Taiba N’Diaye Wind Project · Taiba N’Diaye Wind Project LIVELIHOOD RESTORATION PLAN rePlan...

Lekela Advisors Ltd.

Senegal

March 2017

Revision No. Date Description of Revision

Submitted By Submitted To Approved By

7 March 24, 2017 FINAL Annexes I to IV

Emily Nunn, rePlan-ERM

Jennifer Boca, Lekela Advisors Ltd.

rePlan, an ERM Group company, 110 Adelaide Street East, M5C 1K9 Toronto, Ontario, Canada T. 416.593.6619 F. 416.583.1550 | www.replan.ca

Taiba N’Diaye Wind Project

LIVELIHOOD RESTORATION PLAN

Taiba N’Diaye Wind Project LIVELIHOOD RESTORATION PLAN - DRAFT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Purpose 1 1.2 Parties and Process 1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3

2.1 Project Description 3 2.2 Project Land Requirements 4

3.0 LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK 6

3.1 Senegalese Legislative Framework 6 3.1.1 Constitution of the Republic of Senegal 6 3.1.2 Energy Sector Development Policy 6 3.1.3 Environment Code 6 3.1.4 Land Tenure and Transactions 7 3.1.5 Securing Land Access 9 3.1.6 Expropriation 10

3.2 International Standards 10 3.2.1 IFC Performance Standards on Social and Environmental

Sustainability 10 3.2.2 Corporate Principles and Standards 11

3.3 Harmonization of National and International Standards 12

4.0 BASELINE CONDITIONS 17

4.1 Socio-economic Data Sources 17 4.2 Summary of Baseline Conditions 17 4.3 Demographic Overview 18 4.4 Health Care 18 4.5 Education 19 4.6 Water and Electricity 19 4.7 Road Network and Transport 20 4.8 Cultural Heritage 20 4.9 Agriculture and Trade 20

5.0 DISPLACEMENT IMPACTS 22

5.1 Overview 22 5.2 Project Affected Parties 22 5.3 Scope of Displacement 24 5.4 Other Considerations 26 5.5 Summary 26

6.0 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT 28

6.1 Consultation Record 28 6.2 Summary of Feedback 28

6.2.1 Impacts and Entitlements 28 6.2.2 Livelihood Restoration 29

7.0 ELIGIBILITY AND ENTITLEMENTS 30


7.1 Eligibility Policy 30 7.2 Entitlement Policy 30 7.3 Compensation Rates 32

7.3.1 Departmental Commission Findings 32 7.3.2 Project Commitments 33

8.0 LIVELIHOOD RESTORATION PROGRAMS 35

8.1 Program A: Business Skills Session 35 8.2 Program B: Mitigation for Lost Farmland 36

8.2.1 Subprogram B-1: Agricultural Intensification through Irrigation 36 8.2.2 Subprogram B-2: Transitional Allowance 38

8.3 Program C: Mitigation for Lost Fruit Trees 39 8.4 Summary of Additional Livelihood Restoration Programs 39 8.5 Additional Economic Development Support 40

9.0 SUPPORTIVE PROGRAMS 42

9.1 Vulnerable Support Program 42 9.1.1 Vulnerability Context 42 9.1.2 Implementation 43

9.2 Monitoring and Evaluation 43 9.2.1 Monitoring 44 9.2.2 Evaluation 44

10.0 GRIEVANCE MANAGEMENT 46

10.1 Principles 46 10.2 Project-Wide Grievance Mechanism 46 10.3 Grievances Related to Livelihood Restoration 48 10.4 Implementation 51

10.4.1 Roles and Responsibilities 51 10.4.2 Awareness and Accountability 51

11.0 ROADMAP AHEAD 52

11.1 Validation and Finalization of LRP 52 11.2 Implementation of Finalized LRP 53

11.2.1 Appointment of Livelihood Restoration Team 53 11.2.2 Updated household survey 54 11.2.3 Agreements 54 11.2.4 Payment of Compensation 55 11.2.5 Detailed livelihood restoration programming 55 11.2.6 Development of Supportive Programs 55

11.3 Work Plan and Schedule 56

ANNEX I 58

ANNEX II 62

ANNEX III 66


LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - Total Number of PAPs 23

Table 2 - Loss of Total Land Holdings 25

Table 3 - Summary of Revenue Loss 25

Table 4 - Summary of Displacement Impacts 27

Table 5 - Entitlement Matrix 31

Table 6 - Compensation Rates by Tree Type 32

Table 7 - Summary of Rates Proposed by Agronomist 33

Table 8 - Additional Compensation for Fruit Trees 33

Table 9 - Estimated Cost of Business Skills Course 36

Table 10 - Estimated Costs for 0.1 ha of Irrigated Garden 37

Table 11 - Estimated Costs for Transitional Allowance 38

Table 12 - Estimated Costs for Compensating Loss of Adult Fruit Trees 39

Table 13 - Summary of Proposed Livelihood Restoration Programs 40

Table 14 - Grievance Mechanism Adjustments for Livelihood Restoration 48

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - Map of Northwest Senegal 3

Figure 2 - Map of the Proposed Project Area 5

Figure 3 - Map of villages in Project's extended area of influence 17

Figure 4 - PETN Grievance Resolution Procedure 47

Figure 5 - LR Organizational Chart 54

Figure 6 - Work Plan and Schedule 56



rePlan Inc. 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

The Taiba N’Diaye Wind Project (hereafter referred to as “the Project”) will involve the

installation of a 151.8 MW wind farm in Northwest Senegal. Once built, the Project will be the

first wind project in Senegal and the largest wind project in West Africa.

With 46 wind turbines and 34 km of access roads inside a total Project Footprint of

approximately 66 hectares, the Project will result in economic displacement as a result of land

acquisition and restrictions on land use for 409 Project-affected parties (PAPs), who own or use

a total of 423 land parcels.

This document – the Livelihood Restoration Plan (LRP) for the Project – has been developed to

guide the land acquisition process, to ensure that displacement impacts are managed

effectively, in keeping with Senegalese practices and international standards and in full

consultation with those affected, and to facilitate the full restoration of the livelihoods, income,

and quality of life of those affected.

1.2 Parties and Process

The Project was launched in 2008 by Sarreole SARL, a renewable energy company based in

France. Between 2008 and the present, extensive work was carried out to identify the land

acquisition needs and impacts of the Project. The procedures followed for acquiring and

securing land for the Project are detailed in Section 10.1.3 of the Project’s ESIS Addendum

(2015).

An assessment of impacted land parcels was carried out by the Departmental Commission for

the Evaluation of Financial Compensation for the Taiba N’Diaye Wind Park between August

2014 and January 2015. The Commission set compensation rates for affected agricultural land,

as well as affected fruit trees and wild trees. The results of the Commission’s assessment were

published in the Commission’s final report in July 2016.

To validate the findings of the Commission’s assessment and to assess overall impacts of the

Project on individuals – hereafter referred to as Project Affected Persons (PAPs) – the Project

commissioned the local consulting firm Labosol to conduct a household survey in July and

August 2015. The results of Labosol’s survey are presented in the Rural Cadastre Report

(September 2015).

Lekela Advisors Ltd., a pan-African renewable energy generation platform, acquired the

development rights to the Project in June 2016. Lekela engaged rePlan, an ERM Group

company in August 2016 to develop a LRP for the 66 ha land take required for development of

the Project.



rePlan Inc. 2

The LRP is intended to build on the foundation of work completed to date and complement

existing processes to optimize resources and reduce complication for stakeholders. rePlan was

instructed to prepare the LRP based as much as possible on existing information, and began

the process with a comprehensive review of background documentation, including:

ESIS Addendum and Annexes (2016) prepared by Ramboll Environ and EES;

Draft Due Diligence Report (2016) prepared by Mott MacDonald;

Report of the Departmental Commission for the Evaluation of Financial Compensation

for the Taiba N’Diaye Wind Park (2016);

Revised Initial Stakeholder Engagement Plan (2015) prepared by Ramboll Environ;

Land Compensation Assessment Report (2015) prepared by Labosol;

Rural Cadastre Report (2015) prepared by Labosol;

PETN Land Acquisition Procedure (2015);

PETN Biodiversity Supplementary Memo (2015) prepared by Ramboll Environ;

Lekela Community Investment Strategy; and,

Local Development Plan for the Commune of Taiba N’Diaye (2013-2018).

Based on the background review and the firm’s experience with livelihood restoration in rural

communities in Senegal, rePlan drafted two preliminary options for livelihood restoration

programs that would build on traditional economic activities and local capacities in the Project

area. With the support of the Project Team and their contractor, Engineering & Environmental

Services (EES), rePlan carried out targeted consultation with PAPs, key stakeholders, and

relevant government authorities, as documented in Section 6. The consultation allowed rePlan

to confirm the scope of economic displacement and collect feedback on the proposed livelihood

restoration programs, which are detailed in Section 7.

The present document represents a Draft LRP, which has been submitted to Lekela Advisors

Ltd. and the Project Lenders. Their feedback, as presented in the Mott MacDonald Report

(September 2016) has been incorporated and rePlan shared the resulting version (Rev 3) with

local authorities and affected communities to validate the findings and recommendations, as per

the process outlined in Section 11. The updated Draft LRP (Rev 4) included updates based on

initial feedback and was the version presented at the final validation meeting of the Multi-

Stakeholder Forum. The present document represents the validated and finalized LRP for the

Project.



rePlan Inc. 3

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Project Description

The Project is located in the Municipality of Taiba N’Diaye, which falls within the district of

Méouane and department of Tivaoune in the Thiès region. Thiès is one of 14 administrative

regions in Senegal and is located approximately 70 km to the northeast of Dakar. The region

comprises three departments, including Thiès, Mbour and Tivaouane. The department of

Tivaouane includes the districts of Méouane, Niakhène and Pambal. The Municipality covers an

area of 155 km2 and includes 35 villages.

The town of Tivaouane, which is the central town within Méouane, is located approximately 10

km from Taiba N’Diaye. Tivaouane is situated along the main road between Dakar and Saint-

Louis, approximately 90 km from the capital of Dakar.

Figure 1 - Map of Northwest Senegal

Source: Google Maps, 25 August 2016

The Project involves the installation of a 158.7 MW wind farm with a total of 46 wind turbines

and access roads inside a total project footprint of approximately 66 hectares. Once built, the

Project will be the first wind project in Senegal and the largest wind project in West Africa. It is

estimated the wind farm will generate more than 400 GWh per year for 20 years during the

production phase at rated power.

Within the Project footprint, the wind turbine cluster is organized across five rows that cover a

total surface area of approximately 7 hectares. The rows are connected to the departmental

road (D702) by a series of access roads.



rePlan Inc. 4

Project construction includes three phases. The first two phases include 16 wind turbines with a

final phase of 14 turbines. The current Project schedule estimates a total construction period of

22 months.

2.2 Project Land Requirements

A total of 7 hectares of State land is required in order to erect the Project’s 46 wind turbines,

including the area required for turbine foundations and construction (i.e. crane hoisting). This

land will be secured through long-term lease agreements (baux emphytéotiques) with the State

of Senegal.

Other project infrastructure (including access roads, cable paths, storage areas, and

overhanging rights) will require an additional land take of approximately 59 hectares The Project

sponsor will enter into easement agreements (servitudes) with the State of Senegal to secure

land access. 14 hectares of these lands will acquired as a temporary land take, as they are

required during the construction phase only.

Additional lands will be required for the Project substation and energy delivery facilities. These

lands are owned by the national energy company, SENELEC, and rights to acquire these plots

of land will be secured through them.

To ensure compliance with Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) guidelines, dwellings are

prohibited in the area surrounding the Project. Technical analysis previously conducted for the

project indicates that a protection area of 500 meters from each turbine will enable the Project to

meet these EHS guidelines. The protection area must be defined through Ministerial Order as

per the Senegalese Code de l’Environnement. rePlan has been informed that studies are

ongoing to determine land use restrictions within the protection areas and as such these areas

are not included in the present LRP.



rePlan Inc. 5

Figure 2 - Map of the Proposed Project Area

Source: PETN ESIS Addendum 2015

Additional land will need to be acquired for the construction of an access road required for the

transportation of equipment to the project site. The Project Team has committed to applying the

same procedure of measurement and enumeration to any additional land parcels that was

followed for those in the 66 ha that has been assessed to date, and to undertaking consultation

with any additional PAPs regarding impacts and entitlements. Any such additions will need to be

incorporated in to the calculation of financial compensation and the implementation of the

livelihood restoration programs.

The land take associated with this LRP is expected to be complete in early 2017, with the

signing of definitive compensation agreements, the delivery of compensation entitlements, and

the initiation of livelihood restoration programs, along with the implementation of supportive

programs to follow shortly thereafter (see the Work Plan in Section 11.2).



rePlan Inc. 6

3.0 LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

3.1 Senegalese Legislative Framework

The following sub-sections summarize the key provisions of national law pertaining to the

mitigation of impacts related to the development of a renewable energy project in Senegal.

3.1.1 Constitution of the Republic of Senegal

The Constitution of the Republic of Senegal was adopted in 2001. The Constitution defines the

political and administrative organization of the State and assigns the roles and responsibilities of

the executive, legislative and judicial branches. Constitutional rights and norms relevant to this

document include the right to private property (Article 8), expropriation in the case of public

necessity legally ascertained and subject to fair and prior compensation (Article 15), and equal

rights to property for men and women (Article 15).

3.1.2 Energy Sector Development Policy

The Energy Sector Development Policy Letter (LPDSE), published in 2012, specifically outlines

the Government’s approach to energy sector development. It outlines the current realities and

constraints within the sector and sets out a vision and goals for change. The LPDSE promotes

increased access to safe energy for all in order to support strong economic growth and

equitable social development. The approach to realizing this goal includes increased

development of and competition within the energy sector across a range of diverse technologies

that include coal, gas, hydro-electric power, wind energy and solar power.

The Ministry of Energy governs the country’s national electricity company – SENELEC.

SENELEC – or the Senegal National Electricity Company - was created by Law 83-72 of 5 July

1983 and was converted into a majority State-owned limited company by Law 98-06 in 1998.

Under Articles 10 and 36, SENELEC has control of the concession for the production

transmission, distribution and sale of electric power. In 2013, SENELEC signed an Energy

Purchase Contract (CAE), which states SENELEC’s agreement to purchase all of the electric

power generated by the Project at a price agreement by the parties and to be amended during

the 20 year contract.

3.1.3 Environment Code

The Law on the Environment Code and accompanying Decree of 2001 set out rules and

procedures for any project that may have an impact on the environment. Impacts to be

considered include not only biophysical impacts, but also social impacts; impacts on human

health, welfare and needs; impacts on renewable and non-renewable resources; and,

displacement impacts (Decree Article 39).



rePlan Inc. 7

Projects having an environmental impact are subject to either an authorisation or a declaration,

depending on the severity of the impacts and the risks associated with the project (Law Articles

10 and 11).

For projects of less severe impacts (deemed second class projects), requiring a declaration, the

Minister may issue technical regulations for specific categories of installations (Law Article 18).

Article 6 of the Law reaffirms that responsibility for matters of the environment and natural

resources has been decentralised to the regions and local governments, as provided by the

1996 law on decentralisation. However, the Law and Decree do not make clear how this

principle is to be applied in practice. On the other hand, Article 27 of the Decree allows the

Minister to delegate the power of granting authorisations or receiving declarations to the

Governor of a Region, where regional services for the environment exist.

Any project or activity that may have an impact on the environment is required to carry out an

impact assessment, as part of the authorisation or approval process (Law Chapter 5). In the

Decree (Article 9), it is specifically stated that projects of the first class must be preceded by an

impact assessment.

Article 48 of the Law states that the impact assessment procedures should aim to avoid and to

minimize any negative impacts, and if appropriate provide for public participation in the process.

Article 51 goes further to state that the impact assessment must include the proposed measures

to avoid, reduce or compensate any negative impacts, as well as the cost of these measures.

Similar language is used in Article 10 of the Decree.

3.1.4 Land Tenure and Transactions

Land in Senegal falls into three main categories, regulated by different laws:

Land in the national domain, governed by Law No. 64-578 (1964) and its decree of

application. This category covers the vast majority of land in Senegal, particularly in rural

areas.

Land in the state domain, governed by Law No. 76-66 (1976) and its decree of

application. Under this law, the state domain comprises the public domain and the

private domain. In this case, ‘private’ refers to the private domain of the state, not private

property of non-state entities.

Private land that is non-state land. Land registered to individuals and other non-state

entities is still governed by the French Civil Code, and a colonial-era decree of 1932,

which sets out the process of registering private land.

Senegal‘s national domain lands are in turn subdivided into four categories:

1. Urban Areas (zones urbaines) – urban areas or commune lands;

2. Classified Areas (zones classes) – land that is governed by specific statutes, such as

classified forests, national parks, and other government protected areas;



rePlan Inc. 8

3. Rural Areas (zones de terroir) – lands that were regularly used, at the date of publication

of the 1964 law on the national domain, for agriculture, pasture, and rural settlement,

and non-classified forests; or,

4. Pioneer Areas (zones pionnières) – all remaining land, including areas intended for

major development projects.

Nearly all land within the Project exploration permit area falls within the designation of national

domain, and specifically Rural Areas.

According to the 1964 law (64-46) on the national domain, the state owns all lands in the

national domain so as to ensure their rational and productive use in conformity with its land use

and development plans.

Rural Areas are therefore managed under the authority of the state by the Rural Councils. The

decree for application (64-573) sets the conditions by which Rural Area lands are allocated.

Under this decree, the Rural Council has the power to allocate and re-allocate lands conditional

on the productive use of those lands. Lands are allocated to residents of rural communities,

following deliberation by the Rural Council and approval of the deliberation by the Sub-Prefect.

Land can be allocated directly to an individual or to a collective. Allocated land cannot be

transferred. Allocation takes place for an undetermined period of time and confers usage rights

on the user of the lands in question. Land allocation ends with the death of the physical person

or with the dissolution of the collective to which the land has been allocated (Article 20).

However, lands may also be inherited by the heirs of the deceased, within the limits of their

operating capacity, and providing that the subdivision of the land does not result in the creation

of economically unviable parcels (Article 22).

Under Article 20, land can be re-allocated or decommissioned at any time, at the request of the

assignee, or automatically one year following the provision of notice for any of the following

reasons:

Insufficiency of productive uses;

The resident has ceased to reside or to personally assure the productive use of the land;

The Rural Council decides, under the approval authority of the Governor, that the public

interest demands an alternate allocation (in this instance the assignee of the parcel in

question must receive an equivalent parcel as compensation); or

Through a deliberation adopted by a three-quarters majority of its members and

approved by decree, the Rural Council decides on a general revision to land allocations

to respond to changing demographic, cultural or economic conditions.

If reallocation of land occurs, the new landholder must pay the previous landholder

compensation equal to the value of built improvements and planted crops estimated on the day

that the new allocation is pronounced (Article 23).



rePlan Inc. 9

New members of the rural community can be allocated land not previously allocated, or re-

allocated lands by paying a rural levy and the compensation outlined in Article 23 (Article 21).

Within the Project’s area of interest, most land is categorized as Rural Area that has not been

titled or formally allocated by government-mandated procedures. These lands are therefore

administered locally by a Rural Council for the benefit of local people. Rural Areas are not

subject to private ownership; land is allocated by the Rural Council to individuals or households

based on a traditional land tenure system. Any land acquisition process in rural areas of

Senegal must take into account both the legal procedures and the traditional system of land

rights.

SENELEC currently owns land within the Private Domain in the area required for the Project

substation and energy delivery facilities.

3.1.5 Securing Land Access

Registering land within the National Domain in order to proceed with an industrial project first

requires that the land be registered in the name of the State following a declaration of public

utility.

Upon registration, long-term leases are available from the State of Senegal. Long-term leases

are offered on a 30-year basis, with an option of an additional 20-year term upon renewal. The

terms of the lease require that lessees make improvements to the land within a specified period

and that the cost of these improvements be borne solely by the lessee (along with all land,

property and other applicable taxes). During the term of the lease, State agents are authorized

to inspect and monitor the lessee’s progress against lease obligations. The lease may be

terminated at any time by the State if the lessee does not meet the conditions of the lease.

Once a lease is in place, leaseholders have an option to acquire ownership and land title (titre

foncier).

Easements can be directly negotiated with local authorities who have management oversight

lands within the National Domain (i.e. Rural Councils); however, to ensure greater

enforceability, easements may also be requested from the State after National Domain lands

have been registered. Once registered with the appropriate land registry, easements grant a

real right (droit réel) to the land user.

A construction lease is required from SENELEC for the Project substation area. Construction

leases can be entered into directly with the landowner and grant a real right to land on condition

that the lessee undertake construction as per the terms and conditions of the lease. The terms

and conditions of a construction lease are currently being negotiated with SENELEC.

Based on the needs of the Project described above, the formal process for securing land lease

rights is as follows (this procedure is drawn directly from the Project’s Land Regime &

Acquisition Memo):



rePlan Inc. 10

1. Request and obtain a favourable opinion from the Rural Council of Taiba N’Diaye for allocating the land to the Project;

2. Public utility declaration of the Project and registration requirement;

3. Presidential decree including de-allocation of the relevant land area, determination of compensation amount for PAPs and ordering its payment or deposit and authorization to take possession of the relevant land area;

4. Land registration in the State’s Private Domain;

5. Reassignment of the land to the Project with a long-term lease contract between the State of Senegal and the Project; and

6. Registration of the long-term lease contract with the relevant land registry.

3.1.6 Expropriation

The 2001 Constitution guarantees citizens the right of property, protecting it from infringement

except in cases of public necessity. Government expropriation of land requires a showing of

public necessity and payment of just compensation, which includes actual cost and earned

value.

Decree No. 77-563 of 3 July 1997 outlines the expropriation procedure under which the state

can expropriate land for public utility, subject to fair and prior compensation. The law provides

for establishment of a Conciliation Commission that is responsible for seeking an amicable

agreement with the affected parties on the amount of compensation, in accordance with rules

provided in the law. If the parties are unable to agree on an amount, an expropriation judge

delivers a ruling. Either party can request the services of an evaluation expert, but once the

expropriation judge rules, only limited grounds for appeal exist. Separate laws provide

streamlined procedures for certain land expropriations, such as land-takings for regularization

and upgrading of informal settlements.

Where the expropriation of land will result in displacement, the law requires a resettlement plan

to be produced. The law is not explicit as to whether this refers to economic displacement or

only to physical displacement, though in practice, it is typically seen by local practitioners and

authorities to apply only to physical displacement.

3.2 International Standards

3.2.1 IFC Performance Standards on Social and Environmental Sustainability

The IFC Performance Standards are a widely accepted framework for managing impacts and

risks associated with private sector development projects, and are complementary to national

regulations. Increasingly, adherence to the IFC Performance Standards is a requirement of

public and private lending institutions as a precondition to financing. The PSs most relevant to

this document are described briefly below.



rePlan Inc. 11

PS 1: Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and Impacts

PS 1 describes how environmental and social issues are to be managed in project development

and serves as the core around which the other standards are framed. Among other things, this

PS requires that nearby communities be appropriately engaged on issues that could potentially

affect them. Key requirements to this end include:

Conducting an informed consultation and participation process with affected

communities;

Working in an inclusive and culturally appropriate manner;

Addressing the needs of disadvantaged or vulnerable groups; and,

Making available an effective grievance management system.

PS 5: Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement

PS 5 describes how to manage physical and economic displacement through resettlement and

livelihood restoration processes. Objectives are to:

Avoid or at least minimize involuntary displacement wherever feasible;

Avoid forced evictions;

Mitigate impacts from land acquisition, by providing compensation for loss of assets at

full replacement cost and ensuring that livelihood restoration and resettlement activities

are implemented with appropriate stakeholder engagement;

Improve or at least restore the livelihoods and standards of living of those displaced;

and,

Improve living conditions among those physically displaced through the provision of

adequate housing with security of tenure at resettlement sites.

Among other requirements, PS 5 directs project proponents to:

Prepare a resettlement of livelihood restoration framework “where the exact nature or

magnitude of land acquisition or restriction on land use related to a project with potential

to cause physical and/or economic displacement is unknown due to the stage of project

development”;

“Avoid expropriation and eliminate the need to use governmental authority… through the

use of negotiated settlements… even if [proponents] have the legal means to acquire

land without the seller’s consent”; and,

“Bridge the gap” between IFC requirements and national requirements to ensure that

IFC requirements are met.

3.2.2 Corporate Principles and Standards

Lekela Advisors Ltd. has generally adopted the IFC Performance Standards as an appropriate

benchmark of international good practice. These are supplemented as required by reference to

the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights. In addition, Lekela has follows the IFC

Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) General Guidelines (IFC, 2007a) and EHS Guidelines

for Wind Energy (IFC, August 2015), the ISO 14001 environmental management system



rePlan Inc. 12

standard, and the OHSAS 18001 occupational health and safety (OHS) management system

standard.

As outlined in the ESIS Addendum, the Project has developed an Environmental and Social

Management System (ESMS), which will govern the way it operates with respect to key issues.

The ESMS will provide oversight to activities conducted by the Project Team and all contractors

and sub-contractors over the full life cycle of the Project.

3.3 Harmonization of National and International Standards

A detailed comparative analysis of Senegal’s regulations and the IFC Performance Standards is

provided below, together with the proposed approach of the Project to bridging the two.

TOPIC SENEGALESE

REQUIREMENTS

INTERNATIONAL

STANDARDS & BEST

PRACTICES

PROPOSED APPROACH

Land Acquisition,

Expropriation and

Negotiation

Government expropriation of

land requires demonstration

of public necessity and

payment of just

compensation, which

includes actual cost and

earned value (Decree No. 77-

563 of 3 July 1977). The law

on expropriation also requires

the government to seek an

amicable settlement with

affected parties on

compensation, before

resorting to a judicial ruling.

Negotiated settlements

between project advocate

and affected party concerning

compensation for land

acquisition are prioritized in

the Mining Code Art. 93, and

The National Domain

Application Decree No. 64-

573 Art. 25.

PS5 encourages the use of

negotiated settlements to

avoid expropriation and

forced evictions.

Expropriation is only to be

used as a last resort, if good

faith negotiations fail and

those affected reject

compensation that meets the

requirements of PS5.

Project should work with

the State to agree on a

process that is based on

good faith negotiations, and

only resorts to

expropriation if there is no

other option.

Scope of

Displacement

The Environment Code

requires that the impact

assessment process should

include measures to avoid

and reduce impacts,

including displacement

impacts (Articles 48 and 51),

PS5 requires proponents to

avoid, and when avoidance is

not possible minimize

displacement by exploring

alternative project designs.

Project should study

technical alternatives and

takes steps during project

design to reduce physical

and economic

displacement to a



rePlan Inc. 13

TOPIC SENEGALESE

REQUIREMENTS

INTERNATIONAL

STANDARDS & BEST

PRACTICES

PROPOSED APPROACH

and should present project

variations and alternatives

(Decree Article 10).

minimum.

Preparation of a

Plan


requires the impact

assessment to consider

social and displacement

impacts (Decree Article 39

and Annexe 1) and to present

compensation measures

(Law Article 51 and Decree

Article 10). In the case of

displacement and

resettlement, a category 1

(in-depth) impact assessment

is required (Decree Article 40

and Annexe 1).

The law on expropriation also

requires the preparation of a

resettlement plan where

displacement is involved.

PS5 requires proponents to

prepare a Resettlement Plan

or Livelihood Restoration

Plan, as the case may be.

Project should prepare a

Livelihood Restoration Plan

to address economic

displacement. The Plan

should include such

reporting as is required by

the Environment Code

within the Project’s impact

assessment.

Consultation Under Law 76-67 of 2 July

1976, a declaration of public

utility for expropriation is

preceded by a study which is

publicly announced and into

which all stakeholders may

contribute.

The Environment Code refers

in several articles to public

participation (including

information, consultation and

public audiences) and

involvement in decision-

making.

PS5 requires that livelihood

restoration / resettlement

activities are implemented

with appropriate disclosure of

information to, and the

informed consultation and

participation of those

affected. Such processes

must ensure that the

perspectives and interests of

women and other vulnerable

groups are adequately

considered.

Project should implement

consultation and disclosure

programs according to IFC

guidelines.

Project should engage

proactively with all those

affected by land acquisition

to plan and implement

livelihood restoration

activities, using a variety of

culturally appropriate

engagement techniques.

Livelihoods and

Standards of

Living

The Mining Code and Laws

on National Domain and

Expropriation focus on

compensation for legally

recognized assets, and does

not specifically consider

Project impacts on livelihoods

and standards of living are

the central focus of PS5.

Compensation for loss of

assets must be at full

replacement cost.

In addition to compensation

for lost assets, Project

should prepare and

implement a livelihood

restoration program

consistent with IFC



rePlan Inc. 14

TOPIC SENEGALESE

REQUIREMENTS

INTERNATIONAL

STANDARDS & BEST

PRACTICES

PROPOSED APPROACH

livelihoods or standards of

living.

The Environment Code and

Decree define environmental

impacts to include social and

human welfare impacts, as

well as impacts on the use of

natural resources (Law

Article 2; Decree Article 39).

Proponents must provide

other assistance to improve

or at least restore livelihoods

and standards of living,

including security of tenure

for those physically

displaced.

standards. The Project

should aim to achieve

improved livelihoods and a

higher standard of living for

displaced persons.

Vulnerable

groups

Senegalese constitution

reinforces the right of women

to the improvement in their

living conditions, access to

healthcare and well-being.

Article 10 of Law 76-67 of 2

July 1976 specifies that if the

assets of minors or other

people who for any reason

cannot participate in the

tribunal for deciding

compensation in the absence

of an amicable settlement, a

representative can be named

to participate on their behalf.

PS5 requires paying

particular attention to the

impacts on vulnerable.

Persons identified as

vulnerable should be assisted

to participate fully in – and

benefit fully from – the

livelihood restoration and

resettlement process. Extra

care must be taken to ensure

such groups are left better

off, or at least no worse off.

The Project should identify

groups and individuals who

may be more particularly

affected by physical and

economic displacement.

Comprehensive assistance

measures to vulnerable

persons should be

elaborated as part of a

Vulnerables Persons

Program.

Grievances Under the law on

expropriation, there are

limited provisions for appeal

of a ruling on compensation.

PS5 requires the

establishment of an effective

grievance mechanism, which

seeks to resolve concerns

promptly, using an

understandable and

transparent process that is

culturally appropriate, readily

accessible, at no cost to the

party that originated the

concern, and does not

impede access to judicial or

administrative remedies.

Project should implement

and publicize an accessible

grievance procedure

consistent with international

standards.

Participants should have

recourse to the judicial

system at any time.

Cut-Off Date and

Eligibility

Under Decree 64-573 of 30

July 1964 the cut-off date is

established on the date that

PS5 requires that a cut-off

date only be declared

following appropriate

Project should seek

agreement for a cut-off

date through consultation



rePlan Inc. 15

TOPIC SENEGALESE

REQUIREMENTS

INTERNATIONAL

STANDARDS & BEST

PRACTICES

PROPOSED APPROACH

the new land allocation is

pronounced.

Under Law 76-67 on

expropriation, Art. 20, the cut-

off date is established on the

date of the inventory report

that describes all of the

assets in place on the date of

the inventory. Also,

speculative improvements

carried out after the

expropriation process has

been initiated are not eligible

for compensation.

disclosure and consultation.

PS5 considers people eligible

for compensation if they have

a legitimate interest in

immoveable assets located in

the land take area that was

established as of the cut-off

date. Legitimate interest is

not synonymous with

ownership, but rather

encompasses formal legal

ownership and use rights,

customary ownership and

use rights that are

recognizable under national

law; and unrecognisable

rights or claims.

with Project-affected

people.

Project should consider as

eligible, all those people

with a demonstrated

interest in the affected

assets, whether legally

recognized or not.

Entitlements Under Article 20 of Decree

No 64-573 of 30 July 1964, it

is possible to re-allocate

occupied lands within the

national domain, provided

that equivalent in-kind

compensation is provided.

According to Law 76-67 of 2

July 1976 under conditions of

expropriation, in-cash

payment is the only

entitlement envisioned. The

law contains limited

instructions on determining

the amount of compensation.


requires compensation

measures for impacts in a

more general sense as part

of the impact assessment

(Law Article 51; Decree

Article 10).

Compensation for loss of

assets is provided at full

replacement value.

Recognised and recognisable

ownership rights are

compensated equally with full

replacement value. Payment

of in-kind compensation is

generally preferred over in-

cash compensation.

Those without legally

recognizable claims to land

will be entitled to

compensation at full

replacement value for lost

crops and other

improvements to land.

For physically displaced

persons, compensation must

improve living conditions

through the provision of

adequate housing with

security of tenure at

resettlement sites.

Project should compensate

for all affected immoveable

assets at full replacement

value.

Project should propose in-

kind compensation in any

case where cash

compensation carries a

significant risk of loss of

livelihoods or standard of

living.

Project should provide

security of tenure on any

replacement land, housing

or other assets.

Gender and Senegalese constitution PS5 requires that women’s Project should investigate



rePlan Inc. 16

TOPIC SENEGALESE

REQUIREMENTS

INTERNATIONAL

STANDARDS & BEST

PRACTICES

PROPOSED APPROACH

Eligibility/

Entitlements

gives men and women equal

rights to gain possession of

and own land subject to

conditions determined by the

law.

No specific mention of

women in laws concerning

allocation / reallocation of

national domain lands or

expropriation.

perspectives are obtained

and their interests factored

into all aspects of

resettlement planning and

implementation.

and implement culturally

appropriate means of

integrating women’s

perspectives and interests

into livelihood restoration

and resettlement planning.

Project should also consult

with affected persons to

determine appropriate

measures for ensuring men

and women are equally

considered for eligibility

and entitlements.

Timing of

Compensation

No timing provided in Decree

No. 64-573 of 30 July 1964.

Under Law 76-67 of 2 July

1976, pertaining to

expropriation processes, the

timing of compensation and

transfer of possession is set

out in a Decree.

The client will take

possession of land and

related assets only after

compensation has been

made available and, where

applicable, resettlement sites

and moving allowances have

been provided to the

displaced persons in addition

to compensation.

Project should occupy land

only after individual

compensation / livelihood

restoration agreements

have been signed; and

after implementing any

activities which are

required by those

agreements to be

implemented before

occupying the land.

Monitoring and

Evaluation

Not included in Senegalese

legislation

Monitoring and evaluation

must form a component of all

livelihood restoration and

resettlement action plans.

Project should implement a

monitoring and evaluation

program throughout the

resettlement process, with

the participation of affected

people.



rePlan Inc. 17

4.0 BASELINE CONDITIONS

4.1 Socio-economic Data Sources

Data in this section has been summarized from the Rural Cadastre Report (September 2015),

ESIS Addendum (June 2016), and the Draft Due Diligence Report (April 2016). The ESIS

Addendum draws on a number of data sources in its analysis of socio-economic baseline

conditions, including:

2013-2018 Local Development Plan (PLD) (prepared in 2013);

2003 data provided by the Méouane Local Development Support Centre (CADL); and,

2011 data from the administrative census of the population (conducted in 2011).

4.2 Summary of Baseline Conditions

In July and August 2015, Labosol carried out household surveys with all the affected PAPs

residing in 27 villages in the municipalities of Taiba N’Diaye, Noto Gouye Diama, and Darou

Khoudoss.

Figure 3 - Map of villages in Project's extended area of influence



rePlan Inc. 18

The household survey forms included a range of questions related to the size, makeup, land

holdings, economic activities, and compensation preferences of each PAP. The household

survey draws a common picture of rural communities in Senegal: large households, highly

dependent on rain-fed agricultural, with small-scale additional livelihood activities, such as

animal rearing and the sale of produce. Results of the household survey are provided in the

Rural Cadastre Report (September 2015).

Importantly, the Labosol survey did not constitute a complete socio-economic baseline of those

affected for the purposes of (a) monitoring and evaluating the results of land acquisition and

livelihood restoration process, and (b) adapting supportive programs to better meet their goals

and objectives. Accordingly, the Implementation Roadmap described below includes design and

implementation of a short, targeted household survey, as part of the individual agreement-

making process. This survey will include a full census, as well as a small number of key

performance indicators jointly selected by those affected and the Project, which will guide

monitoring and evaluating activities moving forward.

4.3 Demographic Overview

The ESIS includes population statistics for the DIA within the Municipality of Taiba N’Diaye for

the 2003-2012 period. During this time, the municipal population had an average annual growth

rate of about 2.4%, which is lower than the national average of 3%. Between 2003 and 2011,

the municipal growth rate for men (2.8%) was higher than that of women (1.5%). The average

annual growth rates within villages where PAPs reside are variable, ranging from -2.6% (in

Taiba N’Diaye village) to 7.8% (in Sam N’Diaye village). Villages within the DIA also display high

variability in male and female population growth rates. Average annual growth rates for male

populations within villages are in line with the overall averages noted above, falling between

-2.5% and 7.1%. For women, the range is much wider, falling between -6.8% and 41.9%.

4.4 Health Care

Large centres (e.g. Dakar) offer the most comprehensive health care services in Senegal. A

network of regional, district and individual health centre and health post services throughout the

country.

Health posts are located within each municipality, with less formal health huts and maternity

units located in rural areas. Typically, patients first access health care services at health huts in

rural areas. Depending on the severity of the issue, patients may then be referred to the nearest

health post, and if necessary, to a health centre or hospital.

Two health posts currently exist within the municipality of Taiba N’Diaye. One is located in Taiba

N’Diaye and the other in Mbayene. The latter health post was found to be non-functional during

a survey in support of the 2013-2018 Local Development Plan (2013-2018 PLD). Health huts

are present in four other villages including Taiba Mbaye, Ndomor, Thiallé and Keur Madiagne.

Rural maternity units are stationed at Taiba N’Diaye and Mbayene 3. A single pharmacy serves

the municipality from its centre of Taiba N’Diaye.



rePlan Inc. 19

The network of health posts, health huts and rural maternity units within the municipality of

Taiba N’Diaye does not comply with the standards defined in the National Health Development

Programme (PNDS). The PNDS stipulates one health post for every 5,000 rural inhabitants.

Taiba N’Diaye’s health posts currently service 14,000 inhabitants each. In order to meet PNDS

standards, an additional four health posts are required within the municipality.

Other health services are located within proximity of the municipality of Taiba N’Diaye, including

a private facility in Mboro (13 km from Taiba N’Diaye) built by the Industries Chimiques du

Sénégal (ICS). The towns of Tivaouane and Thiès also have both health centres and hospitals.

4.5 Education

Both formal and informal educational systems are present in the municipality of Taiba N’Diaye.

The informal system includes two types of instruction: teaching of the Koran and reading. The

formal system is public and includes pre-school, primary, junior high and high school levels.

The informal system does not enjoy dedicated classroom space; however, primary school

classrooms and huts are often used for lessons. Koranic teachings are available in all villages

within the municipality. In addition, reading classes are offered in 13 villages.

There is one high school within the municipality. The rest of the formal system comprises two

junior high schools, 19 primary schools and two pre-schools. An expansion of primary school

facilities occurred between 2000 (when 12 schools were counted) and 2013 (when 19 schools

were present). However, facility expansion was not coupled with a similar investment in the

services available within each facility, including water and washrooms. According to the PLD,

the formal school system within the municipality of Tabia N’Diaye lacks functionality despite the

presence of physical school facilities.

That said, the facilities available within the formal education system are superior to those used

by the informal system. In 2003, primary school attendance rates in the municipality (51%) were

lower than those in both the Region of Thiès and nationally. The increased availability and

quality (when compared to informal facilities) of primary school facilities now seems to be

contributing to increasing attendance rates.

4.6 Water and Electricity

ASUFOR (Borehole Users Association) manages two boreholes in the village of Taiba N’Diaye.

The ASUFOR boreholes are connected to the larger Water Supply Network (AEP), which

supplies 17 villages within the Direct Area of Influence (DAI) with drinking water. The network

provides inadequate service to the villages, with very low flow rates in the villages located

farthest away from Taiba N’Diaye. An additional borehole was scheduled for construction in

September 2015 to supply better service to six villages within the DAI and two within the IAI.

This upgrade should provide improved access to drinking water for villages in the DAI.

Access to water for agricultural purposes (e.g. irrigation boreholes) is limited within the

municipality. Currently, rain-fed farming practices are predominant in the municipality.



rePlan Inc. 20

Seventeen of 35 villages within the municipality of Taiba N’Diaye have access to electricity

(representing 80-90% of the total municipal population). Thirteen villages within the Project DAI

do not have electricity, with PAP residing in five of these villages. The Municipality has plans to

electrify villages currently without access and to increase service to villages that already have it.

4.7 Road Network and Transport

The Project area is accessible by two departmental roads including the D702 and the D702C.

The D702 is a tarmacked road that connects Tivaouane to Mboro, crossing through the

municipality of Taiba N’Diaye for 10 km. The D702C is a 19 km laterite road crossing three

villages within the municipality. It also links the D702 to Taiba N’Diaye via a tarmacked section.

Other villages within the municipality are connected to one another by sandy or laterite tracks,

the former of which are typically impassable during the rainy season.

Agricultural activities drive transport needs across the municipality. However, agricultural

transport options are limited due to the quality of local roads and the ability of PAPs to access

automobile transportation (versus donkeys and carts).

4.8 Cultural Heritage

Cemeteries and certain trees are considered sacred across Senegal. In the 31 villages near the

Project area, a total of 40 cemeteries were identified. Only one of these cemeteries, in the

village of Keur Maka Beye, is within close proximity to the Project’s boundaries and should be

fenced off to ensure protection from Project activities.

Baobab and tamarind trees – both of which can have sacred or protected status in Senegal –

are located within the Project footprint. The ESIS summarizes the findings of a Labosol report,

noting that 29 baobab and eight tamarind trees are present within the Project footprint, but that

only five of these trees (three baobab, one tamarind, and one black tamarind) have been

identified as sacred by local communities. Mitigation measures for these trees (following the

guidance provided in IFC PS 8), including preservation where possible, are included in the

ESIS.

4.9 Agriculture and Trade

The municipality of Taiba N’Diaye’s economy is generally divided into two sectors:

agriculture/livestock and transport/trade.

Agricultural production within the Project area depends on rainfall, as irrigation systems are not

widely available. Because of this, crop production is varied. The main crops in the Project area

include cassava, peanut, and millet and black-eyed pea. In addition to these, fruit trees

(particularly mango) are also grown, and their products are consumed by growers and sold

commercially. Although crops are grown and sold for commercial purposes within the

municipality, producers still use traditional farming techniques. Limited water supply, limited

access to pest control, poor soil quality, and lack of storage and processing facilities all impact



rePlan Inc. 21

the scale and quality of production. Market gardens face similar challenges in the production of

vegetables.

Livestock farming is currently on a subsistence basis as land supply is dominated by agricultural

activities and feed supply is currently limited to residual agricultural products (e.g. husks and

straw).

Transport and trade activities are primarily driven by agricultural needs. The majority of

agricultural trade occurs along main roads and is primarily carried out by women. In many areas

of the municipality, poor quality roads limit trade, as does a lack of access to financing options.



rePlan Inc. 22

5.0 DISPLACEMENT IMPACTS

5.1 Overview

The Project Footprint is located within an intensively used agricultural area, consisting – as

noted below – of 423 affected land parcels of varying sizes, belonging to 409 residents of the

surrounding villages.

Due to the high population density, high pressure on land, and relatively uniform soil quality,

almost all parcels are cultivated annually with only a few parcels being left fallow in any

particular year.

There are no habitations or structures on the affected parcels, however, valuable improvements

have been made to the land, such as:

Land has been cleared of trees and vegetation and broken for farming;

Mango and other high-value trees have been cultivated within the parcels;

Wild tree species are found occurring naturally within some parcels and in some cases

have been protected by land owners; and

Living fences or hedgerows have been put in around some parcels to demarcate the

boundaries and provide protection from grazing animals.

Mango trees are by far the most popular fruit trees to cultivate in this area; mangos constitute

the most important cash crop in the area. The majority of affected parcels contain one or more

mango trees that the owners would have planted, protected, and in some cases watered for a

period of at least four years before coming into production.

5.2 Project Affected Parties

The Project’s land take will result in the economic displacement of 409 Project-affected Parties

(PAPs), which are understood in this context to be the legitimate land holder or user of affected

land parcels. The number of total PAPs was updated from 473 to 409 based on a review of the

database prepared by Labosol (see Section 1.2) and reconciliation with documentation from the

first payment of financial compensation (see Section 7.3.2). The initial count of 473 PAPs was

the result of double counting of some PAPs who own more than one affected land parcel and of

PAPs who are both land holders and land users, farming land parcels owned by another PAP.

The table below presents the total number of PAPs based on the results of the review of the

database and reconciliation with payment forms.



rePlan Inc. 23

Table 1 - Total Number of PAPs

TYPE NUMBER

Land users (“exploitants”) 35 PAPs

37 parcels

(2 PAPs are land users on 2 parcels each)

Land holders (“proprietaires”) 371 PAPs

(including 10 who are also land users)

422 parcels

(332 PAPs have 1 parcel, 31 PAPs have 2

parcels, 4 PAPs have 3 parcels, 4 PAPs

have 4 parcels)

Unknown (not identified as Land User or

Land Holder in the Labosol database)

2 PAPs

(1 parcel each)

1 PAP

(1 parcel as land holder, 1 parcel

unknown)

Total PAPs 409 PAPs

423 parcels

(not including 3 that are associated with

PAPs who are unidentified as either land

users or land holders)

Each PAP is connected to a household, on a one to one basis. The average household size,

based on the sample obtained through the socio-economic survey in February 2017 is 12

members; the approximate total number of affected persons is 4,908.

The majority of the PAPs reside within the municipality of Taiba N’Diaye. The Labosol Rural

Cadastre Report (2015) identifies 309 of these PAPs as residing in the following 19 villages:

Baity Gueye (17);

Baity Ndiaye (5);

Bal Diop (11);

Bal Gueye (2);

Darou Dia (2);

Keur Assane Ndiaye (7);

Keur Demba (1);

Keur Madiagne (17);

Keur Malle (1);

Keur Mambaye Khari (1)



rePlan Inc. 24

Keur Mambaye Seneba (2);

Make Gaye Beye (8);

Mbayene 3 (28);

Sam Ndiaye (2);

Taiba Khab (2);

Taiba Mbaye (52);

Taiba Ndiaye (62);

Taibe Santhie (65); and

Khelcom (24).

An additional 32 PAPs live in municipalities outside of Taiba N’Diaye in the following villages:

Baity Bacar (6) in the municipality of Noto Gouye Diama;

Baity Dakhar (6) in the municipality of Noto Gouye Diama;

Bal sand (3) in the municipiality of Darou Khoudoss;

Mbourdjiguene (1) in the municipiality of Darou Khoudoss;

Merina samb (1) in the municipiality of Darou Khoudoss;

Ndiop sao (4) in the municipiality of Darou Khoudoss; and

Sao (11) in the municipiality of Darou Khoudoss.

Affected land parcels of the 32 PAPs residing in the municipalities of Noto Gouye Diama and

Darou Khoudoss are located in the municipality of Taiba N’Diaye.

5.3 Scope of Displacement

As reported in Labosol’s Rural Cadastre Report (2015), the vast majority of PAPs (86%) will

lose less than 10% of the agricultural land they own.1 This understanding was confirmed during

rePlan’s targeted consultation, when the vast majority of PAPs attending community meetings

identified that they owned land besides the parcels that would be acquired by the Project.

The Rural Cadastre Report also noted that less than 1% of PAPs (corresponding to one

individual household) will lose 50% or more of their total agricultural land. Also less than 1% of

PAPs (2 individual households) will lose between 40 and 45% of their total agricultural land. The

following table summarizes losses by PAP of total agricultural land holdings and is based on the

findings of the Labosol Rural Cadastre report and applied to the PAP numbers as identified in

the final Commission report.

1 Data on total land holdings and percentage of loss for each PAP is being confirmed through the socio-economic

household survey launched in February 2017 (see Section11).



rePlan Inc. 25

Table 2 - Loss of Total Land Holdings

Loss of total agricultural land holdings

Percentage of PAPs Number of PAPs

Loss 0 to 10% 86% 407

Loss of 10 to 20% 11% 53

Loss of 20 to 30% 2% 9

Loss of 30 to 40% 0% 0

Loss of 40 to 50% 0.7% 3

Loss of 50 to 60% 0.3% 1

Loss of 60 to 70% 0% 0

Loss of 70 to 80% 0% 0

Loss of 80 to 90% 0% 0

Loss of 90 to 100% 0% 0

In addition, the Rural Cadastre Report notes that 3,044 trees would be impacted by the Project,

broken down as follows:

71% are mango trees;

1% are other fruit trees; and

28% are wild trees.

The Rural Cadastre Report concludes that 5 PAPs will lose all of the mango trees within their

affected land parcels, but that these households will each lose 15% or less of their total

agricultural land. Also, the Report notes that 70% of PAPs will lose no more than 10% of their

revenue associated with mango trees.

The loss of wild trees, used by community members for their leaves and bark, will be minimal for

most PAPs. Specifically, close to 60% of PAPs will lose no more than 20% of the revenue that

could be provided by these trees, while 12% of PAPs will lose between 50 and 100% of this

type of revenue.

The ESIS Addendum draws the following conclusions based on the Departmental Commission’s

compensation rates and the overall impact of the Project on each PAP:

Table 3 - Summary of Revenue Loss

Loss of revenue associated with land

Percentage of PAPs Number of PAPs

Loss 0 to 10% 67% 317

Loss of 10 to 20% 20% 95

Loss of 20 to 30% 7% 33

Loss of 30 to 40% 4% 19

Loss of 40 to 50% 1.1% 5

Loss of 50 to 60% 0.6% 3

Loss of 60 to 70% 0% 0

Loss of 70 to 80% 0.3% 1

Loss of 80 to 90% 0% 0

Loss of 90 to 100% 0% 0



rePlan Inc. 26

5.4 Other Considerations

The ESIS Addendum identifies that there is a non-negligible risk of hazardous phenomena in

the Project’s Immediate Area of Influence, including wind turbine collapse, breakage and fire. In

addition, the amenity value of land in close proximity to a wind turbine and the range of

alternative uses for such land are intrinsically reduced. This Immediate Area of Influence has

been defined to extend to a radius of 500 m around each turbine, comprising 2,200 ha of total

land.

The Project has applied to the Ministry of Environment to have these 2,200 ha legally classified

as an “Installation Classée pour la Protection de l’Environnement” (ICPE). Under Senegalese

law, such areas are subject to restricted uses and special supervision to minimize any risks to

the environment, persons or property. Specifically, no human habitation or industrial activity will

be permitted in this area. By implication, some other economic or industrial activities not yet

envisaged could also be prohibited in this area. It is expected, however, that existing agricultural

activities will be allowed to continue, albeit with a certain loss of amenity value and other

impacts such as noise and shadow.

Beyond the 500 m radius referred to in the preceding section, the presence of large wind

turbines implies some restrictions on future land use and loss of amenity values. The area

where these impacts could be felt can be approximated to the Project’s Close Area of Influence,

as described in Section 4.1.1.2 of the ESIS Addendum.

The Project has formally applied to the Government to declare the Close Area of Influence off-

limits for phosphate exploration and mining, for reasons of incompatibility with the project. It is

possible that other economic activities or industrial projects could be proposed in the future

which the Project would also consider to be incompatible.

The Close Area of Influence has a total land area of approximately 12,000 ha, and includes over

half the surface area of Taiba N’Diaye Commune. Subtracting the area affected by the

preceding categories of impact, the additional area that is subject to some future restrictions is

approximately 10,000 ha. This area is mostly farmland, but also includes 33 villages, of which

25 are within Taiba N’Diaye Commune, and 8 fall under the neighbouring commune of Darou

Khoudoss.

Studies on land use restrictions in the Immediate Area of Influence and the Close Area of

Influence are ongoing. This LRP is restricted to the 66 ha identified as part of the current land

acquisition program, however, appropriate mitigation measures would need to be taken in this

larger area if displacement impacts are identified.

5.5 Summary

The following table summarizes displacement impacts by area of influence.



rePlan Inc. 27

Table 4 - Summary of Displacement Impacts

CATEGORY AND SUMMARY OF IMPACT QUANTIFICATION OF

IMPACT

AFFECTED PERSONS AND

VILLAGES

1. Permanent loss of farmland

The area directly occupied by project

infrastructure will be permanently lost to the

traditional users, and no longer available for

economic activities, habitation or other uses. The

area in question is almost all active farmland,

with a small proportion of fallow and grazing

land.

The foundations of the 46

wind turbine pylons will

occupy 7 ha, while the

construction of 34 km of

internal roads will occupy a

further 59 ha (14 ha will be

acquired temporarily during

the construction phase).

423 parcels have been

measured, belonging to 409

PAPs under the traditional land

tenure system.

These PAPs are resident in 27

villages within and surrounding

the project area.

In a few cases, the farmland is

cultivated by people other than

the traditional landowners.

These land users are included in

the 409 PAPs.

2. Permanent loss of trees and live fences

All assets and improvements on the land referred

to in item 1 will also be permanently lost. These

include cultivated trees, wild trees and live

fences.

5,047 fruit trees and other

high-value trees

189 other trees including

wild trees

4,125 m of live fences

The affected PAPs and villages

are the same as for item 1.



rePlan Inc. 28

6.0 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

6.1 Consultation Record

Between August 8 and 19, 2016, targeted consultation was conducted by rePlan with the

support of EES and several Project Team members. The aim of consultation was to engage

internal and external stakeholders on key elements of the Project’s land acquisition program

and seek their input on proposed livelihood restoration programs. Specific objectives were to:

Confirm the scope of economic displacement that will result from the Project;

Verify that PAPs have a clear understanding of the Project’s likely impacts on their

individual land use and livelihoods and of their entitlements; and

Consult PAPs, key stakeholders, and local authorities on conceptual livelihood

restoration and other supportive programs.

Over the course of the consultation, rePlan met with approximately 150 community members

from the Project area, about 70% of whom self-identified as having land that will be directly

impacted by the Project (see Annex I for lists of attendees for community meetings) [additional

lists are being provided by EES]. Community meetings were arranged by Project Team

members through the relevant local authorities, who in turn reached out to the Village Chief and

elders and invited PAPs and members of the broader community to attend. Representatives of

women’s associations and youth associations were specifically encouraged to attend.

Community meetings, structured as open group discussions with the PAPs and community

members, were held with members of the following communities:

Minam

Keur Mallé

Mbayene 3

Keur Ma Mbaye

Keur Mbaye Seneba

Keur Samba Hawa

Keur Birama

Diamba Touba Fall

Taiba Ndiaye

Bale Diop

Ndiope Saw

Sao

Balesand

Focus groups and key informant interviews were conducted directly following community

meetings with representatives and members of women’s associations and youth associations.

Consultations were also carried out with the following local authorities and representatives of

the regional technical services during the same period:

Prefect of Tivaouane – Makane Mbengue;

Sub-Prefect of Meouane – Richard Birame Faye;

Deputy Mayor of the Commune of Taiba N’Diaye – Malick Ndiaye;

President of the Association of Village Chiefs of the Commune of Taiba N’Diaye –

Lamine Diop;



rePlan Inc. 28

Coordinator of the Departmental Commission / Head of the Department of Urban

Development of Tivaouane – Banda Mbaye;

Head of the Department of Forests of Tivaouane – Commandant Moustapha Ndiaye;

Head of the Department of Agriculture of Tivaouane – Abdou Macolaye Toure;

Head of the Local Development Support Centre of Meouane – Abdoulaye Nar Ndoye;

and,

Director of the Regional Development Agency of Thies – Cherif Diagne.

6.2 Summary of Feedback

6.2.1 Impacts and Entitlements

Consultation confirmed that, in general, PAPs have a basic understanding of the Project’s land

acquisition program and how it will impact their individual land use. PAPs recognize that under

Senegal’s land tenure system they do not inherently own their land and that it can legally be

acquired for the purposes of the Project so long as they are paid financial compensation. PAPs

also generally understand the role of the Departmental Commission in assessing the size of the

land parcels that will be acquired by the Project and in enumerating their crops and trees. While

PAPs understand they will be receiving financial compensation, they were not, at the time of

consultation, aware of the results of the Departmental Commission’s assessment of their

individual land parcels or of the rate of financial compensation that would be applied.

This gap is currently being addressed by the Project Team to ensure PAPs are aware of the

amount of land they will be losing and the amount of financial compensation they will be entitled

to receive, under Departmental Commission findings. The Project prepared individual disclosure

letters for all PAPs stating the amount of land and number of trees each PAP will lose, as well

as the amount of interim financial compensation they will receive. The letters were hand-

delivered by the Project Team. A formal grievance mechanism was also being put in place at

the time of writing to ensure PAPs have an effective mechanism to share and resolve any

grievances, issues or questions regarding these letters.

Similarly, the PAPs, local authorities and several key internal stakeholders were unaware that a

Livelihood Restoration Plan would be developed to provide additional support to PAPs. rePlan

therefore included an explanation of the concept of an LRP during its consultation. Additional

messaging will be developed by the Project and incorporated into a wider stakeholder

engagement plan to ensure internal and external stakeholders understand the full range of

entitlements related to land acquisition, including any required “top-up” payments and

supportive programs.

A structured stakeholder engagement plan is currently being put in place to facilitate ongoing

communication with Project-affected persons and communities.



rePlan Inc. 29

6.2.2 Livelihood Restoration

Following an explanation of the concept of livelihood restoration, rePlan presented two high-

level options for livelihood restoration programs to internal and external stakeholders for their

consideration and feedback. These options are discussed in more detail in Section 7 below, but

briefly, they are agricultural intensification through irrigated gardening and the increased

planting of fruit trees.

The two options were unanimously supported in every consultation session. A key piece of

feedback from the Director of the Regional Development Agency – that activities should

reinforce traditional livelihood strategies in order to build on the skills and resources that already

exist in the area – was consistently echoed by community members and PAPs. Community

members explained that while irrigated gardening is not widely practiced in the area presently,

this is only because of limited access to water. Women in particular responded positively to this

option, noting that they are already engaged in the purchase and resale of produce and that

household gardens would bolster this economic activity and generate additional food for

household consumption.

Fruit tree cultivation was equally supported by PAPs, the majority of whom are already engaged

in this activity and will be losing trees as a result of the Project’s land acquisition. In response to

questions regarding ways to increase revenue from fruit trees apart from simply increasing

planting rates, PAPs were keen to discuss value-add opportunities such as cold storage and

transformation to juice or dried fruit products. These value-add options will be explored through

the Project’s Social Investment Strategy.

Through working groups and interviews with local authorities and members of relevant technical

services, rePlan discussed the practical details of the two proposed livelihood restoration

programs. Their input on elements such as soil quality, planting schedules, fruit varieties, water

sources, and production costs have been incorporated in to the program proposals below.



rePlan Inc. 30

7.0 ELIGIBILITY AND ENTITLEMENTS

7.1 Eligibility Policy

Eligibility policies define “who” and “what” is eligible for compensation, and conversely who and

what is not. “Who” refers to those persons, households or communities that experience

displacement impacts. “What” refers to the types of immoveable assets that will be displaced.

The Project considers individuals eligible for compensation if they have a legitimate interest in

immoveable assets located on land located in the Project Footprint.

The Project acknowledges that legitimate interest is not synonymous with legal ownership, but

rather encompasses displaced people with either:

Formal legal ownership and use rights recognized under national law;

Informal or customary ownership and use rights that are recognizable under national

law; and/or

No recognizable legal right or claim to the assets they employ as part of livelihood

formation.

The identification of eligible people and definition of eligible assets has been carried out by the

Departmental Commission and by Labosol in two separate survey exercises. The exercises

involved the direct participation of PAPs, on a parcel by parcel basis, as well as the involvement

of neighbouring landholders and local leaders, such as Village Chiefs. The resulting

understanding of customary ownership and use rights was therefore validated in the field at the

time of survey, and no conflicts have emerged subsequently.23

Significantly, no formal eligibility criteria or cut-off date was set or shared during either exercise

– or at any point since by the Project Team – with communities in the Project area or local

authorities. As such, the delivery of individual disclosure letters served as a de facto cut-off date

for the Project.

The individual disclosure letters were prepared and distributed by the Project to all PAPs in

September 2016. The letters included the name of each PAP, a characterization of his/her

impacted assets, and a commitment to pay a certain amount of interim compensation, based on

the rates defined by the Commission.

7.2 Entitlement Policy

The basic entitlements arising from impacts on immoveable assets are summarized in the table

below.

3 Any conflicts that do emerge will be addressed through the Grievance Mechanism, outlined in Section 10.



rePlan Inc. 31

Table 5 – Entitlement Matrix

IMPACTED ASSET

ENTITLEMENT

ELIGIBILITY

NUMBER OF ELIGIBLE

PAPs4

Agricultural lands Cash compensation calculated at full replacement value of affected land

Owner and user 409 PAPs

Right of salvage ahead of destruction

Owner and user 409 PAPs

Agricultural intensification through irrigation

PAPs losing 20% or more of their total agricultural land holdings

12 PAPs

Transitional allowance PAPs losing 30% or more of their total revenue associated with land; length of entitlement depends on the percent of total revenue loss

16 PAPs for one month (30-40% loss)

4 PAPs for two months (40-50% loss)

4 PAPs for three months (more than 50% loss)

Fruit trees Cash compensation per tree (by type and age) calculated at full replacement value

Owner 366 PAPs


Owner 366 PAPs

Replacement of lost fruit trees

PAPs losing 20% or more of their annual revenue associated with productive fruit trees

53 PAPs

Wild trees Cash compensation per tree (by type and age) calculated at full replacement value

Owner 366 PAPs


Owner 366 PAPs

Household revenue as a result of lost agricultural lands and/or productive trees

Business Skills Session

2 members from each affected household

409 persons, estimating 50% of households choose to participate

During rePlan’s consultation, several individuals raised concerns over the payment of

compensation to land users who do not own the land that they cultivate. A Project Team

member then confirmed publicly that the Project will pay full and equal compensation to both

4 Eligibility for entitlements is being confirmed through the household socio-economic survey launched in February

2017. Figures in the table and in Section 8 have been extrapolated for the confirmed 409 PAPs based on the data provided in the Rural Cadastre Report.



rePlan Inc. 32

land owners and land users, in those few cases where land parcels have been allocated or

rented to independent individuals (i.e. members of other households) for cultivation.

In essence, this policy decision means that some parcels will be double compensated at their

full replacement values: once for customary owners and once for customary users. This level of

compensation exceeds international standards, but addresses the potential vulnerability of

renters.

Significantly, during the household survey carried out by Labosol in 2015, PAPs were given the

choice between cash and in-kind compensation, specifically the provision of replacement land;

according to Labosol’s Rural Cadastre Report, all PAPs selected cash compensation.

7.3 Compensation Rates

7.3.1 Departmental Commission Findings

The Departmental Commission set a compensation rate of 1,050,000 FCFA per hectare of

affected agricultural land. The Commission also set compensation rates for fruit trees as a unit

price assigned to each tree, based on a regional scale for the region of Thies, and determined

based on the age, tree species, and each tree’s potential for producing income. Compensation

rates set by the Commission for each tree type are listed in the table below.

Table 6 - Compensation Rates by Tree Type



rePlan Inc. 33

7.3.2 Project Commitments

Prior to development of the LRP, the Project offered to pay financial compensation for affected

land at the rate of 3,000,000 FCFA per hectare of affected land, meaning an additional

1,950,000 FCFA per hectare on top of the rate set by the Departmental Commission.

As part of the development of the LRP, rePlan commissioned an assessment by a professional

agronomist of the compensation rates set for the Project to ensure they represent full

replacement value of lost assets, in compliance with IFC Performance Standard 5. A copy of the

agronomist’s report is provided in Annex III.

In sum, the agronomist determined that the rate for square hectare of affected land set by the

Project, which includes the additional compensation the Project will pay on top of the amount

determined by the Commission, represents full replacement value.

The agronomist also determined, however, that the rates set by the Commission for

compensation of some types of fruit trees did not represent full replacement value based on the

need to address a loss of revenue for multiple years. Based on a calculation of the market price

per kilo of fruit type, the average yield per tree, and a timeline of 4 years for adult trees (the

number of years required on average for a newly planted tree to begin producing fruit suitable

for sale) and for 2 years for young trees (the number of years it will take for the tree to return to

its present state of development), the agronomist proposed the following revised rates for

certain affected tree types:

Table 7 - Summary of Rates Proposed by Agronomist

TREE TYPE RATE PROPOSED BY

AGRONOMIST

Lemon tree – adult 79,247

Lemon tree – young 5,000

Orange tree – young 5,000

Mango tree – adult 118,870

Mango tree – young 7,000

Based on the rates above, and the number of trees identified in the Rural Cadastre Report as

being lost as a result of the Project, an additional 148,357,553 XOF will be paid in financial

compensation, as per the breakdown below:

Table 8 - Additional Compensation for Fruit Trees

TYPE

ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION TO BE PAID PER

TREE (XOF)

NUMBER OF TREES THAT

WILL BE LOST

AMOUNT TO BE PAID PER TREE

TYPE (XOF)



rePlan Inc. 34

Lemon tree – adult 66,247 9 596,223

Lemon tree – young 2,500 20 50,000

Orange tree – young

2,500 17 42,500

Mango tree – adult 68,870 2,109 145,246,830

Mango tree – young 3,500 692 2,422,000

Payment of cash compensation is being done in two stages: the first payment for the amount

determined by the Commission was made in September 2016; the second payment for the

supplementary compensation to reach the rate of 3,000,000 XOF per hectare of affected land

(1,950,000 XOF per hectare), as well as the supplementary compensation for fruit trees and the

transitional allowance will be paid following the signature of individual agreements, which is

expected to be completed in early 2017.

Total compensation for affected land and trees is anticipated to be approximately 479,504,000

XOF (€ 731,000), which includes:

202,690,000 XOF (€ 309,000) for affected land and trees – paid in September 2016

based on Commission rates, equates to 42% of total compensation;

127,911,000 XOF (€ 195,000) – supplementary compensation for affected land, to be

paid in Q1 2017; and,

148.999,000 XOF (€227,149) – supplementary compensation for affected fruit trees, to

be paid in Q1 2017.



rePlan Inc. 35

8.0 LIVELIHOOD RESTORATION PROGRAMS

8.1 Program A: Business Skills Session

The livelihood restoration programs proposed below aim to reinforce and strengthen existing

livelihood activities, which are traditionally land-based and focused on agriculture. Recognizing

the shortage of available land in the Project area, and the opportunity for households to

potentially pursue new revenue-generating activities using the cash compensation they receive,

the Project will offer PAPs the opportunity to participate in a session aimed at building basic

business management skills. The session will focus on basic entrepreneurial and financial

management skills and expose participants to opportunities for small businesses in the Project

area.

Expected result: PAPs and members of affected households will be exposed to basic financial

management principles for application at the household level or to the initiation of alternative

livelihood activities, and will be aware of potential opportunities for new economic activities or

small businesses in the Project area.

Programme description: The course will include the following components:

A presentation on basic money management, budgeting, and cooperative savings and

loans by an NGO specializing in microcredit;

A presentation from the local economic development agency or relevant government

authority on formalizing livelihood activities and setting-up small businesses; and

A participatory assessment of small-scale business opportunities in the Project area.

The course will be made available to all PAPs, as well as one member of his / her household;

alternatively two members of a PAP’s household can attend if the PAP chooses not to

participate him / herself.

The course will be delivered by a local training provider to be identified by the Project. The

course will be designed in accordance with the low literacy levels in the area. The schedule for

course delivery will be set through consultation with community leaders to ensure it does not

conflict with agricultural or cultural activities.

In addition, the Project will identify a local partner organization involved in the banking and

microfinance sector. The Project will make the organization’s services available to any PAP who

does not already have a bank account and who wishes to open one.

Justification: Primary livelihood activities in the Project area are agriculture and the cultivation

and sale of fruit and other produce. The availability of land in the Project area is minimal,

however. Non land-based livelihoods present new opportunities for PAPs. PAPs will be

receiving financial compensation from the Project, but financial literacy levels are generally low

in Senegal and the majority of individuals do not participate in any formal system of banking.



rePlan Inc. 36

Cost: A preliminary estimate of the cost of providing a business skills course is presented in the

table below.

Table 9 – Estimated Cost of Business Skills Course

ITEM ESTIMATED

COST, FCFA COMMENTS

Session materials 250,000 Covers the time required for the training provider to

develop session materials and prepare for session

delivery.

Speakers’ costs 80,000 A per diem and travel costs will be paid for two speakers for each session.

Delivery of half-day course 200,000 Fee for the training provider per session. Sessions should be delivered with no more than 30 participants.

TOTAL COST FOR FINANCIAL

MANAGEMENT COURSE

3,920,250 Estimating 409 participants, based on the assumption

that 50% of eligible households will choose to

participate. 14 courses will be held.

8.2 Program B: Mitigation for Lost Farmland

While modest in extent, the permanent loss of farmland is significant due to the high population

density, the high pressure on land and the very limited availability of alternatives to agriculture.

The mitigation of this loss of land may represent the most significant challenge for livelihood

restoration. While affected people could potentially purchase replacement land with cash

compensation, given the lack of unused land, this would only transfer the impact to other

community members.

There is also no obvious, low-risk opportunity for creating jobs outside the agriculture sector,

although the wind farm will create a certain number of direct and indirect jobs.

These factors point to agricultural intensification measures as the most promising strategy to

mitigate the permanent loss of farmland.

Details of the proposed sub-programs are described in the following subsections.

8.2.1 Subprogram B-1: Agricultural Intensification through Irrigation

Expected result: PAPs losing 20% or more of their total agricultural land holdings are able to

replace their lost income through intensification of production on other, nearby land.

Programme description: For each 1 ha of affected farmland, PAPs will be entitled to 0.1 ha of

irrigated garden, complete with a water source in the form of an improved traditional well; a

simple solar pumping system; a concrete water tank; a drip irrigation kit; and a fence to protect



rePlan Inc. 37

against livestock. Since the affected land parcels are mostly fractions of a hectare, the

participants will need to group together in a site of their choice of at least 0.1 ha; the creation of

irrigation sites of less than 0.1 ha would be inefficient and costly, largely due to the cost of a well

and fencing. The sites for the irrigated plots could be provided either by the affected households

or other willing community members, who would be compensated accordingly.

Justification: Based on an examination of the resources and potentials in the project area, the

most feasible way to sustainably increase productivity is through the extension of irrigation.

Irrigation is already practiced on a small scale, but is limited by the lack of water sources, as

well as the cost of pumping and other irrigation infrastructure. With irrigation, it is possible to

produce higher-value crops, such as vegetables, on a year-round basis. There is a good market

for these products due to the proximity to major urban centres.

The typical gross annual income from one hectare of irrigated crops is on the order of 5,000,000

FCFA, while the average income for rain-fed crops is on the order of 500,000 FCFA. Therefore,

0.1 ha of irrigated land, with an efficient irrigation system, may be considered comparable to 1ha

of rain-fed crops in terms of income potential.

Cost: A preliminary estimate of the cost of establishing 0.1 ha of irrigated garden is presented in

the table below. This estimate does not include technical design, planning and supervision.12

PAPs are expected to lose 20% or more of their total agricultural land holdings.

Table 10 – Estimated Costs for 0.1 ha of Irrigated Garden

ITEM ESTIMATED

COST, FCFA COMMENTS

Hand-dug traditional well, with

cement plaster, average depth 15m

1,000,000 The water source is the largest component of the cost,

and is subject to verification through field investigations.

Simple solar pumping system, with

250 W solar panel and two 100 W

pumps (primary and back-up)

400,000 This is based on a new, simple and low-cost pumping

technology that has recently been demonstrated by

rePlan in Senegal.

Concrete water tank, 1m3 capacity,

elevated 1m

150,000 A small water tank is sufficient when used in

conjunction with drip irrigation.

Drip irrigation kit, 100m2 200,000 There is substantial experience with drip irrigation in

Senegal. This technology allows for the most efficient

use of water and labour. However, a participatory

design process is necessary before choosing the most

appropriate technical options.

Fencing of garden site, 160m 250,000 Further work is needed to identify the most appropriate

and economical fencing materials

TOTAL COST FOR 0.1 HA 2,000,000 This is the cost to compensate 1 ha of lost land.



rePlan Inc. 38

TOTAL COST FOR 12 ELIGIBLE

PAPS

6,000,000 This would be the total program cost for 12 PAPs losing

20% or more of their total agricultural land holdings. An

average loss of 0.25 ha is estimated for each of the 12

PAPs.

8.2.2 Subprogram B-2: Transitional Allowance

Expected result: PAPs losing a significant percentage of their total revenue associated with

land (30% or more) receive a cash contribution to support their transition to new or restored

livelihood activities.

Program description: In recognition of the temporary loss of income while the agricultural

intensification measures are being rolled out, or while the PAP searches for, secures and

prepares replacement farmland, the Project will provide a small amount of cash compensation

to each PAP in accordance with the percentage of his / her loss of total revenue.

Justification: The program of agricultural intensification through irrigation described above will

take time to implement. Additionally, any person who undertakes gardening for the first time

may not generate much profit in the first year, when the learning curve is steepest. PAPs will

require financial assistance during the period between the loss of their assets and the

restoration of their livelihood to pre-Project levels.

Similarly, those who decide to invest their cash compensation in the purchase of replacement

farmland will also need time to find willing sellers, confirm the suitability / appropriateness of the

replacement land, purchase it, and then prepare it to his/her specifications.

A rate of 2,500 FCFA has been identified as an appropriate day rate, equivalent to 65,000 FCFA

per month. The transitional allowance will be paid in accordance with the PAP’s percentage of

loss of his / her total revenue as follows:

one month for PAPs losing 30 to 40% of their total revenue (16);

two months for PAPs losing 40 to 50% of their total revenue (4); and

three months for PAPs losing more than 50% of their total revenue (4).

Cost: An estimate of the cost of providing a transitional allowance is presented in the table

below.

Table 11 – Estimated Costs for Transitional Allowance

PERIOD RATE

COMMENTS

Daily amount per PAP 2,500

Monthly amount per PAP (26 working

days / month)

65,000 Payment on a monthly or bi-monthly basis will

promote responsible household spending



rePlan Inc. 39

TOTAL COST OF

TRANSITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR

ALL PAPS

2,210,000 14 x 65,000 = 910,000

4 x 130,000 = 520,000

4 x 195,000 = 780,000

8.3 Program C: Mitigation for Lost Fruit Trees

In addition to the payment of full replacement value for lost fruit trees, the Project will assist PAP

with their re-establishment.

Expected result: PAPs losing 20% or more of their total annual revenue associated with

productive fruit trees are able to replace their lost income through replacement of the lost trees.

Program description: For each lost adult tree, the affected person will be provided with two

high-quality, grafted trees to be planted on household land or other land identified by the PAP;

no land will be provided by the Project for planting replacement trees. The trees will be planted

and cared for by the PAP.

Within four years of planting, production of fruit may start, although initially with a very low yield.

The main reason for replacing the affected trees on a 2-for-1 basis is to shorten the time

required to reach a production level similar to the lost tree, and thereby reducing the amount of

lost income that needs to be replaced.

Cost: An estimate of the cost of mitigating one lost adult fruit tree through the planting of two

new trees is presented in the table below. 53 PAPs are expected to lose 20% or more of their

productive fruit trees; estimating each PAP is losing an average of 5 trees, 265 trees are

expected to be lost and 530 replacement trees are expected to be planted.

Table 12 – Estimated Costs for Compensating Loss of Adult Fruit Trees

ITEM ESTIMATED

COST, FCFA COMMENTS

Purchase of 2 high-quality grafted

mango seedling (or other species of

owner’s choice)

4,000 Plants may be obtained from local nurseries if

suitable quality is available.

TOTAL COST OF

MITIGATING LOSS FOR 53 PAPs

1,060,000 Estimating each PAP is losing an average of 5 adult

fruit trees.

8.4 Summary of Additional Livelihood Restoration Programs

The proposed programs for livelihood restoration are summarized in the table below.



rePlan Inc. 40

Table 13 – Summary of Proposed Livelihood Restoration Programs

CATEGORY AND SIGNIFICANCE OF

IMPACT

EXPECTED RESULTS

LIVELIHOOD RESTORATION MEASURES

ESTIMATED COST, FCFA

1. Loss of agricultural land High impact due to high land pressure and limited availability of alternatives to agriculture

PAPs are able to replace lost income through cash compensation and intensification of production

Program A: Business skills session

To be provided to PAPs and up to two members of their households

Program B: Agricultural intensification through irrigation

For each 1 ha of affected

land, PAPs will be entitled

to 0.1 ha of irrigated

garden

Program C: Transitional allowance

PAPs will receive a

monthly cash contribution

3,920,250

6,000,000

2,210,000

2. Loss of productive fruit trees Medium impact due to loss of revenue from primary cash crop

PAPs are able to replace their lost income through replacement of lost trees or intensification of production through irrigation

Program D: Agricultural intensification for lost fruit trees

Each lost tree is replaced with two new trees and their growth will be supported by the Project for three years

1,060,000

TOTAL 13,190,250

8.5 Additional Economic Development Support

As a socially responsible business committed to sustainable development in the communities

impacted by its projects, Lekela supports community investment as a tool to promote local

development. The present LRP is being developed to ensure adequate compensation,

mitigation, and restoration measures are in place for those whose livelihoods will be directly

affected. While the LRP focuses on addressing the direct impacts of a project, Lekela has

commissioned the development of a Social Investment Strategy (SIS) to provide strategic

guidance to the Project on longer-term investment in sustainable development in the area of

Taiba N’Diaye.

The SIS will identify actionable development priorities that reflect the needs, assets, and goals

of the communities in the Project area and that align with Lekela’s corporate policies and

commitments. The Strategy will reflect the importance of responding to immediate community

priorities in the early stages of the Project (e.g. by designing and implementing small-scale

projects that deliver short-term results), and will provide guidance for longer-term programming.



rePlan Inc. 41

The SIS will be developed in alignment with the objectives of the LRP and will consider

initiatives that reinforce the livelihood restoration programs, such as:

Enterpreneurial and small-business management training;

Vocational training, such as mechanics or metalworking; and,

Training and in-kind support to improve agricultural yields.



rePlan Inc. 42

9.0 SUPPORTIVE PROGRAMS

9.1 Vulnerable Support Program

The Project will implement a Vulnerable Support Program (VSP) to identify and mitigate risks to

vulnerable households and individuals as a result of land acquisition.

According to IFC PS 1, vulnerability may stem from an individual or group’s race, color, sex,

language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other

status. The Project must also consider factors such as gender, age, ethnicity, culture, literacy,

sickness, physical or mental disability, poverty or economic disadvantage, and dependence on

unique natural resources, and the way in which these factors may limit a person’s ability to claim

or take advantage of resettlement assistance and related development benefits (see IFC

Handbook for Preparing a Resettlement Action Plan, 2002).

Vulnerability may therefore be either:

Pre-existing: present in a Project area prior to the start of Project activities; or

Project-induced: a result of Project activities.

It is the Project’s responsibility to ensure full participation of PAPs with pre-existing

vulnerabilities in this Livelihood Restoration Programs and to avoid or mitigate for any instances

of Project-induced vulnerability.

The goal of the VSP is to identify, assess, support, and provide remedial assistance and follow-

up for PAPs experiencing hardship as a result of economic displacement. The specific

objectives of the VSP are to:

Identify PAPs who may presently qualify as vulnerable or who may become vulnerable

as a result of Project impacts;

Identify resources and networks that are or can be put in place to support vulnerable

persons in the Project area;

Ensure that vulnerable PAPs are provided with the supplementary assistance they

require in order to participate fully in the livelihood restoration programs; and

Monitor vulnerable PAPs over the life of the Project.

In keeping with international best practice, it is recommended that the Project implement

initiatives to address pre-existing vulnerability, such as low literacy rates and gender barriers to

economic advancement. As the LRP is designed to address Project impacts, it is recommended

that initiatives directed at reducing pre-existing vulnerability will be incorporated into the

Project’s Social Investment Strategy.

9.1.1 Vulnerability Context

In the context of the PETN, the individuals who have been identified as PAPs are traditional

land owners and users. These individuals are typically heads of household, with dependents



rePlan Inc. 43

including immediate and extended family members often residing in one or more house within

the same concession.

Vulnerability for this Project should therefore be considered at a household rather than

individual level.

Vulnerability criteria include the following, which have been validated with Project stakeholders

(see Section 11.1.4):

PAPs losing more than 20% of their total landholdings (expected to be 12 households)

and those losing more than 30% of their revenue (expected to be 24 households) - PAPs

who will lose significant portions of their total land and/or revenue as a result of the

Project may be particularly vulnerable if they are unable or unwilling to invest cash

compensation in longer term livelihood restoration;

PAPs with a dependency ratio higher than 20 : 1 - the number of dependents per

household varies widely, with some PAHs being responsible for up to 30 dependents;

Physical mobility – with a desire to maintain traditional livelihood activities in the Project

area, the livelihood restoration programs focus on agricultural projects that will require

physical work, which could present a barrier PAPs with limited physical mobility; and,

Gender of household head – female heads of household may face barriers in land

ownership and community decision-making, as well as higher rates of illiteracy and lack

of opportunities for formal skill training.

Only households that meet one or more of the vulnerability criteria will be eligible for

participation in the VSP.

9.1.2 Implementation

The following steps outline a high-level process to identify, mitigate and track pre-existing and

Project-induced vulnerability:

Identify households that meet vulnerability criteria through household survey and confirm

with local authorities / community leaders;

Identify community and government care providers and existing support networks in the

Project area;

Facilitate provision of necessary support services to vulnerable households; and

Disaggregate and track data of vulnerable households through monitoring and

evaluation activities.

9.2 Monitoring and Evaluation

A Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) program should be put in place to ensure that the LRP’s

objectives are met, in accordance with international standards and best practices, as well as

Senegalese laws and regulations.

In general:



rePlan Inc. 44

Monitoring answers the question – are Project commitments and responsibilities related

to livelihood restoration being met on time and in full, and having the intended effects?

Evaluation answers the questions – what has been the change or impact in the lives of

PAPs and communities as a result of livelihood restoration programs? Are the programs

sufficient to mitigate impacts of economic displacement?

The objectives of the M&E program should include:

Monitor and evaluate the status of the Project’s obligations and commitments related to

livelihood restoration;

Monitor and evaluate the impacts of livelihood restoration on PAPs at the household

level, with particular emphasis on those identified as vulnerable;

Establish an early warning system to flag emerging social risks related to livelihoods for

the attention of management, through data collection, analysis and reporting; and

Enable the Project to meet the information needs of diverse stakeholders, including

PAPs, internal stakeholders, broader affected communities, and government.

9.2.1 Monitoring

Monitoring should consist of:

Regular monitoring by the Project team; and

Production of periodic monitoring reports, including monthly internal reports and annual

reports to external stakeholders.

Reporting should take place monthly for internal project management and bi-annually for

external stakeholders, in a format appropriate for local community members.

Monitoring activities should continue for no less than 3 years after the economic displacement of

the PAPs. If, at the three-year mark, it can be demonstrated that PAPs have successfully

restored their livelihoods and quality of life, monitoring activities can be subsumed into broader

community relations reporting for the Project.

Where livelihoods have not been, as a minimum, restored to pre-Project levels, monitoring

should be extended as necessary.

Input on monitoring indicators was sought during the validation process, but external

stakeholders provided minimal input in this regard. Indicators and a detailed monitoring plan will

be developed as part of LRP implementation (see Section 11).

9.2.2 Evaluation

There are two key types of evaluation proposed: annual/internal and final/external.

Internal evaluations should be conducted by the Project as an integral part of its management

process. Internal evaluations should consider the following:



rePlan Inc. 45

Effectiveness of LR activities;

Impact of LR activities; and

Sustainability of results.

An external evaluation will be commissioned by the Project and carried out by a third party to

provide an extra level of assurance that the objectives of the LR program have been met.

Specifically, an external evaluation will determine the following:

Compliance of the livelihood restoration programs with Project commitments, objectives,

policy and procedures, Senegalese law and IFC Performance Standards; and

Effectiveness of the livelihood restoration programs in restoring or enhancing PAP’s

quality of life and livelihoods.



rePlan Inc. 46

10.0 GRIEVANCE MANAGEMENT

10.1 Principles

In accordance with IFC PS 1, a formal grievance mechanism is required to receive and facilitate

resolution of project-related concerns from affected communities. The UN Guiding Principles on

Business and Human Rights outline the following criteria for an effective non-judicial grievance

mechanism:

Legitimate – considered to be fair and accountable by stakeholders;

Accessible – known to and easily accessed by all stakeholders;

Predictable – follows a standard procedure with clear timelines;

Equitable – strives to ensure all parties have the resources they need to participate fully;

Transparent – information is proactively shared about the process and outcomes;

Rights-compatible – outcomes are consistent with international human rights standards;

and

Source of continuous-learning – generates lessons and informs improvements to the

procedure.

The Guiding Principles stress that project-level grievance mechanisms should be based on

engagement and dialogue with stakeholders, during both the design and implementation stages.

10.2 Project-Wide Grievance Mechanism

EES, the local firm contracted by the Project to support its community relations activities, has

designed a Project-wide grievance mechanism, which is detailed in their report, PETN

Grievance Mechanism – Report version V0 September 2016. The mechanism includes four

levels:

Level One is an informal resolution process, in which a stakeholder brings forward

his/her concern for discussion with his/her community representatives and/or with

members of the Project’s Community Relations Team. It is likely that most questions and

concerns will be heard and resolved through these informal interactions.

Level Two comprises the formal management and documentation of a grievance by a

member of the Project’s Community Relations Team. The grievance is formally

registered in an internal database when it is received in written form, ideally on a

designated grievance form to be made available throughout the Project area, or is it

received verbally and transcribed by a member of the Project’s Community Relations

Team. Grievances are assessed for their validity – specifically whether they relate to the

activities of the Project or its contractors or subcontractors. An acknowledgement letter

is issued to the complainant, stating whether the grievance has been deemed to be valid

or not and the reasons why. Valid grievances are then investigated by the Community

Relations Team and a solution is proposed to the complainant. If the grievance is found

to be invalid or the complainant does not accept the solution that is proposed, the



rePlan Inc. 47

complainant will be informed of their options with regards to alternative resolution

mechanisms. When a grievance is resolved, the complainant is asked to sign a

document stating they have accepted the proposed solution. It is expected that most

substantive grievances will be successfully resolved by the Level Two mechanism in a

straightforward manner.

Level Three involves the referral of grievances to a third-party that conducts its own

review and investigation, and proposes a solution to the complainant. The review of a

grievance by the third-party is documented and a written response provided to the

complainant. The third-party may also offer the option of facilitated mediation to the

complainant if deemed appropriate.

Level Four involves the formal administrative or judicial system. The Project recognizes

that in the event that a grievance cannot be resolved through the amicable mechanisms

outlined above, all parties have the right under Senegalese law to take their grievances

into the judicial system at any time. The Project will inform those who prefer litigation of

their rights, entitlements and the existence of any legal aid. The Project will also inform

complainants of their right to make use of third-party mediation or advocacy services if

needed, including those that may be set up by NGOs or diplomatic missions.

The above procedure for the Project-wide mechanism is summarized in the figure below.

Figure 4 - PETN Grievance Resolution Procedure



rePlan Inc. 48

10.3 Grievances Related to Livelihood Restoration

To avoid complication and ensure ease of access for stakeholders, the same messaging and

entry points that will be in place for the Project-wide grievance mechanism will be maintained for

grievances related to the livelihood restoration programs. Internally, a specific stream of the

grievance management system will be established to ensure grievances related to livelihood

restoration are validated, investigated, resolved, and monitored accordingly. The LR Stream of

the grievance mechanism will follow the same procedure as that of the Project-wide

mechanism, with several adjustments. The table below presents the key elements of the

Project-wide mechanism and the adjustments that will be made for grievances related to

livelihood restoration.

Table 14 - Grievance Mechanism Adjustments for Livelihood Restoration

Element Project-wide Mechanism LR Stream

Scope Grievances can be submitted by any member of the public relating to any aspect of the project, including those directly or indirectly related to the activities of PETN or Vestas and its subcontractor(s). Does not address grievances from workers.

Grievances that will be addressed through the LR Stream will be those that are submitted by Project-Affected Persons, whose lands or livelihoods have been identified as being impacted by the Project, or members of their households. The grievances in the LR Stream will relate to one or more elements of the land acquisition and compensation process, and/or the design and implementation of livelihood restoration measures. Grievances from residents of the Project Area who have not been identified as PAPs, but who believe their livelihoods have been impacted by the Project, may be addressed through the LR Stream if they are determined through the Project-wide mechanism’s validation process to relate to legitimate claims of land acquisition, land use restrictions, or livelihood impacts.

Awareness A summary of the procedure will be posted in local languages on all public bulletin boards in the project area and on main bulletin board at the project office in Taiba N’Diaye. A leaflet will be developed and placed at public facilities in the vicinity of the site (municipal hall, police stations, local religious council) and distributed during community consultation as appropriate. Information will be provided during community meetings and other interactions with the community. The procedure will be explained on the Project website. The leaflet will be provided and the

In addition to the measures in place for the Project-wide mechanism, specific engagement with PAPs will be carried out to ensure they are aware of the grievance mechanism and understand how it works and how to access it. During external consultation, a distinction will not be made between the Project-wide mechanism and the LR Stream so as not to confuse stakeholders.



rePlan Inc. 49

mechanism will be explained to PETN employees and contractors during orientation and safety training.

Transparency Procedure was developed with the active participation of local residents and other stakeholders.

The Project-wide grievance mechanism will be presented to the Multi-Stakeholder Forum as part of the validation of the LRP; they will be asked for input and have the opportunity to recommend adjustments. The Multi-Stakeholder Forum will remain in place as a key engagement mechanism throughout the implementation of the LRP; they will be provided with regular reports on the status, subject, and resolution of any grievances related to livelihood restoration. The TORs of the Forum will include their responsibility to share information with PAPs and provide feedback to the LR Team.

Accessibility Grievances can be submitted in writing (including by submission in a box at the Project site) or verbally (in person or by phone) so that literacy does not create a barrier to access and confidentiality can be maintained at all times. Verbal grievances will be recorded on a Grievance Form by the CRM, which will be signed by the CRM and the complainant. A copy of the form and a letter confirming receipt will be provided to the complainant. EES, the firm appointed as Community Relations Manager, has designated Mr. Mbaye Sarr as the contact person for grievances. Mr. Sarr’s phone number will be provided to stakeholders, who will in turn provide the relevant information to stakeholders who want to register a grievance.

No change.

Timeliness The objective is to resolve 80 to 90% of grievances within 30 days.

The LR Team aims to propose a solution to 100% of grievances related to livelihood restoration within 30 days of the acknowledgement letter being issued to the complainant. In cases where the complainant does not accept the proposed solution, the LR Team aims to ensure an investigation has been initiated by the Multi-Stakeholder Forum within 30 days of rejection of the original proposed solution.

Assessment An initial assessment of each grievance will be conducted to determine whether the issue relates to the conduct of a contractor or sub-contractor. Grievances relating to contractors will be addressed via their internal grievance mechanism and the CRM kept up to date with progress of resolution. Grievances relating to PETN will be dealt with by the CRM.

All grievances related to livelihood restoration will be addressed by the CRM and the LRP Manager, whether or not any elements of the grievance relate to activities carried out by a contractor or sub-contractor.



rePlan Inc. 50

Recording All grievances will be registered on a grievance form and logged in a Grievance Database within the PETN Information Management System, under control of the PETN Community Relations Manager or Liaison Officer. All grievances will be tracked through to resolution and closing.

In addition to the procedure in place for the Project-wide mechanism, when any grievances related to livelihood restoration are recorded, an email will be sent to the LRP Manager notifying him/her and providing a copy of the associated grievance form.

Acknowledgement Within 7 days of receiving a grievance, an acknowledgement receipt specifying a contact person and a reference number will be delivered to the complainant.

No change.

Investigation PETN will investigate the cause of the grievance to determine if the grievance is valid and/or resolvable. For valid grievances, PETN will write to the stakeholder within 30 days with the results of the investigation and a proposed solution. For invalid grievances, PETN will notify the complainant accordingly.

In addition to the procedure in place for the Project-wide mechanism, the LRP Manager, with the support of the CRM when possible, will meet in person with the complainant as part of the investigation of any grievances related to livelihood restoration that are deemed to be valid.

Resolution In cases where the complainant accepts PETN’s proposed solution, the solution will be implemented and the complainant will sign a Statement of Satisfaction. In cases where the complainant does not accept the resolution, the appeal procedure will be initiated, which involves referring the grievance to a neutral organization that will review relevant documentation and recommend a solution. If the complainant does not accept the organization’s recommended solution, the complainant can initiate legal or administrative proceedings.

No change for cases where the complainant accepts the proposed solution. In cases where the complainant does not accept the proposed solution, the grievance will be referred to the Multi-Stakeholder Forum. Within 30 days of the grievance being referred, the Forum will initiate its own investigation of the grievance, including meeting with the complainant and any other relevant parties. The Forum will propose a solution for the grievance, which may include mediation between the complainant and PETN. If the complainant does not accept the solution proposed by the Forum, the complainant will be asked to sign a letter to that effect, the grievance will be marked as unresolved and be closed in the database, and the complainant will be free to pursue legal or administrative proceedings.

Monitoring Monitoring of implementation of accepted solutions to grievances will be carried out until the complainant agrees that the grievance is resolved and signs a Statement of Satisfaction. An internal monitoring report will include key indicators, such as the number of PAPs informed and number of posters distributed.

No change for monitoring of implementation of accepted solutions. For internal monitoring, specific quantitative and qualitative indicators will be tracked for LR-related grievances, including:

Number and specific subject of new grievances

Number of grievances resolved through initial solution and through involvement of Multi-Stakeholder Forum

Average time for resolution

Number of grievances unresolved and reasons why



rePlan Inc. 51

10.4 Implementation

10.4.1 Roles and Responsibilities

Responsibility for Community Relations has been allocated to EES, which will also be

responsible for implementation of the Project-wide grievance mechanism. EES has designated

a member of their team, Mr. Mbaye Sarr, to be the Grievance Officer and his contact information

is being provided to external stakeholders (he can be reached directly via phone at 77-633-

8965).

10.4.2 Awareness and Accountability

As per the Guiding Principles’ criteria for an effective grievance mechanism, it is critical to

ensure PAPs and affected communities know that the mechanism exists, how it works, and how

to access it. The Project-wide mechanism has been designed through consultation with the

PAPs and affected communities and various measures will be put in place by EES to promote

the mechanism, as outlined in the PETN Grievance Mechanism – Report version V0 September

2016.

As part of the LRP validation process, rePlan presented the mechanism, how it works and how

to access it. Members of the Multi-Stakeholder Forum were asked for input but did not identify

any necessary adjustments.

Throughout the implementation of the LRP, reports will be provided to the Forum on grievances

related to livelihood restoration, specifically the number and subject of any new grievances, the

status of pending grievances, and the solutions proposed/accepted to closed grievances. The

Forum will also serve as the external body to which grievances will be referred when the

complainant does not accept the solution proposed by the Project.



rePlan Inc. 52

11.0 ROADMAP AHEAD

11.1 Validation and Finalization of LRP

In accordance with international standards, the present Draft LRP (Rev 3) was validated with

PAPs following a review by Lekela and the Project lenders. An initial validation session was held

on November 2, 2016 and convened a Multi-stakeholder Forum, representing PAPs and

Project-affected communities. The following individuals or their representatives were invited to

participate in the Forum:

Regional Prefect or Sub-Prefect;

Mayor or Assistant Mayor of Taiba N’Diaye;

Head of the Association of Village Chiefs of the Commune of Taiba N’Diaye;

President of the Women’s Association of the Commune of Taiba N’Diaye;

Representative of a youth association from the Commune of Taiba N’Diaye; and,

20 individual PAPs representing all of the communities where PAPs reside.

Attendance lists for the validation sessions are included in Annex II.

The Forum members were provided with a copy of the LRP in French and key components of

the LRP were presented by EES in the local language, Wolof. These components included the

livelihood restoration programs, eligibility policies, vulnerability criteria, monitoring and

evaluation indicators, and the Project-wide grievance mechanism. Forum members were

encouraged to share their comments and ask questions throughout. The majority of feedback

from Forum members related to the identification of impacts and requests for additional support

for community development; the Project representatives present at the session responded to

these questions and comments. Specific feedback on the components of the LRP was limited.

In closing the session, Forum members were asked to consider and discuss further the

components of the plan and to return for a final validation session in two weeks’ time.

To ensure a robust validation process, EES undertook a series of consultation sessions with

PAPs following the initial validation session with the Multi-Stakeholder Forum. Again, EES

presented the key components of the LRP in Wolof and took comments and questions from

PAPs. A key point of feedback related to the provision of financial literacy training; some PAPs

felt that the training would be too basic given their personal levels of advanced literacy and

business skills. It was strongly recommended that the program be revised to offer something

more advanced. As a result, the program has been amended to focus on business skills and the

identification of new economic opportunities for PAPs, as opposed to purely financial literacy.

Feedback from PAPs also led to a change in the process proposed for the payment of

remaining financial compensation; one lump sum payment will be made for all remaining

financial compensation as opposed to payments being made in installments.

The final validation session with the Multi-Stakeholder Forum was held on November 24, 2016

(the date was delayed due to a death in the community). Participants were provided with a copy

of the LRP in French. Key components of the LRP were presented by rePlan in French with



rePlan Inc. 53

simultaneous translation into Wolof by EES. Participants were encouraged to make comments

and ask questions. Feedback was overwhelmingly positive, with only a few questions of

clarification regarding eligibility. The session was chaired by the Mayor of Taiba N’Diaye, who

closed the meeting was asking the participants whether they officially approved the LRP; the

participants agreed with a round of applause.

A copy of the final LRP will be provided to the Forum members and relevant local authorities.

The Multi-Stakeholder Forum will remain in place throughout implementation of the LRP. The

LRP Manager will hold monthly meetings with the Forum to facilitate two-way communication

and discuss any emerging issues. The Forum will also serve as a third-party to which

grievances can be referred for further investigation (see Section 10.3).

11.2 Implementation of Finalized LRP

The following section presents the tasks and activities that will be required for the planning and

launch of the livelihood restoration programs, and related supportive programs. A detailed

implementation plan will be developed by the LRP Manager, once he/she has been appointed

by Lekela.

11.2.1 Appointment of Livelihood Restoration Team

Implementation of the LRP will be carried out by a team of qualified practitioners, who will work

in close coordination with the Project Team and Community Relations Team. The LR Team will

be led by a LRP Manager, who will have overall responsibility for the successful implementation

of the LRP. The LRP Manager’s primary duties will include:

Carry out external consultation with stakeholders regarding the LRP and related

programs, with the support of the Project’s Community Relations Team;

Draft, finalize and have signed individual agreements with all PAPs;

Oversee payment of remaining cash compensation;

Manage participation in the livelihood restoration programs in accordance with eligibility

criteria;

Oversee and ensure compliance with contracts for external providers of goods and

services related to the LR programs;

Investigate and resolve any grievances related to livelihood restoration; and

Report regularly to the Project Team on progress and any issues encountered related to

the livelihood restoration program.

The LRP Manager will be supported by a small team, including a Livelihoods Coordinator, who

will undertake detailed program design and delivery. If possible, an Engagement Lead will be

assigned from the Community Relations Team to carry-out external consultations with

stakeholders as part of the LRP implementation. Similarly, the role of Data Coordinator, with

responsibility for the input and monitoring of data related to the livelihoods restoration programs,

could also be allocated to an existing member of the Community Relations or Project Team.



rePlan Inc. 54

Implementation of the LRP will also require contributions from the Project’s finance and legal

departments, and will potentially include further consultation with an external agronomist.

Roles and reporting structures are presented in the organizational chart below.

Figure 5 - LR Organizational Chart

11.2.2 Updated household survey

An updated household survey will be carried out to confirm eligibility for LR programs and to

develop a more detailed baseline against which the LRP can be monitored. Survey forms will be

filled out with PAPs when the LRP Manager meets with them to present individual

compensation agreements. The survey will capture the following data:

name, age and relationship to PAP of all members of each PAP’s household;

education levels / formal training completed by household members and PAPs;

household income and present livelihood activities;

total land holdings and total revenue generated from land and productive trees;

household goods / moveable assets; and

identification of vulnerable households.

Survey results will be entered in to the digital database by the Database Coordinator.

11.2.3 Agreements

With input from Lekela’s legal department, the LRP Manager will draft and sign definitive

agreements with each PAP, based on the results of the household survey and entitlements

defined in the LRP. The agreements will define impacts, eligibility and entitlements for each

household. Specifically, individual agreements will indicate the following:

Total agricultural land and type/number of trees each PAP will lose as a result of the

Project;

Total amount of financial compensation each PAP will receive; and

LRP IMPLEMENTATION ORGCHART

LEKELA CORPORATE

LRP ADVISOR(S) LRP MANAGER

ADMIN / LOGISTICS

DATA FINANCE LIVELIHOODS ENGAGEMENT LOCAL ADVISORS

DATA COORDINATOR CONTROLLER LIVELIHOODS COORDINATOR ENGAGEMENT LEAD LEGAL ADVISOR

PROGRAM DESIGN & CASE WORKERS x3 AGRONOMISTLekela Staff / Consultants DELIVERYSpecialised Consultant

Local Third Parties

Part-Time



rePlan Inc. 55

The entitlements of each PAP for participation in the livelihood restoration and support

programs.

Individual agreements will be presented by the LRP Manager to each of the PAPs. PAPs will be

encouraged to ask questions at the first meeting. The LRP Manager will return for a second

meeting within 1 to 2 weeks to sign the individual agreement, allowing time for the PAP to

review and consider the terms of the agreement.

Each PAP will be provided with a copy of the agreement, signed by him/herself and a

representative of the Project, and the LRP Manager as witness. The signed individual

agreements will be scanned by the Database Coordinator and stored in the digital database.

11.2.4 Payment of Compensation

As noted in Section 7.3.2, additional payments of financial compensation will be made by the

Project in accordance with the commitment to ensure full replacement value for lost assets. One

lump sum payment will be made to all eligible PAPs in early 2017 following the signature of

individual agreements. The payment will include supplementary compensation to reach the rate

of 3,000,000 XOF per hectare of affected land (1,950,000 XOF per hectare), supplementary

compensation for the loss of specific types of adult fruit trees, and the transitional allowance

where applicable. The final payment is expected to be made in early 2017.

11.2.5 Detailed livelihood restoration programming

With the LRP validated, the Livelihoods Coordinator, with input from the LRP Advisors, LRP

Manager and EES, will develop detailed implementation plans for the livelihood restoration

programs, notably the delivery of business skills courses, the development of irrigated market

gardens, and the planting of fruit trees. Implementation plans will require input from technical

experts and consultation with relevant regional authorities and Technical Services. This task will

also involve identifying local providers of the necessary goods and services to support the

livelihoods restoration programs, as well as securing any necessary land, such as the area

required for the irrigated gardens.

11.2.6 Development of Supportive Programs

As noted in Section 9 above, a Vulnerable Support Program must be put in place in order to

comply with international standards. The Program will be developed through consultation with

PAPs and community leaders to ensure potentially vulnerable households are identified and

appropriate assistance measures are put in place. Similarly, a monitoring and evaluation plan

will be developed and put in place in order to assess the effectiveness of the LRP going

forward. Both programs will be developed and implemented through the support of the Multi-

Stakeholder Forum.



rePlan Inc. 56

11.3 Work Plan and Schedule

Initial implementation of the LRP is expected to be realized over a period of 11 weeks, and is

expected to begin January 2, 2017. A proposed work plan and schedule are provided in the

table below.

Throughout the implementation process, regular consultation will be undertaken with the Multi-

Stakeholder Forum to ensure PAPs are informed of progress and the LRP Team is aware of

any emerging issues. This consultation will be led by the LRP Manager with support of EES.

Weekly updates will also be provided to Lekela by the LRP Manager, either in written reports or

on a weekly call.

Figure 6 - Work Plan and Schedule

Task / Activity Parties Involved Schedule by Week (2017)

Jan 2

Jan 9

Jan 16

Jan 23

Jan 30

Feb 6

Feb 13

Feb 20

Feb 27

Mar 6

Mar 13

1. Mobilize Team

1.1 Finalize roles and responsibilities

Lekela

1.2 Appoint team members

Lekela

2. Household Survey

2.1 Prepare survey tools

LRP Manager

2.2 Train surveyors LRP Manager w/ EES

2.3 Carry-out survey with PAPs EES w/ oversight of LRP Manager

2.4 Enter results in to database

Data Coordinator

3. Individual Agreements

3.1 Draft individual agreements

LRP Manager w/ Lekela’s legal dept.

3.2 Meeting 1: present agreement and review entitlements

LRP Manager w/ EES

3.3 Meeting 2: address questions and sign agreement

LRP Manager w/ EES

3.4 Follow-up on grievances, if necessary

LRP Manager w/ EES

4. Payment of Compensation

4.1 Confirm payment process with local authorities

EES w/ LRP Manager

4.2 Prepare funds Lekela’s financial dept.

4.3 Make payments in accordance with individual agreements

LRP Manager w/ EES

4.4 Scan signed payment forms and enter in to database

Data Coordinator

4.5 Follow-up on grievances, if LRP Manager



rePlan Inc. 57

necessary w/ EES

5. LR Programs

5.1 Detailed design of livelihood restoration programs

Livelihoods Coordinator w/ LRP Manager, LRP Advisors, EES

5.2 Identification of potential providers of goods and services

Livelihoods Coordinator w/ LRP Manager, EES

5.4 Identify and secure use of sites for implementation of LR programs

LRP Manager w/ EES

5.3 Draft and sign contracts with providers of goods and services

LRP Manager w/ Lekela’s legal dept.

5.5 Initiate LR programs Livelihoods Coordinator w/ LRP Manager

6. Supportive Programs

6.1 Detailed design of Vulnerable Support Program

LRP Manager w/ EES, LRP Advisors and input from Multi-Stakeholder Forum

6.2 Detailed design of Monitoring and Evaluation Program

LRP Manager w/ support of EES, LRP Advisors and input from Multi-Stakeholder Forum

6.3 Initiate VSP and M&E Programs

LRP Manager w/ EES



rePlan Inc. 58

ANNEX I

Attendance Lists for rePlan Consultation with affected communities

- August 15 to 19, 2016



rePlan Inc. 59



rePlan Inc. 60



rePlan Inc. 61



rePlan Inc. 62

ANNEX II

Attendance Lists for LRP Validation Sessions



rePlan Inc. 63



rePlan Inc. 64



rePlan Inc. 65



rePlan Inc. 66

ANNEX III

EXAMEN DES TAUX D’INDEMNISATION

DU PROJET DE PARC EOLIEN DE TAIBA NDIAYE

Réalisé par : BECAYE BA, Ingénieur Agroéconomiste

Rapport Août 2016

RESUME

Le travail effectué dans le cadre de cette étude consiste à procéder à un réexamen des taux

d’indemnisation octroyés aux Personnes Affectées par le Projet (PAP) de parc éolien dans la

commune rurale de Taiba NDIAYE.

Cette étude est commanditée par rePlan.inc. Elle vise, en capitalisant les travaux déjà réalisés

par la Commission départementale d’évaluation des impenses et des consultants spécialisés, à

réexaminer les taux de compensations.

Ainsi, l’objectif de cette étude consiste à déterminer si les taux d’indemnisation des biens

perdus ont été calculés au prix intégral de remplacement. Ces derniers comprennent des

champs de cultures pluviales, ainsi que des arbres forestiers et fruitiers.

Pour réaliser cette étude, le consultant s’est basé sur une connaissance des procédures

nationales d’évaluation et d’examen des impacts sur l’environnement. Ces dernières sont

définies dans les diverses lois, relatives à la Gestion de l’Environnement et de ses textes

d’application. Elles sont relatives aux réglementations sur l’expropriation pour cause d’utilité

publique et l’occupation temporaire. Les directives internationales telles que la Politique

Opérationnelle de la Banque Mondiale PO.4.12, et de la Norme de performance 5 relative à

l’acquisition de terres et réinstallation involontaire ont été utilisées.

Le taux proposé sur la compensation sur l’usage de la terre est inférieur au coût de

remplacement total de la terre qui, déjà en 2010, a été estimé dans la zone à 2 000 000 FCFA

par hectare. En tenant compte du taux d’inflation, le montant additionnel relevant ce taux à 3

000 000 FCFA par hectare est acceptable.

Pour les espèces fruitières, la réévaluation est basée sur la valeur de remplacement pour la

perte de récoltes annuelles par pieds calculée sur la base du rendement annuel moyen (kg/ha)

multiplié par le prix de vente en considérant le nombre d’années que cela prendrait à un nouvel

arbre d’atteindre un état productif complet.



rePlan Inc. 67

Quant aux espèces forestières, les taux de la Commission, globalement supérieurs au barème

National sont à considérer.

En définitive, la proposition de réajustement du consultant découlant de l’analyse croisée de

l’ensemble des paramètres a permis d’établir les taux suivants :

Rubriques Types Taux initial (FCFA) Taux proposés FCFA/Hypothèse

Espèces fruitières Citronnier ad 13 000 158 493

Citronnier j 2 500 5 000

Mandarinier j 2 500 5 000

Manguier ad 50 000 118 870

Manguier j 3 500 7 000

Cultures pluviales Cultures pluviales 1 050 000 3 000 000

Essences forestières


Idem idem

Puits Puits 400 000 400 000



rePlan Inc. 68

ABSTRACT

The work done in the context of this study is to conduct a review of compensation levels

awarded to People Affected by the Project (PAP) wind farm in the rural town of Taiba Ndiaye.

This study is sponsored by rePlan Inc, and it is capitalizing on work already carried out by the

Departmental Evaluation Commission disbursements, and specialized consultants to review the

rates of compensation for different people affected by the project. Thus, the objective of this

study is to determine whether the rate of compensation of lost property were calculated at full

replacement cost. The lost property includes fields surfaces and cultures calculated the square

hectare, and forest and fruit trees.

For the study, the consultant was based on a thorough analysis of national assessment and

examination of environmental impacts identified in the various laws relating Framework Law on

Environmental Management and its implementing regulations, laws and regulations on eminent

domain and the temporary occupation and all other laws and regulations in force in Senegal and

international guidelines such as the Operational policy of the World bank PO .4.12 and

performance Standard 5 on land acquisition and involuntary resettlement.

The rate of compensation for the use of the land is less than the full replacement cost of the

land that already in 2010 was estimated in Zone 2 000 000 FCFA per hectare. Taking into

account the inflation rate, the additional amount under this rate to 3 million FCFA per hectare is

acceptable.

For fruit species, the reassessment was based on the calculation of the market price per kilo in

the locality and the yield per hectare produced by considering a period of four (04) years

required for regeneration of the species and considered its early production. As for forest

species, the commission rate is closer to the local reality. Thus, these rates will be considered

for the re-evaluation of the new rates.

Ultimately, the proposal of the consultant under the cross-analysis of all parameters is to apply

the rate respectively:

Rubriques Types Taux initial (FCFA) Taux proposés FCFA/Hypothèse

Espèces fruitières Citronnier ad 13 000 158 493

Citronnier j 2 500 5 000

Mandarinier j 2 500 5 000

Manguier ad 50 000 118 870

Manguier j 3 500 7 000

Cultures pluviales Cultures pluviales 1 050 000 3 000 000



Idem idem

Puits Puits 400 000 0



rePlan Inc. 69

1. Cadre de l’étude

1.1 Contexte de l’étude

La réinstallation involontaire intervenant dans le cadre des projets de développement engendre

souvent des impacts économiques et sociaux négatifs sur les systèmes de production, un

appauvrissement accru en raison de la perte de moyens de production ou de sources de

revenus.

La présente étude s’intéresse au plan de restauration des moyens de subsistance pour le Projet

d’énergie éolienne dans le département de Tivaoune, commune de Taiba Ndiaye.

Cette dernière, commanditée par rePlan.inc, vise en capitalisant les travaux déjà réalisés, à

réexaminer les taux de compensations des différentes Personnes Affectées par le Projet (PAP).

1.2 Objectif

L’objectif de cette étude est de déterminer si les taux d’indemnisation des biens perdus ont été

calculés au prix intégral de remplacement. Ces derniers comprennent des superficies exploitées

en cultures pluviales et des arbres forestiers et fruitiers.

1.3 Cadre méthodologique

La méthodologie utilisée est scindée en trois grandes phases :

La recherche documentaire s’est intéressée :

aux procédures nationales d’évaluation et d’examen des impacts sur l’environnement

définies dans les diverses lois, portant loi-cadre relative à la Gestion de l’Environnement

et de ses textes d’application,

aux lois et réglementations sur l’expropriation pour cause d’utilité publique et

l’occupation temporaire

aux directives de la banque mondiale (PO.412)

L’examen des supports suivants fournis :

Rapport d’étude la Commission départementale ;

Extraits de l’étude d’impact ;

Rapport d’évaluation des terres ;

Extrait du rapport du cadastre rural.

Les limites de l’étude sont liées à l’absence de données homologuées sur le marché du foncier

local. Ces dernières sont généralement obtenues auprès des courtiers, notaires et

conservateurs fonciers dans la zone. Ainsi la stratégie utilisée consiste à un ajustement sur la

base du taux gouvernemental.

C’est ainsi que le Consultant a procédé au traitement, à l’analyse des données et à la rédaction

du rapport. Le document est structuré comme suit :



rePlan Inc. 70

Synthèse du cadre réglementaire ;

Examen, analyse et proposition des taux ;

Synthèse des résultats

2. Aperçu sur le cadre règlementaire

2.1 Revue de la législation nationale

2.1.1 Loi sur la terre

Au Sénégal les terres sont divisées en trois catégories :

Le domaine national est constitué par les terres non classées dans le domaine public,

non immatriculées ou dont la propriété n’a pas été transcrite à la conservation des

hypothèques. Le domaine national est régi par la loi n° 64-46 du 17 juin 1964 et ses

différents textes d’application. Les terres du domaine national sont divisées en quatre

zones : i) les zones pionnières ; ii) les zones urbaines ; iii) les zones classées qui sont

des espaces protégés ; iv)les zones de terroirs qui sont les zones les plus importantes

sont relatives à l’agriculture, à l’élevage et au parcours du bétail. L’espace nécessaire

aux ouvrages hydrauliques relève essentiellement de la zone des terroirs.

Le domaine de l’Etat qui comprend le domaine public et le domaine privé qui sont les

biens et droits immobiliers qui appartiennent à l’Etat ; Il est organisé par la loi n° 76-66

du 2 juillet 1976 portant Code du domaine de l’Etat (CDE). L’Etat peut accorder sur son

domaine différents titres d’occupation (autorisation d’occuper à titre précaire et

révocable ; bail ordinaire ; concession du droit de superficie). Le domaine maritime fait

partie intégrante du domaine de l’Etat.

Le domaine des particuliers qui est constitué par les terres immatriculées appartenant

aux particuliers. Il est organisé par le Code civil et le décret du 26 juillet 1932

réorganisant le régime de la propriété en Afrique Occidentale française.

2.1.2 Méthodes d’évaluation des biens et détermination des taux de compensation

La législation nationale prévoit que l’évaluation des biens soit faite par les représentants

qualifiés du Ministère compétent. Ainsi, la Direction de Domaine détermine la valeur des terres,

la Direction de la Gestion du Patrimoine Bâti fixe les valeurs des bâtiments et infrastructures ; le

Ministère d’Agriculture détermine les valeurs des cultures et des arbres fruitiers cultivées, et la

direction des Eaux et Forêts du ministère de l’environnement et de la gestion des ressources

naturelles détermine les valeurs des arbres forestiers.

Des barèmes de prix existent pour le prix du loyer pour occupation du domaine privé de l’Etat,

les produits agricoles et forestiers. Mais dans la réalité la détermination des coûts

d’expropriation et indemnisation qui se fait au niveau des commissions d’évaluation est plus en

phase avec les réalités locales. Les commissions regroupent les autorités administratives et



rePlan Inc. 71

municipales, les services techniques de l’Etat, les représentants des PAP. Les décisions prises

à ce niveau sont généralement bien acceptées par les parties prenantes.

2.2 Quelques éléments de la politique de la banque mondiale

2.2.1 Objectifs de la loi

La politique opérationnelle PO/BP 4.12 "Réinstallation Involontaire" doit être suivie lorsqu’un

projet est susceptible d’entraîner une réinstallation involontaire, des impacts sur les moyens

d’existence, l’acquisition de terre ou des restrictions d’accès à des ressources naturelles.

Lorsque l’acquisition des terres et la réinstallation involontaire sont inévitables, les activités de

réinstallation et de compensation seront planifiées et exécutés comme des activités du projet,

en offrant des ressources d’investissement suffisantes aux personnes déplacées pour qu’elles

puissent partager les bénéfices du projet. Les personnes déplacées et compensées seront

dûment consultées et auront l’occasion de participer à la planification et à l’exécution des

programmes de réinstallation et de compensation.

Les personnes déplacées et compensées recevront une aide dans leurs efforts d’amélioration

de leurs moyens d’existence et de leur niveau de vie pour les ramener, en termes réels, au

niveau d’avant le déplacement.

Ici, conformément à la politique de la Banque, les personnes affectées sont celles qui sont

directement affectées socialement et économiquement par les projets d’investissements

assistés par la Banque.

2.2.2 Avantage de la politique de la banque pour les PAP

En cas de contradiction entre la législation nationale et la PO 4.12, le principe retenu sera

d’appliquer la norme la plus avantageuse pour les personnes affectées.

Il existe dans la littérature plusieurs comparaisons qui ont été faites dans ce sens et qui ont été

favorables aux indemnisations des PAP. On peut citer les compensations effectuées dans le

cadre :

des travaux du Millenium Chalenge Account (MCA) ;

de la réalisation de l’autoroute à péage Dakar-Diamniadio.

Un des principes clé de la politique de la Banque Mondiale sur la réinstallation involontaire est

que les personnes affectées par la perte de terre doivent, après le déplacement, se porter

économiquement mieux qu’avant le déplacement.



rePlan Inc. 72

3. Examen et analyse des taux d’indemnisation fixés par la

Commission départementale pour les impacts de l’utilisation des

terres du projet et proposition de nouveaux taux

3.1 Compensation de l’usage de la terre

Les études montrent que le montant de 1 050 000 FCFA/ha a été retenu par la commission

comme taux de compensation de la terre à usage agricole dans cette zone. Il a été aussi

précisé que conformément à la réglementation nationale en vigueur, la compensation porte sur

l’usage de la terre.

Ce taux équivaudrait à des pertes de revenus agricoles estimés à 87 500 FCFA par mois

pendant un an sur ces terres agricoles cultivables en pluvial.

Il faut constater que ce taux ne permet de compenser le préjudice car en privant le producteur

de son outil de production, il perdra de façon définitive les revenus liés à cette activité. En

réalité une parcelle similaire devrait lui être octroyée par les collectivités locales.

Ainsi à titre comparatif avec le décret n° 2010-439 du 6 avril 2010 fixant pour toute la région de

Thiès à 200 FCFA/m2 , l’indemnité d’expropriation des terrains ruraux pour cause d’utilité

publique, le taux de 1050 000 FCFA/ha est bas.

D’autre part, il est reconnu que les taux du marché de la valeur immobilière sont très variable

d’un site à un autre et ne respectent aucune grille tarifaire. Une enquête complémentaire de

terrain permettrait de mieux approcher la réalité des transactions et le prix du marché.

Du fait de l’inexistence de données homologuées sur le marché du foncier local, la valeur

d’usage de 300 F CFA/m² peut être considérée comme équivalent à la norme institutionnelle de

2010 (200F/m²) mais réajustée en 2016 avec un taux d’inflation annuel de la valeur immobilière

de 7%/an. Ce taux serait plus avantageux pour les PAP en conformité avec l’esprit de la Norme

de performance 5 de la SFI et les propositions de PO.4.12.

3.2 Compensation de la perte des arbres fruitiers

3.2.1 Analyse de la situation de départ

Les données disponibles renseignent que l’arboriculture fruitière dans la zone est à dominance

constituée par la production de mangues. Les faibles rendements à l’hectare évoqués sont à

mettre en rapport avec le système de production caractérisé par une faible densité de

plantation et un faible entretien des manguiers.

Concernant la compensation en espèces pour les pertes d’arbres par abattage, l’évaluation a

été faite en tenant compte de deux aspects : d’une part, la perte de la production et, d’autre

part, la perte de l’arbre selon qu’il soit mature ou jeune.

Cette compensation tient compte théoriquement des valeurs locales, selon le cas de figure, des

paramètres suivants :



rePlan Inc. 73

la production moyenne annuelle récoltée par pied;

les différents prix du marché pour les récoltes des arbres adultes ;

le coût de remplacement intégrant les coûts d’aménagement, de plantation et

d’entretien, jusqu’à la maturité des plants ;

le coût d’acquisition et de remplacement des jeunes pousses, y compris les coûts

d’aménagement.

Les prix retenus par la commission sont :

Tableau 1: Prix retenus par la Commission pour les arbres fruitiers

Espèces Prix Commission

Citronnier adulte 13 000

Citronnier jeune 2500

Mandarinier jeune 2 500

Manguier adulte 50 000

Manguier jeune 3500

3.2.2 Réévaluation de la compensation

3.2.2.1 Principes de réévaluation des pertes de revenus liés aux arbres fruitiers et choix

d’une durée requise

Conformément aux principes retenus dans le cadre de la PO 4.12 de la Banque Mondiale, le

calcul des pertes de revenus doit tenir compte de la durée requise pour finaliser une activité et

débuter une autre afin de préserver pour la PAP un équilibre social et économique.

Dans ce cas de figure, le temps d’attente minimal, qui permet aux PAP de débuter la

réinstallation, est calculé sur la base des pertes de revenus tirés sur 04 années de récoltes. Ce

choix n’est pas fortuit pour plusieurs raisons :

Au niveau pratique, la quantification des pertes de revenu de la première année permet de

combler les pertes pour l’arrêt de l’activité sur la parcelle libérée;

Du point de vue agronomique, il est admis que les manguiers de semis peuvent atteindre leur

pleine production vers l’âge de 3 à 4 ans pour les manguiers greffés (Wikipedia,2016);

Ainsi, les indemnités prévues des autres 03 années, aussi bien pour les manguiers que les

agrumes permettent de combler le temps d’acquisition et le temps d’atteindre le niveau de

productivité initiale avec les nouveaux arbres.

3.2.2.2 Réévaluation de nouveaux taux pour les manguiers

Le prix unitaire d’un pied de manguier adulte a été estimé à 50 000 FCFA par la Commission

départementale d’évaluation des impenses. Il faut considérer que la production de mangue



rePlan Inc. 74

dépend de plusieurs facteurs dont les plus déterminants sont : les variétés utilisées, les

techniques de production et les conditions du milieu.

Considérant l’absence d’informations détaillées sur la signalétique des espèces recensées, les

éléments disponibles montrent qu’il s’agit plus globalement de système de production

traditionnel. La typologie des vergers au Sénégal, classe les vergers en trois types :

(traditionnels5, traditionnels améliorés et modernes). Les éléments de description de la zone

montrent que le système se rapproche plus des vergers traditionnels.

Production annuelle escomptée d’un manguier

Les études menées dans l’analyse de la chaine de valeur mangue au Sénégal (USAID, 2006)

dans la zone de Thiès avec les acteurs, montre que le rendement moyen d’un verger de

manguier est estimé à 20 tonnes par hectare. Cette donnée cache généralement la réalité des

revenus des producteurs du fait du nombre de pieds à l’hectare généralement faible.

Se basant sur la connaissance des manguiers cultivés dans des vergers homogènes plus ou

moins denses avec des variétés à fort potentiel de développement, les études ont montré que

rarement les densités de plantation sont supérieures à 200 pieds/ha (Wikipédia, 2016).

En référence aux données du Projet, il a été évoqué des pertes de production autour de 30%

pour les manguiers de la zone. De ce fait, sur la base d’un taux similaire appliqué à cette

végétation, la densité de semis peut être estimé à 133 pieds par ha soit un rendement par pied

autour de 150 kg/an.

Prix moyen de vente

Les documents fournis montrent qu’à partir de la valorisation monétaire des productions, les

prix du kg de mangue en 2010/11 tournait autour de 98 FCFA. D’une part, les études réalisées

(ASEPEX, 2012) montrent que les prix proposés au producteur sont passés de 150 à 250 F en

moyenne. D’autre part, des indications du prix de la mangue sur le marché national (USAID,

2006) sont estimés bord champ à 200 à 250 FCFA/kg. Par conséquent, le prix de 250 F/kg a

été utilisé comme base de calcul.

Résumé des hypothèses et présentation du nouveau taux

Les hypothèses ci-dessus évoquées sont ainsi résumées:

Production annuelle d’un manguier : 150 kg Prix moyen de vente du kg de mangue produite : 250 FCFA Chiffre d’affaire annuel d’un manguier : 37 500 FCFA/manguier Charges négligeables

5 le modèle traditionnel ne respectant aucune norme en termes de densité, les vergers concernés ne sont

pas bien entretenus



rePlan Inc. 75

Ainsi, cette série de chiffre d’affaire moyen annuel sur quatre années actualisé au taux de 10%6

donne la valeur : 118 850 FCFA/pied.

Tableau 2: Taux de compensation revu pour les manguiers

Valeur de départ Nouveau taux

50 000 FCFA 118 870 FCFA

Cette nouvelle valeur comparée au montant de 40 000 FCFA par pied pour un manguier

mature greffé (MCA, 2013)7 montre que ce taux est largement supérieur.

Pour un manguier jeune, le prix fixé par la commission départementale sera maintenu.

Toutefois, la durée de régénération de deux (02) ans sera appliquée pour le calcul de la

compensation.

3.2.2.3 Réévaluation des taux pour les agrumes (citronnier et mandarinier)

Avec la commission, le prix des agrumes a été fixé respectivement à 13 000, 2 500 et 2 500

FCFA pour les citronniers adultes, jeunes et mandarinier. Comme dans le cas du manguier,

plusieurs facteurs cités précédemment interviennent dans la production des agrumes. Ainsi, il

sera considéré les hypothèses suivantes :

Production annuelle escomptée d’un agrume

En vitesse de croisière, un palier de production de 20 T/ha (ISRA, 1989) peut être réalisé par

les agrumes d’un verger moyennement entretenu. L’itinéraire technique proposé (Chambre

d’Agriculture Martinique, 2007) montre qu’avec une fumure bien raisonnée et irrigations, que

les rendements escomptés autour de 20 tonnes sont obtenus à partir de la sixième année.

Toutefois, pour les exploitations de type traditionnel, du fait de la dégradation des sols et

l’absence de fumure de compensation, la production de croisière est atteinte au bout de 04 ans.

Les écartements moyens recommandés tournent autour de (7*6) m soit une densité autour de

238 plants. En appliquant des pertes autour de 15%8, la densité de la population par ha dans

cette zone peut être estimé à 200 pieds par hectare d’où un rendement moyen par pied de

100kg/an.

Prix moyen de vente

Le prix du kg d’agrume représenté essentiellement par les citronniers est vendu à 250 FCF le

kg.

Résumé des hypothèses de calcul pour les agrumes

6 Taux d’intérêt moyen sur le marché

7 Norme fixée par le services des Eaux et Forêts de Saint Louis en 2012

8 Pertes naturelles



rePlan Inc. 76

Production annuelle d’un pied d’agrume : de 100 kg/agrumes Prix moyen de vente du kg récolté : 500

9 FCFA/kg

Chiffre d’affaire annuel par pied : 50 000 FCFA Charges négligées

Tableau 3: Taux de compensation revu pour les agrumes

Agrumes Valeur de départ Nouveau taux

Citronnier 13 000 FCFA 158 493 FCFA

Au même titre que le manguier, la valeur obtenue de 50 000 sur quatre ans réactualisée au taux

de 10% donne la valeur de 158 493 FCFA.

Pour un mandarinier jeune et citronnier jeune, le prix fixé par la commission départementale

sera maintenu. Toutefois, la durée de régénération de deux (02) ans sera appliquée pour le

calcul de la compensation.

3.3 Compensation des essences forestières

3.3.1 Analyse des résultats par rapport au code forestier

Le montant communiqué par la Commission est basé sur les pertes de revenus liés aux

essences forestières pour une période de 12 mois.

9 Prix sur la route nationale entre Dakar Pout et Thiès (aout 2016)



rePlan Inc. 77

Tableau 4: Taux de compensation proposé par la Commission Départementale et comparaison avec

barème

Pour les espèces à l’état naturel, le Code Forestier a fixé des montants pour les arbres ayant

atteint un diamètre d’exploitabilité. Pour ceux qui n’ont pas atteint ce seuil, il n’est pas prévu de

compensation. Or, à partir des résultats de la commission, des valeurs ont été même attribuées

à ces derniers. Ce qui dénote qu’au-delà des aspects légaux et réglementaires, des efforts sont

notés pour les PAP. L’entente avec les populations est à privilégier pour les espèces exotiques.

Par endroit, il est arrivé qu’une majoration de 15% soit appliquée pour prendre en compte les

frais d’entretien dans le cas d’un opérateur privé. C’est le cas avec le Plan d’action de

réinstallation des PAP dans la région de Kolda (Millénium Challenge Account, 2012). Tel que

décrites, les données du milieu, ne font pas paraitre une situation similaire.

Les barèmes de prix suivants font référence en général à la législation sénégalaise :

Espèces P. Unitaire

Redevance Code

forestier

Acacia holo 3 000

Anacardier ad

40 000 8 000

Anacardier j 4 000

Baobab ad 20 000 10 000

Baobab j 5 000

Dobali 12 000

Dougor 1 000

Eucalyptus ad

12 000

Forestier 1 000

Fouf j 1 000

Fuden ad 4 000

Haie vive 1 000

Kadd ad 12 000 12 000

Kadd j 1 000

Kheule ad 12 000

Kheule j 1 000

Khourete 1 000

Lung 1 000

Neem ad 7 000

Neem j 1 000

Nep nep wolof ad

6 000

New ad 10 000

Espèces P. Unitaire

Redevance Code

forestier

Nguiguis j 1 000

Prosopis ad 12 000 10 000

Rand 1 000

Rat ad 12 000

Ronier ad 30 000 15 000

Ronier j 2 000

Sap sap ad 6 000

Sawat 1 000

Sedem ad 5 000 10 000

Sedem j 1 000

Sehaw 1 000

Sendiégne ad 6 000

Seunth 1 000

Singue j 1 000

Sinth 1 000

Solom ad 5 000 12 000

Soup ad 6 000

Soump j 1 000

Sourour ad 6 000

Tamaranier ad 24 000 10 000

Vitex doniania ad

1 000

Yiir ad 10 000



rePlan Inc. 78

Décret portant révision de l’article 3 du Décret N° 96(572 du 09/07/1996 fixant les taxes

et redevance en matière d’exploitation forestière.

Tableau 5: Barème des prix des espèces forestières

Nature des produits (nom local de l’espèce suivi de l’appellation latine)

Diamètre minimum d’exploitation

Taux de redevance (F CFA)

ESPECES PARTIELLEMENT PROTEGES Rônier (Borassus aethiopium) Kadd (Acacia albida) Ir (Prosopis Africana) Tamarinier (Tamarindus indica) Jujubier (Ziziphus Mauritiana) Baobab (Adansonia digitata) ESPECES NON PROTEGEES Tomboïro blanc (Antiaris africana) Kapotier (Bombax costatum) Bouyoupa (Schrebera arborea) Detakh (Detarium senegalensis) Tali (Erythrophleum guineense) Sand (Morus mizosygia) Santan (Daniellia oliveri) Diobitabo (Sterculia tragacanta) Emian (Alstonia boonei) Banneto (Albizzia adiantifolia) Kossito ou Solom (Dialium guineensis) Palmier à huile (Elaeis guineensis) Autres espèces non citées

40 cm 45 cm 40 cm 40 cm 25 cm 60 cm 60 cm 50 cm 50 cm 50 cm 60 cm 50 cm 50 cm 50 cm 50 cm 50 cm 50 cm 50 cm 50 cm

15.000 12.000 10.000 10.000 10.000 10.000 15.000 12.500 12.000 12.500 15.000 8.500 12.000 10.000 12.000 10.000 12.000 8.000 8.000

3.3.2 Proposition de maintien des prix de la Commission Départementale

La comparaison globale entre les prix de la Commission et le barème de prix pour les arbres

montrent que ceux de la commission sont plus favorables aux PAP. A cet effet ces prix peuvent

être maintenus.



rePlan Inc. 79

1. Résultats de la réévaluation des taux

Avant de procéder à la réévaluation des taux d’indemnisation, un exercice de vérification et

d’harmonisation des données issues du fichier (PETN-commission Rapport harmonisé) a été

effectué.

Tableau 6:Synthèse des données de base corrigées (source : fichier PETN-commission Rapport

harmonisé)

Types Montant (FCFA)/recalculé Part

Cultures pluviales 70 315 164 35%

Essences forestières 24 497 000 12%

Fruitiers 106 622 500 53%

Puits 400 000 0%

Total Général 201 834 664 100%

Après vérification du fichier (PETN-commission Rapport harmonisé), il est a noté une différence

de 19 950 FCFA sur la somme globale initiale de 201 814 713. Cette différence provient d’une

erreur de calcul sur le montant du PAP (Mor Talla DIOP), qui devrait recevoir initialement

164 950 FCFA à la place de 145 000 FCFA comme indiqué sur ce fichier. Le tableau suivant

présente la synthèse de la réévaluation.

Tableau 7:Synthèse des résultats de la réévaluation

Types Taux initial (FCFA)

Taux proposés (FCFA)

Espèces fruitières

Citronnier adulte 13 000 158 493

Citronnier jeune 2 500 5 000

Mandarinier jeune

2 500 5 000

Manguier adulte 50 000 118 870

Manguier jeune 3 500 7 000

Cultures pluviales

Cultures pluviales 1 050 000 3 000 000



idem idem

Puits Puits 400 000 400 000

TOTAL GENERAL



rePlan Inc. 80

2. Conclusion

Au regard des éléments techniques, économiques et juridiques effectuées dans le cadre de la

réévaluation des compensations des PAP du projet d’énergie éolienne dans la commune de

Taïba NDIAYE.

Les données de base sur lesquelles repose l'analyse portent sur :

l’appréciation de l’écosystème décrit à partir des informations fournies ;

la relecture des données de base sur les PAP ;

l’application du Décret n° 2010-400 du 23 mars 2010, portant fixation des barèmes des

prix des terrains dans les différentes zones du territoire national ;

l’application de la Norme de performance 5 relative à l’acquisition de terres et

réinstallation involontaire ;

l’application la Politique Opérationnelle (PO.4.12) de la Banque Mondiale ;

L’analyse des données sur les cultures (Rendements, densités, productions, prix de

vente) ;

la simulation de la perte de production sur quatre (04) ans, en appliquant la Valeur

Actuelle Nette avec un taux de 10% ;

la comparaison des taux avec d’autres Projets et Programmes

Les hypothèses de calcul considérées, ont permis d’aboutir à ces nouveaux montants.



rePlan Inc. 81

REFERENCE BIBLIOGRAPHIQUE

R PARFONRY et Al. Les agrumes de la zone des Niayes (Sénégal). Revue sénégalaise des recherches Agricoles et halieutique : ISRA [en ligne]. 1989. Disponible sur : http://www.sist.sn/gsdl/collect/publi/index/assoc/HASHd895/38c2ec9b.dir/doc.pdf

USAID. Mango value chain - Sénégal analysis and strategic framework for subsector growth initiatives [en ligne]. 2006. Disponible sur : http://www.value-chains.org/dyn/bds/docs/601/AnalyseMangueSenegal.pdf ASEPEX. Bilan de la campagne 2012 d’exportation mangue au Sénégal [en ligne]. 2012. Disponible sur http://asepex.sn/IMG/pdf/Mangue

MILLENIUM CHALLENGE ACCOUNT SENEGAL. Plan d’Action de Réinstallation (PAR) Final - Lot 2 Terrassement – Delta Adducteurs [en ligne]. 2013. Disponible sur http://www.mcasenegal.org/mca/sites/default/files/14-amendement-n-1-par-final-delta-lot-2-vf-du-07102013-2.pdf CHAMBRE D’AGRICULTURE DE MARTINIQUE. Fiches techniques agrumes [en ligne] 2007. Disponible http://www.martinique.chambagri.fr/old/fileadmin/ca972/service/Fiches_techniques/Agrumes_07.pdf MILLENIUM CHALLENGE ACCOUNT- SENEGAL. Plan d’action de réinstallation projet de réhabilitation de la route nationale n° 6 Kolda [en ligne] 2013. Disponible

REPUBLIQUE DU SENEGAL. Journal Officiel. n° 6524 du lundi 3 mai 2010 n – s [en ligne] 2010.http://www.jo.gouv.sn/spip.php?article7991

http://asepex.sn/IMG/pdf/Mangue

http://www.mcasenegal.org/mca/sites/default/files/14-amendement-n-1-par-final-delta-lot-2-vf-du-07102013-2.pdf

http://www.mcasenegal.org/mca/sites/default/files/14-amendement-n-1-par-final-delta-lot-2-vf-du-07102013-2.pdf

http://www.martinique.chambagri.fr/old/fileadmin/ca972/service/Fiches_techniques/Agrumes_07.pdf

http://www.jo.gouv.sn/spip.php?article7991



rePlan Inc. 82

ANNEX IV

SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE SURVEY REPORT

As per Section 11.3.1 of the implementation roadmap proposed in the Livelihood Restoration

Plan (LRP), an updated household survey was launched in February 2017 with persons affected

by the Taiba N’Diaye Wind Project (PAPs). The objective of the survey was to confirm eligibility

for livelihood restoration programs, including the identification of vulnerable households, and to

develop a more detailed baseline against which implementation of the programs can be

monitored. The following is a summary of the survey results. A broader overview of socio-

economic conditions in the Project area is provided in Section 4 of the LRP.

1. Methodology

The survey form was designed to capture the following data:

name, age and relationship to PAP of all members of each PAP’s household;

education levels / formal training completed by household members and PAPs;

household income and present livelihood activities;

total land holdings and total revenue generated from land and productive trees;

household goods and assets; and

identification of vulnerable households.

Survey questions focused on household demographics, such as gender, age, literacy, economic

activities, and disabilities of dependents, as well as household income, assets, savings, and

expenditures. Survey questions related to total land holdings, average monthly income from

land, number of productive fruit trees, and average monthly income from fruit trees were asked

only of the 150 PAPs for whom this data was missing from the results generated by the

household survey conducted by Labosol in July and August 2015.

The survey tools were designed by rePlan, an ERM Group company. The survey was carried

out by Environmental Engineering Services (EES), the local firm supporting stakeholder

engagement activities for the Taiba N’Diaye Wind Project and the external consultation that

informed the development of the LRP.

The survey was carried out over the course of three weeks in February 2017. 351 households

participated. Surveyors recorded data manually in the field. Results were sent to Lekela, who

undertook data entry directly.



rePlan Inc. 83

2. Data Overview

2.1 Demographics

The 351 households that participated in the survey had a total of 4,054 members, meaning an

average household size is 12. 66% of the population is 18 or older. The average age is 28. The

male to female ratio is 1.11, which is higher than average for rural communities in Senegal and

may indicate that some single men have migrated to the area.

2.2 Education

Literacy levels among households surveyed is low but not inconsistent with literacy levels in

other rural areas in Senegal. 28% of adults from the surveyed households are reported to be

able to read and write in French. The most common form of education for adults is Koranic

school, which 48% attended. 33% have attended no type of school. 8% have finished primary

school, 5% have finished secondary school, and 4% have finished university.

70% of minors of school age (4 - 17 years) are in school. Slightly more boys attend school than

girls, but the difference is marginal.

2.3 Productive Activities

The most common productive activity among households surveyed is agriculture, with 29% of

people who have worked in the last 12 months reporting agriculture as their primary activity and

35% citing it as their secondary activity.

22% report that trading and small commerce are their primary activities, with half of these

working from a kiosk and the other half walking around to sell their goods. A further 20% say

that their primary productive activity is driving. No other single trade is well represented among

the respondents. 42% of those currently working have a secondary activity.

Only 3% of the surveyed households reported a handicap that prevents them from working.

Most of these cases are people who are too old to work, although 1% of respondents reported a

physical handicap and 0.5% reported a hearing impairment.

2.3 Revenue & Assets

60% of households surveyed were willing to report their revenues. Of those reported, monthly

revenues were between 10,000 and 800,000 CFA, with an average of 150,000 and a median of

123,000.

22% of households reported on their revenue from land and marginally more on their revenue

from trees. Households reported an average of 4.5 ha of fields and 2.5 fields owned. A total of

192 fields were reported.

30% of households reported on their ownership of productive fruit trees. 25% of all households

reported owning mango trees, with those who specified how many they owned reporting

between 2 and 700 adult trees. The average number owned is 90. Overall 4,870 adult mango



rePlan Inc. 84

trees and 874 young mango trees were reported. Across all species, a total of 5,086 adult trees

and 1,105 young trees were reported.

Income from land ran between 0 and 4 million CFA and averaged 500,000 CFA. Income from

trees ran between 0 and 3 million CFA and averaged 325,000.

The majority of households (82%) own animals, with 60% of households owning sheep, 31%

owning horses, 24% owning chickens, and 18% owning cattle. 18% of households own no

animals.

Overall, 38% of households reported owning radios and 87% reported owning cellphones, but

relatively few other assets were reported. For example, only about 6% of households reported

owning bicycles or solar panels.

2.4 Savings & Expenditures

91% of households surveyed were willing to report their expenses. Reported expenses

averaged 170,000 CFA and had a median of 150,000. 62% of households reporting both

revenues and expenses reported spending more than they make.

In terms of debts and savings, 36% of households say they have neither. Less than 2% of

households reported debts within the formal banking system, but 46% said that they are

indebted to friends, family, neighbours or other third parties. People tend to use these informal

networks first, but 21% also reported selling their possessions as a means to raise funds when

needed. For savings, 17% of households reported having savings; 12% of households said they

keep them at home and 7% keep them in the bank (indicating that 2% of households have

savings both at home and in the bank).

In terms of expenses, the primary expense cited – by an overwhelming margin - was food, with

93% of households saying that this is their largest expense. Slightly less than 3% of households

listed school fees, and less than 2% listed transport, medical bills or ‘other’ as their largest

expense.

In terms of factors limiting agricultural production, about 60% of respondents listed both the lack

of credit and the lack of agricultural inputs as critical factors. Half of households listed drought

and 38% listed pests. Only 1% of households say that they purchase all their food from others,

meaning that 99% of households rely on their own agricultural production in some way.

Overall, 72% of households reported food shortages over the course of the last year. A quarter

said that they do not experience shortages and 3% said they did not know.

Taiba N’Diaye Wind Project · Taiba N’Diaye Wind Project LIVELIHOOD RESTORATION PLAN rePlan...

Documents

Transcript of Taiba N’Diaye Wind Project · Taiba N’Diaye Wind Project LIVELIHOOD RESTORATION PLAN rePlan...