary wall, to avoid human and animal interactions, a number of options are being proposed to have the existing wall, electric fence as referenced on DRC side of the park, plus a buffer zone to give distance hence avoiding attracting the animals from the park that cause conflict with the plantations of local communities. The meeting was closed by the Vice Mayor in charge of economic affairs, requesting the local authorities in attendance to own the project and explain it to the communities in order for the relocation process and project implementation to go smoothly. The consultative meeting started on 9am- 12:35pm. Next meeting would then be at Myase and Nyarusizi villages at 2pm. 146 Minutes of the Public consultation with the local communities of Myase and Nyarusizi villages in Kaguhu Cell, Kinigi sector held on 7th September 2022 at Nyarusizi village shops centre. The public consultation meeting with the local communities that will be affected by the project begun by welcoming the locals to the meeting, introducing the guests that had come to inform them of the upcoming VNP expansion pilot project and consulting them on their opinions towards project activities and implementation. The Vice Mayor in-charge of Economic affairs Musanze District made an introduction of the Volcanoes National Park (VNP) expansion project and emphasized the objective and importance of the project. The local communities in attendance were informed that the project had the following main objectives; (i) A high population growth of wildlife in the VNP was leading to increased infant mortality rate of the wildlife, the VNP expansion project was proposed to conserve wildlife in the VNP by increasing the size of the VNP and thereby reducing mortality of wildlife in the VNP, (ii) The project was proposed to avoid and minimise conflict between wildlife from the VNP and local communities neighbouring born from wildlife encroaching their plantations at the boundaries of the VNP and some people encroaching the VNP for items like honey, bamboo, (iii) to improve the socio-economic livelihoods of the communities neighbouring the VNP through opportunities arising from tourists visiting the VNP and shared revenues from the VNP tourism, (iv) an opportunity of increased revenues from touristic visits as a result of increased wildlife populations, reduced wildlife infant mortality and therefore increased numbers for those interested in visiting wildlife in the VNP. This was followed by an in-depth elaboration, by the AWF Program manager, of the VNP expansion project components, key objectives and proposed activities, studies on the project so far conducted and those that are on-going. The communities were informed that the VNP expansion project would involve land acquisition of about 1000ha in areas neighbouring the VNP, resulting in the relocation of the local communities of 8 villages (Myase, Nyarusizi, Nyakagina, Gahura, Karyasenge, Cyabirego, Kabatwa, Mitobo villages) to Rurembo afew kilometres, among which are Myase and Nyarusizi villages. However, the communities were informed that before they would be relocated, a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) that involved socio-economic study and asset valuation, would be conducted with their participation in order to guide the process of how they could be compensated at full replacement and measures would be taken to ensure their livelihoods are restored or even improved. The local communities were informed of the key dates in preparation of the relocation process- RAP and requested to be always available and involved. The dates are: o The Land week to sort out land title document to the largest extent would be from the 17th October to 29th October 2022. o The Cut-off date was set for the 18th February 2023 when the census survey would begin, upon which date only those with property within the VNP expansion pilot project designated area will be the only eligible Project affected persons (PAPs). o From the 18th February 2023, site specific socio-economic census survey, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) shall be conducted, followed by the asset inventory and valuation process shall be conducted. Once the relevant project aspects had been explained to the participants, the local communities were requested to raise questions, give opinions on how the process of resettlement can be handled and what could be viewed in designing the livelihood restoration of project affected people. Herein is the record of this consultative session. Questions were raised on how the issue of people who bought land but had not made legal land title transfers and only had agreements between the buyer and seller of land. Response to this from the Vice Mayor and Kinigi Sector land manager, was that these are issues sought to be solved by the proposed land weeks of the 17th-28th October 2022, where all those with issues of incomplete land title ownership would be facilitated to obtain them. A question was raised on cases of people who purchased land and have agreements with people that have since left the country but had not yet made legal land title transfers by the time the seller left the country. Response on how such a case would be handled was that since it was not within the powers of the National Land Authority(NLA) to make such a land transfer from the seller to the buyer under such circumstances, it was an issue that would be 147 addressed to the courts of law, which would then instruct the NLA to implement the terms of that agreement and make the legal land title transfer to the buyer in the absence of the seller. Another issue raised was of households with sizable household members (more than 5) who might not be able to fit in the proposed relocation house typologies of 2 or 3 or 4 bedrooms. Response to this question was that criteria would be drawn on house allocation based on family sizes, however it was also noted that since households would be compensated at full replacement for their land, houses and perennial crops and trees, this cash compensation was at the choice of the Project Affected Person (PAP) to find another location apart from the proposed relocation site to build or buy a new house suitable to the family size. Further on, a question was raised of how siblings could sub-divide ownership of a land title under the names of their deceased parents. In response to this question, the community was informed that this would be considered as succession or inheritance case during the proposed land week, where all siblings would have to be present and would be required to mutually agree amongst them on how they wish the land can be divided. Upon agreement, the NLA would then proceed to prepare each one’s land title. Short of the mutual agreement amongst the siblings on a fair land division, would require the siblings to address the issue with the courts of law. This consultation was concluded for the two village communities and was ended by electing two representatives each, for purposes of representing them in all VNP expansion pilot project activities, resettlement matters and any grievance redress matters. For each of the village representatives, a female and male were elected. The names of the village representatives are: S/N Names Gender Contact MYASE VILLAGE 1 HARERIMANA Boniface Male 0780696009 2 UWINGENEYE Charlotte Female 0782236570 NYARUSIZI VILLAGE 1 SEBAZUNGU Felicien Male 0783892503 2 KURADUSENGE Marie Louise Female 0785320289 The public meeting started at 2:30pm and ended at 4:45pm. Minutes of the Public consultation with the local communities of Nyakigina and Gahura villages in Nyabigoma cell, Kinigi Sector held on 8th September 2022 at Nyakigina village open grounds. Similar to the public consultation meetings held the day before, the meeting begun by welcoming the locals to the meeting, introducing the guest that had come to inform them of the upcoming VNP expansion pilot project and consulting them on their opinions towards project activities and implementation. The Vice Mayor in-charge of Economic affairs Musanze District made an introduction of the Volcanoes National Park (VNP) expansion project and emphasized the objective and importance of the project. The local communities in attendance were informed that the project had the following main objectives; (i) A high population growth of wildlife in the VNP was leading to increased infant mortality rate of the wildlife, the VNP expansion project was proposed to conserve wildlife in the VNP by increasing the size of the VNP and thereby reducing mortality of wildlife in the VNP, (ii) The project was proposed to avoid and minimise conflict between wildlife from the VNP and local communities neighbouring born from wildlife encroaching their plantations at the boundaries of the VNP and some people encroaching the VNP for items like honey, bamboo, (iii) to improve the socio-economic livelihoods of the communities neighbouring the VNP through opportunities arising from tourists visiting the VNP and shared revenues from the VNP tourism, (iv) an opportunity of increased revenues from touristic visits as a result of increased wildlife populations, reduced wildlife infant mortality and therefore increased numbers for those interested in visiting wildlife in the VNP. This was followed by an in-depth elaboration, by the AWF Program manager, of the VNP expansion project components, key objectives and proposed activities, studies on the project so far conducted and those that are on-going. The communities were informed that the VNP expansion project would involve land acquisition of about 148 1000ha in areas neighbouring the VNP, resulting in the relocation of the local communities of 8 villages (Myase, Nyarusizi, Nyakagina, Gahura, Karyasenge, Cyabirego, Kabatwa, Mitobo villages) to Rurembo afew kilometres, among which are Nyakigina and Gahura villages. However, the communities were informed that before they would be relocated, a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) that involved socio-economic study and asset valuation, would be conducted with their participation in order to guide the process of how they could be compensated at full replacement and measures would be taken to ensure their livelihoods are restored or even improved. The local communities were informed of the key dates in preparation of the relocation process- RAP and requested to be always available and involved. The dates are: o The Land week to sort out land title document to the largest extent would be from the 17 th October to 29th October 2022. o The Cut-off date was set for the 18th February 2023 when the census survey would begin, upon which date only those with property within the VNP expansion pilot project designated area will be the only eligible Project affected persons (PAPs). o From the 18th February 2023, site specific socio-economic census survey, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) shall be conducted, followed by the asset inventory and valuation process shall be conducted Once the relevant project aspects had been explained to the participants, the local communities were requested to raise questions, give opinions on how the process of resettlement can be handled and what could be viewed in designing the livelihood restoration of project affected people. Herein is the record of this consultative session. Participants requested that they be compensated fairly and reasonably. In response, they were informed that compensation prices would be derived from instructions of the National expropriation law and latest prices developed by Institute of Real Property Valuers in Rwanda (IRPV). A question was raised for support in covering transaction fees involved in getting their land titles, fees of about 30,000Rwf, which they proposed could be later be deducted from what they would be compensated. The local communities were informed that this would be looked into on how this can be facilitated for those observed not to be capable by virtue of their income levels. An issue was raised on how to handle a case where land that had been bought in the past from a person who had since left the area with no contacts or access. The communities were informed that for such cases, they are advised to meet the sector land manager to facilitate them. They were advised to carry with them, agreements of the land transaction, written approvals of knowledge of the legal land transaction from their local land committee and written evidence of neighbours of the land in question of knowledge and agreement of this land transaction as legal. Once again, the issue was raised of how households with large number of members incapable of fitting a house of a 2 or 3- or 4-bedroom house will be handled. The communities were informed that criteria would be drawn on house allocation based on family sizes, however it was also noted that since households would be compensated at full replacement for their land, houses and perennial crops and trees, this cash compensation was at the choice of the Project Affected Person (PAP) to find another location apart from the proposed relocation site to build or buy a new house suitable to the family size. A question was asked of what would happen to land or property owners that do not reside in the area and might not be informed of the VNP park expansion project and preparations to relocate those with property neighbouring the park. To this, the communities were informed that public notices announcing and informing the public of the project and key dates of the preparation process to relocate property neighbouring the VNP, would be prepared and presented. These notices would be placed at District, Sector and Cells offices for information and public announcement made. The local communities were also encouraged to directly inform owners of property in the area that are not residing in the area, of the upcoming relocation process and the key dates mentioned above. However, for owners that will not be found and since a project of public interest cannot be stopped on the absence of a property owner, the procedure is such that asset inventory and valuation is conducted for that property, the 149 money for compensation is placed on a District escrow account for the property owner to claim whenever they appear with proof of property ownership. Furthermore, a question was raised of how an issue of land co-owned by a husband with more than one wife would be handled, where the husband has since left the country not to return and the first wife has the land ownership title with written co-ownership between her and her husband. The communities were informed that such cases should be raised with the sector land manager who would orient them on how and where to go to solve them. One of the participants inquired of whether a person who was currently in the process of selling their land to an investor would also be included in the benefits planned for livelihood restoration of the VNP expansion pilot PAPs. The communities were informed that only those that owned land or other property within the project area at the time of cut-off date would be compensated and gain from proposed livelihood restoration measures. This would mean that for such a case, such a person who has already sold their land at the time of cut-off date cannot be eligible for any project proposed compensation or livelihood restoration measures. On another note, a participant inquired of what would happen to those displaced and compensated by an on-going road repair project that originally were within the project area delimitations, whether they too would benefit from the proposed livelihood restoration plans for VNP expansion pilot PAPs. Again, it was explained that only those with property in the project area at cut-off date would be eligible for any project proposed compensation or livelihood restoration measures, short of which, other individual cases would be handled based on the income levels of the household. An individual within the community participants that attended the public consultation meeting, informed the meeting that he did handcraft as a source of income at household level and not in an association or cooperative. The question he had, was whether he would be included in the proposed livelihood restoration plans. In response, the communities were informed that there is a current proposed Livelihood Restoration Plan that bares income activities for household level, collective cooperative level and business investor level. Any interested PAP would be accommodated at any of these levels. The meeting was concluded by an open election of representatives of the two villages, where for each village a female and male were elected. The representatives are: S/N Names Gender Contact NYAKIGINA VILLAGE 1 MUNYEMANA Claude M 0783116920 2 MUSABYIMANA Beatrice F 0785320262 GAHURA VILLAGE 1 TUYISENGE Emmanuel M 0786546117 2 NYIRAMAHORO Marie Chantal F 0781630181 The public meeting started at 8:40am and ended at 10:45am. Minutes of the Public consultation with the local communities of Karyusenge and Cyabirego villages in Nyabigoma cell, Kinigi Sector held on 8th September 2022 at Nyabigoma cell office grounds. The public consultation meeting was held in afternoon of the 8th September. It begun by the Vice- Mayor in charge of economic affairs welcoming the locals to the meeting, introducing the guest that had come to inform them of the upcoming VNP expansion pilot project and informing them the guests were here to consult them on their opinions towards project activities and implementation. The Vice Mayor in-charge of Economic affairs Musanze District made an introduction of the Volcanoes National Park (VNP) expansion project and emphasized the objective and importance of the project. The local communities in attendance were informed that the project had the following main objectives; (i) A high population growth of wildlife in the VNP was leading to increased infant mortality rate of the wildlife, the VNP expansion project was proposed to conserve wildlife in the VNP by increasing the size of the VNP and thereby reducing mortality of 150 wildlife in the VNP, (ii) The project was proposed to avoid and minimise conflict between wildlife from the VNP and local communities neighbouring born from wildlife encroaching their plantations at the boundaries of the VNP and some people encroaching the VNP for items like honey, bamboo, (iii) to improve the socio-economic livelihoods of the communities neighbouring the VNP through opportunities arising from tourists visiting the VNP and shared revenues from the VNP tourism, (iv) an opportunity of increased revenues from touristic visits as a result of increased wildlife populations, reduced wildlife infant mortality and therefore increased numbers for those interested in visiting wildlife in the VNP. This was followed by an in-depth elaboration, by the AWF Program manager, of the VNP expansion project components, key objectives and proposed activities, studies on the project so far conducted and those that are on-going. The communities were informed that the VNP expansion project would involve land acquisition of about 1000ha in areas neighbouring the VNP, resulting in the relocation of the local communities of 8 villages (Myase, Nyarusizi, Nyakagina, Gahura, Karyasenge, Cyabirego, Kabatwa, Mitobo villages) to Rurembo afew kilometres, among which are Karyusenge and Cyabirego villages. However, the communities were informed that before they would be relocated, a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) that involved socio-economic study and asset valuation, would be conducted with their participation in order to guide the process of how they could be compensated at full replacement and measures would be taken to ensure their livelihoods are restored or even improved. The local communities were informed of the key dates in preparation of the relocation process- RAP and requested to be always available and involved. The dates are: o The Land week to sort out land title document to the largest extent would be from the 17 th October to 29th October 2022. o The Cut-off date is set for the 31st October 2022 but later moved to the 18th February 2023 when the census survey would begin, upon which date only those with property within the VNP expansion pilot project designated area will be the only eligible Project affected persons (PAPs). o From the 31st October to 12th November 2022, site specific socio-economic census survey, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) shall be conducted. This was later moved to the 18th February 2023 when the census survey would begin o From the 7th November to 15th December 2022, the asset inventory and valuation process shall be conducted. Once the relevant project aspects had been explained to the participants, the local communities were requested to raise questions, give opinions on how the process of resettlement can be handled and what could be viewed in designing the livelihood restoration of project affected people. Herein is the record of this consultative session. One of the participants inquired where the boundaries of the project area proposed for phase 1 land acquisition were. In response, the communities were informed that phase 1 land acquisition covered 8 villages which names were given. Furthermore, AWF would prepare maps with land identification numbers (Unique Plot Identifications- UPIs) to be placed at public notices at the sector and cell offices for reference by the communities. There was a request that priority is given to people from the project affected local communities on job opportunities emanating from the VNP expansion project. For this, the local communities were assured of such affirmative prioritisation in job allocation. They were also informed that as part of current Livelihood Restoration Plan, a component of skills development for local communities had been proposed to eventually match the skills required during the VNP expansion project activities. A question was asked of what would happen to land or property owners that do not reside in the area and might not be informed of the VNP park expansion project and preparations to relocate those with property neighbouring the park. To this, the communities were informed that public notices announcing and informing the public of the project and key dates of the preparation process to relocate property neighbouring the VNP. These notices would be placed at District, Sector and Cells offices for information and public announcement made. The local communities were also encouraged to directly inform owners of property in the area that are not residing in the area, of the upcoming relocation process and the key dates mentioned above. However, for owners that will not 151 be found and since a project of public interest cannot be stopped on the absence of a property owner, the procedure is such that asset inventory and valuation is conducted for that property, the money for compensation is placed on a District escrow account for the property owner to claim whenever they appear with proof of property ownership. A question was raised for support in covering transaction fees involved in getting their land titles, fees of about 30,000Rwf, which they proposed could be later be deducted from what they would be compensated. The local communities were informed that this would be looked into on how this can be facilitated for those observed not to be capable by virtue of their income levels. The meeting was concluded by an open election of representatives of the two villages, where for each village a female and male were elected. The representatives are: S/N Names Gender Contact KARYASENGE VILLAGE 1 SERUHUNGO Emmanuel M 0785232667 2 NYIRABURETERI Claudine 0781478512 CYABIREGO VILLAGE 1 IRADUKUNDA Desire M 0788414050 2 MUKANDORI Drocelle F 0782569695 The public meeting started at 2:30pm and ended at 4:45pm. Minutes of the stakeholder engagement meeting with Conservation NGOs and project relevant local NGOs of VNP, held on the 9th September 2022 at La Palme hotel in Musanze town. The consultation meeting commenced with introductions from all participants. It was followed by an introduction and the objective and importance of the project of the Volcanoes National Park (VNP) expansion project by the Vice Mayor in charge of economic affairs of Musanze. The conservation partners in their different capacities were informed that the project had the following main objectives; (i) A high population growth of wildlife in the VNP was leading to increased infant mortality rate of the wildlife, the VNP expansion project was proposed to conserve wildlife in the VNP by increasing the size of the VNP and thereby reducing mortality of wildlife in the VNP, (ii) The project was proposed to avoid and minimise conflict between wildlife from the VNP and local communities neighbouring born from wildlife encroaching their plantations at the boundaries of the VNP and some people encroaching the VNP for items like honey, bamboo, (iii) to improve the socio-economic livelihoods of the communities neighbouring the VNP through opportunities arising from tourists visiting the VNP and shared revenues from the VNP tourism, (iv) an opportunity of increased revenues from touristic visits as a result of increased wildlife populations, reduced wildlife infant mortality and therefore increased numbers for those interested in visiting wildlife in the VNP. This was followed by an in-depth elaboration, by the AWF Program manager, of the VNP expansion project components, key objectives and proposed activities, studies on the project so far conducted. The conservation partners were informed that the VNP expansion project phase 1 would involve land acquisition of about 1000ha in areas neighbouring the VNP, resulting in the relocation of the local communities from 8 villages (Myase, Nyarusizi, Nyakagina, Gahura, Karyasenge, Cyabirego, Kabatwa, Mitobo villages) to a relocation site in Rurembo afew kilometres away. In order for relocation to occur, the local authorities were informed that a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) that involved socio-economic study and asset valuation, would need to be conducted with their participation in order to guide the process of how they could be compensated at full replacement and measures would be taken to ensure their livelihoods are restored or even improved. The conservation partners were informed of the key dates in preparation of the relocation process- RAP and requested to be hugely involved. The dates are: 152 o The Land week to sort out land title document to the largest extent would be from the 17 th October to 29th October 2022. o The Cut-off date is set for the 31st October 2022 but later moved to the 18th February 2023 when the census survey would begin, upon which date only those with property within the VNP expansion pilot project designated area will be the only eligible Project affected persons (PAPs). o From the 31st October to 12th November 2022, site specific socio-economic census survey, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) shall be conducted. This was later moved to the 18th February 2023 when the census survey would begin. o From the 7th November to 15th December 2022, the asset inventory and valuation process shall be conducted. Once the relevant project aspects had been explained to the participants, the floor was opened to a questions and answer session on opinions of how the process of resettlement can be handled and what could be viewed in designing the livelihood restoration of project affected people. Herein is the record of this consultative session. One of the participants appreciated the intention from the project to continuously communicate the project progress, however, awareness of the local communities is seen to be low and requires more mobilization. Participants in attendance of this consultation meeting were requested to ensure they have a clear and harmonised understanding of the project objectives and planned activities in order to explain to the local communities and build their awareness. Another participant emphasised that the project would need to have a human rights approach towards the project implementation of local communities and that Local communities and Civil societies need to be fully involved. It was also suggested that during community mobilization and stakeholder consultation, the project affected local communities needed to be informed of the direct and indirect benefits and impacts from the project. It was also advised that a clear communication strategy needed to be developed of how information will be disseminated on project objectives, benefits, progress to the public to avoid miscommunication on the project. This would involve how to manage social media or other forms of communication. Recommendation was made that the VNP expansion pilot project’s RAP refers to experiences referenced from the Rusumo Hydropower plant or other recently implemented projects that involved resettlement, emphasise on that project’s key issue of the Resettlement of the locals. This was noted and would be reviewed. Suggestion was made to the Project management to create more forums to meet the International NGOs as one of the avenues where information can be disseminated both locally and foreign and contributions towards the project’s implementation can be derived. It was emphasised that much time should be given to the consultative meetings with local communities, local and international NGOs. In response to some of the questions and suggestions made, the following initiatives were mentioned: • The plan in place is to share a monthly update on the project to NGOs to ensure harmonised information dissemination. • Provide a list and calendar schedule of the Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) that will be held with NGOs and CSOs during the RAP preparation to enable them better prepare their independent schedules. • As for the communication strategy, this was planned as part of what the Project management at AWF are preparing. It was agreed that the project management would be the main source of information dissemination. • A crucial emphasis was made to local authorities to ensure that the enforcement of cut-off date, of the 18th February 2023, to avoid additional assets mushrooming once the socio-economic baseline survey has commenced. After the questions and answer session was completed, NGOs were given the opportunity to inform the participants, what each NGOs major activities are and how they see themselves contribute to the implementation 153 of the livelihood restoration of PAPs from relocation by the VNP expansion pilot project. Below is a brief of what each of the NGOs presented. Important to note that understanding each of the areas of activity, would be very essential on how the Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) would be prepared during the RAP preparation but also understand their respective relevance towards supporting proposed Livelihood restoration of PAPs. Relevant NGOs presentations 1. Partners in conservation – work in the field of education, community empowerment, environmental and climate justice, work with over 1000 families, planted tree nurseries, over 1million trees. Have potential to develop the right tree species for the buffer zone, planting and nurseries. 2. Rwanda Youth in action- work in the area of youth education on friends to environment. They educate students on environment and climate. Collect solid waste disposed in water bodies. As for their approach to involvement in the VNP, they propose to use games and plays as a means of communicating the project objectives and activities. 3. Fatrade ihumure- are involved in cultivation of mushrooms that cover small areas and value addition of these mushrooms. This fits in the project considering the land acquisition will be reduced, this could be an avenue to maintain or improve their income for those PAPs that are agriculture based. They are also nutritious providing a balance diet. They work with Terimbere mugore cooperative. They also work on Bamboo outside of the VNP, planted in their plantations and along the riverbanks, work with Kopavimararo, who they train on techniques of harvesting adult bamboo trees and value addition like making chairs, tables, lamps, etc. This will be alternative to deter locals from approaching the park as non-timber alternatives. 4. REDO (Rural Environment and Development Organisation)- REDO programs involve; tree planting, environment awareness, agriculture, micro projects (e.g. bee keeping). They work in Musanze and Burera Districts. They see themselves involved in the project by supporting bee-keeping by increasing the methods/techniques to scale up on productivity and quality by introducing PAPs in distribution of modern bee hives, bee calories, customer care. They also see themselves in promoting agro-forestry (such as fruit trees) especially where they will be relocated. Also, could support environmental awareness. 5. AVERDURE- are involved in managing surface water management by applying infiltration techniques. Collect roof water from homes and manage it. They could support storm water management of the relocation sites in smart villages for storage, treatment and recycle of water by applying Natural based solutions. 6. Virunga health life clubs- works on education for sustainability, species monitoring, climate change and tourism. They see themselves supporting awareness campaign in schools on conserving the VNP. They manage nurseries in 5 areas with a plan of 6 nurseries this year, producing fruit trees, forest trees, perennial trees (e.g. avocado, guavas). Regard with Tourism, empower the local communities on tourist activities beyond the Gorilla trekking at the park. 7. Safer Rwanda- focus on environmental protection integrating in livelihood improvement. For example; they have given cattle and built biogas to avoid deforestation of the park. They produce low fuel energy cooking stoves that reduce fuel energy use by up to 80%. They currently plan to distribute 300 stoves at subsidized prices, given with a heat retaining box to cook and keep food warm. They also facilitate in the formation of Voluntary saving association (VSOs) groups where money is saved by locals and shared in rotations. This could facilitate financial inclusion of PAPs. 8. Conservation heritage-Turambe- Educate schools neighbouring the VNP on ecosystem protection through demonstrations, field schools. They wish to support to work with youth to plant bamboos. They can also support in handicrafts. 154 9. Wildlife conservation Initiative (WCI)- Have already embarked on Mukungwa wetland rehabilitation into an eco-park. They wish to support the project by; awareness on importance of park expansion and have a big team to handle, to prepare nurseries and seedlings and follow up on the tree growth. 10. Rwanda Development Organisation (RDO)-Support farmers in farm to market of their agricultural produce, support women in reducing time on house chores by providing them with cooking stoves, water tanks. They wish to support by; use of small pieces of land for agriculture. e.g. mushrooms and poultry farming, financial management income. 11. Sakola- Is the group of communities neighbouring the VNP, covering Nyange and Kinigi sector. They build houses for vulnerable groups, provide cattle and short-legged livestock. They provide youth with skills training. e.g. girls trained in knitting, women are given small start-up capital at no interest that is a revolving fund, provide school feeding, human sanitary support (Toilets built). Mobilization has already commenced, e.g. on the 12th August they had a general assembly to be informed on the project activities. They can offer nurseries and support conservation of the park expansion area. 12. RCCDN- Rwanda Climate Change Development Network has 66 members. It is an advocacy civil society organization. They wish to support by; harmonising information, mobilization of public opinion through information campaigns and broad outreach, representation of the voiceless through constructive dialogues, response capacity to manage shocks by building capacity to respond faster to shock, management and implementation, monitoring the implementation, legitimization of decision-making mechanism which is all inclusive, resource mobilization for the project success. 13. Redrox initiative- conserve the environment with tourism for community development. They wish to support by; greening areas, tree planting, they use banana fibres instead of plastic bags at the nurseries. Touristic approach to culture for example eco-tourism. Youth and women empowerment by skills development. e,g. youth in artefacts, handicrafts, carpentry, knitting, tailoring and link them to established markets for these works. Also propose to establish environmental clubs in schools neighbouring the VNP. They also provide the energy saving cooking stoves that save up to 55% for free after mobilizing funding elsewhere. Agroforestry at the relocation site. All these are avenues of job opportunities. 14. ARECO- Rwanda Nziza- Focus mainly on women empowerment in park conservation. They do land restoration through agroforestry and nurseries establishment. They also got into bamboo plantation and processing activities value addition. They wish to support/contribute the project by; awareness creation focusing on women and youth, play a role in information, advocacy and fund mobilization, contribution to bamboo value chain strengthening, research on suitable species for land restoration and value addition, facilitate quality improvement of bamboo products and marketing, introduction of new bamboo products including drinks. 15. International Gorilla Conservation Programme (IGCP)- Has had 30years in conservation with a mission to save the future of mountain gorillas. IGCP engages communities through Mountain gorilla conservation and tourism, contribute substantially to community development and livelihood improvement in the region. IGCP engage and educate local communities on human-wildlife conflict, environmental education, community-based monitoring, benefit sharing and more. In Rwanda, with support from IGCP, park staff and local communities have been building a dry-stone wall (one meter high and one meter thick) around the park perimeter called the Buffalo wall. Building the wall has been a positive step towards reducing conflict between the park and the community as buffalos raid on crops has reduced. 16. Dian fossey foundation/ Karisoke research- Has had 55 years in Gorilla research. The foundation deals mainly in; daily Gorilla protection, scientific research mainly on Gorilla life, trains the next generation of conservationists and VNP staff and support park neighbouring communities in educating them on conservation programs and support in meeting their immediate basic needs. 155 As the meeting was concluding, four (4) representatives of the conservation partners were elected to represent the rest in the project implementation process going forward. Those elected were: ARECO, REDO ROCKS, Rwanda Youth Inaction, SAKOLA. S/N Names Type of representation Contact LOCAL NGOs 1 REDO ROCKS INITIATIVE/ MUHINDA Generally, all 0788564505 Charles 2 ARECO/ MUKAKAMARI DANCILLA Women 0788521732 3 SAKOLA/NSENGIYUMVA Pierre Celestin Local community 0788854067 4 Rwanda Youth In Action /MBONYINSHUTI Youth 0788305540 The public meeting started at 9:05am and ended at 1:20pm. Later that afternoon, a stakeholder engagement meeting was held with Sector land managers from areas neighbouring the VNP. Here after are minutes of how the consultations went. Minutes of the stakeholder engagement meeting with Sector land manager, held on the 9 th September 2022 at La Palme hotel in Musanze town. AWF program manager informed the participants that VNP expansion pilot project could cover 8 villages in Kinigi and Nyange sectors. They were also informed that there was a new land use plan for areas neihbouring around the VNP being prepared, which they need to be aware of during their daily activities and during the upcoming preparation of the District’s masterplan. The purpose of the consultative meeting was to determine whether the Terms of reference (ToR) of the land use masterplan for areas around VNP deliverables are all well captured before the VNP expansion project studies commence. The AWF program manager presented the ToRs, focusing on deliverables, which included: (i) Deliverable 1- Conservation investment blueprint (which includes Livelihood Restoration Plan), (ii) Deliverable 2- Ecological restoration of VNP expanded area, (iii) Deliverable 3- VNP- buffer zone land use plan, (iv) Deliverable 4- Conceptual master plan for smart green village, Musanze tourism corridors and the twin lakes tourism zone, (v) strategic environmental and social impact assessment. With a 3month plan from October to December on these deliverables. A session of questions and answers was opened to the participants. Questions were raised on what would guide issuing of permits for those who wish to work on areas neighbouring the VNP. It was hence proposed that as early as possible the Project management put in place physical boundaries of the park expansion boundary, buffer zone and the Musanze tourism corridor, to avoid encroachment on these planned areas. The meeting commenced at 2:15pm and ended at 3:30pm. Grievance redress mechanism consultation meeting held on 2nd November 2022 in Musanze District This meeting was attended by elected representatives of the villages, local authorities from village to cell and sector that would be affected by the project. Also, in attendance were; Vice Mayor in charge of the economic affairs of Musanze District, AWF Project manager, representatives of independent lawyers from MAJ, the District good governance official and the consultant team. The Ministry of Justice has established Access to Justice Bureaus (MAJ) at every District level (3 lawyers per District) as decentralized service to assist citizens to access legal aid at free cost. Participants in this meeting would be part of the Grievance redress committees (GRC) and be responsible for resolving upcoming grievances at respective levels of the grievance structure. The purpose of this meeting was to educate these participants on existing approaches of how conflicts are handled. Awareness discussions on different existing grievance redress were provided to participants during this meeting by the District good governance officer, the MAJ executive secretary and the consultant. Herein are approaches discussed during the meeting, every approach was followed with a question-and-answer session. 156 Stage 1 of existing grievance redress mechanism was “ABUNZI”. ▪ The participants were informed that the Law 37/2016 of 08/09/2016 established “Abunzi” committee, which comprised of: o Formed of elected responsible, respectable and honest and fair people in the community- 7 members for 5 year period. The committee would have a President, Vice president and members. o Under Abunzi, 3 members of the committee were chosen to review and handle the compliant. Complaints are raised and handled along existing local government structures. For instance, complaint moves from umuryango (family at the village level) then to the cell to sector, based on the satisfaction of the resolution by the complainant. All decisions are based on the Rwanda Law and should never conflict with the land law. They take 30 days maximum to resolve. ▪ Complaints handled at this stage comprise; issues on assets, conflicts on agreements for things not beyond 3million Rwf and family conflicts such as; inheritance of property/succession (Izungura). ▪ This stage doesn’t handle issues where the compliant is against GoR that is handled by other levels of established institutions. Abunzi do not handle court cases or override them. ▪ How it’s done: o Abunzi Committee handle issues of the complaint in their area of jurisdiction only.i.e. village or cell or sector. In case the issue covers more than 1 area, the area with the biggest area of the issue will take on the case. o Complaints are received by the cell, sector office which pass them to the Abunzi committee. o The Issue/complaint is written in a book and given a reference number. o Complaints resolution is chaired by the president, if not around the vice president. o All involved in the complaint should be around when the complaint is being resolved by Abunzi. i.e. the complainant, the accused and any issue related persons. o The resolution can be done in 2 ways; (i) firstly, openly before all, which if fails then; (ii) secondly, in closed doors by the committee and this resolution is passed on to the complainant. o Record is taken of the decision of the resolution based on their approach. o Decision on resolution must be reached within 10 days, which is passed on to the executive of cell or sector, who passes on a written decision to the complainant. o Bailiff is appointed to implement the resolution, if the parties are satisfied with the resolution. o In case it’s beyond the sector Abunzi and the complainant is not satisfied, its elevated in court of law. o The Land law No. 27/2021 is referred to issues or conflicts on land. The sector land manager is engaged to support Abunzi committee in coming up with a decision on land related issues. o Use mediation and arbitration (Ubuhuza) are also methods applied to resolve grievances at this stage. o Remember any conflict, the family is allowed to handle it internally before it gets to Abunzi. o Beyond this the grievance can be escalated to Courts of law. ▪ Cases of discussion: o property of husband and wife not legally married- If both are shared owners then they have equal rights to compensation. o Succession property- informal rights shall be reviewed by Abunzi and use it to take a resolution. e.g. within the family or community those with support to these informal rights. ▪ Husband and wife have to be available to agree on land transfer. ▪ The law says that whether one spouse has the land written on them, still the other spouse legally married has to agree in written form for any land transfer. 157 o Ubuzime (prescription in French) 30 years holding the land can be transferred to the caretaker of the land title but this doesn’t apply to families sharing land ownership. Only death certificate will justify this. MAJ- (Access to Justice Bureau) The MAJ executive secretary informed the meeting of the following: At the district they are 3. They are lawyers that sent by MINIJUST. They provide advisory services on conflicts but do not take a resolution. They perform mediation and do arbitration for those with conflicts. They also explain to people their entitlements as per law of whatever conflict raised. It is a level that tries to reduce court cases. The MAJ service is free of charge. After the explanations on the different existing grievance redress mechanism, the floor was opened to a question and answer session. 1. Abunzi sector member had the following propositions- a. Proposed that conflicts are handled first at the family (umuryango) level before its taken to the cell through the village leader. b. Also, as they wait to be trained at National level, can there be a special training for Abunzi in the project area. An afternoon session followed in which participants made suggestions of the how the process of Grievance redress resolutions could be handled, now that they had been informed of the existing processes. The following process were their suggestions: ▪ In regard to the stages of grievance resolution, the following were proposed- o 1ST Level is to handle the complaint at Village level by the 3 representatives of the village (i.e. 2 elected representatives of project affected people plus the 1 the local village leader). Complaints that are unsatisfactory would be escalated to the next stage. o 2nd level is to handle complaints by the elected Grievance Redress Committee(GRC), presented hereafter. o Again for complaints that are unsatisfactory will then follow through to the Abunzi level (cell to sector), MAJ (for advisory, mediation and arbitration) and then courts of law. ▪ How to receive and handle conflicts (e.g. which conflicts they will handle and which ones are beyond them) o The GRC does not replace existing conflict resolution structures. o Focus on issues and solutions within the scope of the project. o The GRC collects conflict, lists the conflicts collected to be handled ahead of time before they get far. Decide what can be handled by the committee and what has to be taken beyond to Abunzi. o Proposition were made on the composition of the GRC: ▪ Have the committee at a level of cell. ▪ From each village 1 representative that represents them at the cell committee, making them 8. ▪ Among these 8 representatives, they can elect a President, vice president, secretary and an advisor. ▪ Committees were elected in the following manner at cell level, 8 of 24 members elected: • From Mitobo, kabatwa, cyabirego villages- Hakizimana Innocent (President), Munyanfura Leonidas (VPres.), Nyirimanzi Emmanuel (Sec.), Mukantoheri Venantia (Advisor) 158 • Gahura, nyakigina, karyasenge villages- Tuyisenge Emmanuel (President), Musabyimana Beatrice (VPres.), Seruhungu Aime (Sec.), Munyemana Jeand Claude (Advisor) • Myase, Nyarusizi villages- Sebazungu Felicien(President), Kuradugenge Marie louise(VPres.), Nuwengenye charlotte(Secretary), Harelimana Boniface(Advisor). • They also chose a Coordination/Liaison for all committee at the sector level – Jean claude Munyemana- He will be charged with preparing reports and collect and consolidate information at cells level and presenting it to the sector level. ▪ Level1 Village representatives, level 2 cell level and the sector coordinator consolidate them to the project and the villages. o Transmission of documents ▪ Will be sent to each of the levels (cell or sector level). AOB: Other items to be looked into but not assured were: ▪ Revenue sharing funds from VNP could be used to support the locals for fees of land transfer upfront for those not able to but that is a loan to be refunded by the landowner being relocated especially. It shall be noted that there is a 5% disruption fees added to the actual valued cost of the displaced property that covers all foreseen and unforeseen transactions. ▪ A Field trip (rugendo shuli) to Akagera was planned from 18-20th November 2022for PAP representatives with a purpose of exposing to experiences by other park related project that involved land acquisition and relocation. The meeting commenced at 10 am and ended at 4pm. 159 Annex 2: List of participants/ stakeholders in public consultation and FGD meetings 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 . 172 Annex 3: Photolog of stakeholder engagements Draft report: Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for Volcanoes National Park (VNP) pilot expansion project. 173 174 Annex 4: Socio-economic baseline study Questionnaire Tools Volcanoes National Park Expansion Pilot Project Socio-Economic Study Household Survey • Good morning/afternoon, my name is [state your name]. • We are collecting data about the current situation in this community and all households that will be directly affected by the VNP expansion pilot project in Kaguhu and Nyabigoma Cells and any other cells to be affected by the pilot project. • The VNP expansion pilot project intends to relocate all affected households within the areas to be expanded to a relocation site that will be developed to ensure the affected households’ livelihoods are restored and improved. • Your household has been selected among those that will be affected by the project and we would like to know the status of your household’s wellbeing before the expansion project starts. • Responding to this survey is voluntary and the information that you give will be confidential. The information will be used to prepare reports but will not include anyone’s specific name. There will be no way to identify that you gave this information. • Could you please spare around 40 minutes for the interview? Please DO NOT suggest in any way that household benefits could depend on the outcome of the interview, as this will affect the answers. QN Introduction We would like to speak to the head of this household; is any of them available? Yes No Can you please spare some time for the interview? Consent given Yes No (do not proceed with interview) District Sector Cell Village Enumerator code A. Household Profile AI Respondent’s name: A2 Who is the respondent? 1.Household head 2. Husband 3. Wife 4. Father 5. Mother 6. Other (Specify) A3 Household head’s name: HH National ID No. _ _ _ _ ______ A4 Gender of respondent? (1) Male (2) Female A5: Respondent age in years: ____ A6 Gender of the household head? (1) Male (2) Female A7: Household head’s age in years: __ A8 Socio economic “Ubudehe” Category: 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know A9 Do you receive any VUP support? Yes No A10 Are you registered in FARG? Yes No A11 Do all household members have health insurance? Yes No A12 Affected Land Plot UPI: A12.1: Plot Size: Plot 1: _ _/_ _/_ _/_ _/_ _ _ _ Plot 1: ………….. M2 Plot 2: _ _/_ _/_ _/_ _/_ _ _ _ Plot 2: ………….. M2 Plot 3: _ _/_ _/_ _/_ _/_ _ _ _ Plot 3: ………….. M2 Plot 4: _ _/_ _/_ _/_ _/_ _ _ _ Plot 4: ………….. M2 Plot 5: _ _/_ _/_ _/_ _/_ _ _ _ Plot 5: ………….. M2 175 Plot 6: _ _/_ _/_ _/_ _/_ _ _ _ Plot 6: ………….. M2 A13 What is the highest level of education held by the household head? 1. No education 2. Primary education (Drop 3. Completed Primary education 7. Out) Other 5. Completed secondary 4. Partial secondary (drop out) 6. Tertiary (College/University) [Specify] A14 What is the total number of household members who usually live in this household (eat and sleep?) including the respondent? ___________# Of people A15 Of the household members who usually live here, what are their age and gender? Household member [Hint One –total number recorded here is the same as A14] [Enter #] Relationship Age [Hint Two – Include children at boarding school] Gender A16 Among the people living in this household, how many are living with disabilities? A16a # Of Adults ________ A16b # Of Children_______ [Hint: insert 0 if none with disability] A17 How many children between the ages of 6 – 12 years live in this household? A17a. Boys _______# A17b. Girls _______# A18 How many of the BOYS aged 6 – 12 years in this household attend school regularly? _________# A19 How many of the GIRLS aged 6 – 12 years in this household attend school regularly? ________# B. Land Ownership and Housing B1 Do you own A LAND TITLE for any farmland within the affected area? 1.Yes 0. No B2 How many LAND TITLES do you own for farmland within the affected area? _____________# B3 What is the total area of farmland that is accessed (managed) by this household in the affected areas (M2)? ___ [Hint – make sure that the total land is the same as the total of own land/ borrowed/ other] B4 What is the total area of land owned by your household (M2)? ______________ B5 What is the total area of land borrowed or leased (M2)? ____________ B6 Other land managed by this household (M2)? ________ (Ownerless/unmanaged/communal land) B7 Is there any other land within the affected area that you use, but have no land title for? 1. Yes, communal land for cooperative 2. Yes, government land (forest or swamp) 3. Yes, abandoned land/forest 4. No such land B8 How long have you owned this land? 1. < 1 year 2. 1-10 years 3. > 10 years B9 Do you own a house within the affected project area? 1. Yes (one) 2. Yes (More than 1). 3. No (Skip to Section C) B10 If you own a house/s in the affected area, do you live in it or it is used by others? 1.Live in it. 2. Rent it out. 3.My family/Relatives live in it. 4. Other (Specify) B11 Do you own another house outside the affected area that you can use a replacement housing when displaced? 1.Yes, in this district 2. Yes, outside this district. 3. No B12 What material is the floor of your house made of? 1. Clay 2. Wood 3. Cement 4. Tiles 5. Stone 6. Bare earth B13 What toilet facilities do you have? 1 = No Toilet 2= Outside toilet – VIP (protected Pit latrine) 3= Outside Toilet – Unprotected pit latrine 4= Flush toilet with Septic tank 176 C. Income and Expenditure C1 What is the main occupation(s) of the household head? [Select ONLY one] 1. Agriculture 5. Vocational services (tailor, 9. Public Service carpenter etc) 2. Agriculture & Livestock 6. Hospitality services (restaurant, 10. Private employee production hotels) 3. Transport services (bike, 7. General Commerce (trader, 11. Unemployed Moto, Taxi) shopkeeper) 4. Tourism services (potter, 8. Construction services (Masonry) 12. Other, Specify guide etc) C2 Over the past 12 months, what were your main sources of income and how much did you earn from them? Source of Income Earnings in 12 months (Rwf) C2a Sale of Crops C2b Sale of Livestock C2c Sale of Livestock products (e.g., milk, meat, eggs) C2e Wage labour (paid farm-labour) C2f Sale of other agro products (e.g., tree products) C2g Total ANNUAL INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE [Hint: tree products include firewood, wood carvings, medicinal products etc] C3 Over the past 12 months did your household receive income from other off-farm sources? Source of Income Earnings in 12 months (Rwf) C3a Formal Wages/Salaries –Non-Farm wages C3b Other casual earnings – Non-Farm Labour C3c Cash remittances (relatives/friends) C3d Rent/Land Leased received C3e Other business/Trade incomes C3f Pensions/ Government support/VUP C3h ANNUAL INCOME FROM OFF-FARM C4 Over the past 2 years, how has your overall household income changed? 1. Increased 2. Decreased 3. Stayed the same (no change) C6 Which of the household and/or farming assets does the household have? [Read list, select all mentioned] 1. Bicycle 2. Mobile phone 3. Radio 4. Television 5. Radio cassette 6. Sewing 7. Motorcycle 8. Car/truck player machine 9. Refrigerator 10. Foam 11. Gas/electric 12. Furniture mattress stove Suite (wooded chairs) 177 C7 Over the past 12 months, what have been your expenses and indicate the extent of expenditure Item Expenses in 12 Major (3) Moderate (2) months (Rwf) Minor (1) No Expenditure C7a Food (feeding household) (0) C7b Education (school fees) C7c Health (medical care) C7d Transport C7e Funeral (s) C7f Wedding expenses (dowry, reception C7g etc)(self & hh members) Clothing C7h Hiring labour C7i Farm inputs (seeds, manure, etc) C7j Firewood C7k Other expenses C7l TOTAL ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES D. Financial Inclusion D1 Are you or any member of your household a member of any social groups in your area? 1. Yes, cooperative 2. Yes, village association 3. Yes, other specify 4. None 5. Don’t know D2 Are you or any member of your household a member of any Village savings and loan association (VSLA)? 1. Yes (Self) [Skip D3] 2. Yes (Household Member) 3. No [Skip D3] 4. Don’t know [Skip D3] D3 If a household member other than you has an account in a VSLA who is that household member? 1. Husband 3. Child male 5. Elder male 2. Wife 4. Child female 6. Elder female D4 Do you or any other member of your household have an account with a formal financial institution (Bank, SACCO, MFI)? 1. Yes (Self) [Skip to D6] 2. Yes (Household Member) 3. No [Skip to D7] 4. Don’t know [Skip to D7] D5 If a household member other than you has an account in a formal financial institution, who is that household member? 1. Husband 3. Child male 5. Elder male 2. Wife 4. Child female 6. Elder female D6 In what financial institution is the account held? [Select all that apply] 1. Commercial Bank 3. MFI 5. Other (specify) 2. SACCO 4. None D7 What other financial products and services does this household use? [Select all that apply] 1. Use Mobile money 2. Use Individual money lenders 3. Safe keeping in a secret place at home 4. Safe keeping with an individual in household 5. Other [Please Specify] D8 Does your household have cash savings? Yes No Don’t know D9 Where do you keep your cash savings? [Select all that apply] 1. Commercial Bank 3. MFI 5. VSLA 2. SACCO 4. At home 6. Other (specify) 178 D10 How much do you currently have in all your savings? ____________________ Rwf D11 Does your household currently have a loan? Yes No Don’t know D12 What did you use the loan funds for? 1. Invest in a business 3. Pay household expenses 5. Purchase personal items 2. Purchase land/house 4. Pay off other debt 6. Other (Specify) E. Training and Extension Services E1 Have you or any member of your household attended any training in the last 12 months? 1. Yes (Self) [Skip to E3] 2. Yes (Household Member) 3. No [skip to E4] 4. Don’t know [Skip to E4] E2 If a household member other than you has attended a training in the last 12 months, who is that household member? 1. Husband 3. Child male 5. Elder male 2. Wife 4. Child female 6. Elder female E3 What have the trainings you attended been about? 1. Livestock management/feeding/husbandry (including fodder trees) 2. Agriculture value addition (agro processing), value chain and marketing (agri-business) 3. Agroforestry (nursery establishment, grafting/budding, tree planting, woodlots) 4. Crop management (Soil and water conservation, modern farming methods, kitchen gardens) 5. Financial inclusion/ Savings groups – Financial literacy 6. Advocacy, public participation, engaging local government 7. Entrepreneurship and Enterprise development 8. Cooperatives management 9. Conservation and tourism 10. Vocational skills training (carpentry, welding, hair dressing, handcrafts) 11. Others, specify 12. No Training 13. Don't Know E4 Who are the training and extension service providers you had access to in the last 12 months? 1. Government extension services (includes Twigire Muhinzi, FFS, cell, sector districts officers) 2. NGO extension services providers 3. SACCOs and financial institutions 4. Private service providers 5. Other (Specify) F. Crop Productivity F1 How far from your homestead is the farmland that this household uses? 1. 0 – 1 Km 2. 1- 5 Km 3. 5 – 10 Km 4. More than 10 Km F2 Does this household grow crops? 1. Yes 0. No [Skip to Section G] F3 Over the past 12 months did you SELL any proportion of your main staple crop? Yes No Don’t know F4 What is your main staple, what were your productions and sales in the last 12 months? [Choose only one] Main Staple Production Sales M2 Qnty (Kgs) Qnty Rwf (Total) 1. Irish Potatoes (Kgs) 2. Beans 179 3. Sorghum 4. Maize 5. Millet 6. Soya beans F5 What is your main cash crop, and What where your Productions and sales in the last 12 months? [Choose only one] Main Cash crop Production Sales M2 Qnty Qnty Rwf 1. Bananas 2. Pyrethrum 3. Wheat 4. Sweet potatoes 5. Cassava 6. Peas 7. Groundnuts 8. Onions 9. Cabbage 10. Tomato 11. Lettuce 12. Coffee 13. Mango 14. Pineapple 15. Paw paw 16. Other 17. No cash crop F6 How has crop production changed in the last 2 years? 1. Increased 2. Decreased 3. No change 4. Don’t know F7 Do you have any trees grown on your land? Yes No [Skip to F11] F8 What is the current number of trees that you own? Tree locations Qnty # Land Size (Sqm) Around the house In crop fields (Scattered) In grazing fields (Scattered) Along field boundaries In a woodlot On Communal Land Total number of trees owned F9 Does this household make an income from tree products (such as fruit, firewood, honey)? Yes No [Skip to F11] F10 If yes, What tree products does the household make an income from and how much has income was earned from these products over the past 12 months? Tree products Own/produced Sales Qnty (#) Qnty (#) Rwf Fruits Honey Firewood Sawn timber Poles Seeds Leaves Bark Medicine Handicrafts Fodder Charcoal Seedlings Other (Specify) F11 What is the main source of energy for cooking at your house? 180 1. Wood 3. Dung 5. Biogas 7. Gas 9. Other [Specify] 2. Kerosene 4. Charcoal 6. Electricity 8. Crop residues F12 Do you cook on a traditional open fire (3 stone) or wood/energy saving stove? 1. Open fire cooking (3 stones) 2. Improved cook stove 3. Both 4. Neither F13 If your main source of energy for cooking is firewood, where do you get it? 1. Own land/ woodlot 5. Government Forest reserve 2. Village market 6. Not main source of energy 3. Community Forest 7. Other [Specify] 4. Unmanaged land F14 During the dry season how much time per day does it normally take to collect firewood, how many bundles do you collect and how much do you spend on firewood per week? Time (hrs/day) Qnty (Bundles/Week) Cost (Rwf/week) Dry Season F15 During the Wet season how much time per day does it normally take to collect firewood, how many bundles do you collect and how much do you spend on firewood per week? Time (hrs/day) Qnty (Bundles/Week) Cost (Rwf/week) Wet Season F16 How has the Availability, Cost and Time for firewood collection changed in the over the last 2 years? Increase Decrease No Change Availability Cost Time F17 If there has been change, why do you think that this has occurred [select no more than 2 apply, do not read out] 1. Reduced trees in landscapes 2. Reduced access to land for tree planting 3. Increased trees in the landscape 4. Limited alternative sources of energy 5. Increased population 6. Other [specify] 7. Forests/trees replaced by agriculture 8. No change G. Livestock productivity G1 Does this household own livestock? Yes No [Skip to Section H] G2 How many livestock does this household own and how much have you earned from selling livestock and livestock products in the last 12 months? Main livestock Own Sales Qnty Units Qnty Rwf Exotic Dairy Cattle Local Dairy Cattle Mixed Dairy Cattle Exotic Beef Cattle Local Beef Cattle Mixed Beef Cattle Chickens Goats Pigs Sheep Other [Unit: Kg, Litres, #] G3 How has overall livestock productivity changed in the last 2 years? 1. Increased 2. Decreased 3. No change 4. Don’t know G4 What is the primary source of feed for grazing livestock in the dry season? 1. Grazing on your own farmland3. Grazing away from village 5. Zero grazing – feed collected & brought 2. Grazing around village 4. Purchasing fodder 6. Other [please specify] G5 How long do you (or HH members) usually walk to find grass/fodder in the dry season? (in terms of hours per day) # hours per day/ dry season 181 G6 How long do you (or HH members) usually walk to find grass/fodder in the wet season? (in terms of hours per day) # hours per day/ wet season G7 Over the past 2 years, how would you assess the quality of grazing/pastoral land around your village? 1. Better than previous years 2. No change from previous years 3. Worse than previous years G8 Over the past 2 years has it become EASIER to find areas for good grazing or fodder collection? Yes No G9 Over the past 2 years has it become CHEAPER to purchase fodder for your animals? Yes No G10 What are you doing to enhance your livestock productivity? [Select all that apply] 1. Artificial Insemination 2. Use/Purchase Improved Livestock Feed (Pellets, Dairy meal, Chicken feed etc) 3. Crossbreeding 4. Other (specify) H. Access to markets and social services H1 Do you sell any of the produce from your farm/garden? 1. Yes 2. No (Skip to H4) H2 Where do you sell most of the produce from your farm? 1. In the Village market 3. On the Roadside 2. To traders who collect from the village/farm 4. Other [Specify] H3 If you do sell at the market or roadside how far is the nearest selling point from your farm/home? # Kms H4 Which schools do the children in this household attend and how far are they? Name of School / 1. Pre-School, Estimated distance to school (KM) Education Institution 2. Primary 1: <1 km, 2: 1 – 5 Km, 3: 5 – 10 3. Secondary / Km, 4: >10 Km, 5. Don’t Know, VTC 6. No Children 4. Tertiary 1. 2. 3. H5 Where do you normally seek help when a member of your household is sick? Health Facility Yes Distance to medical centre: No 1: <1km, 2: 1 – 5 Km, 3: 5 – 10 Km, 4: >10Km, 5. Don’t Know 1. Nearest General Hospital: [Insert Name] 2. Nearest Public Health Centre: [Insert Name] 3. Nearest Health Post: [Insert Name] 4. Nearest Private Clinic: [Insert Name] 5. Traditional Healer: [Insert Name] 5. Other (specify) : [Insert Name] H6 Where does your household access its water for households use (cooking and drinking)? Water source Yes Distance to water source: No 1: <1km, 2: 1 – 5 Km, 3: 5 – 10 Km, 182 4: >10Km, 5. Don’t Know 1. Borehole 2. Dam 3. Private tap at house 4. Rain collected at homestead 5. Communal standpipe 6. Well/spring 7. River/Stream 8. Water sold by other people 9. Other (specify) H7 How has the Availability, Cost and Quality of social services infrastructure changed in the past 2 years? Increased Decreased No Change Availability Cost Quality I. Sustainable Land use and water Management I1 In your view, has access to fertile soil improved or declined in the past 2 years on your farm? [Select one] 1. Decreased 2. Increased 3. No change 4. Don’t know I2 What do you do to improve soil fertility in your farmland? [Read list, select all that apply] 1. Compost / 3. Green manure 5. Mulching 7. Crop rotation (with manure legumes) 2. Commercial 4. Growing 6. Intercropping 8. Other [please specify] fertiliser trees/agroforestry I3 In your view, has soil erosion Increased or Decreased in the past 2 years on your farm? [Select one] 1. Decreased 2. Increased 3. No change 4. Don’t know I4 What do you do to control erosion on your farmland? [Select all that apply] 1. Plant trees/ windbreak 2. Stone bunds 3. Mulch 4. Other [please specify] 5. Contour farming 6. Growing grasses 7. Contour trenches 8. Terracing/ cut off drains 9. Cover crops 10. Intercropping I5 In your view, has access to water for agricultural activities Increased or Decreased in the past 2 years? 1. Decreased 2. Increased 3. No change 4. Don’t know I6 What do you do to access water on your farmland (Crop watering, livestock care)? [Select all that apply] 1. Rainwater 2. Irrigation from 3. Purchase water 4. Do 5. Other harvesting natural water bodies from water suppliers Nothing [specify] J. Food Security and coping strategies J1 Over the past 12 months did you PURCHASE a proportion of your main staple crop? Yes No [Skip to Section J3] J2 What crop did you purchase, what quantity and what price did you pay? Main Staple Purchase Qnty Unit price (Rwf) Maize 183 Sorghum Rice Millet Wheat Beans Soya beans Sweet potatoes Irish potatoes Cassava Peas Groundnuts Bananas Vegetables Coffee Other No cash crop [Unit: Kg, Sacks, Ingemeri (1.4-1.5kg), Bunches, Basket] J3 During the past 12 months did this household experience serious food shortages? [Were there times when you did not have enough food to meet your household’s needs?] Yes No [Skip to J6] Don’t know [Skip to J6] [Hint: for example, meals are skipped and amounts, and quality of food consumed is inadequate] J4 How many months? # of months J5 During which months did this occur? [Select all that apply] January March May July September November February April June August October December [Hint – ensure number of months selected is consistent with previous answer] J6 In the past month was there ever no food to eat of any kind in your household because of lack of resources to get food? (1) Yes (2) No [Skip to J8] J7 How often did this happen? 1. Rarely (about once or twice in the month) (0) 2. Sometimes (about once a week) (1) 3. Often (about twice a week or more) (2) J8 In the past month, did you or any household member go to sleep at night hungry because there was not enough food? (1) Yes (2) No [Skip to J10] J9 How often did this happen? 1. Rarely (about once or twice in the month) (0) 2. Sometimes (about once a week) (1) 3. Often (about twice a week or more) (2) J10 In the past month, did you or any household member go a whole day and night without eating anything because there was not enough food? (1) Yes (2) No [Skip to J12] J11 How often did this happen? 1. Rarely (about once or twice in the month) (0) 2. Sometimes (about once a week) (1) 3. Often (about twice a week or more) (2) J12 When food reserves and cash savings run out, what do you usually do to get food for the family? 184 [do not read out, select all that are mentioned] [Hint: can prompt, any other things that you do?] 1. Seek help from relatives 2. Seek credit/loan 3. Sell livestock 4. Sell firewood, timber or charcoal 5. Seek food aid 6. Casual labour 7. Sell assets 8. Reduce number of meals/ portions 9. Collect wild foods 10. Other (specify) K. Food Diet Diversity K1 How many meals did the adults in your household eat yesterday? (1) No meals (2) 1 meal (3) 2 meals (4) 3 meals (5) 4 meals (6) 5 or more meals [Hint: Respondent should clearly outline the actual meals – add total to box] K2 How many meals did the children (18 years or under) in your household eat yesterday? (1) No meals (2) 1 meal (3) 2 meals (4) 3 meals (5) 4 meals (6) 5 or more meals (7) No children in this household K3 What type of foods did you or anyone else in your household eat yesterday during the day and the night. [Read the list of foods. Select ‘yes’ if anyone in the household ate the food in question. Select ‘no’ if no one in the household at the food] Food Types Yes No 1 Cereals: maize, millet, sorghum, wheat 2 White tubers & roots: Irish potatoes, cassava 3 Vegetables: leafy greens, tomatoes, orange sweet potatoes, onions 4 Fruits: bananas, avocado, oranges, tree tomatoes, mango, paw paw, 5 wild fruits Meats: beef, goat, chicken, mutton 6 Eggs 7 Fish: fresh or dried fish or shellfish 8 Legumes: beans, peas, green gram, lentils or nuts 9 Dairy: cheese, yogurt, milk or other milk product 10 Sugar or Honey 11 Condiments: coffee or tea, oil 12 Oils and Fat: Butter, Margarine L. Gender Relations L1 Who in your household decides what to do with family income? 1. Only men 3. Men and Women 5. Mostly women 7. Other [Specify] equally 2. Mostly 4. Only women 6. Don't Know Men L2 Who in your household attends most village meetings/activities? 1. Only men 3. Men and Women 5. Mostly women 7. Other [Specify] equally 2. Mostly 4. Only women 6. Don't Know Men L3 Who in your village leads most village meetings/activities? 1. Only men 3. Men and Women 5. Mostly women 7. Other [Specify] equally 2. Mostly 4. Only women 6. Don't Know Men 185 L4 Who in your household participates in most agricultural trainings? 1. Only men 3. Men and Women 5. Mostly women 7. Other [Specify] equally 2. Mostly 4. Only women 6. Don't Know Men L5 Who in your household spends most time in farming activities? 1. Only men 3. Men and Women 5. Mostly women 7. Other [Specify] equally 2. Mostly 4. Only women 6. Don't Know Men L6 Who in your household decides what and where to plant staples? 1. Only men 3. Men and Women 5. Mostly women 7. Other [Specify] equally 2. Mostly 4. Only women 6. Don't Know Men L7 Who in your household decides what & where to plant cash crops? 1. Only men 3. Men and Women 5. Mostly women 7. Other [Specify] equally 2. Mostly 4. Only women 6. Don't Know Men L8 Who in your household prepares food? 1. Only men 3. Men and Women 5. Mostly women 7. Other [Specify] equally 2. Mostly 4. Only women 6. Don't Know Men L9 Who in your household takes care of the children? 1. Only men 3. Men and Women 5. Mostly women 7. Other [Specify] equally 2. Mostly 4. Only women 6. Don't Know Men L10 In your opinion over the last 4 years how has the role of women in key decision making for household wellbeing purposes changed? 1. Increased 2. Decreased 3. Remained the Same 4. Don't Know L12 In your opinion over the last 4 years how has the role of women in key decision making for community development purposes changed? 1. Increased 2. Decreased 3. Remained the Same 4. Don't Know L13 Who in your community usually takes part in village meetings? 1. Only men 3. Men and Women 5. Mostly women 7. Other [Specify] equally 2. Mostly 4. Only women 6. Don't Know Men L14 Who in your community usually speaks during village meetings? 1. Only men 3. Men and Women 5. Mostly women 7. Other [Specify] equally 2. Mostly 4. Only women 6. Don't Know Men L15 Who in your community usually represents your village at national level? 186 1. Only men 3. Men and Women 5. Mostly women 7. Other [Specify] equally 2. Mostly 4. Only women 6. Don't Know Men L16 Who in your community usually controls village funds/finances? 1. Only men 3. Men and Women 5. Mostly women 7. Other [Specify] equally 2. Mostly 4. Only women 6. Don't Know Men M. PPI RWANDA M1 In which district does the household live? A. Musanze [17] B. Other (specify) M2 How many members are there in this house? A. 1 or 2 [22] B. 3 or 4 [1] C. 5 or more [0] M3 How many members are between 5 – 9 years of age? A. Zero [8] B. One [0] C. Two or more [0] M4 How many members are between 10 – 17 years of age? A. Zero [4] B. One [0] C. Two or more [0] M5 Does your household have access to electricity?? A. Yes [8] B. No [0] M6 What is the main construction material used for the exterior (OUTER) wall? A. Mud bricks or tree trunks with mud without cement [0] B. Mud bricks or tree trunks with mud and cement / other [3] M7 What is the main construction material used for the floor? A. Beaten earth or hardened dung [0] B. Other [6] M8 Does your household own a radio (with or without a CD player)? A. Yes [5] B. No [0] M9 In the past 12 months, have you purchased any beef meat ? A. Yes [6] B. No [0] M10 In the past 12 months, have you purchased any pineapple? A. Yes [3] B. No [0] U. LAND OWNERSHIP AND RELOCATION 187 N1 What do you think will be most POSITIVELY affected by the relocation and implementation of the VNP Expansion pilot Project? [Select only one] 1. Community lifestyle 3. Economic wellbeing (Security, income, 5. Cultural assets (shared customs, (social cohesion) assets) heritage sites) 2. Access to services 4. Health impacts (mental, nutrition, 6. Other Specify (electricity, education) environmental) N2 What do you think will be most NEGATIVELY affected by the relocation and implementation of the VNP Expansion pilot Project? [Select only one] 1. Community lifestyle (social 3. Economic wellbeing (Security, income, 5. Cultural assets (shared customs, cohesion) assets) heritage sites) 4. Health impacts (mental, nutrition, 2. Access to services (electricity, 6. Other Specify education) environmental) N3 What compensation would you prefer for your house in the affected area? 1. Cash compensation 2. Replacement housing 3. Other (Specify) N4 What compensation would you prefer for your land in the affected area? 1. Cash compensation 2. Replacement land 3. Other (Specify) N5 If you receive any monetary compensation during the expropriation process, what will you prioritise using the money for? 3. Pay off debts 1. Buy Farmland 5. Invest in a business 7. Don't Know 4. Pay household 2. Buy a house 6. Buy personal items 8. Other [Specify] bills (fees) (Phone, furniture) ENTER GEO DATA 188 Annex 5: FGD and KII guiding questions. Key Informant Interview (KII) Guides PROJECT STAFF AND PARTNERS INTERVIEW FORM # Name: Title: Organisation: Date: Consent: Yes / No 1 What is your role and responsibility regarding VNP Expansion Pilot Project and the resettlement and livelihoods restoration activities? ▪ 2 How do you work with the other parties involved in the resettlement and livelihood restoration activities? RDB, AWF, WS, Local Government, Central Government Any lessons in working with them and suggestions for improvement? ▪ 3 How will the following aspects be managed by the expansion project? 3.1 Housing: Eligibility of PAHs; Tenure of ownership of houses in resettlement sites ▪ Access to agricultural land and livestock ownership : tenure for farm land; Cooperatives activities land, Alternative livestock ownership; cattle expansion plan; Use of state-owned land e.g. buffer zones ▪ 3.3 Access to natural sources: Access to land, water, firewood ▪ 3.4 Access to productive employment: Seasonality of work: Lack of skilled labour ▪ 3.5 Fostering social cohesion and peaceful living: Knowledge and use or grievance redress mechanisms ▪ 3.6 M&E of livelihood restoration activities: Efficiency of data capture for tracking PAHs ▪ 3.7 The relocation process: Notification, participatory planning, transportation, funds disbursement etc. ▪ 4 What for you will be the most significant achievements of the resettlement and livelihood restoration activities? ▪ 5 What might be the most significant gaps in implementation of the resettlement and livelihood restoration activities? ▪ 6 What are your recommendations to the different stakeholders to ensure full implementation of a RAP and LRP? 189 ▪ Key Lessons and observations (lessons from other expropriation projects, model villages, environmental conflicts … etc) ▪ 190 LOCAL LEADERS INTERVIEW FORM # Name: Title: Organisation: Date: Consent: Yes / No 1 What is your role and responsibility regarding VNP Expansion Pilot Project and the resettlement and livelihoods restoration activities? ▪ 2 Are you aware of the VNP Expansion Pilot project, what information have you been provided with so far concerning the project, and how has this information been provided to you? Any lessons in working with the implementers and suggestions for improvement? ▪ What is your understanding of the project and how do you think the project could affect your institutions mandate as a local government authority? (Political relations and institutional structures) ▪ Describe the communities and areas where the project is being implemented (the houses, farms, the Resettlement Sites, surrounding communities, historically marginalised groups, cultural and ancestral sites/features? Who are the primary and secondary stakeholders and how do you communicate with them? ▪ 3 What do you see the possible effects (positive and negative) of the project’s implementation on the communities and environment in your cell/sector/village? Consider the following aspects 3.2 Population and housing: ▪ 3.2 Economic opportunities and livelihoods ▪ 3.3 Agricultural activities and food security ▪ 3.4 Social services: health, education, WASH, markets ▪ 3.5 Access to land and water resources ▪ 3.6 Residential stability, security and community relations ▪ 4 What would be the preferred locations to resettle the households that will be displaced? What in your opinion are the pros and cons of the relocation site that has been demarcated so far? How were you engaged in selection of that relocation site? ▪ 5 What for you will be the most significant achievements of the resettlement and livelihood restoration activities? 191 ▪ 6 What risks might negatively impact effective and efficient implementation of resettlement and livelihood restoration plans? ▪ 7 What are your recommendations to the different stakeholders to ensure full implementation of a RAP and LRP? ▪ Key Lessons and observations (lessons from other expropriation projects, model villages, environmental conflicts … etc) ▪ 8 Are you aware of any historically marginalised groups of people located in and around the pilot expansion area? If any, can you please describe their locations and lifestyle? (Gather any additional information to probe the potential effects of the project on these groups if any) ▪ Key Lessons and observations (lessons from other expropriation projects, model villages, environmental conflicts … etc) 192 KINIGI MODEL VILLAGE-RESETTLEMENT SITE LOCAL LEADERS # Name: Title: Location: Date: Consent: Yes / No 1 What is your role and responsibility in the Kinigi resettlement and livelihoods restoration activities? ▪ 2 Please provide a background of the Kinigi resettlement site? (When did it happen, where were the PAHs from, what was the populations reaction etc) ▪ 3 Did the relocation process encounter any challenges during implementation? If any, please describe them and how they were managed ▪ 4 What for you have been the benefits of relocating to the new site for the community? ▪ 5 Have there been any negative effects from the relocation process and resettlement? ▪ 6 What would be your key recommendations (considerations) for the resettlement process planned for PAHs of the VNP expansion Pilot project? ▪ Key Lessons and observations ▪ 193 Focus Group Discussion Guides We are collecting data about the current situation in this community following the announcement of plans to pilot the expansion of the Volcanoes National Park The Implementation of the project will involve the physical and economic displacement of some members of your communities. Some will be resettled in a model village while others might relocate to other areas. You have been selected to represent the affected households in your community. The discussion is voluntary and the information that you give will be confidential. The information will be used to prepare reports but will not include anyone’s specific name. There will be no way to identify that you gave this information. Could you please spare some time (around 2hrs) for the group discussion Date: Group Description: #. Male: ………… Sector:……………………… Female: ……….. Cell: ………………….……. Total: ……….. Village: …………………….. Introduction 1. How would you describe your community in general in this area? [the houses, farms, the relocation sites, neighbouring communities, historically marginalised groups, cultural and ancestral sites/features] 2. Reflecting on the future implementation of the VNP expansion project and associated resettlement and livelihood restoration activities in your community, what is the current status and how do you expect the following aspects of the affected households to change in the next years (2022-2024)? Aspect Very Good Moderate Not Not Good Good Good At all 1. Economic livelihoods (Household incomes) 2. Agricultural activity (livestock and crop production) 3. Food security 4. Access to land and water resources 5. Access and quality of social services (Health, Education, water, electricity etc) 6. Residential stability (security) and community relations (social cohesion) For each of the aspects above let us discuss the different reasons participants considering things will get better or worse. Aspect Better Worse 1. Economic livelihoods I. Why do you think affected households economic wellbeing will be affected negatively? How might your economic opportunities change? What might prevent you from participating in or benefiting from new economic opportunities? II. What makes you optimistic about the affected households economic wellbeing? What might enable you to participate or benefit more from new economic opportunities? How do you plan to use your monetary compensation? 2. Agricultural activity and food security I. Why do you think affected households’ agricultural activities will be affected negatively? II. What specific agricultural activities could be negatively affected? III. What can be done to avoid any negative impact on farming? IV. What makes you optimistic about potential effects on farm productivity? 194 Aspect Better Worse 3. Access to Housing, land and water resources I. How will the project affect your access to land and water resources? II. What are your thoughts around the relocation site? Do you think most of the PAHs will be satisfied with its location? What would be the preferred alternative locations, if any? III. What can be done to avoid these possible disruptions? 4. Access and quality of social services (Health, Education etc) I. Why do you think access to health services will change? II. Why do you think access to education services will changed? III. Why do you think access to infrastructure (markets, roads, water) services will be affected? IV. What should be done to avoid disruptions? 5. Residential stability and community relations I. Why do you think the project could negatively affect residential stability? II. Why do you think the project could positively affect community relations? III. What can be done to avoid these possible disruptions? IV. Are you aware of any historically marginalised groups of people located in and around the pilot expansion area? If any, can you please describe their locations and lifestyle? (Gather any additional information to probe the potential effects of the project on these groups if any) 195 Annex 6: Grievance resolution and reporting forms The following Grievance resolution form shall be used to record complaints at the cell GRC level. Grievance Resolution/ complaint Form for Complaints of Affected People. (Impapuro z’ikirego) Location of the complaint (Aho ikirego gituruka) Northern Province (Intara y’amajaruguru) Musanze District (Akarere ka Musanze) Kinigi sector (Umurenge wa Kinigi) Cell (Andika Akagali): ……………………………… Village (Umudugudu): ………………………….. Name of Complainant (Andika Izina ry’urega): ………………………….. Date of complaint entry (Itakiri cyakiriwe): …………………….. Description of the Complaint (Urega asobanura ikibazo ko giteye aha): …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………… Decision taken on complaint (Umwanzuro w’uburyo Impaka cyangwa urubanza bwaciwe nu rwego bashizeho ): ..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………… ..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………… ..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………… .. Response given to complainant (Igisubizo gihawe Uwaregaga gishingiye k’umwanzuro haruguru ): …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Name and Signature of (Amazina n’umukono wa): Secretary (Umwanditsi) Chairperson (Presidente/Presidente) Committee members (Abari muri committee) Date of issuing the response to the complainant (Itakiri Igusubizo cyahawe Uwaregaga): …………………….. Complainant’s response satisfied or not satisfied (Uwareze yandika ko anyuzwe cyangwa ko atanyuzwe ni gisubizo) ..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………… Name and Signature of Complainant (Amazina n’umukono w’uwatanze ikirego): ..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………… Date of response from the complainant (Itakiri Igusubizo cy’ Uwaregaga): …………………….. 196 Grievance redress quarterly reporting The GRC at cell level shall prepare quarterly grievance redress reports for submission to the sector, district and RDB. They will present them in the format presented below. Grievance Redress mechanism (GRM) Quarterly report (Q1, Q2, ….): (Inyandiko ncamake y’uko impaka n’imanza zaciwe mu gihembe………. cy’umwaka) A. Number of Grievances resolved (Umubare w’Ibirego byakemuwe) Stage of Grievance Status of complaint No. of grievances resolved at: resolution (Urwego (Aho Ibirego bigeze) (Umubare w’ibirego byakemuwe kuri) Ikirego cyazeho) Village name (Izina r’Umudugudu) Cell name (Izina ……………………… ry’Akagali) ……………………… Stage 1 (Urwego Complaints received rwambere)- Akagari (Ibirego by’akiriwe) Complaints resolved (Ibirego by’akemuwe) Stage 2 (Urwego Complaints received rwakabiri)- Murenge (Ibirego by’akiriwe) Complaints resolved (Ibirego by’akemuwe) Stage 3 (Urwego Complaints received rwakabiri)- Karere (Ibirego by’akiriwe) Complaints resolved (Ibirego by’akemuwe) Stage 4 (Urwego Complaints received rwakabiri)-MAJ (Ibirego by’akiriwe) Complaints resolved (Ibirego by’akemuwe) Stage 5 (Urwego Complaints received rwagatatu)- Courts (Ibirego by’akiriwe) of law Complaints resolved (Ibirego by’akemuwe) Total of grievance resolved (Umubare rusange w’ibirego byakemuwe) B. Types of Grievances resolved (Ubwoko bw’ibirego byakemuwe) Number of grievances resolved by Cell name (Umubare S/n Type of Grievance (Ubwoko bw’ibirego) w’imanza zakemuwe ku Kagali ka) ……………………… Land conflict (Imanza z’Ubutaka) 1 Payment issues (Imanza kungurane) Other issues (Izinindi manza) 197 Land conflict (Imanza z’Ubutaka) Payment issues (Imanza kungurane) 2 Other issues (Izinindi manza) Total of grievance resolved (Umubare rusange w’ibirego byakemuwe) 198