Abbreviated Remedial Resettlement Action Plan (ARRAP) Governmental Complex in Ramtha Municipality Municipal Services and Social Resilience Project (MSSRP) This document is prepared based on The Project Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) December 26, 2013 in line with OP 4.12 - Involuntary Resettlement OP 4.12, Annex A - Involuntary Resettlement Instruments Prepared by: Project Management Unit February, 2019 1 Contents Abbreviations.......................................................................................................................... 3 1.0 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 4 1.1 Methodology .............................................................................................. 5 2.0 Introduction and Project Description .................................................................................... 7 2.1 The sub-Project of Governmental Complex in Ramtha Municipality ...................................... 9 2.2 Land Ownership ............................................................................................................12 2.3Sub-project Site analysis ..................................................................................................15 3.0 Kiosk Ownership History ....................................................................................................17 4.0 Project Affected Persons PAPs ............................................................................................19 4.1 Project Affected Households (PAHs) ................................................................................20 4.2 Census Survey ...............................................................................................................20 4.4 Valuation of Assets ........................................................................................................21 4.4 The valuation of kiosk assets during the operation period of PAP1 ......................................22 5.0 Resettlement Assistance ......................................................................23 5.1 The compensation packages and resettlement assistance of the current occupants ..............23 5.2 Compensation package of the owner of the original kiosk, PAP1 .........................................24 5.3 Summary of Compensation Packages ...............................................................................25 6.0 Consultations with displaced people about acceptable alternatives ........................................25 7.0 Institutional responsibility for implementation .....................................................................29 8.0 Procedures for Grievance Redress Mechanisms ....................................................................32 9.0 Arrangements for monitoring and implementation ...............................................................33 10.0 Timetable and budget ......................................................................................................37 List of Tables ..........................................................................................................................38 2 Abbreviations MSSRP Municipal Services and Social Resilience Project ARRAP Abbreviated Remedial Resettlement Action Plan BP Bank Procedures CVDB Cities and Village Development Bank ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment GRM Grievance Redress Mechanism IR/LA Involuntary Resettlement / Land Acquisition LAL Land acquisition Law MOMA Ministry of Municipal Affairs OP Operational Policy PAPs Project Affected Persons PMU Project Management Unit PM Participating Municipality RAP Resettlement Action Plan RPF Resettlement Policy Framework TOR Terms of Reference PAH Project Affected Household 3 1.0 Executive Summary This Abbreviated Remedial Resettlement Action Plan (ARRAP) is conducted for the Municipal Services and Social Resilience Project (MSSRP), Ramtha municipality sub-project, in order to fulfill the requirements of the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) of the MSSRP and the objectives of World Bank’s (WB) Involuntary Resettlement Policy (OP 4.12). The overall objectives of the ARRAP are as follows: 1. Involuntary resettlement should be avoided where feasible, or minimized, exploring all viable alternative project designs. 2. Where it is not feasible to avoid resettlement, resettlement activities should be conceived and executed as sustainable development programs, providing sufficient investment resources to enable the persons displaced by the project to share project benefits. Displaced persons should be meaningfully consulted and should have opportunities to participate in planning and implementing resettlement programs. 3. Displaced persons should be assisted in their efforts to improve their livelihoods and standards of living or at least to restore them, in real terms, to pre-displacement levels or to levels prevailing prior to the beginning of project implementation, whichever is higher. This ARRAP is prepared to address the issue of demolishing one kiosk for the purpose of building a governmental complex in Ramtha municipality. The complex is partially funded by the MSSRP project FY2018. Five Project Affected Persons (PAPs) were identified as direct affected people from the removal of the kiosk as part of sub-project implementation. Their households were also explored for further socioeconomic studies. In-kind and cash compensations will be provided to the PAPs, in accordance with the details in this document. The total cash compensation has been set as (8,830) JOD. PAPs will also be compensated with a transition period allowance and assets transportation allowance for two relocations. PAPs will be encouraged to apply for temporary jobs as part of the labor-based interventions during the construction phase of the governmental complex MSSRP Resettlement Action Plans (RAPs) are prerequisites for implementation of sub-project activities causing economic or physical displacement. Abbreviated RAPs may be prepared in the case of less than 200 people are affected, and there is no physical displacement. In all cases, the RPF and OP 4.12 require compensation measures to be provided before displacement occurs. These measures include provision of compensation and other assistance required for relocation - prior to displacement as well as preparation and provision of resettlement sites with adequate facilities. Taking of land and related assets or denial of access to assets (e.g., resettlement sites, new homes, related infrastructure, public services, and moving allowances) may take place only after compensation has been paid to PAPs. As described in the project RPF, PAPs are defined as people who are directly affected socially and economically by projects financed by the World Bank. The direct social and 4 economic impacts include, but are not limited to: a) relocation or loss of shelter, b) loss of assets or access to assets, c) loss of income sources or means of livelihood, whether or not the affected persons must move to another location, and d) the involuntary restriction or access to legally designated parks and protected areas that results in adverse impacts on the livelihood of the affected displaced persons and communities. This Remedial ARAP has been prepared to address economic displacement impacts for 5 PAPs as a result of the Ramtha municipality sub-project, the Governmental Complex. PAPs lost their assets - a demolished kiosk- resulting in loss of income sources and means of livelihood before compensation has been paid. The Cities and Villages Development Bank (CVDB) highlighted the importance of conducting a Remedial Resettlement Action Plan (RRAP) before the demolition during the early site visits. However, the municipality was not aware that the demolition of kiosk before compensation has been paid would trigger the World Bank’s Operational Policy 4.12. For such reason, the sub-project was considered non- compliant and a Remedial ARRAP on a retroactive basis was prepared. According to Jordanian laws, the removal of the kiosk does not require compensation. This ARRAP provides supplemental measures over and above Jordanian Law to meet the requirements of the RPF and the grant agreement between the Government of Jordan and the World Bank, which governs MSSRP. This ARRAP identifies all PAPs, provides an overview of their profile and assesses their socioeconomic conditions. It also highlights the consultations and compensation measures proposed, and establishes a clear grievance mechanism and the basis for conclusions. 1.1 Methodology Since the compensation relies on the valuation of assets, a private valuator, who is certified by the Jordanian Land and Survey Department (LSD), was hired. His report was also verified by an engineering Consultation Company. The report evaluated the following: 1- The total replacement cost including labor of the kiosk as delivered to the current occupants on March, 2017. This was done based on the information provided by the owner of the kiosk. The valuator also contacted the original owner of the kiosk to identify some missing data. 2- The total replacement cost including labor of the current kiosk. This was done based on many photos taken before the demolition by the safeguards specialist of the MSSRP Project Management Unit (PMU). The valuator also considered all information and discussions provided by the current occupants. 3- Some collected information given by PAPs was also cross-checked in the evaluation report, which is found in Annex 2. 5 The PMU also conducted several site visits to collect information from PAPs and the Participating Municipality (PM) - Ramtha. These site visits are listed in Table 1. Table 1: PMU site visits Stakeholders: Specialists: community # Date PMU, PM, WB, outreach/ safeguards/ Visit Reasons Visit Outputs AP(s), CVDB Procurement, etc. 1 12th of PMU, CVDB  The Deputy MSSRP Project  The feasibility study  Identifying the presence of the Augest,2018 manager  The overall sub- kiosk  Procurement specialist project circumstances  The feasibility study.  Feasibility Study Specialist 2 13th of PMU, CVDB  PMU Safeguards specialist Safeguards non- Urgent actions: Violation removal September,2018  Feasibility Study Specialist compliance of request presented by the PM on demolishing the kiosk. 16th of Sep.,2018 3 2ndof PMU, CVDB  PMU Safeguards specialist Meeting with design Modifications of the design October,2018  PMU Site engineer office and field visit to the site 4 24th of PMU, PM, WB,  The MSSRP Deputy Project Discuss the RPF October,2018 CVDB manager violation with the  PMU Safeguards specialists Mayor  Community Outreach specialist  World Bank Representatives 6 2.0 Introduction and Project Description The objective of the Municipal Services and Social Resilience Project (MSSRP) is to Support Jordanian municipalities affected by the influx of Syrian refugees in delivering services and employment opportunities for Jordanians and Syrians. The project (MSSRP) builds on a successful first phase – Emergency Services and Social Resilience Project (ESSRP) and will help further achieve the original ESSRP Development Objective, while also supporting the Government’s commitment towards ‘turning the Syrian crisis into a development opportunity’ and ‘rebuilding Jordanian host communities’. It aims to mitigate drivers of social tensions caused by the local impact of the influx of Syrian refugees at the municipal level through strengthening the processes of municipal service delivery. Project Components: Component 1: Municipal Grants (estimated US$27 million) Municipal grants will be provided annually for a total of 21 municipalities. While the focus under ESSRP was on the provision of timely delivery of services as an emergency response, the MSSRP will place higher emphasis on sustainability, responsiveness, and efficiency of services in a way that promotes longer-term resilience1 and mitigates risks to social cohesion at local levels. This will be achieved by: (i) focusing on more inclusive community consultations to ensure that investments better reflect Jordanian and Syrian women’s and men’s needs and priorities; (ii) emphasizing that investments made through sub-projects are aligned with municipal strategic planning over the medium-term; (iii) ensuring predictability of funding to allow for better planning that takes into account the cost of operating and maintaining procured assets and longer-term sustainability and resilience needs; and, (iv) encouraging municipalities to use labor-intensive techniques for public works to support the generation of jobs for Jordanians and Syrian refugees. An Innovation Fund (IF) is introduced under Component 1. The IF will finance demand-driven projects that may be multi-year and may involve inter-municipality collaboration. IF projects shall adhere to the following set of principles: (i) robust and inclusive participatory consultations and planning, (ii) provide innovative solutions to local challenges faced by communities, and (iii) contribute directly to the project’s outcomes. The IF will also encourage municipalities to (iv) leverage resources and expertise by partnering with CBOs, NGOs, and private sector in promoting improved services and employment opportunities for Syrians and Jordanians. A total of 5 additional municipalities which are either type A or Governorate centers will be added as eligible municipalities to compete for the IF, hence, making the total number of MSSRP Participating Municipalities 26. Component 2 – Institutional Support and Project Management (Estimated Amount US$3.0 million) 7 Activities under this component will include: (i) institutional strengthening with Specialists’ support, (ii) capacity building and trainings, and (iii) technical assistance. Under institutional strengthening, local specialists will be hired, to support and strengthen the oversight and monitoring capacity of the PMU and CVDB while providing implementation support to PMs. The 26 PMs will also benefit from customized technical assistance and training to improve the quality and efficiency of their services, focusing on the following key aspects: (i) improved strategic, financial planning, investment/project planning, and safeguards focus, (ii) improved accountability vis-à-vis the communities through the use of citizen outreach and citizen engagement tools with focus on gender-streamlining, (iii) targeting youth and females through inclusive practices and projects in order to strengthen social cohesion between Syrians and Jordanians. Finally, this Component will finance contracts with other organizations for supporting implementation, including contracts with experts in labor-based works investments. The project is financed through donor contributions to a Multi Donor Trust Fund – the Municipal Services and Social Resilience Trust Fund: Government of the Netherlands ($6 million), the United Kingdom (DFID) ($15 million), Government of Canada ($12 million) and USAID ($3 million) - for the equivalent of US$ 32 million . The implementing agency for the project is Ministry of Municipal Affairs (MOMA) supported by the Cities and Villages Development Bank (CVDB). A Project Steering Committee (SC) provides overall strategic direction and oversight to the Project. A Project Management Unit (PMU) housed in MOMA coordinates and manages overall project implementation. Executing Agencies (EAs) are the participating municipalities. 8 2.1 The sub-Project of Governmental Complex in Ramtha Municipality The allocated funds for the first sub-projects Grant Cycle under MSSRP were US$14 million assigned for 21 municipalities under component 1. Ramtha municipality’s allocation was 667,000 JOD for the FY 2018. Public consultations were held to set the Ramtha priorities and strategic plans as shown in Figure 1. The need of governmental complex came as the first priority, through conducting several community sessions with the citizens of Ramtha, including men, women, youth, people with disabilities and Syrians. The total sub-project cost will approximately reach 2.3 M (JOD). Ramtha Budget of 2018, 2019, and 2020 will finance a total of 1.65 M (JOD) as shown in figure 2, where the remaining 667,000 (JOD) is planned to be financed by MSSRP allocation for Ramtha for FY 2018. The Sub-Project Budget is shown in Table1 . Figure 1: Public consultations result in Ramtha municipality 9 Figure 2: letter of allocation for the sub-project budget Table1: The Sub-Project Budget Number Amount (JOD) Funding source 1 668,000 MSSRP FY2018 2 325,750 PM Budget FY2018 3 662,500 PM Budget FY2019 4 662,500 PM Budget FY2020 Total 2,318,750 According to its design, the government complex consists of 7 floors as shown in Figure 5. The area of each floor is 1,250 m2. The basement floor is designed to be a multipurpose hall. The hall was designed for meetings, concerts, or events. It will be the first one in Ramtha city. Other floors will be rented to different governmental agencies (e.g. Department of Land and Survey, Directorate of Labor, Health Directorate). 10 Figure 3: Front Perspective of The Complex The governmental agencies will be gathered in one building to serve the city of Ramtha, not only the population of the municipality. Ramtha city consists of two municipalities as shown in figure 4, these two municipalities are participating in the MSSRP. 1- Ramtha Municipality: a. Alramtha b. Albouydah 2- Sahel Horan municipality a. Alturah b. Alshajarah c. Emrauah d. Thunaibah Figure 4: The City of Ramtha 11 Figure 5: PM letter sent to governmental agencies and their responses The governmental complex will be a one stage project. The entire building will be constructed in one bidding contract. During the construction activities, the subproject is expected to 1) boost local spending into the local economy, 2) create job opportunities for local residents and 3) generate employment for local unskilled and semi-skilled workers. Construction activities and associated negative impacts were presented during the community consultation session held in Ramtha Municipality on 13th of January, 2019, for the purpose of conducting an ESIA for the same sub-project. The ESIA will cover the sub-project objectives, environmental and social impacts, analysis of sub-project alternatives, environmental and social management plan and the mitigation measures of implementing the sub-project. At the operational stage, the complex will 1) improve the landscape with green spaces 2) minimize the cost and effort since the existing Governmental agencies are spread in different locations around the city, and 3) minimize the traffic congestions. The economic feasibility outcomes are summarized in the ESIA document. The complex will be socially feasible helping the government to effectively deliver services to the local community, Jordanians and Syrian refugees. According to the feasibility study, there are eight governmental entities that are willing to rent offices in the governmental complex with a total amount of income that will reach 251,650 JDs (almost 366,000$) per year. The municipality, which is currently renting a building on the main street of Ramtha, will be able to use this rent in other aspects and useful ways to delivering more services to the community, once the complex is finished and the municipality starts using its own offices. 2.2 Land Ownership The land is owned by the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan Treasury / Ministry of Municipal Affairs shown in figure 9. The land is assigned to build a governmental complex in 12 Ramtha municipality as described in the title deed. However, such ownership needs to be reassigned every year. Figure 6 shows a letter from CVDB requesting the Ramtha Municipality to clarify the ownership status of the land. MoMA sent a formal letter to the land and survey department (LSD) to reassign the land. Figure 7 shows the response of the LSD describing that the land is already assigned to build a governmental complex in Ramtha municipality since 2011, and the decision was validated again in January, 2019, as the letter indicates. Figure 6: the title deed of the land 13 Figure 7: correspondences to reassign the sub-project land 14 Figure 8: The Assignment Letter by the department of land and survey 2.3 Sub-project Site analysis The subproject land is almost located in the middle of Ramtha city with 80 m along the main street of Alsakhrat Almusharifa as shown in Figure 8. The availability of public transportation raises the strategic importance of the proposed land, which has been determined to be the most appropriate land for constructing such a complex. The municipality owns other lands but those are far away from the center of the city. This specific site was chosen years ago, since 2011, in order to minimize resettlement to the extent possible compared to other sites. In addition, people would only need one transportation to get there minimizing the cost and effort. The existing Governmental agencies are spread in different locations around the city in which traffic jam could be a serious problem. In addition, most of the city population works in public sector agencies. Gathering such population in one place could achieve the social feasibility of the proposed sub-project. The location of the proposed land is also near very important governmental buildings such as schools, healthcare 15 center and Public Park. The coordinate of the land (32.55905815, 36.00076154) could be used to observe clearer information about neighboring land properties. Such importance makes the sub-project socially feasible. Other important information is listed in Figure 4 and Table 2. Figure 9: the locationof the proposed landusing the Department of Land And Survey website Table 1: Sub-Project Land Basic Information Parameter Value Governorate Irbid governorate City Al Ramtha Land number 161 Neighborhood 29 Total Area(m2) 6,186.00 Near the Location 1. Comprehensive health center. 2. Musab bin Omair Secondary School for Boys. 3. Ramtha Health Directorate. 4. Ibn Hazm Elementary School. 5. Public Park. On Main Street Yes, Alsakhrat Almusharifa St. 16 3.0 Kiosk Ownership History The subject of this ARRAP is limited to 50 m2 kiosk situated on the proposed sub- project land of 6,000 m2as shown in Figure 11. There were three owners/operators of the kiosk since it was first erected on the site in 2011 and the structure underwent several reconstructions. Such changes are shown in Figures 10, 11 and 12. The kiosk was located on the main street at the corner of the land to be used for building the governmental complex. Figure 12 shows some photos of the kiosk taken on October, 2018. A) B) Figure 10: Google earth photo in A) 2009 for the land B) the first appearance of the in 9/2012 with area less than 40 m Figure 11: Google earth photo shows the kiosk in 2/2017 with area 50 m2 17 Figure 12: The kiosk, Kazem cafe. The development of the kiosk started on 2010 when the Ramtha municipality rented out a piece of land with total area of 24 m2 to Mr.Jamal Abdel Aziz (52 years old) on 29th of June, 2010. The contract gave the right to build a Ramadan tent during the holy month. The goal of this tent was selling locally grown fruit and vegetables. The contract is provided in Annex 1 .The rental agreement stated that the tenant has to pay a nominal annual amount. On 23th of February, 2016 Mr. Jamal sold the tent to PAP1 (selling agreement are in Annex 1). No rental payments have been received by the Ramtha municipality since then. After that, PAP1 used part of the land and rebuilt the skeleton of the kiosk. The following summarizes PAP1 activities: 1- PAP1 bought the kiosk from Mr. Jamal Abdel Aziz. 2- The kiosk is made of wooden walls, steel tubes, and steel sheet ceiling. 3- PAP1 expanded the kiosk by 16 m2 using same materials with total cost of 1,000 JOD. 4- PAP1 did not sign any agreement/contract with the PM. 5- PAP1 did not pay any monthly rent to the PM. 6- PAP1 rented the kiosk to PAP2 on March, 2017 (rental agreement is in Annex 1) 7- PAP1 is the owner of the “original kiosk”. Since March, 2017, PAP2 launched internal partnership with his brother PAP3 to operate the kiosk as a part time job with other two full-time operators. The full-time operators are PAP3 sons: PAP4 and PAP5. These 4 operators are referred to here as the “current occupants” who did major modifications to the kiosk. These modifications are listed in the following sections. 18 Figure 13: Kiosk Ownership History Ramtha PM sent a formal letter of evacuation to the current occupants on 16thof September, 2018 (Evacuation notice provided in Annex 1). Ramtha PM demolished the kiosk on 26th of September, 2018. The current occupants had a 10 days period to evacuate the kiosk and move their assets, which they indicated was sufficient. 4.0 Project Affected Persons PAPs Project affected persons (PAPs) are shown in Table 2 and further illustrated in figure 18. From the discussion above, it is noted that the operation of the kiosk may not be in conformity with the original leasing conditions. Table 2: PAPs # PAPs Name 1 The current owner of the PAP1 kiosk. 2 The current occupants. PAP2, PAP3, PAP4 and PAP5 Total 5 19 Figure 14: PAPs 4.1 Project Affected Households (PAHs) Project Affected Households (PAHs) are shown in figure 19. There are 4 households with a total of 19 persons involved. Detailed information can be found in the Census survey of PAPs in Annex 2, as the PMU conducted socio-economic surveys for each PAP. As described by the RPF, each person receiving compensation will have a dossier containing:  Individual bio-data information,  Number of people s/he claims as household dependents,  Level of income and of production through an inventory of material assets and improvements in land, and debts. 4.2 Census Survey A census survey of each of the 5 PAPs and their households which is found in Annex 2 also covers the requirement of OP 4.12:  In selecting the current occupants of the affected area to establish a basis for the design of the resettlement program and to exclude subsequent inflows of people from eligibility for compensation and resettlement assistance;  Draw the standard characteristics of displaced households, including a description of production systems, labor, and household organization; and baseline information on livelihoods (including, as relevant, production levels 20 and income derived from both formal and informal economic activities) and standards of living (including health status) of the displaced population;  Describe the magnitude of the expected loss in total or partial of assets, and the extent of displacement, physical or economic. Summary and detailed survey census of all PAPs, are found in Annex 2, as well as the consent papers and their signed approvals to disclose the ARRAP with all relevant information stated in the document. Figure 15: Project Affected Household (PAH) 4.3. Cutoff date The cut-off date is required to prevent opportunistic influx/rush migration into the chosen land areas. Cut-off date can be set as the date when the census of affected persons was first conducted. The date of conducting the first Census Survey was on 6 th of November, 2018, and so is considered as the Cut-off date. Mr. Jamal Abdel Aziz was excluded since he sold the kiosk on 23th of February, 2016, and was no longer impacted by the sub-project implementation. 4.4 Valuation of Assets As described by the RPF documents of the MSSRP, Replacement values will be based on the methodology described earlier, as the private evaluator prepared a detailed report on evaluation of the demolished kiosk according to a number of photos taken by the MSSRP PMU team during former visits. This methodology includes, also: 1- Drawings of individual's house [structures] and all its related structures and support services. 2- Average replacement costs of different types of household buildings and structures based on information on the quantity and type of materials used for construction (e.g. bricks, rafters, bundles of straw, doors etc.). 3- Prices of these items collected in different local markets and as provided by the Ministry of Public Works and Housing. 21 4- Costs for transportation and delivery of these items to acquire/replace land or building site. 5- Estimates of construction of new buildings including labor required. The result of the valuator report is summarized in the following table, and it matches the estimate of the current occupants as shown in the evaluation report Annex 2. Table 8: Evaluation of destroyed assets provided by the external valuator. # Assets Cost estimate provided by external valuator JOD 1 Security glass door 600 Finishing cost 2 Signage of the kiosk 270 3 Washbasin and Marble 200 4 External and internal lighting 300 5 false ceiling 400 6 Total 1,770 7 Replacement cost including labor 3,000 8 Total replacement cost including 4,770 labor 4.4 The valuation of kiosk assets during the operation period of PAP1 The kiosk was rented by PAP1 to the current occupants in March 2017. Valuation of the kiosk as delivered to the current occupants on that date is listed in table 9. The private valuator called PAP1 to determine the full replacement cost of the kiosk at time of rental. Table 10: valuation of the original kiosk as delivered to current occupants on March, 2017 1 Steel door The replacement cost including labor provided by the external 2 wooden walls 3 Plastering and painting 4 Tiles valuator JOD 5 steel sheet ceiling and 2,000 JOD Assets tubes 6 Two aluminum windows with its protecting steel nets 7 External and internal lighting 22 5.0 Resettlement Assistance 5.1 The compensation packages and resettlement assistance of the current occupants According to the project RPF, the current occupants are considered as: 1- Owners of non-Permanent buildings: Entitled to in-kind compensation or cash compensation at full replacement cost including labor and relocation expenses, prior to displacement. 2- They are facing “loss of income sources or means of livelihood”. Whether or not the affected persons must move to another location, it requires that PAPs should be assisted in their efforts to improve their livelihoods and standards of living or at least to restore them, in real terms, to pre-displacement levels or to levels prevailing prior to the beginning of project implementation, whichever is higher. Suggested ways of compensation include: a. Compensation for land and reconstruction structure/buildings and facilities. b. Compensation for loss in production. c. Provision for continuance of employment of workers affected from relocation during the transition period through provision of temporary premises, or compensation for lost wages. It is important to highlight the following information: 1- Transition period allowance is considered from the day of kiosk demolition to the expected date of ARRAP implementation, which is calculated to be 6 months. This is considered sufficient time for PAPs to find another job. 2- Provision of transport allowance will be provided, both retroactively for transport of moveable assets before demolition, and at the time when the current occupants can relocate to the new kiosk location. 3- PAPs will be offered the opportunity for preference in employment opportunities for the sub-project (loader driver, security guard and construction workers). 4- The Ramtha PM and the PMU were open to discuss different options of compensation suggested during conducting this ARRAP. 5- After approving the suggested compensation Packages, PMU ensures that: a- The valuation report was provided to PAPs to review the report and submit grievances if unsatisfied. The report served as a basis for negotiations with PAPs. b- PAPs also were given the option of hiring a certified valuator of their choice if they decide to contest a valuation, but none of them requested that. The suggested compensation package of the current occupants is listed in table 11. 23 Table 11: Entitlement matrix of the current occupants (tenants) # Item Period Amount Total Type of compensation JOD JOD 1 Compensation for lost In kind compensation through assets and livelihood provision of new kiosk in complex, with initial occupancy fee waived. 2 Transition period 6 months 1,0002 6,000 Cash payment allowance for loss of business income from old kiosk 2 assets transport 80 80 Cash payment allowance for two relocations 4 Additional Measures Of Employment opportunities for PAPs Employment during construction of complex. Total 6,080 5.2 Compensation package of the owner of the original kiosk, PAP1 According to the project RPF, PAP1 is considered as: 1- Owner of non-Permanent buildings: Entitled to in-kind compensation or cash compensation at full replacement cost including labor and relocation expenses, prior to displacement. PAP1 will be given the following compensation listed in Table 12. Table 12: Compensation package of the owner of the original kiosk PAP1. # Item Period Amount Total Type of compensation JOD JOD 1 Transition 6 months 1253 750 Cash payment period allowance for loss of rental income 2 Compensation 2,000 2,000 Cash payment for lost assets 3 Additional Employment Measures Of opportunities for PAPs Employment during construction of complex. Total 2,750 Estimate of monthly income from kiosk provided by PAPs2 Monthly rent as per rental agreement 3 24 5.3 Summary of Compensation Packages Table 13: Summary of Compensation Packages for all PAPs # PAPs Name Total Cash Additional Resettlemen Compensation Measures Of t JOD Employment 1 The current PAP2, PAP3, PAP4 6,080 Yes Yes occupants. and PAP5 2 The owner of PAP1 2,750 Yes No the original kiosk. Total 8,830 Other Benefits of the Compensation Package include: 1- Providing legal employment opportunities to the current occupants during and after the construction of the sub-project. 2- The current occupants will have social security insurance during their work with the contractors of the sub-project. 3- At the end of the construction activities, PAPs will be able to register the kiosk as a legal place of earning money. The kiosk will be rented to the current occupants without initial occupancy fee in which the kiosk will be ready for occupancy. 6.0 Consultations with displaced people about acceptable alternatives 1- The alternatives considered to avoid or minimize resettlement: Key points highlighted by the Ramtha PM: 1- The governmental complex was given priority number one in the community consultations conducted earlier which raises the importance of the sub-project. 2- PM does not have any other suitable land, since the land chosen was already assigned to build a governmental complex in Ramtha. 3- The design of the governmental complex was already completed. Prior to the demolition, the current occupants were not satisfied with the solution of demolishing the kiosk without cash compensation for the lost assets mentioned so far, but then agreed with the solution of compensation of a new kiosk in the governmental complex. An internal agreement was signed between the current occupants and the PM, after demolition took place. This agreement is shown in Annex 1. PMU was not a part of this agreement. 25 Table 16: communications and consultations with PAPs # Date Stakeholders: PMU, Reasons outputs PM, WB, AP(s), CVDB 1 16th of PM, and the current letter of evacuation the current occupants September, occupants evacuate the kiosk 2018 2 26th of PM, and The current Demolition of the kiosk September, occupants 2018. 3 23rd of PM, the current Commitment types that A commitment letter in Dec.,2018 occupants PM could give to the which the PM agreed to current occupants. give the current occupants new kiosk without vacancy cost. 4 6th of PMU, CVDB, the Held an Interview with The Social and economic Nov.,2018 current occupants the current occupants. studies for PAP3 family. Discuss and identify compensation options with the PAPs. 5 13th of PMU, CVDB, the Completion of any The Social and economic January, 2019 current occupants. missing information. studies for PAP3 family. Discuss and identify compensation options with the PAPs described in the previous sections. 6 20th of PMU, Mr. PAP1 Completion of any The Social and economic January, 2019 missing information. studies for PAP1 family. Discuss and identify compensation options with the PAPs described in the previous sections. Table 17: Summary of the main outputs of the surveys and interviews with the PAPs Meetings with Time and Outcomes PAPs Date 1 Interview with 6/11/2018 - Assess his social and economic conditions, And PAP3 Tuesday prepare a report about the case, with all relevant official documents. 2 Interview with 13/1/2019 -Determine Affected Households (PAHs) of the PAP2, PAP3, Sunday PAPs. PAP4, and -Current occupants selected PAP3 as a PAP5 representative to act and negotiate on their behalf. -Since March, 2017, Mr. Ahmad Abdul-Aziz launched internal partnership with his brother PAP3 to operate the kiosk as a part time job sharing the profit equally with the other two full- time operators; PAP4 and PAP5 26 Meetings with Time and Outcomes PAPs Date - PM demolished the kiosk on 26th of September, 2018. The current occupants had a 10 days period to evacuate the kiosk and move their assets. - PAP4 told the team that the process of moving the assets needed just one day using one pickup. - Removal of the kiosk did affect the monthly income of the current occupants as they had no other source of income, except for PAP3 - The net profit of the kiosk was equally divided between the current occupants. - Evaluation of the original kiosk as delivered to current occupants on March, 2017 and improvements that have been added to the building. 3 PAP1 did not 20/1/2019, - PAP1 is the owner of the original kiosk. allow the PMU Sunday -PAP1 was aware that the land was owned by the member to PM, and proceeded to on-lease it it to another meet him 24/1/2019 person. personally. Thursday - PAP1 bought the kiosk from Mr. Jamal Abdel Information Aziz. given PAP1 was - PAP1 expanded the kiosk by 16 m2 using same collected materials with total cost of 1,000 JOD. through a - PAP1 did not sign any agreement/contract with phone call. the PM. - PAP1 did not pay any monthly rent to the PM. - PAP1 rented the kiosk to Mr. Ahmad Abdul-Aziz on March, 2017 with an amount of 125 JOD per month. Consultation with PAPs took place in the municipality building on February 4 th, 2019. The purpose of conducting the ARRAP document was briefly explained to them, compensation packages were discussed with them as well and then approved and signed. Also, the Independent Evaluation Report was explained to each PAP. They also read all the information stated in their socioeconomic surveys and signed it for approval. It was explained to them that their names and the names of their household will be disclosed publicaly on the World Bank official site, and they signed for approval regarding this issue. No concerns were raised by the PAPs. PAP3 provided a written document stating that he represents PAPs: 2,4, and 5. Minutes of Meeting with the PAPs and their approval on all relevant documents are found in Annex 2. 27 Figure 16: Meeting with PAPs, and approval of main parts of ARAAP 28 7.0 Institutional responsibility for implementation This section describes the institutional arrangements for the implementation of the ARRAP. The small scale and relatively simple nature of the displacement action does not warrant many special institutional arrangements that may be required in larger sub-projects. Thus, this sub-project will rely on mechanisms and institutions that are already in place. These are presented below in table 17. The ARAP work plan is illustrated in Table 18. Table 18: Institutional responsibility # Institutions Responsibility 1 PMU, MoMA. preparing and submitting the A-RAP for the WB, which is a remedial plan as the kiosk was already demolished, in our case 2 World Bank Provides technical support and advice as appropriate to enhance the PMU capacity and experience. The ARRAP requires clearance by the WB. 3 MoMA, as the disclosing this ARRAP on WB official website, translate into Arabic implementing and made available to the PAPs agency 4 MoMA, PMU 1- Ensuring the overall implementation of the ARRAP in a satisfactory manner that would satisfy the WB Guidelines. 2- ensuring financial arrangements 3- Post monitoring and reporting on the overall implementation. 4- Liaising with different institutions and stakeholders who have roles in the implementation of the proposed ARRAP. 5 Ramtha 1- implementing the suggested compensation and Municipality resettlement assistance 2- providing the necessary commitment letter in which PM gives  The current occupants a new kiosk without initial vacancy cost  The current occupants employment opportunities when construction of the sub-project starts  The cash compensation to all PAPs suggested earlier from the Municipality allocation of FY2018. 29 Table 19: ARRAP Work Plan, Expected by End of February, 2019 No. Task description Responsibility start date End date Status Outputs and taken actions 1 Submitting revised copy PMU October,201 24, Done 1- Approved compensation scheme. of the Abbreviated 8 January,20 2- Adequate Census survey. Remedial Resettlement 19 Action Plan to WB for review and clearance for public disclosure 2 Meeting of displaced PMU, PAPs 1, 4, Done 1- Describe the compensation scheme to persons PAPs. February,201 February,2 PAPs. 9 019 2- Sign the valuation of assets by PAPs. 3- Complete any missing data. 4- Describe the procedures for grievance redress to PAPs. 3 Submission of written PM, PAPs 1, February NA On-going, 1- Valuation report, if PAPs opt to hire Grievances, (if any) 2019 as another one. needed. 2- Meet with Grievance Committee to review complaint and issue resolution to PAP as needed. 6 Issuing the PMU, PAPs, March 1, March Planned  Issuing the cash compensation packages compensation packages PM 2019 30th 30 start date End date Status Outputs and taken actions No. Task description Responsibility 8 hiring the current PMU, PM, As sub-project planned occupants: filling out sub- AP(s). gets started. project vacancies 10 The resettlement of PM By the end of sub- planned Relocation to the new kiosk site. PAP(s): giving the new project kiosk (The physical construction. relocation). 11 Monitoring and Evaluation PMU, and 1, January,2018 31, planned Review any complaints submitted to Grievances MOMA. December,2019 redress mechanism. Carry out internal monitoring activities as per Table 20 and 21 12 Sub-project Construction PM and May, 2019 May, 2020 planned Sub-project finished and kiosk handed to Commencement Date Contractor current occupant PAPs 31 8.0 Procedures for Grievance Redress Mechanisms To ensure that all PAPs have a safe, reliable, and accountable means for their grievances to be heard, a specific arrangement is suggested as it is a confined situation in our case; the kiosk demolition and the appropriate way of compensation of the land and the assets: a Grievance Committee shall be formed. Members include: 1- MSSRP Project Manager or Deputy 2- PMU Safeguards specialist in CVDB 3- Community Outreach specialist/PMU 4- Representative from Local Development Unit in Ramtha Municipality 5- Representative chosen by PAPs This GC will be responsible for the following tasks: - The Committee will receive and register the complaints. - The Committee will respond to the complainant with a rational justification describing the process by which the complaint was considered and explain the reasons behind any decision taken by the Committee. - The Committee will meet periodically and as required to review the received complaints. - The Committee will consider each complaint on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the case constitutes a valid complaint, if so, the Committee is required to find a fair and just solution to the claim. - Decisions will be made by consensus, and properly documented. - There is already a GRM established for the MSSRP Project. In Ramtha case, it could be through using different tools such as Ramtha Municipality official website, face book page, GRM log and direct calls to the mayor and municipal staff and engineers. Those channels could be used by the PAPs as well, and also through informing the PMU of any grievances, directly. 32 9.0 Arrangements for monitoring and implementation The main objective of the monitoring exercise is to enable PMU and other stakeholders to follow up on the progress of the process and make sure that everything is on track in terms of deliverable on the required time. Additionally, the monitoring seeks to identify perceptions and levels of satisfaction of those affected of the activity. Main inputs, output and outcomes are presented in the following table as the list of deliverables. However, the process is obviously created to try to find a satisfying solution to the issue. Therefore, the main outcome is to achieve satisfaction of those affected by the process. Two forms of monitoring will be undertaken: - Internal monitoring that will be undertaken by both PMU in MoMA and CVDB, and Ramtha Municipality. This monitoring will ensure that the ARRAP is being implemented in a proper and satisfactory way to all stakeholders including the PAPs and get their feedback on the ARRAP implementation. WB will also continue to monitor through supervision missions the progress of the A-RAP and reference their findings in Aide memoires. When preparing a monitoring plan, it needs to be taken into consideration that everyone involved in the process of the actual activity to be involved in the monitoring plan as well. This will be specifically in terms of collecting information required for each indicator. These parties include, but not limited to the following: 1. PMU staff 2. Mayor 3. Relevant municipality staff 4. M&E There are two main levels of indicators included in this monitoring exercise: 1. Process level indicators: are those that are represented as deliverable of the activity . 2. Outcome level indicators: are those indicators identified in the table below. These indicators will allow decision makers and stakeholders of the activity to find out whether the process followed has resulted in a satisfying outcome or not. Also it will provide lessons learned to improve the process in similar future situations. The monitoring work plan will be based on the compensation and resettlement work plan in terms of process level indicators. However, the outcome monitoring should start immediately after the compensation and resettlement activities are completed to capture the highest possible level of reactions and perceptions around it, while relevant people are still remembering the process followed. 33 The monitoring plan will track the progress of the implementation plan step by step and ask questions on the methodologies used and whether or not planned activities were completed. This is to make sure that relevant stakeholders have sufficient information in order to help evaluating the process as well as the outcome. The below table shows the monitoring indicators that will be used to measure the identified outcome and track the process followed. It is important to note that the table includes the indicators that will be measured by multiple methodologies/questions using different forms of collecting data as follows: 1. Extracting information from the PMU/PM records. There will be specific tool for this. 2. Key informant interview with PMU and PMs. There will be specific tool for this. 3. Key informant interview with affected people. There will be specific tool for this. 34 Table 20: monitoring indicators Unit of Responsibility Indicator Frequency Data Source measurement number of affected people PMU records/interview with PMs and Number Semi-Annually PMU, PM disaggregated by sex PMU staff Zone of impact of the demolishing PMU records/interview with PMs and text Semi-Annually PMU, PM the kiosk PMU staff size of financial losses disaggregated PMU records/interview with PMs and Number Semi-Annually PMU, PM by sex PMU staff Prepare socioeconomic studies yes/No and PMU records/interview relevant PMU once PMU including valuation of compensation text staff PMU records/interview relevant PMU Type and design of resettlement plan text once PMU staff number of agencies responsible for PMU records/interview relevant PMU Number once PMU resettlement activities staff In accordance with dates set in table conduct the agreed compensation yes/No and PMU records/interview with PMs and 19 and collect PMU, PM plan text PMU staff verification data in Table 21. zone of impact of the resettlement PMU records/interview relevant PMU text once PMU, PM plan staff number of people benefiting from PMU records/interview relevant PMU the resettlement plan disaggregated Number once PMU, PM staff by sex 35 Table 20: monitoring indicators cont. Unit of Indicator measure Frequency Responsibility Data Source ment KI interview with all affected people discussing the levels of satisfactions and very important to take it extent to which affected people one week after the scale PMU, PM further and discuss reasons of dissatisfaction and are satisfied with the process process completion other solution methodologies could have been taken into consideration KI interview with all affected people discussing the extent to which affected people levels of satisfactions and very important to take it one week after the are satisfied with the outcome of scale PMU, PM further and discuss reasons of dissatisfaction and process completion the process other solution that could have been taken into consideration KI interview with relevant people at the municipality extent to which municipality is one week after the scale PMU, PM to see their take on the process followed and its satisfied with the process process completion outcome extent to which other one week after the stakeholders are satisfied about scale PMU, PM interview with relevant stakeholders process completion the process and outcome Zone of impact according to one week after the text PMU, PM affected people process completion KI interview with affected people one week after the the magnitude of the affected loss text PMU, PM process completion according to affected people KI interview with affected people preferred resettlement one week after the alternatives according to affected text PMU, PM process completion population KI interview with affected people 36 10.0 Timetable and budget Table 21 summarizes the ARRAP Components cost estimation. The sub-components of direct compensation is only valid, if the PAP(s) don’t take the employment opportunity or not eligible to sub-project employment vacancies. As discussed so far, the PM assigned one of the 10 kiosks to the PAP(s) as discussed in the Institutional responsibility section. The PM will not take any initial vacancy cost form the PAP(s). However, PAP(s) need to sign up yearly- based contract in which the monthly rent will be charged. Table 21: ARRAP Components cost estimates Time for Verification The A-RAP A-RAP Expenditures/ Subcomponents Sources of Funds Components Subcomponents Assignment Cost (JOD) 8,830 Copy of Cheque(s) Component - 1: on files; Municipal Grant photos of Cash of Ramtha Immediately handover; compensation municipality of FY verification 2018. of amounts as per the ARRAP Names of PAPs listed on contractor’s Compensation list; copy of agreement with contractor or written Employment As subproject Null consent. Opportunity launches Personally Embedded within signed The sub-project disclaimer if budget not interested in working; Field verification on site Immediately Rental after agreement Resettlement contractor signed with Free Kiosk4 Null Program hands over the Ramtha construction Municipality of the complex 4 The initial cost will be null, however monthly rent will be charged. 37 List of Figures Figure 1: Public consultations result in Ramtha municipality ......................................................... 8 Figure 2: letter of allocation the subproject budget ..................................................................... 9 Figure 3: Front Perspective of The Complex ............................................................................... 10 Figure 4: The City of Ramtha .................................................................................................... 10 Figure 5: PM letter sent to governmental agencies and theirresponses......................................... 11 Figure 6: correspondences to reassign the subproject land.......................................................... 12 Figure 7: The Assignment Letter by the department of land and survey ........................................ 13 Figure 8: the locationof the proposed land using the Department of Land And Survey website ....... 14 Figure 9: the title deed of the land............................................................................................ 14 Figure 10: Google earth photo in A) 2009 for the land B) the first appearance of the in 9/2012 with area less than 40 m................................................................................................................. 16 Figure 11: Google earth photo shows the kiosk in 2/2017 with area 50 m2 ................................... 16 Figure 12: The kiosk, Kazem cafe. ............................................................................................. 16 Figure 13: Kiosk Ownership History........................................................................................... 18 Figure 14: meetings held between PAPs and PMU ...................................................................... 20 Figure 15: PAPs ...................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 16: Project Affected Household (PAHs) ............................................................................ 22 Figure 17: Meeting with PAPS and approval of main parts of ARAAP ............................................ 35 List of Tables Table 1: Sub-Project Land Basic Information .............................................................................. 15 Table 2: PAPs ......................................................................................................................... 20 Table 3: the area of the kiosk ................................................................................................... 23 Table 4: some basic information about the kiosk ........................................................................ 23 Table 5: Sold or consumed items .............................................................................................. 23 Table 6: list of saved equipment ............................................................................................... 23 Table 7: valuation of destroyed assets provided by the current occupants. ................................... 24 Table 8: valuation of destroyed assets provided by the external valuator. ..................................... 24 Table 9: Valuation information of the kiosk on March, 2017 ........................................................ 25 Table 10: valuation of the original kiosk as delivered to current occupants on March, 2017 ............ 25 Table 11: Compensation package of the current occupants ......................................................... 26 Table 12: Compensation packages of the owner of the original kiosk PAP1. .................................. 28 Table 13: Summary of Compensation Packages for all PAPs ......................................................... 28 Table 14: Benefits gained from the resettlement (the new kiosk in the governmental complex) ...... 30 Table 15: PMU site visit ........................................................................................................... 33 Table 16: communications and consultations with PAPs.............................................................. 34 Table 17: survey outputs and interviews with PAPs .................................................................... 34 Table 18: Institutional responsibility ......................................................................................... 35 Table 19: ARAP Work Plan ....................................................................................................... 36 Table 20: monitoring indicators................................................................................................ 41 Table 21: A-RAP Components cost estimates ............................................................................. 43 38