Public Disclosure Authorized - World Bankdocuments.worldbank.org/curated/en/...Comprehensive...
Transcript of Public Disclosure Authorized - World Bankdocuments.worldbank.org/curated/en/...Comprehensive...
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
i
Document Details
Document Name Final Report-RAP Completion Report for OPRC Project
Document Version Number 1
Document Owner Roads Department
Issue Date 7th February 2019
Prepared by Keamogetse Mogae
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background to the Project ............................................................................................. 1
1.2 Description of the Project and Corridor of Impact ....................................................... 1
1.3 Nature, Rationale and Purpose of the study .................................................................. 3
1.3.1 Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................... 3
1.3.2 Rationale and nature of the assignment ............................................................ 3
1.4 Scope of services .......................................................................................................... 3
1.5 Summary of Approach and Method .............................................................................. 4
1.5.1 Desktop review ................................................................................................. 4
1.5.2 Sampling Method – Multi Stage Sampling Technique ..................................... 4
1.5.3 Interviews .......................................................................................................... 5
1.5.4 Field surveys ..................................................................................................... 5
2 COMPLIANCE WITH RAP ............................................................................................................ 6
2.1 Legal and Entitlement Policy Framework .................................................................... 6
2.1.1 Relevant Legislation ......................................................................................... 6
i. Tribal Land Act of 1968 ......................................................................................... 6
ii. Tribal Land (Amendment) Act (Cap.32:02 of 1993) ............................................. 6
iii. Environmental Assessment Act of (2011) ............................................................ 6
iv. Monuments and Relics Act 2001 ......................................................................... 7
2.1.2 Relevant Policies ............................................................................................... 7
v. Planning and Environmental Impact Assessment of Road
Infrastructure, Guideline No. 5 of September 2001 ..................................................... 7
vi. Ministry of Land Management, Water and Sanitation Services-Compensation
Guidelines ..................................................................................................................... 8
a. Land Rights and Entitlements ................................................................................ 8
b. Land Acquisition Procedures ............................................................................... 10
c. Eligibility Criteria for Entitlements ..................................................................... 13
d. Methods of Valuing, and Validating the Census of Affected Assets Section ...... 15
e. Organizational Procedures for Delivery of Entitlement ....................................... 16
vii. World Bank OP 4.12.......................................................................................... 17
2.2 Definition of PAPs and Eligibility Criteria ................................................................. 18
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
iii
2.2.1 Definition of PAPs .......................................................................................... 18
2.2.2 Eligibility Criteria ........................................................................................... 19
2.3 Description and Results of Public Consultation ......................................................... 20
2.3.1 Review of Consultation Process ..................................................................... 20
2.3.2 Consultation with PAPs .................................................................................. 21
2.3.3 Plans for Continued Participation of PAPs ..................................................... 22
3 OUTCOMES OF RAP IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................... 23
3.1 Project Impacts and Need for Resettlement ................................................................ 23
3.1.1 Census and Survey Results ............................................................................. 23
3.2 Compensation and Remedial Measures ...................................................................... 30
3.2.1 Adequacy of Remedial Measures ................................................................... 31
3.2.2 Cut-off Date versus Compensation ................................................................. 32
3.3 Has RAP Implementation Accounted for Actual Livelihood Impact ......................... 33
3.3.1 Socio-economic conditions of PAPs before RAP implementation ................. 33
3.3.2 Socio-economic conditions of PAPs after RAP implementation .................... 35
3.3.3 Impact of the Project on the Poor and Vulnerable Groups ............................. 36
3.4 Grievance and Redress Mechanism ............................................................................ 37
3.4.1 Grievance Handling Processes ........................................................................ 37
3.4.2 Alternative Grievance Handling Mechanisms ................................................ 38
3.4.3 The Nature of Grievances ............................................................................... 39
3.5 RAP Implementation .................................................................................................. 40
3.5.1 Adequacy of RAP Implementation Budget .................................................... 40
3.5.2 Schedule, Monitoring and Responsibility of Tasks ........................................ 41
3.6 Institutional Arrangements.......................................................................................... 42
3.6.1 Capacity of Implementing Agency ................................................................. 42
3.6.2 Personnel for Delivering Entitlements ............................................................ 43
3.6.3 Plans to Build Institutional Capacity .............................................................. 43
3.7 Constraints, Issues and Delays encountered during the RAP Implementation ........... 43
4 MITIGATION PLAN FOR IDENTIFIED GAPS .......................................................................... 44
5 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................. 45
5.1 Study Limitations and Challenges .............................................................................. 45
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
iv
5.2 Overall assessment of Completion of Implementation ............................................... 45
5.2.1 Adequacy of Remedial Measures ................................................................... 45
5.2.2 Adequacy of Compensation ............................................................................ 46
5.2.3 Inclusion of Communities and PAPs in the Process ....................................... 46
5.2.4 Access to Grievance Redress Mechanism ...................................................... 46
5.2.5 Adequacy of Institutional Arrangements and Procedures ............................... 46
5.2.6 Issuance of amended certificates..................................................................... 47
NB: Some PAPs had registered more than one affected property. ............................. 47
5.2.7 Final Cost Versus Budget for RAP and Justification ...................................... 47
5.2.8 Change in PAPS and Justification .................................................................. 47
5.2.9 Estimate of Total Land Acquisition ................................................................ 48
5.2.10 Overall Assessment of Livelihood Impact .................................................... 48
5.2.11 Assessment of Temporary Impact Related to Construction .......................... 48
5.3 Overall conclusion ...................................................................................................... 49
6 LESSONS LEARNT ...................................................................................................................... 50
List of Tables
Table 1: Villages in the Study Area / Affected Villages ......................................................................... 5
Table 2: Comments on adherence of Land Acquisition Procedures ..................................................... 11
Table 3: Eligibility Criteria for Entitlements ........................................................................................ 13
Table 4: Information about Rights and Options .................................................................................... 22
Table 5: Awareness to Engage Valuation Professionals ....................................................................... 22
Table 6: Opportunity to Make Claim for Properties ............................................................................. 22
Table 7: Land use and Number of Affected Plots for Package 1 .......................................................... 23
Table 8: Land use and Number of Affected Plots for Package 2 .......................................................... 24
Table 9: Affected Archaeological Sites for Package 1 ......................................................................... 26
Table 10: Affected Sites of Social Significance for Package 1 ............................................................ 27
Table 11: Affected Archaeological Sites for Package 2 ....................................................................... 27
Table 12: Affected Sites of Social Significance ................................................................................... 27
Table 13: Status of PAPs with respect to road realignment .................................................................. 30
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
v
Table 14: Main Sources of households'monthly income ...................................................................... 34
Table 15: Monthly household income in the study area, 2018 ............................................................. 34
Table 16: Summary of grievances and how they were addressed......................................................... 39
Table 17: Adequacy of Budget for Package 1 ...................................................................................... 40
Table 18: Adequacy of Budget for Package 2 ...................................................................................... 40
Table 19: Schedule of Tasks ................................................................................................................. 41
Table 20: Comments and Observations for Adherence to Schedule ..................................................... 41
Table 21: Constraints, Issues and delays encountered during RAP Implementation ............................ 43
Table 22: Mitigation Plan for Identified Gaps ...................................................................................... 44
Table 23: Status of Amended Certificates ............................................................................................ 47
Table 24: Status of PAPs with respect to road realignment .................................................................. 48
List of Figures
Figure 1: Road Sections for OPRC Package 1 ........................................................................................ 2
Figure 2: Road Sections for OPRC Package 2 ........................................................................................ 2
Figure 3: Road alignment in Selokolela ................................................................................................ 28
Figure 4: Road alignment in Sese ......................................................................................................... 28
Figure 5: Road alignment in Mmakgori ................................................................................................ 29
Figure 6: Road alignment in Tlhareseleele ........................................................................................... 29
Figure 7: Road alignment in Rakhuna .................................................................................................. 29
Figure 8: Adequacy of Compensation .................................................................................................. 31
Figure 9: Livelihood Impacts of RAP ................................................................................................... 35
Figure 10: Household Headship and Source of Income........................................................................ 36
Figure 11: Alternative Grievance Handling Mechanisms ..................................................................... 38
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
vi
List of Appendices
Appendix 1: Frequencies of data collected
Appendix 2: Crosstabulations of data collected
Appendix 3: Project Affected Persons Written Consent Form
Appendix 4: Assessment Reports
Appendix 5: Form I-Notice to Treat
Appendix 6: Minutes of meetings with stakeholders
Appendix 7: Questionnaire for Project team
Appendix 8: Proof of Payment
Appendix 9: Inspection Report (Buildings)-Form 2
Appendix 9: Comments Response Sheets
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
vii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AIA Archaeological Impact Assessment
AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
DEA Department of Environmental Affairs
DLUPU District Land Use Planning Unit
EA Act Environmental Assessment Act
ESIA Environment and Social Impact Assessment
GoB Government of Botswana
HIV Human Immuno deficiency Virus
ITP Integrated Transport Project
km Kilometre
NDP National Development Plan
OPRC Output and Performance Based Road Contracting
PAP Project Affected Persons
RAP Resettlement Action Plan
RD Roads Department
RPF Resettlement Policy Framework
WB World Bank
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Project
The Government of Botswana (GoB) has implemented Integrated Transport Project (ITP) which
included, as one of the components, piloting of Output and Performance Based Road Contracting
(OPRC) on a 336 km road network. The co-funding agreement between GoB and the World Bank
(WB) envisaged implementing the project according to the Laws of Botswana and the WB guidelines
with respect to Project Affected Persons (PAPs).
Roads Department (RD) has implemented two Resettlement Action Plans (RAP) as per requirements
of the World Bank. The RAPs were required because the road rehabilitation works involved widening
of the road and upgrading some road sections from gravel to bitumen standard. This widening and
upgrading of the road required land-take from existing properties in order to meet the desired road
design width. These existing properties included: ploughing fields, residential properties, and other
assets in the right-of-way of the road within the road network. Owners of the properties were
consulted and following consultation, assessment of the properties was done by the Land Board in
conjunction with Roads Department upon which a comprehensive report was compiled by
Department of Lands, in the Ministry of Land Management, Water and Sanitation Services. Upon
agreement of assessed compensation, the owners were compensated either in cash or by providing
alternative land to an equal or higher value.
In accordance with the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF), an independent evaluation of the
implementation of RAPs for Packages 1 and 2 is a requirement. Hence this RAP Completion report
for the OPRC Project. The RAPs, the addenda to the RAPs and the RAP completion report are
government reports adhering to World Bank OP.
1.2 Description of the Project and Corridor of Impact
The OPRC activities were organized in two packages:
1. The OPRC Package 1 constitutes: Road Works _Contract under (OPRC) (Asset Management
Contract) for Design Rehabilitation/Improvement, Routine and Periodic Maintenance Works. The
Main Road Sections (123.5km) are: Mmankgodi Junc – Kanye – Jwaneng, while Access Roads
(52.5 km) are: Kanye road, Moshana road, Selokolela road, Sesung road, Sese road, Lotlhakane
West road, Moshupa loop road and Moshupa Kgotla road as in Figure 1.
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
2
Figure 1: Road Sections for OPRC Package 1
2. The OPRC Package 2 constituted: Road Works _Contract under (OPRC) (Asset Management
Contract) for Design Rehabilitation/Improvement, Routine and Periodic Maintenance Works. The
Main Road Sections (144 km) are: Rakhuna – Tlhareseleele - Pitsane – Phitshane Molopo –
Mabule while the Access Roads (15.9 km) are: Rakhuna Kgotla, Tlhareseleele Kgotla, Pitsane
Kgotla, Cwaanyaneng Kgotla, Tswagare Kgotla, Mokgomane Kgotla, Sedibeng Kgotla, Phitshane
Molopo Kgotla, Leporung Kgotla, Dikhukhung Kgotla, Mmakgori Kgotla, Tshidilamolomo
Kgotla and Mabule Kgotla as in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Road Sections for OPRC Package 2
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
3
1.3 Nature, Rationale and Purpose of the study
1.3.1 Purpose of the Study
The overall purpose of the study is to undertake an independent evaluation of the Resettlement Action
Plans for Packages 1 and 2 in order to determine whether the efforts to restore the living standards of
the affected populations have been properly designed and executed. This independent evaluation is a
requirement under the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF). As per the RPF, the Roads Department
controls the implementation of the OPRC activities throughout the project life span.
1.3.2 Rationale and nature of the assignment
1. The Completion Report of the RAP is intended to document the benefits that the Project
Affected Persons (PAPs) and communities along this corridor have received to improve their
livelihoods as a direct result of the implementation of the RAP in particular, and the road
rehabilitation project in general.
2. The primary aim of this RAP Completion Report is to undertake an independent review of the
process and outputs of the resettlement compensation/rehabilitation activities under the
project. The completion report highlights the positive and negative impacts the RAP
implementation may have had on PAPs and communities along the OPRC road network. It
looks at the living condition of those PAPs and communities along the road network before
and after the project implementation with specific focus on demographic trends, livelihood
structure, pattern of social interaction and community organization, and the existence and
functioning of social networks and support systems.
1.4 Scope of services
The scope of the exercise is as follows:
i. Review RAP and associated implementation reports;
ii. Undertake site visits to consult PAPs, Grievance Committees and project team to fulfil the
requirements of the assignment;
iii. Determine that affected persons have been fully and fairly compensated in accordance with
Botswana laws and policies and in compliance with World Bank guidelines and standards,
which require that full replacement cost is paid for all assets taken by the project;
iv. Ascertain that documentary evidence exists in support of adequate compensation for Project
Affected Persons claims or entitlements to the land, structures and other assets
v. Review the RAP Grievance Redress Mechanism and how effective it has been during the
implementation;
vi. Indicators should include, but not be limited to the following: category of property
acquisitions, rate of rebuilding new structures, quality of homes, access to public and social
services including markets, health, water supply and education, and other economic
development opportunities in the RAP area; travel time along the corridor, social interaction
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
4
and organization, and any other indicator pertaining to the individual and community social,
economic and physical status and well-being;
vii. Prepare partial action plans for redress should there be instances of inadequate compensations
or PAPs who were not compensated during RAP implementation and;
viii. Compile a consolidated report consisting of partial reports prepared earlier for some sections
of the roads.
ix. Draw out lessons and provide recommendations for improvements in the future resettlement
efforts.
1.5 Summary of Approach and Method
1.5.1 Desktop review
Amongst the documents reviewed to guide the study were the following;
• Resettlement Policy Framework
• Resettlement Action Plans for Packages 1 and 2
• World Bank Safeguard Policies OP 4.12
• Ministry of Lands and Housing Compensation Guidelines, 2010
• Tribal Land Act of 1968
• Tribal Land (Amendment) Act (Cap.32:02 of 1993)
• Environmental Assessment Act of (2011)
• Monuments and Relics Act, 2001
• Planning and Environmental Impact Assessment of Road Infrastructure, Guideline No. 5 of
September 2001
1.5.2 Sampling Method – Multi Stage Sampling Technique
Given the nature of the assignment, probability sampling method was considered appropriate. We
have adopted Multi Stage Sampling technique for this study whereby we combined clustering and
simple random sampling. The total number of PAPs (220) became the population for the study while
Packages 1 and 2 became the sampling frame. A total of 14 villages (from both packages) became
clusters from which the samples were selected. Within each cluster (village) we have selected a
simple random sample of 25%, giving each respondent an equal opportunity of being selected. Out of
the 5 villages for Package 1 and 9 villages for Package 2, a total of 60 PAPs were selected. A sample
of 25% is considered statistically significant and representative.
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
5
1.5.3 Interviews
A questionnaire (containing both closed and open-ended questions) was designed to guide the
interviews with the PAPs. The interviews were conducted with the 60 PAPs that made up the sample.
Another questionnaire was designed to guide focus group discussions with the members of the
grievance committees. Where the grievance committees did not exist (though they were established at
the beginning of the project), the interviews were held with the chiefs as some community members
were said to have reported their grievances to the chief in the absence of functional grievance
committees. Lastly, face to face interviews with the project team and government institutions (Land
Boards, Department of Lands) were conducted.
1.5.4 Field surveys
Site visits to all project villages were undertaken first for reconnaissance and later for ground
truthing/verification of affected properties. The villages that were visited are as follows;
Table 1: Villages in the Study Area / Affected Villages
Package 1 Villages Package 2 Villages
Lotlhakane West Rakhuna
Moshupa Tlhareseleele
Moshana Pitsane
Selokolela Phitshane Molopo
Sesung Leporung
Sese Dikhukhung
Mmakgori
Tshidilamolomo
Mabule
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
6
2 Compliance with RAP
2.1 Legal and Entitlement Policy Framework
2.1.1 Relevant Legislation
i. Tribal Land Act of 1968
Under this Act, the Land Board was established as an institution for managing all tribal/customary
land. The Land Board grants customary land rights to citizens of Botswana. The Land Board also
leases land under common law forms of tenure. Part V of the Act specifically addresses procedures
for dealing with the application of expropriation for tribal land required for public purposes. Section
32 of the Tribal Land Act provides that land may be granted to the state for public purposes only if the
president determines that the purpose for which it is acquired is in the interest of the public. The
President possesses power of the eminent domain for expropriation of land. The president may
acquire any real (immovable) property where the acquisition of such is necessary for public purposes.
Section 33 (2) of the Tribal Land Act (1968) provides that compensation is payable when land is
acquired for a project and the acquiring body is financially responsible for all aspects of the project;
this includes payment for compensation to claimants. The displaced person may be granted the right
to use other land if available and is entitled to adequate compensation.
In accordance with this Act, Roads Department approached Ngwaketse and Rolong Land Boards
through respective Sub Land Boards to seek servitudes for their proposed road alignments. The
respective land authorities (Sub Land Boards) consequently constituted compensation assessment
committees for purposes of assessment and valuation of affected properties. Following approval of the
valuation reports, PAPs were compensated in accordance with the compensation guidelines and
eligibility requirements.
ii. Tribal Land (Amendment) Act (Cap.32:02 of 1993)
The Act allows for determination of land use zones in tribal areas. According to the Act, a Land
Board shall after due consultation with the District Council determine and define land use
zones within a tribal area. The Land Board shall not make grants of land for any use which is in
conflict with the use for which land is zoned. Land Boards may determine management plans for use
and development of the zones.
In both Packages 1 and 2, all the affected properties were in conformity with the zoning requirements of
the land authorities (Sub Land Boards). Hence, there were no land use conflicts.
iii. Environmental Assessment Act of (2011)
The EA Act provides for Environmental Impact Assessments to be used to assess the potential effects
of planned development activities; to determine and to provide mitigation measures for effects of such
activities as may have a significant adverse impact on the environment; to put in place a monitoring
process and evaluation of the environmental impacts of implemented activities; and to provide for
matters incidental to the foregoing. Only after the competent authority, the DEA, has approved the
Environmental Impact Statement can the project proceed.
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
7
For the undertaking of environmental studies in compliance with the EA Act (2011), the
Environmental Assessment Guidelines (2012) have been developed. These guidelines clearly outline
the activities to be undertaken during each of the assessment stages, as well as the information and
format to be submitted to the DEA for review.
In fulfilment of the EA Act, the Roads Department commissioned an EIA for the proposed project.
The EIA process considered the pre-construction, construction and post construction impacts and
mitigations. The EIA reports for the 2 packages were subsequently prepared and approved by the
competent authority (Department of Environmental Affairs) thus paving way for the project. The
Environmental Management Plan is currently being implemented through the road construction
contractor.
iv. Monuments and Relics Act 2001
All archaeological sites and to some extent historic sites are protected under the Monuments and
Relics Act (2001). This Act requires that Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) is undertaken for
all major development projects and that a Development Permit is obtained from the National Museum
before any construction can take place. Section 18 prohibits any alteration, damage or removal from
original site of any national monument, relic or recent artefacts. Section 19 of the Act provides for
pre-development archaeological impact assessments and mitigation where planned developments are
likely to disturb the earth s surface.
In adherence to the requirements of this Act, an AIA was undertaken and development permit issued
by the competent authority (Department of National Museum and Monuments) thus paving way for
construction.
2.1.2 Relevant Policies
v. Planning and Environmental Impact Assessment of Road
Infrastructure, Guideline No. 5 of September 2001
The guideline is used as a guide in the planning and EIA of linear developments, with particular
reference to roads. All road project impacts are included in the assessments, both monetary and non-
monetary. All significant impacts are described and discussed in order to optimize the benefits of the
roads and minimize the adverse effects. The planning and construction of roads is guided by a 5-year
National Development Plan (NDP), outlining projects that are to be undertaken during the period of
the plan. The guideline sees consultation as necessary for ensuring that the road network is planned
and implemented in an accountable and transparent manner.
The EIA process considered the requirements as outlined in this guideline and key amongst them
being consultations. Public meetings and invitations for public review were advertised in the print
media as required by the EA Act. Proceedings for such meetings are presented in the reports.
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
8
vi. Ministry of Land Management, Water and Sanitation Services-
Compensation Guidelines
The compensation guidelines are in line with the Tribal Land Act of 1968 and deals with both
customary land rights and common law grants. The compensation guidelines were prepared by the
Department of Lands in 1977 and revised in 2010. There are three (3) main categories of land in
Botswana: customary, freehold and state land. Customary land is administered by the Land Boards
and covers over 70% of the total land area.
Freehold land is administered by the Department of Lands through the Attorney Generals Chambers
which is responsible for all land transactions. Freehold land entitles the landholder to perpetual and
exclusive rights to land and constitutes 5% of the total land area in the country. State land is
administered by the Department of Lands and makes up 25% of the land area and comprises National
Parks and Wildlife Management Areas (19.4%), Forest Reserves (1%) and all urban land (4.6%).
a. Land Rights and Entitlements
Compensation for tribal land is considered under two categories:
• Customary Land Rights
• Common Law Land Rights
Customary Land Rights Regarding customary land the displaced people are entitled to adequate
compensation for the following, where applicable:
• The value of any standing crops taken over by the state
• The value of any improvements effected to such land, including the value of any clearing or
preparation of land for agricultural or other purposes
• The costs of resettlement, and
• The loss of the right of user of such land
NB: The last bullet above refers to where no alternative land is identified or any portion of land
taken cannot be replaced. Compensation shall include the value equivalent to loss of right to use
that land.
From the valuation reports, it is evident that Roads Department adhered to the compensation
requirements under customary land rights. It is however noted that there were no standing crops
affected and no loss of right of user. Compensations in both Packages 1 and 2 were made to PAPs
for:
• Agricultural land and associated developments
• Developed and undeveloped residential plots
• Church land
• Grave yard land
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
9
• Fenced kraal land
• Affected trees
• Infrastructures
Common Law Land Rights When dealing with leases, there may be complications arising due to the
following factors;
• The lease being registered
• The lease being mortgaged
• Subletting of one or more portions of leased property
• The disruption or closure of business operations
NB Where there are complications, such cases are referred to the Department of Lands.
Acquisition procedures in the case of leased properties are as follows:
• The Land Board acquires vacant possession and negotiates the best price. Where the occupier
agrees and there is no burden to personal interest, compensation would follow
• The Land Board may use its powers under the lease to permit construction of pipelines, power
lines, roads, drains etc. for public purposes. Compensation is paid only for direct damage to
improvements, nuisance and for any land taken for the above servitudes and cannot be
replaced
• The Land Board may exercise its right to terminate the lease as provided for in the lease
agreement in which case adequate compensation is payable.
Other Cases. Where fixed costs which are compensated can in fact be salvaged and transported to
the alternative site, then removal costs shall be payable based on the actual costs incurred or 10% of
the total compensation sum per affected household, taking the higher value.
In the case of existing business operations, the following situations are also covered:
• Loss of goodwill
• Injurious affection and severance where access or other conditions are changed
• The loss sustained by reason of moving to an alternative site (disturbance)
There is evidence that Roads Department adhered to the requirements as per common law rights. A
case in point is a brick yard business in Moshana where a portion of land was taken and the screen
wall destroyed. Another case is a general dealer at Tlhareseleele where only portion of land taken and
fence affected. As for both properties there was no loss of goodwill, no injurious and severance as
access and other conditions were not changed, the compensation only considered loss of land and
damage to the screen walls.
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
10
b. Land Acquisition Procedures
When government or a statutory body undertakes a project, which is of national importance and the
only land suitable for that project is already occupied, the President shall determine in accordance
with Section 32 of the Tribal land Act that it is in the public interest that the land be acquired for the
project. When such land is taken, compensation is payable as per Section 32 (2) of the Tribal Land
Act. The Acquiring body is responsible for aspects of the project including payment of compensation
direct to the claimants. National projects include new airports, power stations, dams, schools, roads,
village expansions etc.
The compensation guidelines require that the acquiring body informs the relevant Land Board of its
intention at least six months prior to commencement of the project, both of which shall consult the
affected parties as appropriate and specified in the guidelines.
The required consultation shall involve the District Land Use Planning Unit (DLUPU), District
Council, as well as Department of Environmental Affairs (formerly National Conservation Strategy
Unit). In accordance with the guidelines, the Land Board shall in the case of big projects insist that an
Environmental Impact Study be commissioned to assess the project’s implications. The results of the
study are to be used as a factor in deciding the nature of the development and enable the Land Board
to state the appropriate conditions under which the application may be approved. The identification of
amelioration measures to overcome the suggested impacts should be included in a programme for
compensation.
In the event of acquisition of already occupied tribal land, Regulation 15 of the Tribal Land
Regulations of 1970 is invoked. The acquiring authority with the assistance of the Land Board, make
reasonable effort to identify and contact all occupiers within the zoned land. If deemed necessary, the
Land Board shall request for a kgotla (community) meeting to advise the people of the scheme and
their rights.
The views of the affected communities are documented to ensure that they are taken into
consideration when a decision to implement the project is made. Using an Environmental Impact
Study, DLUPU or the National Steering Committee should give an early recommendation, in
principle, to the Land Board, which then forms the basis of subsequent detailed recommendations.
Once it has been decided to proceed with the project the compensation assessment committee
conducts a physical inspection recording all the details of all improvements to the land and any other
fixed assets affected within the zoned area. The inspection report is the basis upon which
compensation is assessed. The assessment committee invites the various affected occupiers to submit
any additional or counter claims for their improvements if they so wish. Some claimants may engage
the services of professionals and should be given time to do so. The compensation assessment
committee then meets to discuss and agree on the appropriate rates of compensation.
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
11
Compensation rates are reviewed yearly and for improvements they are based on depreciated
replacement value. Where only part of the land is required and the part remaining cannot be used by
itself because of size, access or negative impact of the project, the assessment report gives full details
as the acquiring authority may be required to take the whole land and pay compensation for
improvements.
The Land Board should consider the compensation assessment and submit its recommendations to the
Department of Lands for checking and adjustment where necessary. The Department of Lands then
advises the acquiring authority of the approved report. The acquiring authority then immediately
releases payment directly to claimants. In the case of emergencies, an order is issued by the Minister of
Lands and Housing to the effect that people should vacate their land before compensation is paid with
commitment by the acquiring authority for full compensation at a subsequent date with interest. In the
event of the applicants being dissatisfied with the compensation assessment, they are advised to appeal
to the Minister of Lands and Housing who may then appoint an arbitrator in accordance with section 25
(2) of the Tribal Land Act, Cap. 32:02. The claimants have the right to take the appeal to Court if they
so wish.
NB Section 40 of the Tribal Land (Amendment) Act of 1993 provides for the establishment of the
Land Tribunal to assume the responsibility of the Minister in adjudicating on these appeals.
Table 2: Comments on adherence of Land Acquisition Procedures
Summary of Land Acquisition Procedures Comments on adherence
RD to inform Land Board of intended project
within 6 months.
Land Boards have confirmed that they were
informed (see interaction with Mr. Morokotso of
Moshupa Sub Land Board). That was the
beginning of their involvement in the project and
indeed the entire compensation process was
handled by the respective Land Boards.
RD and Land Board to consult affected parties This was done even though in some villages there
was no representation from the Land Board (for
example; Moshupa, Sese, Sesung, Selokolela and
Lotlhakane West villages for Package 1). For
Package 2, there is no record of participation by
either Roads Department or Land Board. Only the
EIA consultant and the contractor’s representative
were involved.
Document views of communities The views of communities were documented for
both Packages 1 and 2 in all the affected villages
(Appendix 3 of the RAP reports).
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
12
Summary of Land Acquisition Procedures Comments on adherence
Constitute grievance redress committees This was done for both packages in all the
affected villages (Chapter 14 and Appendix 3 of
the RAP reports)
Land Board to request RD for an EIA EIA for both packages was prepared and
approved by DEA.
Constitute compensation assessment committee
and conduct physical inspection of affected
properties
The Land Board has a standing compensation
assessment committee. Physical inspection of
affected properties was undertaken by the
assessment committee led by a valuer.
Compensation assessment committee to advise
PAPs on their rights to submit additional or
counter claims
Interactions with Land Board and Department of
Lands revealed that the committee advised PAPs
of their rights verbally as they do not have a
formal notification instrument (see interactions
with Department of Lands and Land Board).
Advise PAPs of their right to engage valuation
professionals
Interactions with Land Board and Department of
Lands revealed that the committee advised PAPs
of their rights verbally as they do not have a
formal notification instrument (see interactions
with Department of Lands and Land Board). RD
also confirmed that communication of the right of
PAPs to engage valuation professionals was not
documented but those who were not satisfied by
Land Board valuations were verbally advised to
seek third party assistance (Question 13 of the
Project team questionnaire).
Submit valuation reports to Department of Lands
for verification
Even though there is no record of submission of
valuation reports from Land Board to Department
of Lands, savingrams from Department of Lands
to Land Board reveal that there was formal
communication from Department of Lands to
Land Board about approval of the compensation
reports as well as from the Land Board to Roads
Department for release of payments to claimants.
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
13
Summary of Land Acquisition Procedures Comments on adherence
Inform RD and Land Board of approved valuation
reports
Available documents (Savingrams) in the RAP
reports reveal that there was formal
communication from Department of Lands to
Land Board about approval of the compensation
reports as well as from the Land Board to Roads
Department for release of payments to claimants.
Release of payments directly to PAPs within 3
months of assessment
Release of payments to some of the PAPs within
3 months was not achieved hence the
compensation amounts were adjusted upwards by
5% in accordance with the guidelines (see
Appendix 4: Assessment reports).
Inform claimants of their rights to appeal to
Minister of Lands and Housing or Land Tribunal
if not satisfied with the valuation
Discussion with the Land Board revealed that this
was done verbally when payments were released
to claimants.
c. Eligibility Criteria for Entitlements
Table 3: Eligibility Criteria for Entitlements
Category of PAP Type of Loss Eligibility Entitlements
Business Owner
Loss of Land Holder of a Title, Lease holder
Compensation at
current Market Price
Compensation at full
replacement cost
value, mobility,
allowance and
disturbance
Loss of Structure
Building permit, structure
drawings, Three neighbor
witnesses and Photographs (of
informal properties)
Compensation for
missed profit
Loss of business
income
Audited accounts, Account
books, Legger Book
Compensation at
current market price
Loss of temporary
structures
Lease contract, rental receipts,
MOU
Compensation at full
replacement cost
value, mobility,
allowance and
disturbance
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
14
Category of PAP Type of Loss Eligibility Entitlements
Business tenant
No loss of land Lease contract, rental receipts,
MOU
Compensation for
advanced lease
Loss of rental
accommodation
Lease contract, rental receipts,
MOU
Compensation for
equivalent lease and
lost
Loss of good will
Goodwill fee,
mobility allowance
and disturbance
Residence owners
Loss of land Holder of a title. Leaseholder Compensation for
equivalent lease
Loss of structure
Building permit, structure
drawings, Three neighbor
witnesses and Photographs (of
informal properties)
Compensation at full
replacement cost
value
Residence Tenant Loss of rental
accommodation
Lease contract, rental receipts,
MOU
Compensation for
advance rent
Lease contract, rental receipts,
MOU
Compensation for
equivalent
accommodation or
three months lease,
mobility allowance
and disturbance
Vulnerable Groups Comfort and
security
Elderly, Physically challenged,
long –term sick
Supplementary
compensation to be
settled case by case
Squatters**/
encroachers Loss of use of Land Three neighbor witness
Assistance in getting
title for new land, and
or/ supplementary
assistance, mobility
allowance and
disturbance
Public amenities Relocation of
amenities
Amenities in Right of way
(ROW) Relocation Cost
Religious site
(Church) Loss of structure
Holder of a title, leaseholder Compensation for
equivalent lease
Building permit, structure
drawings
Compensation at full
replacement cost
value
**In this project there were no squatters.
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
15
All affected parties and assets are eligible for compensation, except the following categories:
• Improvement carried out after the cut-off-date
• Loss of rights when the use of the land is in conflict with the use for which the land is
zoned
• Loss of improvements when they are in conflict with the land use zoning, unless the affected
person can demonstrate that improvements were carried out with the authority of the Land
Board or prior to the zoning of the land in question.
From the RAP reports and interviews with PAPs, there were no business tenants, residence tenants
and squatters who were affected by the project hence there was no consideration for eligibility and
entitlements in this regard. However, the project affected business owners such as the hardware at
Moshana and general dealer at Tlhareseleele. Evidence from the valuation reports and discussions
with Department of Lands and land authorities indicates that these PAPs were compensated
appropriately in accordance with their eligibility and entitlement. Similarly, residence and ploughing
fileds owners were compensated in compliance with the compensation guidelines taking into
consideration the current market rates. This situation also applied to the religious sites which were
affected by the project. Furthermore, assistance was given to PAPs to acquire new certificates for their
properties by transporting them to the land authorities. Evidence from the list of PAPs who were
compensated shows that Botswana Telecommunications Corporation was duly compensated to
relocate their infrastructure in line with their entitlements. Lastly, whilst the World Bank provides for
supplementary compensation on a case by case basis to vulnerable groups, the compensation
guidelines do not have provision for such. Thus, the valuation reports do not have any indication of
supplementary compensation to these groups.
d. Methods of Valuing, and Validating the Census of Affected Assets Section
The census of the affected assets is based on Forms 2.\32 and 5 of the Compensation Guidelines.
Aerial photography of the project site, with proper referencing completes the census. The schedule 11
of Form 4 of the Guidelines provides an extensive compensation rates that are renewed on a yearly
basis. The rates are based on guides for the most common types of affected assets, but the Committee
also exerts its best judgment on a case by case basis, factoring in various other factors.
The result of the census is then read out to the affected parties, who are given the chance to add their
views to the results before signing the Form 2 (Inspection Report-Buildings) or Form 3 (Inspection
Report-Fields), indicating that they were present at the validation of the census or were represented.
After the census validation, the Assessment Committee meets to discuss and agree on appropriate
rates, which are entered on the assessment forms for each affected asset.
Discussions with the Land Board indicated that compensation assessment committee read out the
results of the census to affected parties before signing Form 2 or Form 3 as required by the
compensation guidelines. Even though interviews with PAPs showed contradictory responses to these
questions, what is clear is that PAPs or their representatives signed the requisite forms.
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
16
e. Organizational Procedures for Delivery of Entitlement
Once the Compensation Report has been approved, the programme is then implemented by the
Department of Lands. Compensations are paid in cash or in kind whenever feasible. Compensation for
loss of all assets, displacement and relocation is payable immediately and directly to the Project
Affected Persons by the acquiring body. As per section 8.0 of the compensation guidelines, the
vacation of acquired land by the affected parties might happen either:
• After the payment of compensation package: this may occur immediately after such payment.
• Not after the payment of the compensation package: in this case, the occupiers will sign a
written agreement with the acquiring authority specifying the date by which occupiers must
vacate the acquired land (8.0)
• Before the payment of compensation package: in case of emergencies, an order should be
issued by the minister to the effect that people should vacate land before compensation is paid.
In such instances, a written undertaking must be given by the acquiring body guaranteeing
action as per section 6.0 and 7.0 of the compensation guidelines (census and preparation of a
compensation report), and the commitment that interest will be paid from the date of taking
possession of the land in cash or in kind whenever feasible.
Even though vacating the affected piece of land before compensation was not applicable because
there was no emergency in terms of the Tribal Land Act, interviewed PAPs indicated that they
vacated (made way) the land before compensation to avoid delaying the project commencement.
Furthermore, 21 of the interviewed PAPs indicated that the notice to realign the affected plot
boundaries was inadequate whilst 30 PAPs felt it was adequate. Only 9 PAPs did not know of the
notice. Some of the PAPs were given 5% interest on their compensation amounts because it took
longer than 3 months from date of assessment to actual payout period. Evidence from Roads
Department in the form of Compensation offer letters also shows that PAPs were given an option to
accept monetary compensation or in kind (see Project Affected Person Written Consent Form-
Appendix 3).
Consultations with the land authorities revealed that quite a number of affected ploughing fields did
not have land rights certificates. However, assessment of properties was undertaken after determining
the ownership status of such properties with the assistance of the local chiefs. After compensation,
realignment of boundaries of all affected properties was done resulting in issuance of amended land
rights certificates. Notwithstanding notifications to property owners about availability of certificates,
collection rates of the certificates remained low. The land authorities further embarked on an initiative
to deliver the certificates to respective villages with the hope that uptake would improve but still there
are some that are not collected (see minutes of meeting with Moshupa Sub Land Board-Appendix
6).
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
17
vii. World Bank OP 4.12
The requirements for World Bank OP 4.12 are as follows:
Displaced persons-
Measures should ensure that the displaced persons are:
• Informed about their options and rights pertaining to resettlement
• Consulted on, offered choices among, and provided with technically and economically
feasible resettlement alternatives
• Provided prompt and effective compensation at full replacement cost for loss of assets
attributable directly to the project.
Remedial actions/measures
If the impacts include physical relocation, the World Bank requires that the displaced persons are:
• Provided assistance (such as moving allowances) during relocation
• Provided with residential housing, or housing sites, or as required, agricultural sites for which
a combination of productive potential, locational advantages, and other factors is at least
equivalent to the advantages of the old site
• Offered 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
• Provided with development assistance (such as land preparation, credit facilities, training, or
job opportunities) in addition to compensation measures
Replacement costs
• For agricultural land – it is the pre-project or pre-displacement, whichever is higher, market
value of land of equal productive potential or use located in the vicinity of the affected land,
plus the cost of any registration and transfer taxes.
• 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 with an area and quality similar to or better than those of the 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 registration and transfer taxes.
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
18
Valuation
• Valuation does not take into account depreciation of structures and assets
• For losses that cannot easily be valued or compensated for in monetary terms e.g. access to
public services, customers, and suppliers or to fishing, grazing or forest areas, attempts are
made to establish access to equivalent and culturally acceptable resources and earning
opportunities.
• Where domestic law does not meet the standard of compensation at full replacement cost,
compensation under domestic law is supplemented by additional measures necessary to meet
the replacement cost standard.
Vulnerable groups
• Special attention should be paid to vulnerable groups i.e.
✓ Below poverty datum line
✓ The landless
✓ The elderly
✓ Women and children
✓ Indigenous people
✓ Ethnic minorities
2.2 Definition of PAPs and Eligibility Criteria
2.2.1 Definition of PAPs
In line with the World Bank Safeguard Policy OP 4.12, any person who suffers loss of or damage to
an asset or loss of access to productive resources, as a consequence of the implementation of any of
the road projects under the OPRC would be considered a property affected person (PAP). The likely
impacted/affected parties can be classified into five groups namely:
Individual- an individual who suffers loss of assets or investments, land and property and/or access to
natural and/or economical resources as a result of the project activities and to whom compensation is
due.
Household - a household is affected if one or more of its member’s losses assets or investments, land
and property and/or access to natural and/or economical resources as a result of project activities.
Vulnerable households - includes those below poverty datum line, the landless on communal land,
the elderly, women, children, orphans, those afflicted by HIV/AIDS, and indigenous people. These
groups of people are identified through the socio-economic and baseline study. These groups of
people are normally marginalized and often do not have a voice.
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
19
Identifying them ensures that special attention would be paid to them by identifying their needs and
ensuring that they are not left out in the participatory process of the project activities. Special attention
is paid to monitoring them to ensure that their pre-project livelihood is indeed improved and are given
technical and financial assistance if they wish to make use of the grievance mechanisms of the project.
Host communities - strain on existing infrastructure and services resulting from the increased
population resulting from the resettlers.
Communities - (when common goods such as schools, meeting places, place of worship are affected).
2.2.2 Eligibility Criteria
Any PAP is eligible for compensation and/or resettlement assistance, provided the damage or loss is
caused by the project and satisfies the conditions of the cut-off date. Thus, all project affected persons
irrespective of their status or whether they have formal titles, legal rights or not, squatters (in this
project there are no squatters) or otherwise are eligible for assistance if they occupied the land before
the cut-off date.
In accordance with the World Bank Safeguard Policy OP 4.12, displaced persons may be classified in
one of the following three groups:
a) Those that have formal legal rights to land (including customary and traditional rights
recognized under the laws of the country)
b) 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 plan.
c) Those who have no recognizable legal right or claim to the land they are occupying.
Those covered under a) and b) above are to be provided compensation for the land they lose, and
other assistance in accordance with the World Bank Policy. Persons covered under c) are to be
provided with resettlement assistance if they occupy the project area prior to a cut-off date.
As per the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) the following categories are not eligible for
compensation:
• Improvement carried out after the cut-off-date
• Loss of rights when the use of the land is in conflict with the use for which the land is
zoned
• Loss of improvements when they are in conflict with the land use zoning, unless the
affected person can demonstrate that improvements were carried out with the authority of
the land board or prior to the zoning of the land in question.
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
20
2.3 Description and Results of Public Consultation
The Resettlement Action Plan Reports (Packages 1 and 2), contain information on stakeholder
engagement and public consultations for the road projects. The purpose of the engagement and
consultations were primarily to promote buy in and participation of all involved in the project, to give
all affected by the project opportunities to state their concerns and grievances as well as to find
common resolutions to emerging issues around the project. Internal and external stakeholders were
identified and engaged during the initial stages of the project as well as the ESIA Scoping stage. The
second level was the consultations with communities, PAPs, Government officials, VDCs, and NGOs.
In total 14 villages were identified as communities to be affected by the project. Public meetings were
arranged in identified affected villages as part of the Environment and Social Impact Assessment
exercise. Interviews were arranged with PAPs and focused group discussions were conducted with
poor household and female headed household representing vulnerable groups.
2.3.1 Review of Consultation Process
Stakeholder engagements and public consultations were done as required by law and policies of both
the Republic of Botswana and the World Bank Guidelines. The RAP Reports give a detailed account
of the content of public meetings at all project affected villages (Appendix 3 from the RAP report).
It is evident from the RAP reports that only one round of public meetings was held and this was at the
scoping stage of the ESIA study where amongst others, the project was introduced to the
communities. No further public meetings were held either to appraise the communities on project
progress or give feedback.
Nonetheless, the issues that were identified during consultations as per both the ESIA and RAP
Reports are as follows:
• Employment issues
• HIV/AIDS issues
• Influx of people and crime
• Economic development of the village and recognition
• Ground and surface water impacts
• Corporate social responsibility initiatives
• Borrow pit identification and permitting
• Relocation and compensation
• Air pollution
• Noise pollution
• Collision of vehicles with livestock
• Destruction of archaeological sites
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
21
• Loss of land and/or relocations
• Destruction of property
The issues pertaining to loss of land and/or relocations have been addressed through implementation
of the Resettlement Action Plans for both Packages 1 and 2. Compensations have been accordingly
made for all land and properties that were affected. Issues relating to destruction of property are
mainly related to the construction phase and are therefore being addressed by the contractor. The rest
of the issues have been addressed by the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment study for this
project and the requisite approval has been given by the competent authority.
2.3.2 Consultation with PAPs
Land Acquisition Procedures clearly specify that, once it has been decided to proceed with the project
the compensation assessment committee conducts a physical inspection recording the details of all
improvements to the land and any other fixed assets affected within the zoned area. The inspection
report is the basis upon which compensation is assessed. The assessment committee invites the
various affected occupiers to submit any additional or counter claims for their improvements if they
so wish. Some claimants may engage the services of professionals and should be given time to do so.
The compensation assessment committee then meets to discuss and agree on the appropriate rates of
compensation.
According to the RAP reports (Chapter 11), affected households were interviewed and completed
questionnaires. Once the affected assets were identified, an interview with each household was
conducted in order to know, among other data, the number of people living in the household and the
condition or socio-economic status: Name, Relationship to Household Head, Sex, Age, Education,
Still in School, Current Employment Status, etc. Once plots were identified, consultations with PAPs
were conducted, both at individual and collective level. The method used in individual interviews was
that after meeting with the Chief in each village (who helped to identify the owners), the project team
would have a meeting with each of them, asking for data as per the questionnaire on Table 20 for
Package 1 and Table 21 for Package 2 of the RAP reports.
The survey conducted as part of this study has indicated that a majority of PAPs (43) felt adequately
consulted on the project. This reveals that a significant number of PAPs (14) felt that they have not
been adequately consulted. However, feedback from the project team shows that a total of 4 meetings
were held individually with PAPs. These were during assessment of properties, issuance of
compensation offers letters, collection of responses from PAPs on the offer letters and during the
issuance of cheques. A closer look at the survey data shows that though the PAPs have been
consulted, some detail about the process may either have been unclear or inadequate. When PAPs
were asked about whether or not they were informed about their rights and options, a majority (38)
answered in the negative (see Table 4 below).
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
22
Table 4: Information about Rights and Options
Number of PAPs
% of PAPs
interviewed
Were you informed about your
options and rights pertaining to
compensation and/or resettlement?
No 38 63.3%
Yes 22 36.7%
An even greater number of PAPs (56) answered in the negative when they were asked if they were
informed about the option of engaging valuation professionals to help in determining the value of
their properties (see Table 5 below). The explanation given by the project team in this regard is that
this was communicated to PAPs verbally and further that those not satisfied with the Land Board
valuation were verbally advised to seek third party assistance. These are conflicting views from the
PAPs and the Roads Department and given that the views are verbal, it becomes difficult to ascertain
which view is correct.
Table 5: Awareness to Engage Valuation Professionals
Number of PAPs
% of PAPs
interviewed
Were you made aware of your right
to engage valuation professionals?
No 56 93.3%
Yes 4 6.7%
A similarly high percentage of PAPs (56) answered in the negative when asked if they were allowed
to make a claim for their properties (see Table 6 below). However, there is evidence that PAPs were
given an option in writing to choose between monetary compensation and in kind (see Project
Affected Person Written Consent Form-Appendix 3).
Table 6: Opportunity to Make Claim for Properties
Number of PAPs
% of PAPs
interviewed
Were you given an opportunity to
make a claim for your properties?
No 56 93.3%
Yes 4 6.7%
In conclusion, these responses are an indication that though PAPs were consulted, they were not given
regular updates on the process of compensation. In terms of the consultation process, RD followed a
five staged consultation process which is adequate. There was however a concern amongst some
PAPs who felt that they were asked to move their fences urgently but since then they have not heard
from Roads Department on the commencement date of the project. This is particularly common in
areas where road construction has not yet started.
2.3.3 Plans for Continued Participation of PAPs
The RAPs for both Package 1 and 2 refer to the importance of continuous and regular engagement
between communities, stakeholders and project stakeholders to ensure timeous response to emerging
issues.
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
23
From the review of the RAPs for both Package 1 and Package 2, there is no clearly laid out
framework/plan for continued participation of the PAPs. Our interactions with the PAPs during
survey also revealed that gap as regards their engagements. Consultation took the form of information
dissemination in one-way fashion and it only happened at the initial stages of the project with no
updates on project progress. The PAPs were also informed when their money for compensation was
ready.
3 Outcomes of RAP Implementation
3.1 Project Impacts and Need for Resettlement
The process of acquisition was informed by the Land Acquisition Procedures which states that, In the
event of acquisition of already occupied tribal land, Regulation 15 of the Tribal Land Regulations of
1970 is invoked. The acquiring authority with the assistance of the Land Board, make reasonable
effort to identify and contact all occupiers within the zoned land. If deemed necessary, the Land
Board shall request for a kgotla (community) meeting to advise the people of the scheme and their
rights. The views of the affected communities are documented to ensure that they are taken into
consideration when a decision to implement the project is made. Using an Environmental Impact
Study, DLUPU or the National Steering Committee should give an early recommendation, in
principle, to the Land Board, which then forms the basis of subsequent detailed recommendations.
3.1.1 Census and Survey Results
3.1.1.1 Number Affected
Table 7: Land use and Number of Affected Plots for Package 1
Road Section/Village Land use of the Affected
Plots
Number of the Affected
Plots
AR10-1 AR2 B Lotlhakane West
Ploughing fields 14
Residential Plot 1
Developed Residential Plots 11
Total 26
AR2-5 AR1 Moshana
Ploughing fields 6
Residential plot 1
Total 7
A2-5 AR2 Selokolela
Ploughing fields 2
Total 2
A2-5 AR3 Sesung
Ploughing fields 2
Kgotla compound 1
Total 3
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
24
Road Section/Village Land use of the Affected
Plots
Number of the Affected
Plots
A2-5 AR4 Sese
Ploughing fields 6
Residential 2
Total 8
A total number of 46 properties were affected in Package 1.
Table 8: Land use and Number of Affected Plots for Package 2
Road Section/Village Land use of the Affected Plots Number of the Affected
Plots
B101-1 Rakhuna
Commercial 1
Residential 24
Church1 1
Ploughing field 11
Piggery 1
Total 38
B101-1 Tlhareseleele
Commercial 3
Ploughing field 24
School 1
Church 2
Residential 4
Cemetery2 1
Total 35
B101-2 Tlhareseleele
Residential plot 3
Ploughing field 7
Total 10
B101-2 Pitsane
Residential 13
Ploughing field 2
Commercial 1
Cemetery 1
Total 17
B101-4 Phitshane Molopo Ploughing field 12
Total 12
1 Some churches were avoided
2 Some cemeteries were avoided
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
25
Road Section/Village Land use of the Affected Plots Number of the Affected
Plots
B101-4 Leporung
Ploughing field 6
Residential Plot 16
Tower 1
Total 23
B101-4 Dikhukhung Ploughing field 3
Total 3
B101-4 Mmakgori
Residential 5
Ploughing field 1
Total 6
B101-4 Tshidilamolomo
Ploughing field 16
Residential 2
Cattle crush 1
Total 19
B101-4 Mabule
Ploughing field 4
Residential 5
School 1
Horticultural plot 1
Total 11
A total of 174 properties were affected in Package 2.
3.1.1.2 Impacts Experienced
The World Bank OP 4.12 and Botswana Compensation Guidelines encourage avoidance of
resettlement, and in cases where displacement or resettlement is inevitable, compensation should
amount to full replacement. In accordance with these instruments, the Department of Roads ensured
that no family dwelling, ploughing field or any other property was relocated.
This was achieved through road realignment that was mainly meant to reduce intensity of impacts.
From the field surveys, it is evident that the main impacts experienced included taking narrow strips
of land from either residential plots or ploughing fields. In the process, no serious impacts were
experienced in relation to destruction of property save for fences and toilets (Pit latrines). Even
though cracking of houses due to road construction works were also highlighted as noticeable
impacts, this does not belong to the RAP implementation phase. Other associated impacts, mainly
environmental in nature, are well articulated in the Environment and Social Impact Assessment
(ESIA) report.
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
26
Furthermore, the ESIA report identified archaeological impacts. The mitigation of the identified
archaeological impacts is also articulated in the RAP reports for both Packages 1 and 2 as well as the
ESIA. Both the ESIA and the Archaeological Impact Assessment Reports have been accordingly
cleared by the competent authorities.
From the Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) reports for both Packages 1 and 2, 38
archaeological sites and 5 sites of social significance were revealed within the road reserve of Package
1. These sites included abandoned cattle posts and kraals, Early Iron age, Late Iron Age, Early Stone
Age, Middle Iron Age, historical cattle posts, fields and villages, Iron smelting dump, Middle Stone
Age and Probable grave. In Package 2, 6 archaeological sites and 33 sites of social significance were
identified within the road reserve. These included abandoned cattle posts and kraals, cemeteries,
abandoned houses, Middle Stone Age and historical buildings. Some of the surface artefacts identified
for both packages included ceramics, bone fragments, burned hut rubbles, pieces of glass and metals.
The ESIA reports recommended that for all the sites, an archaeological induction of the contractor
staff should be done and it was recommended that a watch brief and monitoring program be
implemented during construction due to possible occurrence of unidentified graves in the kraals and
houses. The archaeological sites which required mitigation were identified and their specific
mitigation measures for each site are documented in accordance with DNMM mitigation requirement
in the AIA reports. Some of the mitigation measures included systematic sampling of the artefacts,
test excavations to salvage a representative sample of the material record and investigation of dating
possibilities.
The affected sites for Package 1 are as outlined in Table 9 and Table 10.
Table 9: Affected Archaeological Sites for Package 1
Type of Archaeological Sites Number of Affected Sites
Late Iron Age 18
Early Iron Age 1
Middle Iron Age 4
Early Stone Age 4
Middle Stone Age 2
Historical Village 3
Historical Fields 1
Historical Settlement 3
Historical Cattle Post 1
Iron Smelting dump 1
Total 38
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
27
Table 10: Affected Sites of Social Significance for Package 1
Sites of Social Significance Number of Affected Sites
Abandoned cattle post 2
Abandoned kraal 1
Probable grave 1
Traditional kraal and Kgotla 1
Total 5
The affected sites for Package 2 are as outlined in Table 11 and Table 12.
Table 11: Affected Archaeological Sites for Package 2
Type of Archaeological Sites Number of Affected Sites
Middle Stone Age 4
Historical buildings 2
Total 6
Table 12: Affected Sites of Social Significance
Sites of Social Significance Number of Affected Sites
Cemeteries 12
Abandoned cattle kraal 6
Abandoned watering well 1
Abandoned house 12
Grave & Abandoned cattle post 1
Abandoned cattle post 1
Total 33
3.1.1.3 Adjustments made during Implementation and Justification
The World Bank Operational Guidelines emphasize the need to avoid resettlement and relocation. The
feedback from the RAP team and team of engineers showed that the initial road alignment for both
Package 1 and Package 2 was going to directly affect many properties with long term impacts of
resettlement. Realignment was therefore justified to eliminate and minimise the impact of the road.
The road realignment decision was in accordance with the requirements of World Bank OP 4.12
guidelines. This was achieved through the following as outlined in the report:
1. Phase 1: Prior field tours along the initial layout to:
• Evaluate the degree of impact.
• Identify areas of greatest impact and hot spots.
2. Phase 2: Identify each property affected by the original layout using a GIS tool.
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
28
3. Phase 3: Give recommendations to the engineers on how to avoid singular impacts and
improve the alignment in Package 1 and layout of bypasses in the Phitshane Molopo to
Mabule section.
4. Phase 4: Establish criteria for the OPRC packages 1 and 2 project with respect to the road
reserve and the cleared strip in accordance with the BRDM and identify built-up areas.
5. Phase 5: Field work and surveys on affected property once the layout has been improved.
6. Phase 6: Identify, evaluate and establish compensations on all property definitely
affected.
Figure 3: Road alignment in Selokolela
Initial alignment in green-white colour, final re-alignment to avoid impacts to two houses.
Figure 4: Road alignment in Sese
Initial alignment in orange-white colour, final re-alignment to avoid impacts to several houses.
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
29
Figure 5: Road alignment in Mmakgori
Current road in white colour, initial alignment in red, final re-alignment to avoid impacts on
households in green
Figure 6: Road alignment in Tlhareseleele
Current road in white colour, initial alignment in red, final re-alignment to avoid impacts to the
Primary school in green.
Figure 7: Road alignment in Rakhuna
Current road in white colours, initial alignment in red, final re-alignment to avoid impacts in green.
The addenda to the RAP reports reveal that during the works done on site for the initial project phase,
some of the affected properties were undetected due to the absence of any indication of plot
ownership or occupancy, drawing or marker posts on site. In some cases, owners of such properties
did not present themselves at RAP kgotla meetings or at PAPs consultation meetings.
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
30
After finalization of the main RAP reports, some additional affected properties were identified when
PAPs associated with these properties came to present themselves during the compensation exercise.
The addenda to the RAP reports indicates the following status with respect to realignment of roads
and identification of additional PAPs:
Table 13: Status of PAPs with respect to road realignment
Packages Original number of
affected properties
from RAP reports
Additional number of
affected properties
from the addenda
Total number of
affected properties
Number of
PAPs
compensated
Package 1 32 16 48 46
Package 2 127 65 192 174
3.2 Compensation and Remedial Measures
It ought to be noted that the World Bank Guidelines emphasize the need to avoid resettlement in
projects in which it is involved. As much as is feasible, designs should avoid moving people to give
way to projects. In this particular project, displacement was avoided. Evidence from the review of
records and ground truthing revealed that narrow strips of land were excised in respect of the affected
properties. This then would mean reducing the plot or land size as well as re-fencing of the newly
demarcated land area.
Interviews with the land authorities, PAPs, members of the grievance committees and chiefs did not
reveal any aggrieved person on account of not having been identified as a PAP. The RAP reports also
do not mention any person whose property may have been affected but excluded from the list of
PAPs. Thus, it can be concluded that all eligible PAPs were identified. The PAPs were categorised
taking into consideration the following:
a) Those that have formal legal rights to land (including customary and traditional rights recognized
under the laws of the country)
b) 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 plan.
c) Those who have no recognizable legal right or claim to the land they are occupying.
All compensations have been made. However, there are instances where owners of affected properties
could not be identified, thus not being issued with their compensation amount despite the assessment
and valuation having been done. There are 3 such cases; 2 at Rakhuna and 1 at Mmakgori.
The survey results indicate that 51 PAPs consider the compensation inadequate, only 7 PAPs consider
it to be adequate. Furthermore, some of the PAPs (2) were not sure of whether the compensation was
adequate or not as shown in Figure 8 below.
The PAPs generally felt that the compensation given to them was not commensurate with the land
taken from them. They stated that they accepted compensation for three reasons i) that they did not
want to be an obstacle to development ii) they were persuaded to accept compensation because the
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
31
land was not theirs but were holding it in trust for the Government and iii) that even if they contested
the compensation, the Government would always prevail over them.
Figure 8: Adequacy of Compensation
Notwithstanding the views of the PAPs above, the valuation reports indicate that compensation
considered all elements outlined in the compensation guidelines. This is despite the guidelines having
been reviewed as far back as 2010. This disparity was compensated for by application of current rates
where applicable as affirmed by the competent authority (Department of Lands) and the Land
authorities (see minutes of consultations with these authorities-Appendix 6).
Regarding timely payment to PAPs, the schedule of works as outlined in the RAP reports shows that
assessment and inventory of affected properties was supposed to have been completed by the 31st
October 2015 (Executive summary of RAP report). However, this was not achieved as the last
assessments were done as late as 2017. There is also evidence that it took more than the stipulated 3
months period between actual assessment date and payment of compensation. Some of the PAPs had
their compensations adjusted upwards by 5% which shows that there was a delay as provided for
under the 2010 compensation guidelines.
3.2.1 Adequacy of Remedial Measures
As per the World Bank OP 4.12, if the impacts include physical relocation, it is required that the
displaced persons are:
• Provided assistance (such as moving allowances) during relocation
• Provided with residential housing, or housing sites, or as required, agricultural sites for which
a combination of productive potential, locational advantages, and other factors is at least
equivalent to the advantages of the old site
• Offered 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
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
32
• Provided with development assistance (such as land preparation, credit facilities, training, or
job opportunities) in addition to compensation measures
In the RAP implementation for both Packages 1 and 2, there was no physical relocation. Thus, in
terms of remedial measures as outlined by the World Bank guidelines, the above remedial actions
were generally not applicable. Since the impacts involved mainly acquiring of narrow strips of land,
relocation of fences, transport assistance was extended to the PAPs to assist them in transporting
materials. Transport assistance was further availed to PAPs whenever required. As most affected plots
had no land rights certificates, Roads Department project team assisted them to apply for and acquire
land rights certificates. The remedial measures extended to PAPs are therefore considered adequate
given that the impacts experienced were minimal to warrant any additional assistance over and above
the compensation as per the compensation guidelines. The interviews with PAPs revealed majority of
PAPs were compensated with money and efforts to acquire additional pieces of land to make up for
the lost part were generally honored save where there was no available land in proximity to affected
properties.
3.2.2 Cut-off Date versus Compensation
Eligibility criteria for entitlements stipulate that, all affected parties and assets are eligible for
compensation, except the following categories:
• Improvement carried out after the cut-off-date
• Loss of rights when the use of the land is in conflict with the use for which the land is
zoned
• Loss of improvements when they are in conflict with the land use zoning, unless the affected
person can demonstrate that improvements were carried out with the authority of the land
board or prior to the zoning of the land in question.
Documentation from the land authorities indicates that PAPs were given cut-off date that was tied to
assessment date of the property (See Form I-Notice to Treat-Appendix 5). This date varied from
PAP to PAP. After this date PAPs were not allowed to effect any development or improvement on
their property.
Discussions with both land authorities and PAPs did not reveal incidences of any
development/improvement carried out after the cut-off date. The survey did not yield anything in
relation to loss of rights when the use of the land is in conflict with the use for which the land is
zoned. Similarly, there were no cases of loss of improvements due to conflicting land uses. The
compensation guidelines stipulate a period of 3 months from assessment within which payment of
compensation should have been effected. There is evidence that it took more than the stipulated 3
months period between actual assessment date and payment of compensation. To compensate for the
delay, the compensation guidelines makes provision for 5% upward adjustment to the compensation
amount. From the review of valuation reports, there is evidence that compensation for some of the
PAPs was adjusted upwards by 5%.
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
33
3.3 Has RAP Implementation Accounted for Actual Livelihood Impact
As per the World Bank OP 4.12, livelihood impacts in resettlement or relocation include among
others loss of access to the different public services such as schools, health facilities, sewage lines,
water reticulation points, loss of access to markets, loss of access to suppliers or even loss of access to
support networks. In the case of these road projects, there was no displacement or resettlement and
what that meant is that there were no significant livelihood impacts occasioned by the RAP
implementation.
3.3.1 Socio-economic conditions of PAPs before RAP implementation
3.3.1.1 Livelihood structures
Means of livelihood within the study area was defined by farming and non-farming activities
including small scale and large scale mechanized commercial farming operations as well as
subsistence farming. The mixture of farming households in the area was reflected in the range of
farming practices and strategies that farmers undertook. Farmers ploughed with both donkeys and
tractors and the principal crops grown were maize and sorghum with some beans and melons grown
by the smaller farmers. However, most households did not rely solely on farming for household
income. The semi subsistence farmers tended to supplement their income through piece work,
remittances and social welfare programmes while the more commercial oriented often have small
businesses in the settlement. Although this is a highly agrarian society it was observed that farmers in
the settlements have not ploughed for several years mainly because of lack of rain. It was also
observed among the small-scale farmers that farming is no longer paying and does not provide a
living.
The livelihood structures amongst the communities along the road network are such that there are no
substantial differences between households in respect of access to land and livestock, to wage
incomes and remittances, and to welfare payments. From the survey, two categories of households
were identifiable ranging from those with moderate income to those with no regular source of income.
The various sources of household incomes before the project are shown in Table 14. The table shows
that for 2002/03 cash earnings from employment accounted for most of household incomes. Cash
earnings contributed the highest amount to gross income, followed by gifts received and own produce
consumed. Overall, the gross income before the project in rural areas stood at P1 481.30. From the
surveys, the modal household income is in the range P100-P2 500 with the least being in the range
P2501-P5000 (Table 15). Generally, it is evident that the impacts from RAP implementation were not
significant to result in any changes to the household incomes as household income prior and after
RAP implementation fall within the same income range.
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
34
Table 14: Main Sources of households'monthly income
Sources of Income (Pula) Rural Areas (2002/03)
Business profits 114.50
Cash earnings 650.40
Unearned cash income 132.50
Own produce consumed 162.10
Wages in kind 44.50
Gifts received 296.90
Aid 39.50
School meals 40.90
Gross income 1481.30
Source: CSO, 2004 household income and expenditure survey 2002/03
Table 15: Monthly household income in the study area, 2018
Household Income Bracket Frequency Percent
None 5 8.3
100-1000 Pula 36 60.0
1001-2500 Pula 10 16.7
2501-5000 Pula 2 3.3
5001-10000 Pula 3 5.0
Above 10000 Pula 3 5.0
Total 59 98.3
Missing Missing 1 1.7
Total 60 100.0
3.3.1.2 Patterns of social interaction, community organisation and social networks
Cooperation was discernible in these communities through pulling together of draught power where
donkeys were used, when farmers could not afford mechanised farming. Battering was also common
in the communities where livestock and farm harvests could be used as a mode of exchange. In terms
of conflicts resolution, mediation was done through the kgotla system where the parties would be
persuaded to reach a compromise for the sake of resolving the conflict.
Community organisation was evident through community mobilisation during both the social and
public events. In the case of these communities it is not multiplicity of institutions, interest groups or
set of activities which embodies community organisation. But the factors like interaction, integration
and coordinating of existing institutions (VDCs, Farmers committees, Bogosi), if necessary, to meet
the changing conditions and the needs of the community.
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
35
The social networks within these communities were found to be still intact with serious support
systems. The network consists of mainly the formal organisation structure i.e. family and extended
family system that is bound together by the same identity, values and customs. The network was
found again to have informal organisational structure broader than the family and largely defined by
social interaction and social communication.
3.3.2 Socio-economic conditions of PAPs after RAP implementation
The nature of impacts experienced did not in any way alter the livelihood structure, as there were no
substantial differences introduced in terms of access to land, livestock or sources of income. There
was no alteration in terms of patterns of social interactions as there was no loss of sense of the
community and the way they do things. The community continues to works together in terms of
conflict resolutions using the existing structures. The project did not introduce any variation to
community organization in terms of mobilization or planning thus, the community remains highly
organized. Given that there were no resettlements, there was no impacts on the social networks hence
both the formal and informal organizational structure remains unbroken.
Furthermore, the RAP implementation did not have any livelihood impacts as there was no loss of
access to different public services such as schools, health facilities, sewage lines, water reticulation
points, loss of access to markets, loss of access to suppliers or even support networks.
The Figure 9 below drawn from the survey data bears testimony to the above.
1 2
9
59 59 59 59 58 59 59 59 59 59 57
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Yes No
Figure 9: Livelihood Impacts of RAP
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
36
3.3.3 Impact of the Project on the Poor and Vulnerable Groups
World Bank Safeguard Policy OP 4.12 specifies that vulnerable groups includes those below poverty
datum line, the landless on communal land, the elderly, women, children, orphans, those afflicted by
HIV/AIDS, and indigenous people. These groups of people are identified through the socio-economic
and baseline study. These groups of people are normally marginalized and often do not have a voice.
Identifying them ensures that special attention would be paid to them by identifying their needs and
ensuring that they are not left out in the participatory process of the project activities. Special attention
is paid to monitoring them to ensure that their pre-project livelihood is indeed improved and are given
technical and financial assistance if they wish to make use of the grievance mechanisms of the project.
The World Bank makes special mention of the vulnerable and the need to put in place special
measures for them in terms of resettlement compensation.
The Resettlement Plan Report alludes to consultations with vulnerable groups, particularly the report
refers to the focused group discussions with poor households and female headed households. The
survey also engaged with the poor and vulnerable groups as discussed below.
The direct impact of the project on the poor and vulnerable has been evaluated focusing on marital
status, gender, age, level of income, disability and household head. Out of the PAPs who are over 65
years of age, 7 are males and 12 are females. In terms of marital status, 12 of the widowed PAPs are
females and 5 are males. In terms of household headship and source of income, the PAPs that do not
have a source of income (3 PAPs), those that depend on Government grant (2 PAPs) and those that
are formally employed (7 PAPs) are all household heads. For the 3 PAPs that depend on Ipelegeng, 2
are household heads while out of the 16 PAPs that depend on pension, 14 are household heads.
With regard to dependency on remittances, out of a total of 7 PAPs that depend on remittances, 3 are
household heads while amongst the 20 PAPs that depend on farming as a source of income, 15 of
them are household heads and 5 are not household heads, as shown in Figure 10.
Figure 10: Household Headship and Source of Income
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
37
In terms of registration in Government welfare programmes, a total of nine PAPs indicated that they
are currently assisted through welfare programmes as follows; 3 in LIMID, 2 in Poverty Eradication,
3 in destitution programme and 1 in old age pension food ration. When cross tabulating the PAPs who
are registered under government welfare programmes and their family members who are also
registered under government programmes, 1 PAP who is registered under LIMID is residing with 1
family member who is also registered under LIMID, another PAP who is registered under Poverty
eradication programme is residing with a family member who is also registered under Poverty
eradication programme. Furthermore, 1 PAP who is a destitute is residing with a family member who
is disabled and assisted through disability cash allowance.
Even though the survey has identified that within the PAPs, there are vulnerable groups, the impacts
of the RAP implementation are insignificant to warrant any special treatment/ additional assistance for
these groups. The study has revealed that none of the vulnerable groups has been displaced or their
source of income affected.
3.4 Grievance and Redress Mechanism
3.4.1 Grievance Handling Processes
As part of the grievance handling mechanism, Grievance Committees were established in all affected
communities and/or villages. The mandate of such committees was to receive grievances from
affected persons and work with the relevant authorities to resolve such grievances. In all Packages 1
and 2 places covered by this exercise, Grievance Committees were selected at the Kgotla meetings at
the commencement of the consultation process for the project.
The expectation was that all grievances would be directed to these committees before they are
escalated to any other level. The committees were to work in close collaboration with the Roads
Department with the latter offering technical or other support to the committees as may be necessary.
It has emerged from the consultations with the Grievance Committees that all but one (Mabule)
committee never carried out the mandate for which they were elected. A majority of these committees
have not held a single meeting and they have never received a single grievance to deal with. The
Committee members indicated that their failure to meet was largely on account that the Roads
Department did not convene a meeting to explain their role/s. Their expectation was that once they
were elected, the Roads Department will meet with them and clarify their roles. When that did not
happen, they felt abandoned and never met. In actual fact Grievance Committee members in a
majority of areas consistently indicated that the grievances of affected persons were handled by the
chiefs. It then became critical that the chiefs be interviewed to find out how they handled grievances
of affected persons.
A discernible pattern emerged during this survey that the chiefs played a prominent role in handling
grievances of affected persons. The chiefs were mostly aware of the Grievance Committees but stated
that the committees never functioned. The Chiefs did not refer affected persons to the committees
whenever such cases were brought before them. Part of the reason the chiefs did not refer the
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
38
grievances to the Grievance Committees was that they considered it their role as Chiefs to deal with
disputes, grievances and complaints coming from their communities.
In addressing grievances from affected persons, the chiefs used a variety of strategies depending on
the nature of the grievance. The common way of addressing grievances by the Chiefs was that of
persuading PAPs to accept compensation to facilitate the speedy roll out of development projects. In
this way PAPs will drop their grievances to avoid being viewed as obstacles to progress and
development in the village or community.
3.4.2 Alternative Grievance Handling Mechanisms
In the absence of functional grievance committees, the PAPs who had grievances pursued them
through other mechanisms such as Kgosi, Councillor, District Commissioner, Land Board, Roads
Department and Department of Lands. Out of the 47 grievances, 18 were not lodged and 29 were
lodged as follows:
• District Commissioner 2 (5%)
• Councillor 2 (5%)
• Grievance committee 2 (5%)
• Chief 4 (10%)
• Department of Roads 8 (21%)
• Land Board 9 (23%)
• Department of Lands 2 (5%)
Figure 11: Alternative Grievance Handling Mechanisms
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
39
It was revealed during the interviews that some of the grievances were resolved to the satisfaction of
the PAPs who lodged them. Those that were not resolved were the ones abandoned by the concerned
PAPs.
3.4.3 The Nature of Grievances
Affected persons had a number of grievances. Some of the common grievances included:
1) Alteration or variation of initial compensation amounts: The affected persons complained that
the initial amounts they signed for as compensation for taking narrow strips of their ploughing
field was reduced. The revised compensation amounts were considered too little and the
affected PAPs indicated that variation was a breach of the initial agreement. Roads
Department has acknowledged that indeed this occurred and explained that there was a typo-
graphical error which led to miscalculations (Question 16 on the Questionnaire for project
team-Appendix 7).
2) Inadequate compensation amounts: The Chiefs interviewed indicated that people were
generally unhappy with the low compensation amounts but the chiefs persuaded them to
receive the money as what is important is not compensation but the developments that will
come to their communities
3) Disputes over ownership of affected land: These are cases where community members clash
over the ownership of affected areas. In these cases, the Land Board and the Chiefs worked
together to resolve the grievances.
Table 16 below summarizes the nature of grievances and how they were addressed.
Table 16: Summary of grievances and how they were addressed
Nature of Grievances How the Grievances were
addressed
Comment on how the
Grievances were addressed
Alteration or variation of
initial compensation amounts
PAPs were addressed by Land
Board at the Kgotla. Minister
also addressed the concerned
PAPs. Counselling provided to
the aggrieved PAPs.
The resolution of the matter
was adequate given that Roads
Department has acknowledged
that indeed this occurred and
explained that there was a
typo-graphical error which led
to miscalculations.
Inadequate Compensation
amounts
Persuasion to receive the
money by chiefs.
In terms of the Compensation
guidelines, the compensations
amounts were adequate.
Disputes over ownership of
affected land
The Land Board and the
Chiefs worked together to
The grievance was adequately
addressed as there are no
pending disputes over affected
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
40
Nature of Grievances How the Grievances were
addressed
Comment on how the
Grievances were addressed
resolve the grievances. pieces of land. The types of
grievances that were to be
addressed by the grievance
committees were never
outlined. It is therefore
difficult to say whether the
grievances channeled to
Dikgosi were in line with the
mandate of dikgosi or
grievance committee.
3.5 RAP Implementation
3.5.1 Adequacy of RAP Implementation Budget
The RAP implementation budget as regards compensation of the PAP was as follows;
Table 17: Adequacy of Budget for Package 1
Year Budget Expenditure (BWP) Expenditure (US$) Comment on adequacy
2015/16
P1 800 976.60
- -
Surplus
2016/17 581 618.00 55 013.03
2017/18 45 145.00 4 371.60
Total P1 800 976.60 626 763.00 59 384.62
Table 18: Adequacy of Budget for Package 2
Year Budget Expenditure (BWP) Expenditure (US$) Comment on adequacy
2015/16
P1 916 102.19
- -
Surplus 2016/17 470 124.73 44 522.18
2017/18 649 293.65 62 795.68
Total P1 916 102.19 1 119 418.38 107 317.86
The budget was adequate with a surplus for both Package 1 and 2 for the years 2015/16, 2016/17 and
2017/18 as reflected by Tables 17 and 18. The source of funding was Government of Botswana.
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
41
3.5.2 Schedule, Monitoring and Responsibility of Tasks
3.5.2.1 Schedule and Responsibilities
The RAP reports contain the Schedule, Monitoring and Responsibility of Tasks as follows;
Table 19: Schedule of Tasks
Major Activities
Period Period Period
Quarter Quarter Quarter
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Assessment and evaluation of
Compensation
X X
Formation & strengthening of
project implementation &
redress committees
X X
Education and awareness
Creation about RAP procedures
and compensation payment
X X
Stakeholder Consultation X X X X
Approval and payment for
compensation for both
permanent & temporary
properties as well as
supplemental assistance
X X X X X
Grievance redress measures X X X X X X X X
Monitoring and Evaluation X X X X X X X
Completion Report writing X
The schedule above indicates the tasks/activities and the expected duration. Comments and
observations for the schedule are as follows;
Table 20: Comments and Observations for Adherence to Schedule
Activities Comments and Observations
Assessment and evaluation of Compensation This activity was undertaken timely and
successfully.
Formation & strengthening of project
implementation & redress committees
The grievance committees were set up
accordingly as per the legal requirements.
However, there is no evidence to suggest any
strengthening of the committees for project
implementation.
Education and awareness Creation about RAP
procedures and compensation payment
There is no evidence to demonstrate that PAPs
and affected communities were educated on RAP
procedures and compensation payment.
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
42
Activities Comments and Observations
Stakeholder Consultation
The stakeholder consultation procedures were in
place but it would appear that consultations were
partially done as the PAPs claimed that they were
not made aware of critical elements of the
compensation exercise such as their rights and
options.
Approval and payment for compensation for both
permanent & temporary properties as well as
supplemental assistance
Compensations adequately executed but no
supplemental assistance as no physical
displacement was occasioned.
Grievance redress measures
The time allocation for this was good but there is
no proof that any committee was ever convened
to address grievances. The committees were
never functional.
Monitoring and Evaluation See section 3.5.2.2 below
Completion Report writing See section 3.5.2.2 below
3.5.2.2 Monitoring and responsibilities
According to the Resettlement Action Plan, and in line with the World Bank’s OP 4.12 and the
MOT’s 2006 RPF, implementation of RAP activities was to be monitored regularly to ensure those
actions proceeded in accordance with provisions in the RAP.
The Roads Department was responsible for the internal monitoring of the day to day implementation
of the RAP. External monitoring was to be carried out periodically by the Works Department and the
DEA. Furthermore, external consultants or NGOs would be hired to evaluate and review the
implementation.
From our interactions with the Department of Roads officials both in Gaborone and Kanye and the
PAPs, it is evident that Department of Roads did carry out internal monitoring while Works
Department and DEA carried out the periodic external monitoring. The RAP further required that a
consultant be hired to evaluate and review the implementation. The current exercise (Preparation of
RAP implementation Completion Report done by individual consultant) thus satisfies this
requirement.
3.6 Institutional Arrangements
3.6.1 Capacity of Implementing Agency
The Resettlement Action Plan Reports (Package 1 and 2) outline the institutions involved in the
project. They are Ministry of Transport and Communications, Ministry of Land Management, Water
and Sanitation Services, Department of Roads, Department of Lands, Department of Environmental
Affairs, Land Board, Land Tribunal and Compensation Assessment Committee. The Roads
Department is the principal implementing agency responsible for the overall coordination and
delivery of the project. The other critical institutions that support the Roads Department are the
Department of Lands, Land Board and Compensation Assessment Committee. These three above
mentioned institutions are responsible for land matters as they relate to the project. The Land Board in
particular is responsible for acquisition, transfer and change of land use as it relates to the project.
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
43
The Department of Lands works in conjunction with the Land Board and Compensation Assessment
Committee to award compensation as is necessary as per the Compensation Guidelines. The non-
revision of the Compensation Guidelines may point to institutional tardiness on the part of the
Department of Lands.
The assessment committee is of the view that they were made to work under tight schedule because of
insufficient project planning by Roads Department. This could have resulted in miscalculation of
compensation amounts which was raised by PAPs as one of the major concerns of RAP
implementation. There is also evidence to suggest that the institutional capacity on the part of Roads
Department to implement the RAP was inadequate as there are indications of lack of follow up action
as demonstrated by Grievance Committees which were non- functional.
3.6.2 Personnel for Delivering Entitlements
The delivery of entitlements was undertaken by Roads Department. On the positive side it is
commendable that they have compensated all the PAPs. However, discussions with PAPs indicated
that there were delays as regards payments to some PAPs who were paid very late. Indeed, some
payments were adjusted upwards by 5% which shows that they were paid outside stipulated 3 months
period.
3.6.3 Plans to Build Institutional Capacity
Our discussion with Roads Department has indicated that there are currently no plans to capacitate the
department in so far as implementation of RAP is concerned. Currently the department uses engineers
as jack of all trades resulting in inadequacy in terms of numerical strength and skills. It is clear that
the department has to either employ social scientists or outsource the work to relevant consultants
with expertise in dealing with psycho-social, socio economic and livelihoods impacts.
3.7 Constraints, Issues and Delays encountered during the RAP
Implementation
The following were experienced by the project team during implementation of the RAP:
Table 21: Constraints, Issues and delays encountered during RAP Implementation
Constraints, Issues and Delays Measures put in place
Absentee PAPs (some residing in South Africa) Scheduling meetings at weekends, month ends
and public holidays as these were the only times
such people could avail themselves.
Uncooperative PAPs Persuasion and revisits
Rejection of offers by PAPs Held meetings with the PAPs in the presence of
village leadership
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
44
Constraints, Issues and Delays Measures put in place
Feud over inheritance of affected property by
siblings
Asked for assistance from family elders, chiefs
and District Commissioner
Land rights without certificates PAPs were assisted by Roads Department and
Land Board to apply and acquire land rights
certificates
Difficulty in bringing together siblings who co-
owned affected property for purposes of consent.
Coordinated effort
Dispute over land ownership Resolved with the assistance of village chiefs and
Land Board
4 Mitigation Plan for Identified Gaps
The impact that arose as a result of the RAP implementation was mainly annexation of narrow strips
of land from affected properties. As the portions of land excised were minimal to warrant any
resettlement, it was therefore necessary that plot boundaries be realigned hence the need for amended
certificates. Table 22 depicts low collection rate of amended land rights certificates as the main gap of
RAP implementation. It is thus, a requirement for the Land Board and Roads Department to expedite
production and issuance of the remaining land rights certificates. This will enable the PAPs to benefit
from government assistance programmes such as Integrated Support Programme for Arable
Agricultural Development (ISPAAD) as well as installation of any infrastructure in the yard.
Table 22: Mitigation Plan for Identified Gaps
Gap Mitigation
Objective
Mitigation/Enhancement
measure/ action
Resources
Required
Responsibility Time
frame
Low
collection
rate of
amended
land rights
certificates
To ensure all
PAPs are issued
with amended
certificates
Deliver certificates (plot to
plot) to respective villages.
Publicise meetings about
availability of amended
certificates
Personnel
Funds
Land Board
and Roads
Department
6 months
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
45
5 Conclusions
5.1 Study Limitations and Challenges
The following are the challenges encountered during assessment and preparation of the completion
report:
• Data collection took more time than was budgeted resulting in extended study schedule. This
was as a result of absenteeism of the PAPs despite prior arrangements.
• Failure by PAPs to recall certain information about the project and process undertaken due to
the length of time that the entire RAP implementation took.
• The study duration was inadequate given amount of assessments required and the wide
expanse of the project area to be traversed, number of documents to be reviewed and people
to be consulted.
• PAPs could not make a distinction between RAP and its implementation and the actual road
construction as they tended to confuse the impacts of road construction with the impacts of
RAP implementation.
• In certain instances, there was no documented proof that certain regulatory requirements
have been adhered to. Hence, the study had to rely on word of mouth from both the PAPs and
the Project team at times giving contradictory account of what transpired. For instance,
responses to question on the rights of PAPs to engage valuation professionals elicited
different responses from PAPs and project team. In this instance, PAPs generally indicated
that they were not informed of their rights whilst the project team responded that PAPs were
verbally informed of this right.
5.2 Overall assessment of Completion of Implementation
5.2.1 Adequacy of Remedial Measures
Remedial measures as defined by the World Bank are mainly targeted to physical relocation and
outlined as follows:
• Provided assistance (such as moving allowances) during relocation
• Provided with residential housing, or housing sites, or as required, agricultural sites for which
a combination of productive potential, locational advantages, and other factors is at least
equivalent to the advantages of the old site
• Offered 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
• Provided with development assistance (such as land preparation, credit facilities, training, or
job opportunities) in addition to compensation measures
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
46
Since the impacts involved mainly acquiring of narrow strips of land from the residential plots and
ploughing fields and relocation of fences, the above remedial actions were generally not applicable.
That notwithstanding, transport assistance was extended to PAPs whenever appropriately required.
The PAPs who did not have land rights certificates were also assisted to apply for and acquire such
certificates. The remedial measures extended to PAPs are therefore considered adequate given that the
impacts experienced were minimal to warrant any additional assistance over and above the monetary
compensation.
5.2.2 Adequacy of Compensation
The compensation measures extended to the PAPs are considered adequate, notwithstanding the views
of the PAPs who deemed them inadequate. Despite the guidelines having been reviewed as far back as
2010, inflationary adjustments were made to make up for this time lag. Compensation considered all
elements outlined in the compensation guidelines. Current rates were used where applicable as
affirmed by the competent authority (Department of Lands) and the land authorities (Land Boards). In
cases where there were delays in making compensations (where the stipulated 3 months period was
exceeded), compensations were adjusted upwards by 5% as necessary.
5.2.3 Inclusion of Communities and PAPs in the Process
Consultation meetings were held with PAPs at different stages of the process. Despite these
commendable efforts, it appears that some detail about the process may either have been unclear or
inadequate. This could possibly explain why a significant number of interviewed PAPs strongly
believed that consultations were inadequate especially with regards to their rights and options in the
compensation assessment process. Despite the seemingly disparate positions by PAPs on one hand
and Roads Department on the other regarding disclosure of full details of the process to the PAPs, it
can reasonably be concluded that overall, communities and PAPs were meaningfully taken on board
in the whole process.
5.2.4 Access to Grievance Redress Mechanism
Grievance committees were publicly constituted in the respective villages. The expectation was that
aggrieved PAPs would forward grievances related to RAP implementation to these committees for
resolution and redress. The assumption was that Roads Department would have outlined the mandate
of the committee and procedures for grievance handling to both PAPs and the grievance committee
members. However, this was not done and as a result, PAPs forwarded their grievances to village
leadership for resolution. The main grievance emanated from perceived low compensation and lack of
transparency in the process. Even though PAPs were persuaded to accept compensation, they still
remained aggrieved.
5.2.5 Adequacy of Institutional Arrangements and Procedures
The execution of the RAP assignment took longer than originally scheduled because of
implementation bottlenecks. However, the implementing agency (Roads Department) in conjunction
with relevant institutions managed to complete the exercise without much hiccups. This could be
partly attributed to well laid out procedures and processes. Nevertheless, the process encountered a
few setbacks which had a negative effect on the overall appraisal of project delivery. This included
non-revision of the Compensation Guidelines, insufficient project planning which could be
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
47
responsible for miscalculation of compensation amounts and delayed payment of compensations.
Furthermore, failure by grievance committees to be functional points to insufficient institutional
capacity to effect follow up action. On the whole, whilst the procedures and processes are clearly laid
out and fairly adequate, the institutional arrangements need to be capacitated.
5.2.6 Issuance of amended certificates
Consultations with the respective Land Boards have indicated that they will need at least 3 months for
preparation of the outstanding land rights certificates. Another 3 months will be required for issuance
of the amended certificates. Given that collection of finalized certificates has proven to be a challenge,
it will now be incumbent upon the project team that once the certificates are ready, the issuance to
PAPs is achieved within 3 months to finalise the entire RAP implementation process. The status
regarding issuance of amended certificates and the proposed plan for completion is as per Table 23.
Table 23: Status of Amended Certificates
Section
Total
number of
certificates
required
Certificates
done
Certificates
collected
Certificates
not
collected
Certificates
pending
compilation
(Land
Board)
Time required for
preparation of
certificates
Time required for
issuance of
certificates
Rakhuna-
Tlhareseleele-
Pitsane
Section 1&2 104 55 47 8 49
Jan-March 2019
3 months
April-June 2019
3 months
Phitshane
Molopo-
Mabule
Section 4 75 33 21 12 42 3 months 3 months Lotlhakane
West-Sese
Package 1 46 13 13 0 33 3 months 3 months
Total 225 101 81 20 124
NB: Some PAPs had registered more than one affected property.
5.2.7 Final Cost Versus Budget for RAP and Justification
Final cost was actually below the budgeted amount with a surplus. The project was over budgeted.
The reasons for these were that budgets were done prior to assessment of properties to be affected
mainly to ensure that money was secured in advance. This was important as compensations have to be
effected prior to project commencement hence funds must be ready. The budget was therefore
basically a thumb suck as opposed to the actual and informed budget.
5.2.8 Change in PAPS and Justification
The addenda to the RAP reports reveal that during the works done on site for the initial project phase,
some of the affected properties were undetected due to the absence of any indication of plot
ownership or occupancy, drawing or marker posts on site. In some cases, owners of such properties
did not present themselves at RAP kgotla meetings or at PAPs consultation meetings. After
finalization of the main RAP reports, some additional affected properties were identified when PAPs
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
48
associated with these properties came to present themselves during the compensation exercise. The
addenda to the RAP reports indicates the following status with respect to realignment of roads and
identification of additional PAPs:
Table 24: Status of PAPs with respect to road realignment
Packages Original number of
affected properties
from RAP reports
Additional number of
affected properties
from the addenda
Total number of
affected properties
Number of
PAPs
compensated
Package 1 32 16 48 46
Package 2 127 65 192 174
From the addenda, the total number of affected properties was 240. Consultations with RD reduced
the number to 220. Initially affected properties were identified through the help of aerial photographs
but ground truthing led to changes in the actual number of PAPs. In addition, some of the PAPs were
wrongly captured hence more changes to number of PAPs.
5.2.9 Estimate of Total Land Acquisition
Total length for Package 1 is 4 928.81 metres and total area is 21 192.91 m2. For Package 2, total
length is 15 926.8 metres and total area is 275 724.53 m2. It is worth noting that replacement land
was made available where possible to affected properties (residential plot) by the RAP
implementation team. Where it was not possible, loss of land was compensated as per Land Board
standard procedures. Overall no affected persons were displaced save for the above-mentioned
residential plot and less than 10% of the productive assets were affected.
5.2.10 Overall Assessment of Livelihood Impact
In the case of the current road projects, there was no displacement or resettlement (save for one
residential plot) hence there were no livelihood impacts occasioned by the RAP implementation.
There was however perceived reduction in productive capacity of the ploughing fields due to the land
portions that were taken to make way for the road. Our observation however, was that the portions
that were taken were too negligible to result in reduction in productive capacity.
5.2.11 Assessment of Temporary Impact Related to Construction
The focus of the RAP preparation and implementation was not on the construction phase of the
project. Temporary impacts related to construction have been addressed through the ESIA. However,
the survey revealed there are indeed construction related impacts that are being experienced such as
cracking of houses and dust nuisance as well as road accidents. The Contractor should ensure that all
construction related impacts are addressed in accordance with the Environmental Management Plan.
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
49
5.3 Overall conclusion
This study has assessed adherence by Roads Department to RAP. This was achieved through
assessment of compliance with domestic policies, legislations and procedures as well as World Bank
Safeguard Policy objectives. Generally, the implementation of the RAP has complied with the
foregoing requirements. However, with regard to the status of RAP implementation, the
implementation has not been completed. Notwithstanding the fact that all compensations and
entitlements have been delivered to PAPs, it cannot be said that RAP implementation has been
completed. Given that there are still 124 outstanding certificates pending preparation by the Land
Boards and 20 certificates awaiting collection, it suffices to say that RAP implementation has not
been completed. The process of preparation of certificates (compilation of certificates) and the actual
issuance of certificates to PAPs will require a period of 6 months to be finalised. RAP implementation
will only be completed once all the amended certificates have been issued to the respective PAPs.
With regards to the socio-economic status of the PAPs before and after RAP implementation, the
study has concluded that the impacts experienced did not change the livelihood structure. There were
no considerable differences in terms of access to land, livestock or sources of income. Similarly,
patterns of social interactions remained intact. RAP implementation did not have any livelihood
impacts as there was no loss of access to different public services such as schools, health facilities,
sewage lines, water reticulation points, loss of access to markets, loss of access to suppliers or even
support networks.
Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Completion Report for the OPRC Project Final
Report
50
6 Lessons Learnt 1. Dissatisfaction with the compensation process and outcomes
The surveys revealed some discomfort with the process of compensation guided by the compensation
guidelines from Ministry of Land Management, Water and Sanitation Services. Whist the ministry
had wished to review the guidelines on an annual basis, this has not happened in the past 8 years,
hence the project proponent relied on the guidelines revised in 2010. Even though the Department of
Lands and Land Board are confident that the rates still reflect the current market situation, the use of
the unrevised rates has contributed to some dissatisfaction with the compensation amounts received.
Furthermore, whilst the guidelines provide for full disclosure to PAPs on the rights and options they
have with regard to valuation of their affected properties, it does not appear that the assessment
committee lived by this intent. Hence, some PAPs were of the view that the process was not
transparent. This is not helped by failure to avail the compensation guidelines to PAPs.
The above could have been avoided through the following:
a) Timely review of compensation guidelines by the Ministry of Land Management, Water and
Sanitation Services.
b) PAPs could have been made aware of the valuation process and what goes into the actual
computation of compensation amounts.
c) Full disclosure to PAPs about their rights and options with regard to compensation assessment
and valuation by availing the compensation guidelines to the PAPs.
d) Documentation of all processes, rights and options as they pertain to compensation should
have been prepared in both official languages and availed to the PAPs.
2. Grievance redress mechanism ineffectual
It is evident from the surveys and the resettlement reports that the grievance handling mechanisms for
this project were not effective, hence some grievances were lodged with local chiefs despite the
existence of Grievance Committees. The World Bank prefers a dedicated, accessible and responsive
mechanism for grievance resolution. Thus, the design of the Grievance Redress Mechanism should
have incorporated existing traditional conflict resolution process in the project area.
3. Issuance of Amended Land Rights Certificates
Issuance of amended land rights certificates remains a stumbling block to RAP completion. This is
due to the fact that there is shortage of staff in Land Boards/ Sub Land Boards. Delays in issuance of
amended land rights certificates could have been avoided if the Land Boards prepares the certificates
immediately after compensation.
1
Frequencies
VILLAGE
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
DIKHUKHUNG 1 1.6 1.6 1.6
LEPORUNG 6 9.7 9.7 11.3
LOTLHAKANE WEST 1 1.6 1.6 12.9
MABULE 4 6.5 6.5 19.4
MMAKGORI 2 3.2 3.2 22.6
MOSHANA 1 1.6 1.6 24.2
MOSHUPA 6 9.7 9.7 33.9
PHITSHANE MOLOPO 4 6.5 6.5 40.3
PITSANE 5 8.1 8.1 48.4
RAKHUNA 10 16.1 16.1 64.5
SELOKOLELA 3 4.8 4.8 69.4
SESE 2 3.2 3.2 72.6
SESUNG 1 1.6 1.6 74.2
TLHARESELEELE 12 19.4 19.4 93.5
TSHIDILAMOLOMO 4 6.5 6.5 100.0
Total 62 100.0 100.0
Age of Respondent
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
19-35 years 1 1.6 1.6 1.6
36-60 years 28 45.2 45.2 46.8
61-65 years 12 19.4 19.4 66.1
Over 65 years 21 33.9 33.9 100.0
Total 62 100.0 100.0
Sex of Respondent
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
Male 31 50.0 50.0 50.0
Female 31 50.0 50.0 100.0
Total 62 100.0 100.0
2
Marital Status of Respondent
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
Married 25 40.3 40.3 40.3
Single 19 30.6 30.6 71.0
Widowed 18 29.0 29.0 100.0
Total 62 100.0 100.0
Household head
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 11 17.7 17.7 17.7
Yes 51 82.3 82.3 100.0
Total 62 100.0 100.0
Source of Income: Formal employment
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 55 88.7 88.7 88.7
Yes 7 11.3 11.3 100.0
Total 62 100.0 100.0
Source of Income: Self employed
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 55 88.7 88.7 88.7
Yes 7 11.3 11.3 100.0
Total 62 100.0 100.0
Source of Income: Farming
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 40 64.5 64.5 64.5
Yes 22 35.5 35.5 100.0
Total 62 100.0 100.0
3
Source of Income: Remittances
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 54 87.1 87.1 87.1
Yes 8 12.9 12.9 100.0
Total 62 100.0 100.0
Source of Income: Pension
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 45 72.6 72.6 72.6
Yes 17 27.4 27.4 100.0
Total 62 100.0 100.0
Source of Income: Ipelegeng
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 59 95.2 95.2 95.2
Yes 3 4.8 4.8 100.0
Total 62 100.0 100.0
Source of Income: Government Grant
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 60 96.8 96.8 96.8
Yes 2 3.2 3.2 100.0
Total 62 100.0 100.0
Source of Income: None
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 59 95.2 95.2 95.2
Yes 3 4.8 4.8 100.0
Total 62 100.0 100.0
4
Estimated individual monthly income/earnings
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
None 6 9.7 9.8 9.8
100-1000 Pula 42 67.7 68.9 78.7
1001-2500 Pula 6 9.7 9.8 88.5
2501-5000 Pula 1 1.6 1.6 90.2
5001-10000 Pula 3 4.8 4.9 95.1
Above 10000 Pula 3 4.8 4.9 100.0
Total 61 98.4 100.0
Missing Missing 1 1.6
Total 62 100.0
Estimated household monthly income/earnings
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
None 5 8.1 8.2 8.2
100-1000 Pula 38 61.3 62.3 70.5
1001-2500 Pula 10 16.1 16.4 86.9
2501-5000 Pula 2 3.2 3.3 90.2
5001-10000 Pula 3 4.8 4.9 95.1
Above 10000 Pula 3 4.8 4.9 100.0
Total 61 98.4 100.0
Missing Missing 1 1.6
Total 62 100.0
Are you registered in any government welfare programmes?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 52 83.9 83.9 83.9
Yes 10 16.1 16.1 100.0
Total 62 100.0 100.0
5
If yes on which welfare programmes?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
LIMID 3 4.8 33.3 33.3
Poverty Eradication 2 3.2 22.2 55.6
Destitution Programme 3 4.8 33.3 88.9
Old age Pension Food Ration 1 1.6 11.1 100.0
Total 9 14.5 100.0
Missing
Missing 1 1.6
Not Applicable 52 83.9
Total 53 85.5
Total 62 100.0
Do you have any of your family members who is registered in any government welfare programmes?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 54 87.1 88.5 88.5
Yes 7 11.3 11.5 100.0
Total 61 98.4 100.0
Missing Missing 1 1.6
Total 62 100.0
If yes on which welfare programmes?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
LIMID 1 1.6 14.3 14.3
Poverty Eradication 3 4.8 42.9 57.1
Health Ration 1 1.6 14.3 71.4
Disability Cash Allowance 1 1.6 14.3 85.7
Young Farmers Fund 1 1.6 14.3 100.0
Total 7 11.3 100.0
Missing Not Applicable 55 88.7
Total 62 100.0
Are you aware of road construction project in your area?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes 62 100.0 100.0 100.0
6
Who informed you that your land or property might be affected by the project? Kgosi
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 39 62.9 62.9 62.9
Yes 23 37.1 37.1 100.0
Total 62 100.0 100.0
Who informed you that your land or property might be affected by the project? Department of Roads
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 16 25.8 25.8 25.8
Yes 46 74.2 74.2 100.0
Total 62 100.0 100.0
Who informed you that your land or property might be affected by the project? Land Board
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 21 33.9 33.9 33.9
Yes 41 66.1 66.1 100.0
Total 62 100.0 100.0
Who informed you that your land or property might be affected by the project? VDC
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 54 87.1 87.1 87.1
Yes 8 12.9 12.9 100.0
Total 62 100.0 100.0
Who informed you that your land or property might be affected by the project? Member of Parliament
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 55 88.7 88.7 88.7
Yes 7 11.3 11.3 100.0
Total 62 100.0 100.0
Who informed you that your land or property might be affected by the project? Councilors
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 53 85.5 85.5 85.5
Yes 9 14.5 14.5 100.0
Total 62 100.0 100.0
7
Who informed you that your land or property might be affected by the project? Relative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 61 98.4 98.4 98.4
Yes 1 1.6 1.6 100.0
Total 62 100.0 100.0
Who informed you that your land or property might be affected by the project? No One
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 61 98.4 98.4 98.4
Yes 1 1.6 1.6 100.0
Total 62 100.0 100.0
How were you informed that your land or property might be affected by the project? Kgotla meeting
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 24 38.7 39.3 39.3
Yes 37 59.7 60.7 100.0
Total 61 98.4 100.0
Missing Not Applicable 1 1.6
Total 62 100.0
How were you informed that your land or property might be affected by the project? In person
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 28 45.2 45.9 45.9
Yes 33 53.2 54.1 100.0
Total 61 98.4 100.0
Missing Not Applicable 1 1.6
Total 62 100.0
How were you informed that your land or property might be affected by the project? Through some committee
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 60 96.8 98.4 98.4
Yes 1 1.6 1.6 100.0
Total 61 98.4 100.0
Missing Not Applicable 1 1.6
Total 62 100.0
8
How were you informed that your land or property might be affected by the project? Through a letter (Notice Form 1)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 53 85.5 86.9 86.9
Yes 8 12.9 13.1 100.0
Total 61 98.4 100.0
Missing Not Applicable 1 1.6
Total 62 100.0
How were you informed that your land or property might be affected by the project? Through a phone call
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 57 91.9 93.4 93.4
Yes 4 6.5 6.6 100.0
Total 61 98.4 100.0
Missing Not Applicable 1 1.6
Total 62 100.0
How were you informed that your land or property might be affected by the project? Through a public notice at kgotla
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 58 93.5 95.1 95.1
Yes 3 4.8 4.9 100.0
Total 61 98.4 100.0
Missing Not Applicable 1 1.6
Total 62 100.0
When were you informed that your land or property might be affected by the project?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
Before 31 October 2015 40 64.5 69.0 69.0
After 31 October 2015 9 14.5 15.5 84.5
Can't remember 8 12.9 13.8 98.3
Not notified 1 1.6 1.7 100.0
Total 58 93.5 100.0
Missing
Missing 3 4.8
Not Applicable 1 1.6
Total 4 6.5
Total 62 100.0
9
In your opinion do you think that you have been adequately consulted?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 16 25.8 27.1 27.1
Yes 43 69.4 72.9 100.0
Total 59 95.2 100.0
Missing Missing 3 4.8
Total 62 100.0
How were you affected by the above project?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
Partially displaced (ploughing field,
residence, other property) 60 96.8 96.8 96.8
Cracking house 2 3.2 3.2 100.0
Total 62 100.0 100.0
Were you informed about your options and rights pertaining to compensation and/or resettlement?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 40 64.5 64.5 64.5
Yes 22 35.5 35.5 100.0
Total 62 100.0 100.0
Were you made aware of your right to engage valuation professionals?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 58 93.5 93.5 93.5
Yes 4 6.5 6.5 100.0
Total 62 100.0 100.0
Were you given an opportunity to make a claim for your properties?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 58 93.5 93.5 93.5
Yes 4 6.5 6.5 100.0
Total 62 100.0 100.0
10
Were you present or represented at the validation of the assessment findings?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 18 29.0 29.5 29.5
Yes 43 69.4 70.5 100.0
Total 61 98.4 100.0
Missing Not Applicable 1 1.6
Total 62 100.0
Were you made aware of the results of the valuation before signing Form 2 and Form 3?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 31 50.0 50.8 50.8
Yes 29 46.8 47.5 98.4
Can't remember 1 1.6 1.6 100.0
Total 61 98.4 100.0
Missing Not Applicable 1 1.6
Total 62 100.0
Were you invited by the assessment committee to submit any additional or counter claims for your
properties?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 58 93.5 93.5 93.5
Yes 4 6.5 6.5 100.0
Total 62 100.0 100.0
How long did it take for you to be compensated?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
Less than 6 months 21 33.9 34.4 34.4
6 to 12 months 20 32.3 32.8 67.2
12 to 24 months 17 27.4 27.9 95.1
Over 2 years 2 3.2 3.3 98.4
Not Yet Compensated 1 1.6 1.6 100.0
Total 61 98.4 100.0
Missing Missing 1 1.6
Total 62 100.0
11
Do you consider the time it took for you to be compensated reasonable?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 36 58.1 60.0 60.0
Yes 24 38.7 40.0 100.0
Total 60 96.8 100.0
Missing
Missing 1 1.6
Not Applicable 1 1.6
Total 2 3.2
Total 62 100.0
Was the notice given to vacate the acquired land after compensation adequate?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 21 33.9 35.0 35.0
Yes 30 48.4 50.0 85.0
Not notified 9 14.5 15.0 100.0
Total 60 96.8 100.0
Missing Not Applicable 2 3.2
Total 62 100.0
What did you receive as compensation for your affected properties?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
MONEY 60 96.8 96.8 96.8
NOTHING 1 1.6 1.6 98.4
REPAIR OF CRACKS BUT PAINTING
INCOMPLETE 1 1.6 1.6 100.0
Total 62 100.0 100.0
Do you consider the compensation adequate?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 52 83.9 85.2 85.2
Yes 7 11.3 11.5 96.7
Do Not Know 1 1.6 1.6 98.4
Not sure 1 1.6 1.6 100.0
Total 61 98.4 100.0
Missing Not Applicable 1 1.6
Total 62 100.0
12
Were you provided with residential housing or housing sites?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid No 1 1.6 100.0 100.0
Missing Not applicable 61 98.4
Total 62 100.0
Were you provided with agricultural sites with the similar productive potential and location advantage/ advantages
equivalent of the old site?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid No 8 12.9 100.0 100.0
Missing Not applicable 54 87.1
Total 62 100.0
What assistance were you provided with in addition to compensation? Transport or moving allowance
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid No 62 100.0 100.0 100.0
What assistance were you provided with in addition to compensation? Land prepraration
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid No 62 100.0 100.0 100.0
What assistance were you provided with in addition to compensation? Credit facilities
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid No 62 100.0 100.0 100.0
What assistance were you provided with in addition to compensation? Training
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid No 62 100.0 100.0 100.0
13
What assistance were you provided with in addition to compensation? Job opportunities
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid No 62 100.0 100.0 100.0
What assistance were you provided with in addition to compensation? None of the above
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 5 8.1 8.1 8.1
Yes 57 91.9 91.9 100.0
Total 62 100.0 100.0
What assistance were you provided with in addition to compensation? Not assisted
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 46 74.2 74.2 74.2
Yes 16 25.8 25.8 100.0
Total 62 100.0 100.0
Do you feel the relocation has resulted in the loss of access to public services?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid No 60 96.8 100.0 100.0
Missing Not applicable 2 3.2
Total 62 100.0
Do you feel the relocation has resulted in the loss of customers/market?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid No 60 96.8 100.0 100.0
Missing Not applicable 2 3.2
Total 62 100.0
Do you feel the relocation has resulted in the loss of suppliers?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid No 60 96.8 100.0 100.0
Missing Not applicable 2 3.2
Total 62 100.0
14
Do you feel the relocation has resulted in the loss of fishing?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid No 60 96.8 100.0 100.0
Missing Not applicable 2 3.2
Total 62 100.0
Do you feel the relocation has resulted in the loss of grazing?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 59 95.2 98.3 98.3
Yes 1 1.6 1.7 100.0
Total 60 96.8 100.0
Missing Not applicable 2 3.2
Total 62 100.0
Do you feel the relocation has resulted in the loss of forest areas?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid No 60 96.8 100.0 100.0
Missing Not applicable 2 3.2
Total 62 100.0
Do you feel the relocation has resulted in the loss of weakening of community support networks?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid No 60 96.8 100.0 100.0
Missing Not applicable 2 3.2
Total 62 100.0
Do you feel the relocation has resulted in the loss of erosion of cultural identity and traditional authority?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid No 60 96.8 100.0 100.0
Missing Not applicable 2 3.2
Total 62 100.0
15
Do you feel the relocation has resulted in the loss of redundancy of productive skills in the new environment?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid No 60 96.8 100.0 100.0
Missing Not applicable 2 3.2
Total 62 100.0
Do you feel the relocation has resulted in the loss of increased competition for resources?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid No 60 96.8 100.0 100.0
Missing Not applicable 2 3.2
Total 62 100.0
Do you feel the relocation has resulted in the loss of income?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 58 93.5 96.7 96.7
Yes 2 3.2 3.3 100.0
Total 60 96.8 100.0
Missing Not applicable 2 3.2
Total 62 100.0
Do you feel the relocation has resulted in the reduced production?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 51 82.3 85.0 85.0
Yes 9 14.5 15.0 100.0
Total 60 96.8 100.0
Missing Not applicable 2 3.2
Total 62 100.0
16
Do you feel relocation/displacement has benefited you?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 27 43.5 81.8 81.8
Yes 6 9.7 18.2 100.0
Total 33 53.2 100.0
Missing Not applicable 29 46.8
Total 62 100.0
In your opinion, was effort made to establish access equivalent to what you have lost above?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 25 40.3 92.6 92.6
Yes 2 3.2 7.4 100.0
Total 27 43.5 100.0
Missing Not applicable 35 56.5
Total 62 100.0
Did you have any grievance regarding the project?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 22 35.5 35.5 35.5
Yes 40 64.5 64.5 100.0
Total 62 100.0 100.0
Where did you lodge your complaint/grievance? Magistrate/High court
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid No 41 66.1 100.0 100.0
Missing Not applicable 21 33.9
Total 62 100.0
Where did you lodge your complaint/grievance? Minister of Lands and Housing
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid No 41 66.1 100.0 100.0
Missing Not applicable 21 33.9
Total 62 100.0
17
Where did you lodge your complaint/grievance? Department of Lands
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 39 62.9 95.1 95.1
Yes 2 3.2 4.9 100.0
Total 41 66.1 100.0
Missing Not applicable 21 33.9
Total 62 100.0
Where did you lodge your complaint/grievance? Land Board
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 32 51.6 78.0 78.0
Yes 9 14.5 22.0 100.0
Total 41 66.1 100.0
Missing Not applicable 21 33.9
Total 62 100.0
Where did you lodge your complaint/grievance? Developer/Department of Roads
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 32 51.6 78.0 78.0
Yes 9 14.5 22.0 100.0
Total 41 66.1 100.0
Missing Not applicable 21 33.9
Total 62 100.0
Where did you lodge your complaint/grievance? Chief
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 37 59.7 90.2 90.2
Yes 4 6.5 9.8 100.0
Total 41 66.1 100.0
Missing Not applicable 21 33.9
Total 62 100.0
18
Where did you lodge your complaint/grievance? Grievance committee
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 39 62.9 95.1 95.1
Yes 2 3.2 4.9 100.0
Total 41 66.1 100.0
Missing Not applicable 21 33.9
Total 62 100.0
Where did you lodge your complaint/grievance? Land Tribunal
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid No 41 66.1 100.0 100.0
Missing Not applicable 21 33.9
Total 62 100.0
Where did you lodge your complaint/grievance? Councillor
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 39 62.9 95.1 95.1
Yes 2 3.2 4.9 100.0
Total 41 66.1 100.0
Missing Not applicable 21 33.9
Total 62 100.0
Where did you lodge your complaint/grievance? District Commissioner
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 39 62.9 95.1 95.1
Yes 2 3.2 4.9 100.0
Total 41 66.1 100.0
Missing Not applicable 21 33.9
Total 62 100.0
19
Where did you lodge your complaint/grievance? Not lodged
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 22 35.5 53.7 53.7
Yes 19 30.6 46.3 100.0
Total 41 66.1 100.0
Missing Not applicable 21 33.9
Total 62 100.0
Who ultimately resolved your complaint?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
Land Board 2 3.2 10.0 10.0
Developer/Department of Roads 2 3.2 10.0 20.0
Chief 1 1.6 5.0 25.0
Councillor 1 1.6 5.0 30.0
District Commissioner 1 1.6 5.0 35.0
Not resolved 13 21.0 65.0 100.0
Total 20 32.3 100.0
Missing Not applicable 42 67.7
Total 62 100.0
Were you satisfied with the process of addressing your complaint?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 17 27.4 89.5 89.5
Yes 2 3.2 10.5 100.0
Total 19 30.6 100.0
Missing Not applicable 43 69.4
Total 62 100.0
Were you satisfied with the outcome of your complaint?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 18 29.0 94.7 94.7
Yes 1 1.6 5.3 100.0
Total 19 30.6 100.0
Missing Not applicable 43 69.4
Total 62 100.0
20
Do you consider yourself better off after the relocation or compensation?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 17 27.4 27.4 27.4
Yes 6 9.7 9.7 37.1
No change 39 62.9 62.9 100.0
Total 62 100.0 100.0
Do you consider yourself worse off after the relocation or compensation?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
No 8 12.9 13.1 13.1
Yes 13 21.0 21.3 34.4
No change 40 64.5 65.6 100.0
Total 61 98.4 100.0
Missing Missing 1 1.6
Total 62 100.0
1
CROSS TABULATION TABLES AND CHARTS
Age, Marital Status, household headship and gender of respondents
Male Female
Count % Count %
Age of
Respondent
0-18
years
0 0.0% 0 0.0%
19-35
years
1 100.0% 0 0.0%
36-60
years
14 50.0% 14 50.0%
61-65
years
9 75.0% 3 25.0%
Over 65
years
7 33.3% 14 66.7%
Marital Status
of Respondent
Married 17 68.0% 8 32.0%
Single 9 47.4% 10 52.6%
Divorced 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Widowed 5 27.8% 13 72.2%
Household head No 1 9.1% 10 90.9%
Yes 30 58.8% 21 41.2%
Age and Gender of Respondents
0%
100%
50%
75%
33%
0% 0%
50%
25%
67%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0-18 years 19-35 years 36-60 years 61-65 years Over 65 years
Males Females
2
Marital Status and Gender of Respondents
68%
47%
0%
28%32%
53%
0%
72%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Married Single Divorced Widowed
Males Females
Household Headship and Gender of Respondents
9%
59%
91%
41%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
No Yes
Males Females
3
Household Headship, Marital status, Source of Income, Household monthly earnings
and member registered in welfare programme
Household head
No Yes
No. of PAPS %
No. of PAPS %
Marital Status of Respondent Married 7 28% 18 72%
Single 2 11% 17 89%
Divorced 0 0% 0 0%
Widowed 2 11% 16 89%
Source of Income: Formal employment No 11 20% 44 80%
Yes 0 0% 7 100%
Source of Income: Self employed No 10 18% 45 82%
Yes 1 14% 6 86%
Source of Income: Farming No 6 15% 34 85%
Yes 5 23% 17 77%
Source of Income: Remittances No 7 13% 47 87%
Yes 4 50% 4 50%
Source of Income: Pension No 9 20% 36 80%
Yes 2 12% 15 88%
Source of Income: Ipelegeng No 10 17% 49 83%
Yes 1 33% 2 67%
Source of Income: Government Grant No 11 18% 49 82%
Yes 0 0% 2 100%
Source of Income: None No 11 19% 48 81%
Yes 0 0% 3 100%
Estimated household monthly income/earnings None 0 0% 5 100%
100-1000 Pula
8 21% 30 79%
1001-2500 Pula
1 10% 9 90%
2501-5000 Pula
1 50% 1 50%
5001-10000 Pula
1 33% 2 67%
Above 10000 Pula
0 0% 3 100%
Are you registered in any government welfare programmes? No 8 15% 44 85%
Yes 3 30% 7 70%
Do you have any of your family members who is registered in any government welfare programmes?
No 10 19% 44 81%
Yes 0 0% 7 100%
4
Household Headship and Marital Status
28%
11%
0%
11%
72%
89%
0%
89%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Married Single Divorced Widowed
No Yes
Household Headship and Source of income
100%
86%
77%
50%
88%
67%
100%
100%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Formal employment
Self employed
Farming
Remittances
Pension
Ipelegeng
Government Grant
None
Household head Yes Household head No
5
Household Headship and Household Monthly income
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
None 100-1000 Pula 1001-2500Pula
2501-5000Pula
5001-10000Pula
Above 10000Pula
No Yes
Household Headship and Registration on Government Welfare Programmes
15%
30%
85%
70%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
No Yes
Household head No Household head Yes
6
Household Headship and Family member registered in Government welfare
programme
19%
0%
81%
100%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
No Yes
Household head No Household head Yes
Source of income and Individual monthly income
Estimated individual monthly income/earnings
None 100-1000
Pula 1001-2500
Pula 2501-5000
Pula 5001-10000 Pula Above 10000 Pula
Formal employment No 100% 100% 50% 0% 100% 0%
Yes 0% 0% 50% 100% 0% 100%
Self employed No 100% 88% 100% 100% 67% 100%
Yes 0% 12% 0% 0% 33% 0%
Farming No 67% 60% 67% 100% 67% 100%
Yes 33% 40% 33% 0% 33% 0%
Remittances No 100% 81% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Yes 0% 19% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Pension No 100% 64% 83% 100% 67% 100%
Yes 0% 36% 17% 0% 33% 0%
Ipelegeng No 100% 93% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Yes 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Government Grant No 83% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Yes 17% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%
None No 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Yes 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
7
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
None 100-1000 Pula 1001-2500 Pula 2501-5000 Pula 5001-10000 Pula Above 10000Pula
Formal employment Self employed Farming Remittances
Pension Ipelegeng Government Grant None
Source of income and Registration of Government welfare programme
Are you registered in any government welfare programmes?
No
Yes
Count % Count % Formal employment
No 45 86.5% 10 100.0%
Yes 7 13.5% 0 0.0%
Self employed
No 45 86.5% 10 100.0%
Yes 7 13.5% 0 0.0%
Farming No 32 61.5% 8 80.0%
Yes 20 38.5% 2 20.0%
Remittances No 49 94.2% 5 50.0%
Yes 3 5.8% 5 50.0%
Pension No 38 73.1% 7 70.0%
Yes 14 26.9% 3 30.0%
Ipelegeng No 50 96.2% 9 90.0%
Yes 2 3.8% 1 10.0%
Government
Grant
No 51 98.1% 9 90.0%
Yes 1 1.9% 1 10.0%
None No 50 96.2% 9 90.0%
Yes 2 3.8% 1 10.0%
8
Awareness to engage valuation professionals and claim for properties
Were you given an opportunity to make a claim for your properties?
No Yes
Count % Count % Were you made aware of your
right to engage valuation professionals?
No 55 95% 3 5%
Yes 3 75% 1 25%
Date of compensation and reasonableness of the time
Do you consider the time it took for you to be compensated reasonable?
No Yes Total How long did it take for you to be compensated?
Less than 6 months
Count 5 16 21
% 13.9% 66.7% 35.0%
6 to 12 months
Count 14 6 20
% 38.9% 25.0% 33.3%
12 to 24 months
Count 15 2 17
% 41.7% 8.3% 28.3%
Over 2 years
Count 2 0 2
% 5.6% 0.0% 3.3%
Total
Count 36 24 60
% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Gender and Source of Income
16.1%9.7%
35.5%
3.2%
22.6%
3.2% 3.2% 6.5%6.5%12.9%
35.5%
22.6%
32.3%
6.5% 3.2% 3.2%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Formal Employment Farming Pension Government grant
Male Female
9
Gender and Estimated individual monthly income/earnings
16.7%
56.7%
13.3%
3.3% 3.3%6.7%
3.2%
80.6%
6.5%
0.0%
6.5% 3.2%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
None 100-1000 Pula 1001-2500Pula
2501-5000Pula
5001-10000Pula
Above 10000Pula
Estimated individual monthly income/earnings
Male Female
1
Proceedings of a meeting between Ms Mogae (Individual Consultant) and Mr. Mokope
(Department of Lands)
Date: 27th August 2018
Venue: Department of Lands
Introduction
The Individual Consultant, Ms. Mogae introduced herself and outlined the purpose of the visit to the
Principal Lands Officer, Mr. Mokope. She outlined that she was assigned by the Department of Roads
to conduct an audit of the OPRC road project which was financed by Botswana Government and the
World Bank. This was to assess compliance to World Bank guidelines and Botswana Government
requirements. For the Department, the purpose was to establish the role of the department or ministry
in compensation assessments as well as any performance standards in place.
Role of the Lands Department
Mr. Mokope, who is in charge of administering the Compensation Guidelines outlined the role of his
department as follows:
➢ The department’s role is to administer the compensation guidelines and ensure that they are
adhered to. This includes validating what the Land Board has prepared
➢ The actual assessments and computation of figures has been decentralised to Land Boards.
➢ Thus, the guidelines were prepared to guide the Land Board when undertaking assessments
and valuations.
➢ The guidelines are prepared by the Department of Lands and approved by Cabinet. They are
supposed to be revised annually. However, the guidelines in use currently are for 2010, thus
they are overdue for review.
➢ That notwithstanding, the assessment committees of the Land Board (which must have a
valuer as one of the members), are at liberty to adjust the rates where necessary especially
considering the prevailing market rates.
➢ The guidelines also include an adjustment for the distance from the nearest major centres.
➢ Once approved by the Land Board, the compensation assessment report is forwarded to the
Department of Lands for validation.
Discussion
Mr Mokope indicated that where disputes arise over the compensation amount, this should be
mutually discussed and resolved between the claimant and the Land Board, through the assessment
committee. Should there be need, the claimant is allowed to engage an independent valuer to do an
independent valuation which would form the basis of an arbitration process if necessary.
2
He further indicated that the standard adopted by the department is 1.5 months for validation of the
compensation assessment report from the Land Board. Once approved, the department forwards it to
the Land Board who in turn communicates with the acquiring authority to release payment to affected
persons. Should 3 months elapse between this period, then claimant is entitled to 5% adjustment.
1
Proceedings of a meeting between Ms Mogae (Individual Consultant) and Mr. Pilane (Moshupa
Subordinate Land Board)
Date: 5th September 2018
Venue: Moshupa Subordinate Land Board
Introduction
The Individual Consultant, Ms. Mogae introduced herself and outlined the purpose of the visit to the
Land Board. She told the Sub Land Board Secretary, Mr. Pilane that she was assigned by the
Department of Roads to conduct an audit of the OPRC road project which was financed by Botswana
Government and the World Bank. This was to assess compliance to World Bank guidelines and
Botswana Government requirements. For the Land Board, the purpose was to establish compliance
with Ministry of Lands Compensation Guidelines.
Compensation Procedure
Mr. Pilane outlined the procedure as follows:
➢ The acquiring authority approached the Land Board and explains the purpose of their project
and how it is likely to affect property owners.
➢ The acquiring authority presents a list of potentially affected persons (after initial
consultations with the community and those that are likely to be affected)
➢ The acquiring authority then outlines their schedule of activities such as compensation
assessments.
➢ The Land Board constitutes an assessment committee and on the agreed dates, starts the
physical assessment of properties in the presence of property owners or their representatives
➢ The committee explains the whole procedure to property owners, and this includes their rights
and entitlements. These rights include engaging independent valuers so that should there be
need for arbitration, then both parties would be ready with their valuation reports.
➢ Rates for valuation are adopted from the Compensation Guidelines with allowance for
upward adjustment where necessary
➢ The valuation considers the distance factor
➢ After compiling the valuation report, the committee presents t to the Land Board for
endorsement before forwarding to the Department of Lands for approval
➢ The Land Board sits weekly and if there are many properties to be assessed, the assessment is
done in batches so that whilst some of the properties are being assessed, others processes are
in motion.
➢ Generally, the Land Board takes two weeks to forward the report to Department of Lands.
2
➢ Once the Department of Lands has approved the valuation report, the Land Board forwards it
to the acquiring authority for payment
➢ After payment, the Land Board issues new certificates to affected persons
Discussion
During discussion, the following emerged:
➢ Most of the affected properties at Package 1 were ploughing fields, and these never had
certificates. So, in most of them, they were issued with new certificates. Property owners are
officially notified in writing of the availability of certificates. Even at Board meetings, they
are informed that certificates would be ready in 5 days.
➢ However, the rate of uptake of certificates is slow since it would appear that people were only
interested in the payment. But the Land Board makes efforts to take the certificates to
respective villages but still there is low uptake.
➢ The Land Board uses one-on-one notification to affected persons of their rights in the process;
no formal letters are written to them in this regard.
➢ We appreciate that the Compensation Guidelines were last revised in 2010, however, this did
not disadvantage the affected persons since the valuer is allowed to exercise professional
judgement to adjust the rates where necessary.
➢ The guidelines provide for upward adjustment of 5% if payment was delayed by 3 months.
This was done for this project
➢ There could have been delays in the whole process. This could be due to lack of prior
coordination between Roads Department and the Land Board leading to clash of schedules
especially that the Land Board is thin on personnel with regards to valuations.
1
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE PROJECT TEAM
1. Who is the owner of the report between Roads Department and World Bank?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
2. Please clarify the role of Roads Department versus that of World Bank
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
3. What motivated the Completion Report/ What is the rationale and purpose of RAP Completion
report?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
4. With a view to determining if compensations were achieved in a timely manner, please clarify
whether there was any cut-off date for payment of compensations (the time between assessment
and the actual payment/compensation)-Outline the process with regard to time frames.
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
5. What is the basis for the cut-off date for Land Board and that of Roads Department?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
6. How were delays in compensation mitigated/How did you make up for delayed compensation?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
2
7. Outline the constraints, issues and delays encountered during implementation and how they
were overcome.
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
8. Kindly provide:
a. Offer letters
b. Consent letters
c. Records of consultations
d. Minutes and frequency of meetings
9. How often did the PAP team meet with individual PAPs?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
10. Compensation rates-Please clarify if compensation rates were reviewed post 2010, if rates were
adjusted to consider inflation and if indeed there is need for adjustments
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
11. Please clarify whether cut off date for freezing development was adequately announced to the
PAPs
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
12. Kindly verify whether all PAPs have received their amended certificates (Number of
Certificates issued and the number of pending certificates)
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
13. Please provide proof that due process was followed in informing PAPs of their rights to engage
Valuation Professionals
3
14. Please clarify if there were any “PAPs” who were affected by initial road alignment and were
later not affected by the re-alignment (Please clarify if this could be one of the reasons why
some PAPs feel compensation was inadequate)
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
15. Was there change of PAPs at any point in time? If yes why?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
16. Please clarify how miscalculations occurred that resulted in PAPs feeling compensation was
inadequate and therefore felt cheated.
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
17. What measures did Roads Department take to explain to the PAPs as to what led to the reduction
of the compensation amounts.
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
18. Please provide the RAP implementation budget for the whole implementation of RAP
assignment and specify if the budget was adequate. If it was not adequate please give reasons
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
19. What supplementary assistance was provided to the PAPs by the Project Team?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
THANK YOU.
1
Comments Response Sheet-World Bank Comments on the Draft final Completion Report-
Consultancy Services for the Preparation of a Comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP)
Completion Report for Output and Performance based Road Contracts (OPRC)
Chapter Page
number
Comments Response
1. The current draft has satisfactorily
addressed all the RSS comments
on the first draft, viz.;
(a) the report has been restructured as
suggested
(b) the nature, purpose and basis for the
study have been defined
(c) adherence to the RAP was assessed;
and,
(d) A conclusion section was provided.
In addition, the sampling method
was discussed.
Noted.
2. Need for further elaborations
and evidences to support key
conclusions of the study. The
report now provides categorical
conclusions on most of the study
questions. However, the following
assertions would need to be
further substantiated with facts
and discussions:
(a) There was no
displacement/resettlement impact
and hence there was no need for
remedial measures viz. (i)
residential; (ii) livelihood
development support; and, (iii)
moving assistance. (See section
3.3 Page 30; Page32.) These are
currently being presented as
findings of the study whereas
these should have been already
captured in RAP documents.
There is therefore a need to first
indicate what RAPs originally
planned or intend to provide, i.e.
whether there was initially a plan
to provide housing, livelihood
support or moving assistance.
And if so, then what happened or
why was it not provided? On the
other hand, if RAPs had originally
The RAP intended to
adhere to OP 4.12
guidelines as regards
remedial measures
applicable to resettlement
and displacement impacts.
However, the RAP reports
indicate that there were no
relocations of
PAPs/properties, there
were no impacts on means
of livelihood hence there
was no need for any
housing or moving
assistance nor livelihood
support.
Data supporting the study
conclusion that RAP
implementation did not
impact significantly on the
household incomes and
living conditions has been
provided (Item 3.3.1.1
paragraph 3).
The RAP and ESIA
reports have not made any
conclusion on the need for
additional assistance to
vulnerable PAPs except
for simply outlining World
2
indicated that there was no need
for such remedies, then the
discussions would be whether
such plan is consistent with the
intent of the OP 4.12.
Furthermore, regardless of
whether or not resettlement and/
livelihood support were required,
the study should be able to
present data on the incomes and
livelihood status of PAPs before
and after RAP implementation.
Data indicating that incomes and
living conditions of the PAPs
have not deteriorated should
support the conclusion that PAPs
were not affected. Otherwise, if
data indicate that lives have
deteriorated, the report should
provide explanations as to
possible cause of deterioration.
(b) There was no need for additional
assistance or special treatment to
vulnerable PAPs (Section 3.3.3).
There is a need to cite any
discussions from the RAPs or
findings from ESIA that support
these claims. The report
mentioned that consultations were
conducted with the vulnerable
PAPs but it did not mention what
came out of that consultation or
whether the RAPs categorically
ruled out extending any additional
supports to vulnerable PAPs.
(c) The cash compensation were
adequate- There is need to
substantiate the conclusion that
the compensations received by the
PAPs were adequate especially
given the opposite perception by
PAPs. The OP 4.12 provides that
valuation of losses must be based
on the “replacement cost”
principle. The report should show
that the rates were indeed
equivalent to replacement costs,
using data from current market
transactions or other primary or
Bank requirements for
such assistance in cases of
resettlement. The survey
consultations with PAPs
did not come out with any
opinion by vulnerable
groups as to whether or
not they needed additional
support because there was
no relocation that would
warrant consideration for
special assistance.
3
secondary sources.
3. Need to provide brief
background on the Amended
Land Certificates. The report has
determined that the
implementation of the RAPs is
still incomplete because of the
pending issuance of the Amended
Land Certificates. This will have
implications on the closure of the
project or at least the subprojects
(i.e. Package 1 and Package 2) as
normally projects cannot be
declared closed if RAPs are still
under implementation. There is
therefore a need to describe what
is required and what is the
significance of (or how critical
are) these certificates to the PAPs
and to the completion of the
RAPs.
Addressed under Section
4.
4. Lessons Learnt. There is a need
to recast the discussions in the
Lessons Learnt section. Lessons
learnt should reflect something
the project should have done or
not done; or, innovations that was
employed in response to certain
constraints that proved to be
effective. For example:
(a) The study has found that the
GRM arrangement was not
implemented or was not utilized
by the project. Should have the
design of the GRM considered the
existing or traditional conflict
resolution process in the project
area?
(b) If there is a perception among the
PAPs that the compensations they
received were inadequate, how
could such have been avoided?
(c) Could the delays in issuance of
Amended Land Certificates have
been avoided? How?
Addressed under Section
6.
4
5. Suggested edits:
(a) On P1, the following sentence
should be in the past tense as RD
has implemented the RAP- hence
the completion report: “ Roads
Department (RD) is currently
implementing two resettlement
Action Plans (RAP) as per
requirements of the World Bank.”
(b) Correct the word “issuing” to
“issuance” in the heading of
Section 5.26 to “Issuance of
amended certificates” and, in the
heading of section 5.26 as well
as in the text in Section 5.3.
(c) Change the heading in 3.2.2 from
“After RAP Implementation” to
“Socio-economic conditions of
PAPs after RAP implementation”.
Include a statement in the
conclusion about the current
socioeconomic status of the PAPs.
(d) The report clearly states that there
has been no displacement.
However, on p25, p30 and p32 an
undeveloped plot is referenced in
relation to property relocation. It
would appear that there can be no
relocation of property on an
undeveloped plot, thus please
correct the language (i.e. use a
word other than relocation to
describe the impact on the
undeveloped plot). p25: “ in
accordance with these
instruments, The Department of
Roads ensured that no family
dwelling, ploughing field or any
other property was relocated
except for only one undeveloped
residential plot in Package 2. “and
p30: “ In this particular project,
displacement has generally been
avoided save for one case where
displacement of one undeveloped
residential plot occurred.” P32 “
Addressed. The report has
been edited.
5
In the RAP implementation for
both Packages 1 and 2, there was
hardly any physical relocation
save for 1 PAP in
Tshidilamolomo whose
undeveloped plot was taken for
the purpose of the project.”
(e) Please note that figure 9 on p35 is
missing. Kindly insert the version
Figure 9 has always been
in the report.