resettlement action plan - world bankdocuments.vsemirnyjbank.org/curated/ru/... · 9/20/2016 ·...

RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN

SHALA NEIGHBOURHOOD OF HADE VILLAGE

KOSOVO

FINAL COMPLETION REPORT (2011 –2016)

Prepared for: Clean Up and Land Reclamation Project – Second Additional Finance

Monitoring Unit, Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning

Prepared by: rePlan Inc.

July 2016

SFG2490P

ublic

Dis

clos

ure

Aut

horiz

edP

ublic

Dis

clos

ure

Aut

horiz

edP

ublic

Dis

clos

ure

Aut

horiz

edP

ublic

Dis

clos

ure

Aut

horiz

ed

Resettlement Completion Report MESP Kosovo

July 2016 rePlan Inc. 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................4 1.1 Study Objectives ....................................................................................................................4 1.2 Approach and Methodology ...................................................................................................4 1.2.1 Socio-economic Survey Methodology (2015) .................................................................................. 5

2 Shala resettlement process ....................................................................................................6 2.1 Background and Timeline .......................................................................................................6 2.2 Scope and Types of Impacts: ................................................................................................. 10 2.2.1 Loss of Land .................................................................................................................................... 11 2.2.2 Loss of Structures ........................................................................................................................... 11 2.2.3 Loss of Crops .................................................................................................................................. 11 2.2.4 Readjustment of Social Networks .................................................................................................. 11 2.2.5 Loss of Public Facilities ................................................................................................................... 12 2.3 Eligibility and Compensation Summary ................................................................................. 12 2.3.1 Eligibility ......................................................................................................................................... 12 2.3.2 Entitlements ................................................................................................................................... 12 2.4 Stakeholder Engagement and Participation ........................................................................... 16 2.5 Studies Conducted in Support of Resettlement ..................................................................... 17 2.6 Livelihoods Restoration Strategies ........................................................................................ 18 2.7 Monitoring Activities and Reports ........................................................................................ 18 2.7.1 Chronological Overview of Monitoring Activities .......................................................................... 18 2.7.2 Monitoring Reports ........................................................................................................................ 19

3 Study findings ...................................................................................................................... 20 3.1 Current Status at New Shkabaj ............................................................................................. 20 3.2 Assessment of Current Socio-economic Conditions vs. 2011 Baseline..................................... 21 3.2.1 Affected Households Demographic Profile .................................................................................... 21 3.2.2 Physical Capital .............................................................................................................................. 23 3.2.3 Human Capital................................................................................................................................ 24 3.2.4 Economic Capital ............................................................................................................................ 26 3.2.5 Natural Capital ............................................................................................................................... 29 3.3 Assessment of Compliance of Shala RAP with OP 4.12 ........................................................... 30 3.3.1 Effectiveness of Stakeholder Engagement and Grievance Redress ............................................... 30 3.3.2 Appropriateness of Compensation Framework ............................................................................. 32 3.3.3 Provision and Maintenance of Community Infrastructure at New Shkabaj .................................. 33

4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 34 4.1 Summary of Outstanding Issues ............................................................................................ 34 4.2 Recommendations for Shala Resettlement ........................................................................... 35 4.3 Conclusion for Shala Resettlement ....................................................................................... 36 4.4 Recommendations for Future Resettlements ........................................................................ 37 4.5 Lessons Learned to Enhance the Resettlement Policy Framework for the New Mine Area (2011) ........................................................................................................................................... .38



LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Compensation Matrix Shala RAP ................................................................................................. 13 Table 2 - Key indicators for RAP Implementation monitoring .................................................................... 20 Table 3 - Size of households, comparison of CA with baseline survey ....................................................... 22 Table 4 - Household members’ profile – age cohort: 2011 and 2015 comparison .................................... 22 Table 5 - Primary means of transportation ................................................................................................. 23 Table 6 - Access to utilities .......................................................................................................................... 23 Table 7 - Type of heating system ................................................................................................................ 24 Table 8 - Household member profile – level of education completed (CA 2015 survey) ........................... 24 Table 9 - Access to education difficulties – 2015 CA survey ....................................................................... 25 Table 10 - Access to health care difficulties – 2015 CA survey ................................................................... 25 Table 11 - Head of Household activity in the last 12 months ..................................................................... 26 Table 12 - Household member activity in the last 12 months (CA 2015 survey) ........................................ 26 Table 13 - Household income ..................................................................................................................... 27 Table 14 - Economic situation compared to one year ago ......................................................................... 27 Table 15 - Spending by type (CA 2015 survey) ........................................................................................... 28 Table 16 - Savings and debts (CA 2015 survey) .......................................................................................... 29 Table 17 - Percentage of families that own land by size – overall (all responses from survey) ................. 29 Table 18 - Limit to food production (CA 2015 survey) ................................................................................ 30 LIST OF GRAPHS Graph 1 - CA Survey 2015 – population pyramid from surveyed population ............................................. 22

LIST OF ACRONYMS AP Affected People CLRP-SAF Clean Up and Land Reclamation Project – Second Additional Finance GoK Government of Kosovo KEK Kosovo Energy Corporation LPTAP Lignite Power Technical Assistance Project MESP Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning OP 4.12 World Bank Operational Policy 4.12 – Land Acquisition and Resettlement PISG Provisional Institutions of Self Governance RAP Resettlement Action Plan RPF Resettlement Policy Framework for the New Mining Field (2011) Shala RAP Shala Resettlement Action Plan UNMIK United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo WB World Bank



1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Study Objectives1

This Completion Report has been prepared by request of the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning (MESP) and financed through the World Bank (WB) supported Clean Up and Land Reclamation Project – Second Additional Finance (CLRP-SAF) to assess the implementation of the Resettlement Action Plan for the Shala neighborhood of the Hade Village (Shala RAP) by the Government of Kosovo (GoK) between 2011 and 2016. The Shala RAP covers 93 households, 63 affected by physical displacement and 30 by loss of land, impacted by the expansion of Kosovo’s Sibovc South West mine. The purpose of this evaluation is to provide an overview of the results of the implementation of the Shala RAP agreed with the community in 2011 and assess its compliance with the World Bank’s Operational Policy 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement.2. This Completion Report will be publicly disclosed. The Report aims at achieving the following objectives:

Provide a brief historical background on the resettlement of the Shala neighborhood, elaborating

on topics such as the scope of displacement, the extent of stakeholder engagement activities, the

structure of the compensation framework and compliance in the delivery of replacement assets

both monetary and in-kind;

Elaborate and expand on the content of previous monitoring reports prepared for this RAP

covering the period from October 2013 to September 2014;

Present the results of a socio-economic survey and livelihoods restoration assessment conducted

in June-July 2015 on a sample of the physically and economically displaced population to

determine the extent to which livelihoods have been restored as a result of the implementation

of the Shala RAP, and;

Assess and evaluate the resettlement process with respect to the Shala RAP and international

standards, specifically the World Bank’s OP 4.12.

1.2 Approach and Methodology

The methodology to elaborate this Completion Report is based on the combination of social research techniques that aim at providing a good overall understanding of the conditions currently encountered by Affected People (AP) and the appropriateness of the policies adopted as part of RAP implementation. In particular, five key activities have been conducted as part of this Completion Report:

1 The scope of this report does not cover the Emergency Evacuation in November 2004 of another section of Hade Village, immediately to the south of Shala, involving 158 families (664 people) due to the imminent threat of land subsidence caused by a long legacy of poor mining and land acquisition practices. The evacuation was carried out by the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and Provisional Institutions of Self Governance (PISG). That resettlement pre-dates the World Bank involvement and it was not the result of, or supported by, any World Bank project. 2 Access WB OP 4.12 at http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/PROJECTS/EXTPOLICIES/EXTOPMANUAL/0,,contentMDK:20064610~menuPK:64701637~pagePK:64709096~piPK:64709108~theSitePK:502184,00.html



Review of relevant materials available related to the Shala RAP planning and implementation

phases which include:

o Shala Resettlement Action Plan (2011)

http://mzhe.rks-gov.net/repository/docs/Plani_i_veprimit_per_zhvendosje-

Lagjja_ShalaHade_-_ENG.pdf;

o First Monitoring Report for Shala RAP (October 2013 - April 2014)

http://mmph-rks.org/repository/docs/rePlan_-_Shala_ME_Report_1_-

_final_345581.pdf;

o Second Monitoring Report for Shala RAP (May – September 2014)

http://mmph-rks.org/repository/docs/rePlan_-_Shala_ME_Report_2_869903.docx;

o Shala RAP census, socio-economic and asset survey database (2011);

Discussions with parties involved in the implementation process;

Administration of a socio-economic survey between June and July, 2015 to a sample of AP with

the purpose of understanding their current conditions and comparing them to the 2011 baseline;

Meeting with relevant Government agencies; and,

Site visits to Hade and the resettlement site at New Shkabaj.

1.2.1 Socio-economic Survey Methodology (2015)

One of the main objectives of this Completion Report is to assess whether the affected population has been able to improve or at least restore their living conditions and livelihoods after the implementation of the Shala RAP. In order to conduct this assessment, the study team administered a survey of socio-economic conditions to a sample of the physically and economically displaced households. This includes households that chose a resettlement land plot in New Shkabaj and those that selected or were only entitled to cash compensation from this resettlement program. The survey conducted between June-July 2015 was comprised of sections that addressed details about livelihood conditions, including data on social, economic and demographic status of the surveyed households. The survey was three pages long took a maximum of 20 minutes to administer and was developed to mirror the 2011 socio-economic survey conducted as part of the Shala RAP preparation with a view to facilitating comparison with baseline information and thus assess possible alterations in the quality of life and conditions that affected families may have experienced. The main areas that the survey instrument incorporated include:

Basic demographics and Education;

Primary and Secondary occupations;

Income and Expenditures;

Housing conditions and ownership;

Existing public infrastructure (health, education, etc.);

Intentions for resettlement in New Shkabaj (identified barriers), and;

Overall perceptions of the resettlement process.

The survey was conducted in person or via telephone with the sample population. All households residing as of July 2015 in New Shkabaj were surveyed in person. Meanwhile, telephone surveys were conducted with households not residing in the resettlement site for whom contact information was available. It must be noted that the study team made significant efforts to obtain contact information for these households

http://mzhe.rks-gov.net/repository/docs/Plani_i_veprimit_per_zhvendosje-Lagjja_ShalaHade_-_ENG.pdf

http://mzhe.rks-gov.net/repository/docs/Plani_i_veprimit_per_zhvendosje-Lagjja_ShalaHade_-_ENG.pdf

http://mmph-rks.org/repository/docs/rePlan_-_Shala_ME_Report_1_-_final_345581.pdf

http://mmph-rks.org/repository/docs/rePlan_-_Shala_ME_Report_1_-_final_345581.pdf

http://mmph-rks.org/repository/docs/rePlan_-_Shala_ME_Report_2_869903.docx



from a variety of sources that included the MESP, the Municipality of Obiliq, and households residing in New Shkabaj. The survey team conducted up to five attempts to contact households (either for face-to-face survey or telephone interviewing), in different times of the day and the week, during the fieldwork period of three weeks when the data from the survey was collected. This was done to maximize the size of the sample. In spite of these efforts, not all affected people could be surveyed. The total sample size of 38 households represents 40.8% of the total 93 households affected which provides a margin of error of +/- 10 percent. The population’s homogeneous characteristics allow for the inference and identification of systemic issues and trends and are considered representative of the affected population. A total of 32 surveys were conducted, 12 of which were conducted in person and 20 via telephone. These 32 surveys provided information for 38 households as some households, having strong family ties, were living together. From these 38 households, 10 were economically displaced and 28 were physically displaced. In an effort to increase the sample size of the survey described above, the study team undertook a second attempt to contact additional households in June 2016. Similar to the initial survey, the study team again made significant efforts to obtain contact information for households impacted by the Shala resettlement process. For this exercise the focus was centered on contacting households that hadn’t been reached and surveyed in June 2015. In total, four additional households were identified and agreed to participate in the survey. The summary results of this second survey sample are presented separatedly in Annex A because given the small sample size (4 households) and the time gap of one year thay are not considered to be comparable. In any case, the findings from this second survey are generally aligned with those of the June 2015 survey.

2 SHALA RESETTLEMENT PROCESS

2.1 Background and Timeline

The Kosovo Energy Corporation (KEK), a company fully owned by the Government of Kosovo, has been expanding lignite-mining operations to Kosovo’s New Mining Field over the years. One phase in the development of the New Mining Field resulted in the physical and economic displacement of part of Hade Village, specifically the Shala neighbourhood which is covered by the Shala RAP.3 The Hade Village is located in central Kosovo in the Obiliq Municipality, approximately 10 kilometers west of the capital, Pristina. Hade is situated directly adjacent to the existing and depleted Bardh and Mirash lignite mines and the Sibovc South West Mine. The most recent precedent to the Shala RAP is the 2004 Emergency Evacuation of 158 families from another section of Hade by the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and

3 The resettlement of the Shala neighborhood is different from the November 2004 Emergency Evacuation of another section of Hade, immediately to the south of Shala, involving 158 families (664 people) due to the imminent threat of land subsidence caused by a long legacy of poor mining and land acquisition practices. Evacuation was carried out by the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and Provisional Institutions of Self Governance (PISG). This evacuation was not the result of, or supported by, any Bank project.



Provisional Institutions of Self Governance (PISG).4 As part of that process in 2006 the MESP conducted consultations with the Hade Village to select a new resettlement site and they selected the location at New Shkabaj which has the capacity for 800 plots. A development plan was prepared by MESP for the development of the site which once fully developed would include community supporting facilities, including a school and a primary health care facility. However, given the estimated high level of investment required to service the entire New Shkabaj site, development was planned in phases. The first phase aimed at servicing about 120 households with basic site infrastructure, not including the community facilities. In May 2009 the Government, through Decision No. 08/66 launched the expropriation planning process required for mine expansion which included up to 12.4 hectares affecting the Shala neighborhood. This would impact a total 510 people grouped in 93 households. On July 2009, the Hade Project Office (later called the Department of Expropriation) at the MESP was appointed as a focal point to carry out preparation for the resettlement of the Shala neighbourhood (Decision No. 09/1627/1). In 2009, the Government of Kosovo also initiated the preparation of a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) for the New Mining Field5 with the support of the Lignite Power Technical Assistance Project (“LPTAP”) as part of the Bank’s capacity building support to Kosovo, even though LPTAP itself did not result in any resettlement. In 2010, rePlan, an international consulting firm with expertise on land acquisition and resettlement was commissioned through LPTAP to initiate the development of the Shala RAP in accordance with the World Bank’s OP 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement and to build capacity in the government for resettlement. On that same year the MESP initiated consultations with the Shala community in regards to the Shala RAP. In March 2011, the MESP, the Municipality of Obiliq, and KEK signed a Tripartite Agreement to align efforts and pool resources to meet the expected demands of the resettlement process for the Shala neighbourhood. This Agreement was separate from the Shala RAP preparation process and did not include specific criteria to determine when the replacement plot would be deemed ready for construction of houses. In 2011 multiple consultation events were conducted with affected families from the Shala neighborhood to invite input regarding compensation entitlement packages, resettlement procedures, designs for the resettlement community and replacement housing, options for temporary resettlement, among other topics. Registries from these events indicate that more than 100 people were consulted during community events held in 2011 alone. On that same year a socio-economic assessment and survey was completed by rePlan and MESP. At this point it was identified that out of the 93 affected households, 63 (320 full-time residents) were considered resident households and needed to be physically displaced,

4 During that same period, the Government of Kosovo issued a decision (Decision 4/119 of November 3, 2004) to create a Zone of Special Economic Interest. The decision restricted construction in the designated areas, thus blocking the way to speculation. Subsequently, in March 2009, the Government of Kosovo adopted Decision 10/22 to expand the Zone of Special Economic Interest over the entire New Mining Field. This Decision did not take effect until July 6, 2011. 5 The New Mining Field is defined in the Spatial Plan: Area of Special Interest (2011) as the area where lignite mining excavations to support Kosovo’s energy requirements was to be conducted. It encompassed a total of 150 square kilometers.



and the remaining 30 households would only lose land. The RPF was adopted by the GoK through Decision 10/22 of the Prime Minister of Kosovo on July 6, 2011. Decision 10/22 also states that “Ministry of Environmental and Spatial Planning, the Ministry of Economic Development and all other relevant institutions that are part of this [Resettlement Policy] Framework are obliged on implementation of this framework.” The Shala RAP also notes the active use of the grievance mechanism by the affected households, with more than 50 applicable grievances registered at the MESP’s grievance commission. Consultations about replacement housing options took place in July 2011. MESP commissioned a local architecture firm to prepare conceptual designs for housing options for APs which were presented on July 6, 2011 at a public hearing. As noted in the meeting minutes, requests from APs were centered on whether basements or garages could be included in the designs. Although APs were given two weeks to submit written requests for changes in the designs, MESP reported that none were received. As a result the proposed designs were formally endorsed in the next public hearing. Furthermore, given that all households that chose to resettle in New Shkabaj selected a self-construction resettlement modality, their compensation was paid in cash. This meant that it was up to APs to select a house model and size that would fit their future needs, rather than there being any requirements based on household size or other criteria. In July and August 2011 a draft of the Shala RAP was discussed during several open house meetings with the affected community and MESP reached agreement with the affected community about the compensation entitlements. During these consultations, it was also clarified by the MESP that the first investment phase in new Hade/Shkabaj would comprise of installation of water supply, sewage and electricity (in addition to the main road), and that further site infrastructure would be created in future phases for which no specific timeline was provided6. The RAP was finalized including the comments gathered during the open house and the agreement with the AP. During the same period MESP began negotiations to reach individual agreements with affected households, which continued throughout 2012, and after individual agreements were formalized with each household, funds were disbursed in individual accounts of the AP by KEK. In January 2012, 21 out of the 93 affected families from the Shala neighborhood were catalogued to be in a risk zone and as such were required to evacuate the area. A monthly and temporary rental allowance, which included money for rent and utilities was offered and provided to these 21 households. The remaining households in the footprint were catalogued as not being in a risk zone and did not need to be evacuated and thus did not qualify for a temporary rental allowance. They remained in their houses even after compensation funds were disbursed to individual accounts. In June 2012, through consultations, a total of 52 out of the 93 affected households opted for a replacement plot in New Shkabaj and initiated negotiations for plot allocation. In September of 2012 an agreement on plot allocations was signed with the AP, but after complaints from some community members, further and reiterated negotiations were conducted over a period of 11 months until August 2013, when given the lack of consensus among AP, the MESP issued a decision declaring the negotiation process on plot allocation closed and ratifying the original plot allocation agreement signed with the community back in September 2012. In September 2013, the supporting monitoring activities by the international resettlement firm –rePlan- of the implementation of the Shala RAP started under the Clean Up and Land Reclamation Project – Second Additional Finance (CLRP-SAF). Monitoring activities by rePlan, including site visits, revealed that

6 Meeting minutes July 6, 2011, between MESP and Shala residents.



by September 2013 the remaining 42 households at Shala to be physically displaced and not eligible for rental allowance had moved out of the area. It was also identified that several households had initiated construction activities at New Shkabaj in spite of the delay in construction of service infrastructure. In December 2013, after significant delays in the works for the community infrastructure in New Shkabaj, as described in the Shala RAP, the Verification Committee, comprised by representatives from MESP and KEK, verified that the site was ready to start construction of homes. APs were invited as observer but they decided not to participate and they rejected the declaration of the Verification Committee. In January 2014, KEK’s Board of Directors agreed to extend the payment for five months of the temporary allowance for the 21 households temporarily displaced until April 30, 2014, to achieve the Shala RAP commitment of paying rental allowance for four months after New Shkabaj was declared completed by the Verification Committee. In April 30, 2014 payment of temporary allowance for the 21 households that were temporarily resettled was finalized by KEK given that the condition set-up in the Shala RAP of paying the rental allowance “up to four months after access to replacement plots (for construction) were given” (Shala RAP pp. 50-51) was met in December 2013, once the Verification Committee issued confirmation that the access to the replacement plots was ready (see Section 3.1.2). As a result of rePlan’s monitoring activities the 1st Shala Report Monitoring Report was disclosed on April 2014. In May 2014, the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning and rePlan -with support of the World Bank- organized a workshop with the GoK to present the findings of the Shala RAP monitoring and discuss areas of improvement for future resettlements. In spite of the December 2013 declaration of completeness of basic infrastructure, by early 2014 there were several issues with site infrastructure that were raised by residents. It is important to clarify that these issues are common in new construction sites and need to be addressed as maintenance or warranty issues, and don’t refer to incomplete infrastructure works. For instance, the sewage system at New Shkabaj was not yet connected to the main sewage pipe by early 2014. This did not affect home construction activities, but was required for families to be able to move in. These works were included as a separate contract jointly with the finalization of the external main access road upgrade and the issue was resolved by April 2014. Nevertheless, problems continue arising in a small section of the drainage system at New Shkabaj, possibly due to home construction works being done in that area and the lack of pavement in the secondary roads. These problems generally affect three newly built homes. Although the problem has been addressed on several occasions, it has recurred multiple times. With regards to Energy supply, rePlan reported that by April 2014 there was still no power supply in New Shkabaj. Despite the fact that the installation of all electrical network infrastructures in New Shkabaj had been completed, KEK had not yet granted the connection permit to the electrical grid. With respect to water, although water connections were installed by December 2013, the Regional Water Company of Pristina had blocked the initial connection requesting that each construction site should install individual water-meters. Unfortunately, affected people were initially not informed of these requirements, which resulted in delays in the establishment of the water supply at the site. According to the findings of the second monitoring report, water was available at the site on July 2014.



rePlan’s 2nd Monitoring Report was disclosed on October 2014. Disclosure of monitoring reports was conducted both in English and Albanian at MESP’s website and copies were made available at the Community Liaison office at the Municipality of Obiliq. In October 2015, residents reported that 50 meters of length of sewage pipe were blocked up to the main road. The Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning has estimated that about 200 meters of sewage pipe needs replacement, made the funding available for the replacement and is currently executing the tender for the replacement works.The repairs are scheduled to start August 2016. A socio-economic survey required for the preparation of this Completion Report was conducted between June and July 2015. An additional effort to interview additional families was done in June 2016. This Report was completed in July 2016.

2.2 Scope and Types of Impacts:

As stated above, the mine expansion affected 93 households from the Shala neighborhood. From this total, 63 households (320 full-time residents) were considered resident households and needed to be physically displaced, and the remaining 30 households only lost land. These 63 resident households had ownership rights to a primary residential structure and residential plot (construction land) in the mine expansion footprint7. The residential plot typically included residential structures, non-residential outbuildings and structures and a small garden area. Some resident households also had ownership rights to an area of agricultural land. Separate tenant households occupied no homes or units at the time of the census in 2011. The mine expansion footprint also included the properties and immoveable assets of 30 non-resident landholding households. These families had ownership rights to structures and/or plots in the Project Footprint but resided in primary residences in Obiliq, Pristina or abroad. These non-resident households were considered economically displaced due to loss of land and/or agricultural activities.

7 Although several households did not have land titles at the onset of the resettlement process, all managed to have proper land titles by the time individual agreements for resettlement were reached.



Figure 1 - Footprint of area to be resettled (Shala neighborhood)

As defined in the Shala RAP, the types of impacts identified as a result of the land acquisition process required for the mine expansion included: 2.2.1 Loss of Land

Land lost due to the mining expansion included agricultural land, grazing land and residential plots. According to the 2011 asset survey, 8.6 hectares (70%) of the mining expansion footprint of 12.4 hectares was catalogued as agricultural land, 0.5 hectares (4%) were catalogued as grazing land and the remaining 3.2 hectares (26%) was classified as residential land. 2.2.2 Loss of Structures

The proposed land take affected structures that were used for residential or non-residential purposes. Residential structures included facilities used for living, sleeping, cooking, storing of personal effects. Non-residential structures included barns/pens, stonewalls/fences, garages and outbuildings. No commercial buildings were encountered in the Shala neighbourhood. 2.2.3 Loss of Crops

The asset inventory conducted in 2011 revealed that most households practiced some form of agriculture for self-consumption. No commercial agricultural activities were recorded in the mining expansion footprint and no household declared generating income from agriculture. 2.2.4 Readjustment of Social Networks

In the case of the Shala RAP, the partial and temporary impact to social networks (i.e. network of social interactions and personal relationships among affected families) took place due to the need to temporarily resettle a group of households, due to the self-selection for either cash or in-kind compensation, due to the delay in construction of public infrastructure at the new site which prevented families from moving in for a period of time, of finally due to household choices for relocation outside the site. The latter responds to families deciding not to opt for a plot at the new site or, based on anecdotal



evidence, opting for a plot but later deciding to move to some other place (e.g. Pristina). This loss has been characterized as partial and temporary, because given the proximity of the resettlement site and other urban centres, families have been able to maintain or recuperate their social networks and family ties. 2.2.5 Loss of Public Facilities

Public facilities located in the Shala Neighbourhood of Hade Village were limited to the public road on the southern edge of the village and the water distribution system. Both were affected due to the land acquisition process. The Shala RAP also stated that as the primary economic activity in the Project Footprint is paid employment, the impact on land-based livelihoods is limited and mainly relates to small-scale agriculture for household consumption.

2.3 Eligibility and Compensation Summary

2.3.1 Eligibility

Affected people were eligible for compensation and other assistance if they had a “legitimate interest” in immoveable assets or livelihood activities in the mining expansion Footprint that were in place – i.e., planted or constructed – at the time of the 2011 census and asset survey, in accordance with the Resettlement Policy Framework. Legitimate interest was defined as people who had verifiable titles of ownership of assets and those that only had informal recognition of interest in the assets. In order to participate in the RAP, all people catalogued under the latter group were requested to obtain official recognition of their interest. Support was provided to this group to obtain titles in the Cadastral Office at the municipality of Obiliq. By the end of the negotiations process for the Shala RAP, all households had completed the required process to obtain titles for their land. Commonly, the head of household is the holder of the legitimate interest in immoveable assets; nevertheless there are instances in which a legitimate interest may be held jointly by the head of household and his spouse or other members of the family. The eligibility criteria included provisions for this. The types of immoveable assets considered comprise:

Land – cultivated land, grazing land and residential plots;

Structures – household residential structures (for living, sleeping, cooking, storing of personal

effects) and non-residential structures (barns/pens, stonewalls/fences, garages and outbuildings),

as well as commercial buildings;

Crops – food, cash and tree crops; and

Roads – all government recognized roads.

2.3.2 Entitlements

2.3.2.1 Compensation Established in RAP for Lost Assets

Through consultation with affected households and other stakeholders and based on the parameters established in the RPF, MESP defined a range of appropriate and fair compensation entitlements and assistance for eligible impacts. This section outlines the compensation entitlements available for loss of land, loss of structures and loss of crops.



Following international standards, including WB OP 4.12, APs were provided the option of receiving in-kind compensation for affected assets such as land. Furthermore cash compensation rates were designed to provide with compensation equal to or greater than full replacement value, with no deduction for depreciation. Although the cash compensation base rates and valuation methodology were developed by a government working group in 2004, the valuation criteria and final rates were reviewed in detail with Shala residents and approved by them mid-2011. The rate per meter square paid for land in Hade (EUR 25.30/m2) was equal to the cost for land in the fully serviced New Shkabaj where replacement plots were located. Furthermore, construction costs in Kosovo have been constant since 2004 according to anecdotal evidence collected through interviews with contractors conducted informally by rePlan. The statistical information available for 2014-2015 also indicates a downward trend in the construction price index for the country8. These findings, coupled with PAPs acceptance of the rates during the 2011 consultations for the Shala RAP and the Tripartite Agreement, imply that even though the base rates for valuation were originally determined in 2004, they remained adequate in 2011. The following table summarizes the entitlements applied for the Shala RAP. Table 1 – Compensation Matrix Shala RAP

Impacted Asset

Entitled Parties Eligibility Compensation

LAND

Rural land Recognized owner or Registered owner with full legal title Tenant

Recognized or registered owner of asset as of entitlement cut-off date Recognized tenant identified in the asset or socio-economic surveys and/or by MESP

Cash compensation at replacement rates Compensation equivalent to two years of net land-based earnings

Urban land Recognized owner or registered owner with full legal title

Recognized or registered owner of asset as of entitlement cut-off date

Standard replacement plot in new village set at the following sizes – 300, 500, 700, 1000 and 1500 m2. If replacement plot is smaller than existing, receive value difference in cash OR Cash compensation at replacement rates

Public land Registered owner (municipal government, Kosovo government)

Registered owner of asset as of entitlement cut-off date

Replacement with like lands in resettlement village OR Cash purchase

8 Kosovo Agency of Statistics has published some data about construction cost in Kosovo. Data is available only for 2014 and 2015, and these figures are published on quarterly basis. There is a trend of decrease of construction cost for these two years. Reports are available on the following link: https://ask.rks-gov.net/en/price/category/25-cci?download=161:construction-cost-index-q4-2015



Impacted Asset


STRUCTURES

Residential structures

Recognized owner of residential structure on construction land Recognized owner of residential structure on agricultural land

Recognized owner of asset as of entitlement cut-off date Recognized owner of asset as of entitlement cut-off date

Standard replacement house in new village. If replacement house is smaller than existing, receive value difference. OR Cash compensation at replacement rates without depreciation and value of salvage materials Cash compensation at replacement rates

Fences, stonewalls, and outbuildings

Recognized owner

Recognized owner of asset as of entitlement cut-off date

Cash compensation at replacement rates

Commercial structures

Recognized owner Recognized owner of asset as of entitlement cut-off date

Cash compensation at replacement rates

LIVELIHOODS

Land-based livelihoods

Economically displaced individual or household

Livelihood activities reliant on affected immoveable

assets or access in mining expansion Footprint

Participation in livelihood restoration and assistance programs, as described in Chapter 8

Business Business owner Business owners recorded in survey at time of entitlement cut-off date, regardless of land tenure

Cash compensation equivalent to six months’ net income OR Cash compensation equivalent to 12 months’ net income if the beneficiary re-establishes a business in the affected municipality Cash compensation equivalent to lost net income during the period of transition

Employment Employees Full-time and part-time employees

Cash compensation equivalent to six months’ salary AND Participation in livelihood restoration and assistance programs

TREES AND CROPS

Trees and crops

Planter and/or owner of the crop itself

The planter/ owner of the crop itself (recorded in survey at time of entitlement

Compensation in cash at agreed replacement rates



Impacted Asset


cut-off date), regardless of land tenure

PUBLIC ACCESS

Access to roads

Customary users Maintenance of diversion road

OTHER ASSISTANCE AND ALLOWANCES

Relocation expenses

Registered owner or tenant

Households displaced from residential structures

Lump sum payment to cover mobilization/relocation expenses to new village location AND Provision of one truckload for moving belongings

Structural materials

Recognized owner Recognized owner of a structure prior to resettlement

Right to salvage prior to resettlement

Harvest Planter/ owner of the crop itself

The planter/ owner of the crop itself, regardless of land tenure

Right to harvest prior to resettlement

2.3.2.2 Compensation Established During RAP Implementation

Transitional Support/Rental Allowance

As initially anticipated in the RAP, further mine expansion works and related risks directly affected 21 households included in the Shala RAP, who agreed with KEK to temporarily relocate in accommodations privately secured by each family and receive rental and living allowances starting in January 2012. This rental allowance included both expenses for housing, as well as a monthly allowance per household member. Both MESP and KEK received no objections from affected parties regarding the amount of the allowance to meet the demands of the households to pay housing fees and cover monthly expenses. As noted in the first Shala RAP Monitoring Report (October 2013 – September 2014), this temporary relocation allowance was provided to the 21 families initially until May 2013. Given that the conditions at the resettlement site were not appropriate the World Bank twice raised the issue of requirement to extend this allowance, the first time until November 2013, and a second time until April 2014. For the rest of the physically displaced population, according to the RAP, the rental allowance was to be provided for “up to four months after access to replacement plots (for construction) were given, dependent on seasonal conditions”(Shala RAP pp. 50-51). Based on this requirement, “access to replacement plots” was defined as the moment when the following three criteria were met:

1. Plot allocation was concluded - finalized on August 2013

2. Availability of land title documentation – obtained on December 2013

3. Community infrastructure at New Hade, as defined by the Shala RAP (p. 11), was ready - confirmed

in report from Verification Committee of December 10, 2013.



Hence, the four months to stop rental allowance started counting on December 10, 2013, but on March 2014, KEK Board approved payments for rental allowance for 5 months including the following time periods:

1. 10 days, covering December 1 to December 10, when Verification Committee Report was issued;

2. 4 months, from December 10 to April 10, after effective access to plots, as per RAP;

3. 20 days, from April 10 to April 30, to account for any potential delays in housing construction

caused by seasonal conditions, as per the RAP.

Concerns with the completion of the site infrastructure remained a topic of discussion with affected households, and several of them refused to initiate construction alleging lack of site readiness to start building their homes The Verification Committee did highlight minor shortcomings in the installed infrastructure, but these did not represent a barrier for house construction or habitation. Additionally, it must be noted however that by December 2013 several households had in fact already initiated construction at New Shkabaj. Therefore since all conditions were met in December 2013, and in accordance with the RAP, this rental allowance was paid by KEK until April 30, 2014 (4 months after meeting the conditions).

2.4 Stakeholder Engagement and Participation

The Shala Resettlement Action Plan was finalized in December 2011, following incorporation of comments received on the draft that was discussed at a public consultation with affected households earlier that year (August 2011). The document was then translated into Albanian and made public. An electronic version of the RAP is available at MESP’s website. What followed was a consistent consultation process to implement the provisions outlined in the RAP but that required further elaboration through a participatory process with affected families. Below is a brief overview of the main topics that were discussed as part of the implementation of the Shala RAP:

Temporary relocation - conversations with 21 families living closer to the mine pit in order to

propose and agree on details of early and temporary displacement. All of these families agreed to

relocate to privately selected accommodations and received a temporary relocation allowance;

Individual negotiations - individual negotiations were held with affected households for a period

of approximately 7 months to work out the details of monetary and in-kind compensation;

Signature of individual formal agreements – Formal agreements with each household were

reached in September 2012;

Plot allocation – There were delays in the plot allocation process due to disagreements among

the 52 affected households that opted for a plot at New Shkabaj. The MESP conducted a series of

collective and individual meetings and negotiations with affected households for over 11 months

(September 2012 – August 2013) to resolve this issue. On September 2012, the MESP and the

Municipality of Obiliq signed an agreement regarding plot allocation with representatives from

the affected community. Nevertheless, complaints submitted to MESP’s Department of

Expropriation from several households about the plots they had been assigned resulted in the

need to reopen the plot allocation negotiation process. On November 2012, following numerous

unsuccessful negotiations, MESP organized public consultations with the affected community to

present two options for plot allocation: (1) plot allocation based on the consultations with



community representatives agreed in September 2012, or (2) implementing a lottery system for

plot allocation. On July 2013, the Department of Expropriation and the Mayor of Obiliq carried

out additional efforts to reach consensus with the 52 affected households and on July 2013 the

Mayor of Obiliq informed the MESP that consensus on how to allocate plots, either in accordance

to the 2012 agreement or a lottery, had not been reached among the community members. For

this reason, on August 2013, the MESP issued a decision declaring the negotiation process on plot

allocation closed and ratifying the original plot allocation agreement signed with the community

back in 2012.

Resettlement planning – meetings were held to inform and plan resettlement activities by

families including support for request for construction permits, salvage of existing materials; and

Status of site infrastructure – throughout the resettlement implementation phase, numerous

meetings were conducted to inform and discuss the status of the construction of public

infrastructure at New Shkabaj.

Review of monitoring reports – rePlan and MESP conducted stakeholder engagement meetings

in May 2014 and October 2014 to present the findings of the first and second monitoring reports,

respectively. Stakeholders present at the first meeting (May 2014) included representatives of the

central government (MESP, MED, Ministry of Finance), local government (Municipality of Obiliq),

public institutions (KEK), the World Bank, and representatives from the Shala community. The

second monitoring report was disclosed during ESIA scoping consultations with the affected

community and relevant stakeholders (October 2014). Representatives from civil society

organizations were present at this second meeting.

Publication of monitoring reports – rePlan informed APs that these reports were available in

Albanian on MESP’s website during monitoring activities that succeeded the meetings described

above.

CompletionReport Public Consultation – rePlan and MESP presented the key results from the

draft Completion Report for the Shala RAP to government stakeholders and to APs on April 20,

2016. APs expressed concerns with issues related to the status of New Shkabaj and the

resettlement program itself. These included the recurring issues identified with the sewage

system and the lack of additional community infrastructure such as a school. MESP addressed

these comments by assuring APs that permanent solutions to the recurring sewage issues are

being studied and will be implemented in the short term. With regards to the lack of public

infrastructure, MESP clarified that the school for the community is located 1km away and that the

current size of the population at New Shkabaj did not justify the construction of a new school.

MESP also reminded participants that additional community infrastructure, such as the school,

public lighting, and others, have always been planned for later stages of the development of the

resettlement site, as clearly noted in the Shala RAP.

2.5 Studies Conducted in Support of Resettlement

The Shala RAP has been developed and implemented based on the information collected from several studies, including:

A socio-economic survey and census of the affected population which was conducted between

May and June 2011;



An asset inventory for all households identified in the census, which was conducted in parallel

with the socio-economic survey and census in 2011. This exercise reviewed all structures, crops,

livelihoods and land parcels declared by affected households, and;

Participant interviews conducted in 2014 to understand barriers to construction in New Shkabaj.

2.6 Livelihoods Restoration Strategies

Considering that according to the 2011 socio-economic survey, most of the population in the Shala neighborhood was dependent on employment and did not generate alternative sources of income that depended on land or on assets located in the affected area, the main livelihoods restoration strategy implemented for households affected by the Shala RAP was the improvement of employment opportunities. Following consultations with relevant stakeholders, KEK agreed to prioritize employment opportunities (up to 20 full time positions) to members of affected households, particularly for households that did not already have full-time KEK employees. These employments were in fact provided at the time. It is worth noting that although agricultural activities were not income generators, they contributed to household livelihoods through self-consumption produce. Replacement asset design took into account these self-consumption practices and provided land plots that allowed for self-consumption agriculture practices (See pictures section).

2.7 Monitoring Activities and Reports

2.7.1 Chronological Overview of Monitoring Activities

rePlan conducted the following activities as part of its assignment to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the Shala Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) between October 2013 and November 2015:

1. Meetings with the Hade Project Office / Department for Expropriation, Ministry of Environment

and Spatial Planning (MESP) (September 2013, November, 2013, January 2014, February 2014,

May 2014, June 2014, July 2014, September 2014, October 2014, March, April 2015, June 2015);

2. Meetings with Municipality of Obiliq officials (including Mayor and Director of Urban Planning)

(November 2013, January 2014, February 2014);

3. Meetings with Kosovo Energy Corporation (KEK) officials (November 2013, February 2014, June

2014, July 2014, June 2015)

4. Visits to New Shkabaj (October 2013, November 2013, December 2013, January 2014, February

2014, March 2014);

5. Visits to the Shala neighbourhood, Hade Village (November 2013, January 2014, February 2014,

May 2014, June 2014, July 2014, August 2014);

6. Meetings with affected household members (e.g. informal group and one-on-one meetings at

New Shkabaj and Hade Village, formal community meetings) (November 2013, December 2013,

January 2014, February 2014, April 2014, May 2014, June 2014, July 2014, August 2014,

November 2014, January 2015, February 2015, March 2015, May 2015, June 2015);

7. Meetings with the WB supervision team (February 2014) and conference call (March 2014).

8. Meetings with Municipality of Obiliq officials (Director of Urban Planning, Head of the Department

for Issuing Construction Permits) (July 2014; June 2015);



9. Meeting with the officials of Regional Water Company Pristina (including Executive Director and

Regional Director for Obiliq) (June and July 2014);

10. Informal interviews with 10 households in September 2014 selected from a stratified random

sample to inform second monitoring report;

11. Presentation of the main findings from RAP Hade Monitoring and Evaluation Report 1 at Kosovo

Land Acquisition and Resettlement Workshop (May, 2014);

12. Preparation of RAP Hade Monitoring and Evaluation Report 2 (October 2014),

13. Socio-economic survey of affected households and preparation for the Resettlement Completion

Report (June – November 2015); and

14. Additional efforts were conducted to find and interview additional households, however only four

were found (June 2016).

2.7.2 Monitoring Reports

As previously described, two monitoring reports were prepared for the Shala RAP implementation. Both have been published and presented to the public, including the affected population. For reference on their specific findings, refer to the links provided in section 1.2.



3 STUDY FINDINGS This section presents an assessment on the implementation of the Shala resettlement with respect to OP 4.12.

3.1 Current Status at New Shkabaj

This section presents the status at New Shkabaj as of February 2016. It outlines the same indicators reviewed during the monitoring reports prepared during 2014. Table 2 - Key indicators for RAP Implementation monitoring

Indicator # Notes

Total affected households 93 As of November, 2011 (Shala RAP)

Physically displaced affected households 63 As of November, 2011 (Shala RAP)

Economically displaced affected households9 30 As of November, 2011

Physically displaced households that opted for replacement land in new resettlement village

52 As of August, 2013 (Government of Kosovo decision 106/2013)

Physically displaced households that opted for cash compensation and self-resettlement

11 As of August, 2013

Economically displaced households that received cash compensation

27 As of December, 2013

Economically displaced households that haven’t claimed their cash compensation

310 As of February, 2016

Plots allocated at resettlement village 52 / 52 As of September, 2014

Households still residing in Shala neighbourhood in Hade Village

0 / 63 As of June, 2015

Households originally eligible for rental allowance 21 / 21 As of January, 2012

Households that received rental allowance 0/21 As of June, 2015

Plot allocation decisions collected 52/52 As of June, 2015

Title deeds to plots at resettlement village issued 52/52 As of June, 2015

Construction permits requested and issued 48/52 As of June, 2015

Total land plots with either completed or initiated construction activities in New Shkabaj

22 As of February, 2016

Houses with masonry works completed 21/22 As of February, 2016

Replacement houses ready for occupation 15/22 As of June, 2015

Occupied replacement houses 12/22 As of June, 2015

Total number of people living in New Shkabaj 53 As of June, 2015

9 Economic displacement refers to households only losing land and not being affected by physical relocation from their residence. 10 These three were not yet compensated as these owners did not claim the funds and did not come to the Ministry to sign the agreement (absentee owners). KEK will make the funds available to them upon request.



Key indicators that need to be highlighted include:

48 out of 52 households that own land plots in New Shkabaj have applied and obtained

construction permits from the Municipality of Obiliq;

A total of 22 land plots have structures that are either completed or are under construction

managed directly by the affected households. This means that 26 households that applied for

construction permits are yet to begin construction at New Shkabaj. Although detailed information

on the causes for this are not available, anecdotal evidence collected by rePlan during the

surveying activities points to:

o Households growing accustomed to living near the city where they temporarily relocated

and thus deciding to either build or buy property there;

o Households deciding to invest in areas independent of where they decided to live;

o Perception of the resettlement site (New Shkabaj) being incomplete.

Out of these 22 structures, a total of 21 have completed masonry11 works, but only 15 are ready

for occupation;

As of June, 2015, 12 out of the 15 houses ready for occupation were actually occupied by a total

of 53 affected persons; 12

As mentioned previously, as of February 2016, three houses that were ready for occupation were

vacant due to an obstacle to access sewage system, caused by a blockage sustained at the sewage

collecting tube. This issue was resolved in July 2015 but another sewage blockage issue has

occurred in the area. Authorities have been informed; and

Out of the 52 who opted to build a new home only 22 have done so to date. Informal engagements

with households reveal that many have later opted to stay in their temporary housing

accommodations in Pristina while others have opted to buy or build in other places.

3.2 Assessment of Current Socio-economic Conditions vs. 2011 Baseline

The following section presents an analysis of the results from the 2015 socio-economic survey conducted as part of the Completion Report. Wherever relevant, a comparison with data from the 2011 baseline has been presented as well. Furthermore, wherever possible, an analysis has been made to differentiate between households currently residing in New Shkabaj and those that do not, and households that were considered residents and non-residents. Wherever these additional analyses have been included in the text, a clear reference to the source of the information is provided. 3.2.1 Affected Households Demographic Profile

For the purposes of 2015 Completion Report survey, a total of 32 surveys were completed, both in person and through telephone interviewing. Twenty-four surveys were completed with physically displaced households and 8 surveys with economically displaced households. All households surveyed had a total population of 180 people and averaged 4.7 members per household. From the sample, just over 41% affected households live in New Shkabaj, municipality of Obiliq, and the others, 59%, live elsewhere.

11 Masonry works refers to a structure with a foundation, external framing, interior partitions and installed roof. Among

construction workers in Kosovo it's usually referred to as 'karajapi' 12 One household from 2004 evacuation zone in Hade has constructed – finished masonry work – a house in New Shkabaj/new

Hade.



According to the survey conducted, 62.5% of the affected households surveyed in 2015 have up to 5 members, which is lower than what was observed of the entire affected population in 2011 (66.3%). On the other hand, a total of 34.4% households are now formed by between 6 and 10 members, which is higher than what was observed in 2011. Finally the number of large households (with more than 10 members) has fallen to 3.1% in 2015 from a 6.5% in 2011. Table 3 - Size of households, comparison of CA with baseline survey

Category 2011 2015

1. Up to 5 members 66.3 62.5

2. 6 to 10 members 27.2 34.4

3. 10+ members 6.5 3.1

Total 100 100

Approximately 70% of the population surveyed is younger than 39 years of age, where 20% are children between the ages of 0-9, 19% young adults between 20-29 years of age, 14% teenagers between 10-19 years of age and 16% adults between 30-39 years of age. Males represent 51.1% of the population while females represent 48.8%. The gender distribution across the age cohorts is relatively uneven. Women outnumber men in the 0-9, 30-39, 40-49, 70+ age cohorts by 1.2%, 1.7%, 1.7%, and 2.2%, respectively. On the other hand men outnumber women in the 10-19, 20-29, 50-59, and 60-69 age cohorts by 1.1%, 5%, 2.3% and 1.1%, respectively. Graph 1 - CA Survey 2015 – population pyramid from surveyed population

Age cohorts between family members were comparable between the two surveys. Considering a four-year difference between the two surveys, ageing of the affected population was reflected only in one age cohort: in 2015 survey, there is a slight decrease in 10-19 and 20-29 age cohort, and an increase in the 50-59 age cohort. Table 4 - Household members’ profile – age cohort: 2011 and 2015 comparison

Category 2011 2015

1. 0-9 18.1 19.5

2 10-19 18.6 14.5

-15.0% -10.0% -5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0%

0-9

10-19

20-29

30-39

40-49

50-59

60-69

70+

N/AMale

Female



3. 20-29 22.6 20.1

4. 30-39 15.3 16.2

5. 40-49 10.3 10.7

6. 50-59 7.5 11.2

7. 60-69 4.1 4.5

8. 70+ 3.5 3.3

Total 100 100

The average age in the 2011 survey was 26.2, while in 2015 the average age of the population was 29.3. 3.2.2 Physical Capital

3.2.2.1 Transportation Means

There are no discernable differences between the data on transportation means used by the population in 2011 and in 2015. More than half of the households own a private car, whereas the rest use public transportation or other means of transportation for traveling purposes. The accessibility of public transportation is equivalent to the one that was available in Shala, and as reported in the Second Monitoring Report, in 2014 the municipality of Obiliq added a new route for the area of New Shkabaj. Table 5 - Primary means of transportation

Category 2011 2015

1. Private automobile 54.7 56.3

2. Public transportation 43.0 44.7

3. Other 2.3 0

Total 100 100

3.2.2.2 Access to Public Utilities

There has been a significant increase in access to telephone and sewage system between 2011 and the 2015 surveys. Whereas in 2011, less than one in twenty households (4.7%) had access to a telephone connection, this number rose to 100% in 2015. On the other hand, while access to sewage facilities was available for just over half of households (51.2%) in 2011, with some not even having indoor toilets with individual waste disposal systems, all households interviewed in 2015 declared having access to indoor toilets and public sewage systems. Table 6 - Access to utilities

Category 2011 2015

1. Telephone 4.7 100

2. Electricity 100 100

3. Sewage system 51.2 90.6

3.2.2.3 Access to Water

According to the 2011 survey, all affected households had universal water connection (piped into dwelling). However, engagements with affected families in 2011 revealed that Shala neighbourhood



residents had interrupted, unreliable and poor quality access to water supply. In 2015, all households surveyed, both residents and non-residents of New Shkabaj, had direct and reliable access to water. The abundant and constant access to water in the residences in New Shkabaj has resulted in higher water consumption rates for vegetable gardens and complementary agricultural activities for self-consumption. This in turn has caused an increase in the water bills, which has been the source of concern by affected households.

3.2.2.4 Heating

By 2015, 31.5% of the households surveyed indicated that they had installed or counted on a central heating system at their homes, compared to none in 2011. Only one household of the 12 residing at New Shkabaj indicated that they did not yet have any form of heating system, but were planning on installing it in the future. On the other hand, two households not residing in New Shkabaj also indicated they didn’t have any heating systems yet. Table 7 - Type of heating system

Category 2011 2015

1. Central heating 0 31.3

2. Wood stove 82.6 56.2

3. Other 17.4 3.2

4. None 0 9.3

Total 100 100

3.2.3 Human Capital

3.2.3.1 Education

The 2015 survey shows that one third (32.6%) of the affected population surveyed completed secondary school. Just over one in ten (12.2%) is in the process of completing university studies, and most of them belong to the 20-29 age cohort. Forty per cent of the 20-29 age cohort are still pursuing education; either university studies or college (higher education). A small portion (5.6%; majority females; age cohorts 30+) of the affected population has not attended any form of formal education, and most of them are not able to read and write. Table 8 - Household member profile – level of education completed (CA 2015 survey)

Category

2015 Literacy

Yes No

0. None 5.6 30.0 70.0

1. (Lower) primary school completed (4 or 5 grades) 10.5

2. Primary/lower secondary school completed (8 or 9 grades) 8.3

3. Secondary school uncompleted 1.6

4. Secondary school completed 32.3

5. College (higher education), uncompleted 2.2

6. College (higher education), completed 2.2

7. University, uncompleted 12.2

8. University, completed 6.7

9. Master 1.6

10. Not applicable 12.3



11. N/A 4.5

Total 100

The 2015 survey reveals that two out of three (65.6%) households have reported some difficulties to access education. The most prevailing restriction for access to education mentioned was distance to school facilities (more than half of respondents), followed by the cost and lack of transportation. It is noteworthy to point out that 41.7% of households residing at New Shkabaj qualified distance as the most important difficulty to access education. To put this response in context, the school in the village of Shkabaj is located just over 1 kilometer (Approximately 10 blocks) from the New Shkabaj site. Informal engagements with households have also revealed that it takes children only 20 minutes to walk from home to school. This distance is well within the standards in urban areas in Kosovo. Further contextual information reveals that distance to the school is an issue for households because at the Shala neighbourhood the school was located immediately adjacent to the residential area where families lived. Informal engagements with households have identified stray dogs as an issue for children’s safety during their commute to school. Authorities have been informed of this issue, which is pervasive across Kosovo, not only in New Shkabaj. Table 9 - Access to education difficulties – 2015 CA survey

Category %

1. Yes

1. Cost 33.4

65.6 2. Distance 52.4

3. Lack of transportation 9.5

4. Other 4.7

2. No 34.4

Total 100

3.2.3.2 Health

Overall, four out of ten (40.6%) households reported difficulties accessing health care in the 2015 survey. Distance to health care facilities was the dominant obstacle mentioned by respondents. As in the case of education, families resettled in New Shkabaj reported more concerns with distance to health care facilities than families resettled elsewhere. Six out of ten households (60.0%) of the twelve households currently residing in New Shkabaj reported distance to be a limiting factor to access health care, whereas only a quarter (27.2%) of households resettled elsewhere replied the same way. Again, it is noteworthy to point out that the Primary health care facility is in the immediate vicinity of the village school in Shkabaj – approximately one kilometer from the New Shkabaj site. Once more, this distance is significantly better than the distance experienced by most urban populations in Kosovo. Table 10 - Access to health care difficulties – 2015 CA survey

Category %

1. Yes 1. Cost 7.7

40.6 2. Distance 92.3

2. No 59.4

Total 100



3.2.4 Economic Capital

3.2.4.1 Employment and Financial Stability of Affected Households

According to the 2015 survey, two thirds of the heads of household (65.6%) have reported to be employed, whereas less than two out of ten (18.8%) are looking of a job. The remainder indicated being either retired (12.5%) or dependent on other incomes (3.1%). The vast majority (80.9%) of heads of household employed, are working for KEK, whereas others have forms of employment that include performing professional work (14.3%) or managing a private business (4.7%). Most respondents that indicated they were employed considered their employment permanent (85.7%). When comparing this information with 2011 data, an 8.6% increase in the number of people working can be observed. Furthermore, the number of heads of household that are dependent fell from 16.3% in 2011 to 3.1% in 2015. This comparison strengthens the conclusion that more households are now working than prior to the resettlement. Table 11 - Head of Household activity in the last 12 months

Category 2011 (%)

2015 (%)

1. Working 57.0 65.6

2. Not working: Dependent 16.3 3.1

3. Not working: Looking for a job 12.8 18.8

4. Not working: Retired 14.0 12.5

Total 100 100

Among the entire affected population surveyed, there are only a few others that have some kind of employment. Vast majority are not working and are dependent on family budget. Only a small portion is actively seeking employment. Anecdotal evidence reveals that some part-time informal employment is not generally reported when describing family profile. Whereas this employment has been noted to considerably contribute to family budget, such employment generally is in low-skilled type of jobs (catering, barber in training, etc.) and usually last for shorter period without any form of contractual agreement. A considerable portion (22.9%) of the affected population is comprised of pupils or students. Table 12 - Household member activity in the last 12 months (CA 2015 survey)

Category %

1. Working 15.5

2. Not working: Dependent 51.1

3. Not working: Looking for a job 4.4

4. Not working: Retired 4.4

5. Not working: Studying 22.9

6. N/A 1.7

Total 100

3.2.4.2 Household Incomes

Overall, more households have higher monthly incomes compared to 2011. Whereas in the 2011 socio-economic survey, 34% reported an income of less than 250 Euros per month, in 2015 survey this number fell to only 18.7%. For reference, in 2011 the Government of Kosovo established that the minimum monthly wage for workers under 35 was 130 euros/month and 170 euros/month for workers older than



35 years of age. On the other hand the proportion of households that generated between 251-500 Euros/monthly increased to 56.3% in 2015 from 39% in 2011. The same tendency is observed with households generating between 501-750 Euros/month where the proportion increased threefold from 6% in 2011 to 18.8% in 2015. This shift may have been impacted from a steady increase over the years of the salaries in the public sector, including KEK, where most of the permanently employed members of the affected households are employed, and a decrease of remittances over the years. In 2011 socio-economic survey, 20% of the households reported receiving financial assistance via remittances from family members abroad. In 2015, no affected population household has reported any such form of income, which results in a lower proportion of the population declaring incomes higher than 750 Euros/month (6.2%). Table 13 - Household income

Category 2011 2015

1. Up to 100 Euros 8 3.1

2. 101 – 250 Euros 27 15.6

3. 251 – 500 Euros 39 56.3

4. 501 – 700 Euros 6 18.8

5. More than 750 Euros 20 6.2

Total 100

According the 2015 survey, the vast majority of households reported permanent salaries as the only income in the family (87.5%), and less than one in ten (9.4%) reported also relying on pensions and 2% indicated that they relied on support from other households.

3.2.4.3 Perception of Economic Well-Being

Overall, in 2015 the majority of households (56.2%) perceived that their economic conditions are better or the same than in the previous year. A total of 25% of households indicated that their conditions were better off, 31.2% that they were the same, while 43.8%% indicated their conditions had worsened. Compared to 2011, the portion of the population that declared their situation being better increased from 7.7% to 25% while those that declared that their situation was the same has significantly decreased in 2015 from 67.3% to 31.2%. However there is also an increase in the number of people that claim that their situation has gotten worse since 2011 from 23.1% to 43.8%. Table 14 - Economic situation compared to one year ago

How do you compare the overall economic situation of your household with one year ago?

2011 2015

1. Better 7.7 25.0

2. Same 67.3 31.2

3. Worse 23.1 43.8

4. N/A 1.9 0

When 2015 data is grouped by physically and economically displaced population, the perception of economic well-being varies significantly. A total of 62.5% of economically displaced households consider that they are worse off than last year, compared to only 37.5% of those physically displaced.



3.2.4.4 Household Expenditures

The analysis of household expenditures in this section compares two main variables between data collected in the 2011 survey and the 2015 survey. The first variable, which is useful in illustrating the changes in types of expenditures experienced, shows the percentage of households that declared spending on a particular category. The most significant changes are observed in the following categories: rent - 28.2% declared to be paying rent, up from 11.6% in 2011; water bills – 100% are now paying for water, compared to only 9.3% in 2011. The justification for the increase of households spending in rent and water responds directly to the resettlement process. According to informal engagements we have learned that there are some households that are now renting and waiting to finalize their arrangements for permanent housing, by either purchasing a new home or building their residence in New Shkabaj. Prior to the resettlement most households in Hade were not paying for water. This situation has drastically changed for all households, including those living in the new resettlement site and those that decided to reside elsewhere. The second variable analyzed shows the percentage of income that households report spending on a particular category. This helps to understand the changes in the amount of expenditure relative to household incomes that has taken place since 2011. Households are reporting that they spend 6.2% of their income in rent, up from 3.5% in 2011. Also, expenses on medical services have decreased to represent only 1.2% of the households’ income compared to 7.4% in 2011. Improved living conditions at the new resettlement sites may have contributed to this decrease in medical expenses. Households also declared an increase in expenses relative to their incomes in education, 12.2% in 2015 up from 4.7% in 2011; and water bills, 5.5% in 2015 up from 0.2% in 2011. Expenses on food, clothing, transportation and electricity have remained stable since 2011. Table 15 - Spending by type (CA 2015 survey)

Variable

% of Households spending on this category

Average % of household income spent

Category / Year 2015 2011 2015 2011

1. Rent 28.2 11.6 6.2 3.5

2. Food 100 98.8 46.8 48.2

3. Clothes 100 91.9 11.9 10.9

4. Medical service/medicine 9.4 79.1 1.2 7.4

5. Transportation 84.4 79.1 8.3 7.1

6. Education 34.4 48.8 12.2 4.7

7. House repair 3.2 2.3 0.1 0.1

8. Water bill 100 9.3 5.5 0.2

9. Electricity bill 96.9 95.3 7.8 7.2

10. Other N/A 39.5 N/A 8.4

3.2.4.5 Savings and Debt

Most of the affected families report not to have any family savings. However, a significant portion of the affected population has reported to have debts, primarily in the form of bank loan. Most of the affected households residing in New Shkabaj have obtained a bank loan, whereas those residing elsewhere have reported debts to others (familiar person or family member). This highlights that the population living in



New Shkabaj may have higher access to the formal financial system than before compared to households that resettled independently. Informal communications with the affected households in New Shkabaj reveal that these loans were generally used for interior works and improvements in the houses and purchase of household commodities (i.e. fireplaces, automatic garage doors, surveillance cameras, furniture, etc.). This illustrates decisions made by households to maintain their liquidity by avoiding the use of their compensation and instead accessing bank loans to pay for these additional works. Table 16 - Savings and debts (CA 2015 survey)

Category

Debts Savings

% %

1. No savings/debts 59.4 96.9

2. Some savings/debts Bank 61.5

40.6 3.1 Someone 38.5

Total 100 100

3.2.5 Natural Capital

3.2.5.1 Availability and Use of Land

As reported by respondents, surveyed families have small land parcels (most between 500 and 1000 square meters, average 879 square meters), which are used to build homes. Nevertheless, when comparing land ownership between 2011 and 2015, Table 18 shows that a larger group of households now holds larger plots of land than in 2011. The percentage of households that hold up to 500mts2 dropped from 54.2% of the population in 2011 to 9.4% in 2015. In the meantime, those that held land plots between 500 mts2 and 1000mts2 increased from 31.3% in 2011 to 43.7% in 2015. Nevertheless, the most dramatic change is observed in those households that hold more than 1000mts2. In 2011, 14.5% of households declared to hold land larger than 1000 mts2, and in 2015, 46.9% of the surveyed population indicated to have larger plots. Table 17 - Percentage of families that own land by size – overall (all responses from survey)

Size of land plot 2011 2015

0 – 500 mts2 54.2% 9.4%

500 -1000 mts2 31.3% 43.7%

1000 + mts2 14.5% 46.9%

Evidence from the 2011 survey showed that the majority of the population conducted agricultural activities only with a view to complement household consumption needs and not for commercial purposes. In this context, the information presented above responds to concerns about availability of land for agriculture with the resettled population. The information shows that more households have larger land parcels than prior to the resettlement and this facilitates subsistence agricultural activities. Furthermore, there is empirical evidence that the population living in New Shkabaj are currently making use of their land plots to cultivate crops and vegetable gardens to complement household consumption (See pictures in Annex A).



3.2.5.2 Production of Agricultural Goods for Consumption

A total of 96.9% of households surveyed in 2015, indicated that they experience conditions that limit their food production. The predominant reason that restricts families from producing food is lack of land (in 51.6% of households), followed by soil quality (32.3%) and drought conditions (12.9%). The issue of availability of land for food production was discussed in more detail in section 3.3.5.1. Table 18 - Limit to food production (CA 2015 survey)

Category %

1. Yes

1. Drought 12.9

96.9 2. Lack of land 51.6

3. Soil quality 32.3

4. Other 3.2

2. No 3.3

Total 100

3.3 Assessment of Compliance of Shala RAP with OP 4.12

3.3.1 Effectiveness of Stakeholder Engagement and Grievance Redress

Following the description of stakeholder engagement activities conducted during the planning and implementation phases of the Shala RAP, it can be said that consultation and participation for the Shala RAP has been satisfactory in most instances. The main reasons to support this conclusion include:

Households actively participated in the definition of key resettlement milestones as established

in international standards, such as:13

o Reaching agreement on the cut-off date (2011)

o Participating on census, socio-economic survey and asset survey (2011)

o Developing and agreeing to the compensation framework (2011)

o Determining the compensation rates (2011)

o Agreeing on plot allocation (2012)

o Signing individual household agreements (2012)

o Invitation to participate in resettlement infrastructure verification, which they declined

(2013)

MESP and KEK continuously responded to questions and concerns presented by households

regarding the resettlement process; and

MESP and relevant stakeholders made considerable efforts to reach agreement on all areas,

particularly on complex issues such as plot allocation, which required an 11 month negotiation

process.

In terms of the Grievance Redress Mechanism, the 2011 Shala RAP (p. 13) stated that “A grievance commission was established by MESP in 2010 to address grievances relating to the Shala resettlement

13 It must be noted that the MESP had conducted consultations with the community of Hade since 2006, well before

the preparation of the Shala RAP, including consultations for the selection of the resettlement site at New Shkabaj out of three alternative sites in 2006.



program, consisting of 13 persons, who were part of the original evaluation committee which valuated the property. The grievance commission consists of members of the MESP, municipality of Obiliq, ministry of finance, and KEK. Grievances may be lodged by any individual or group of individuals who have a concern or grievance regarding the resettlement program, including the impacts of the Project’s current or planned activities, asset data accuracy and team member activities. Grievances are reviewed by the commission once 15-20 grievances are amassed or every 15 days, whichever occurs first. At the conclusion of the review process, the record of the decision is provided to the complainant. The decision may prompt corrective action on the part of the Hade Project Office or other relevant departments in MESP or KEK. In cases where the complainant is not satisfied with the proposed resolution, the complainant is fully within their rights to pursue the case in Kosovo's judicial system.” The grievance commission described above functioned and was effective between 2010 and (2012), which was the period when consultations and negotiations regarding the Shala RAP preparation and definition of mitigations measures where agreed at the community level, and also the period when most negotiations at the household level took place. More than 50 applicable grievances were registered at the MESP’s grievance commission. The grievance commission stopped working after the conclusion of the agreements on the compensation and was replaced by more direct and ongoing interactions between community members, sometimes through its representatives, and the Expropriation Office at the MESP. Unfortunately, given the iterative and ongoing nature of the engagement and grievance redress process, such grievances and corresponding solutions were not systematically documented through a log. During the period when the grievance commission was in place most issues were resolved through negotiations between the Affected People (AP). Examples of how this grievance redress process worked directly with the MESP include the fact that after receiving complaints from the AP regarding ondulations on the sidewalks built within New Shkabaj, the MESP ordered their reconstruction. Similarly, the MESP had commissioned works to the contractor in charge of building the infrastructure at New Shkabaj to address issues related to clogged sewage and connections to main sewage, among others. However, it must be noted that the response to grievances raised by AP often takes a long time to materialize.

In light of this observation, rePlan has identified room for improvement in some areas of stakeholder engagement and grievance redress, particularly with regards to:

Management and documentation of grievances and requests. rePlan observed that during the

implementation phase the protocols for both addressing and documenting grievances weren’t

being appropriately followed;

Availability and frequency of formal information disclosure regarding mining operations and

resettlement implementation. rePlan identified the need to increase the frequency of

engagements within a more structured strategy to engage stakeholders in order to minimize

disinformation that could generate further opposition to the operation; and

Availability and frequency of formal information regarding construction activities for

infrastructure in New Shkabaj. One of the main concerns expressed by residents through both

formal engagements and the surveying process was the lack of information regarding the status

of construction activities at the new resettlement site.



3.3.2 Appropriateness of Compensation Framework

The compensation framework implemented as part of the Shala RAP is considered appropriate in terms of both its established eligibility criteria and entitlements. Below is a brief analysis of the reasons that justify this assessment. Eligibility criteria complied with international standards (OP 4.12) and national regulations:

All residential and non-residential structures registered during the asset inventory phase were

eligible for compensation;

Household eligibility was determined by possession of land titles or verifiable interests in the land

as established in Kosovo’s Expropriation Law. As mentioned above, by the end of the resettlement

process, all households surveyed in Shala held titles of the land;

All complementary agricultural activities for own consumption were also considered eligible for

compensation, and;

Commercial activities being conducted within the impacted area were also considered for

compensation.

With respect to compensation rates and entitlements, the Shala RAP also complied with international standards by:

Involving and obtaining agreement from the affected population on compensation rates and

entitlements;

Promoting in-kind compensation as the preferred alternative for compensation during

negotiations, but providing other alternatives that included monetary compensation and self-

construction;

Recognizing the mainly residential nature of most of the affected land plots and ensuring that in-

kind compensation for land reflected plot sizes that were appropriate for the residents;

Complying with international standards with regards to monetary compensation by accounting

for the replacement value of assets, including land, crops and structures;

In spite of the overall appropriateness of the compensation framework planning and implementation in the Shala RAP, there are a couple of areas that have room for improvement in future resettlements. International standards caution against temporary resettlement due to the potential enhanced negative effects that it can cause. In this case, KEK was forced to resort to temporary relocation allowances to minimize the impacts to some households in Shala. Temporary resettlement should be avoided by conducting resettlement planning with appropriate lead-time. Another practice that is considered inappropriate in the implementation of the compensation framework, and will need to be corrected for future resettlements, refers to the scope of application of transitional rental allowances in some cases. As mentioned earlier, 63 households had to be physically displaced from the Shala neighborhood and they opted for either receiving cash compensation at replacement value or cash compensation and self-relocation. Out of the 63 families, 52 opted for cash and a plot at New Shkabaj and 11 for cash compensation and self-relocation. Out of the 52 families who opted for a new plot to rebuild their homes, 21 had to be temporarily relocated by January 2012 because they were identified as being located in a risk area and therefore they were entitled for a temporary relocation allowance “up to four months after access to replacement plots (for construction)” was possible at New Shkabaj (i.e. January 2012 to April 2014). The remaining 31 families that didn’t have to relocate in January 2012 but



had opted for a plot at New Shkabaj were located in an area that was officially considered to be safe for occupation and hence they were officially allowed to stay there and relocate at a later stage. However, these families considered their living conditions to be unacceptable because of operational impacts (interruption in public services, noise, vibration, pollution, etc.) and they moved out by September 2013. The 11 households that opted for self-relocation could have done so at any time with the compensation they received, but the 31 remaining households that opted for a plot in New Shkabaj had to invest their own resources to move out and sustain themselves until the New Shkabaj was considered to be officially accessible to start construction (December 2013) and their new homes could be ready (April 2014). Although KEK did not force these households to move out of the remaining section of the Shala neighborhood, their departure from the area was the consequence of impacts from the mining operations near Hade. It must be pointed out that there were no formal studies conducted to validate these claims from households on the part of KEK or MESP. In any case, in order to maintain consistency with temporary allowance policies established for other temporarily displaced households in the RAP, as a good practice these families should have also been granted temporary relocation allowances. 3.3.3 Provision and Maintenance of Community Infrastructure at New Shkabaj

According to the Shala RAP pp. 11 regarding community infrastructure “The overall design of infrastructural systems replaces infrastructure existing in the Project Footprint at an enhanced standard of quality. Roads and sidewalks will be stabilized with gravel suitable in design for paving (planned for year two of resettlement village construction). All roads will be provided with drains of adequate capacity to transport runoff. The resettlement community will be connected to community-level potable water and waterborne sanitation systems. The system will include domestic connections to a standard sized wastewater sewer connected to a wastewater treatment plant. The resettlement community will be connected to the local electrical grid. Electricity will be distributed via an overhead cable network to each user”. On December 2013, the Verification Committee verified official completion of works related to community infrastructure as defined in the Shala RAP, including: pavement of main roads with corresponding drains and gravel of secondary roads; pedestrian walkways (sections of which were rebuilt in response to community requests); sewage and drain network, and plot-level connection to sewage, water and electricity. Community representatives rejected the Verification Committee’s declaration of work completion at New Shkabaj. Representatives argued that they had been excluded from the verification visits, even though they had been invited to participate as observers which they declined, and they considered that several infrastructure works were still incomplete (secondary roads, public lights, among others). According to the MESP, those additional works, not included in the Shala RAP, will be implemented at a later stage of development and expansion of New Shkabaj. This was also communicated and documented as part of the 2011 RAP public consultation meetings; however there is no specific budget to date for such works. As noted in Section 2.1., there have been issues with small sections of the sewage system which has affected some households. Some issues with elements of the community infrastructure (e.g. interruption of connection of approximately 15 plots to water, sewage and electricity) started coming up after the Verification Committee’s report on December 2013 and most were finally fixed by April 2014. Some issues related to a section of the sewage system affecting three households were identified again in June 2015 and corrected in July 2015 but as of October 2015 had recurred again. Issues have been raised by the community and through the resettlement monitoring reports to the MESP. Additionally, the community has also complained and requested paving the secondary gravel roads because they are constantly in bad



condition because households initiating construction works are conducting connection works to the sewage system and rainy periods have caused deterioration of those roads. MESP has arranged for gravel on the secondary roads to improve road conditions, in response to complaints from the community. The Shala RAP also states that “KEK and MESP will work with affected households and the Municipality of Obiliq to outline realistic and well-supported operations and maintenance procedures for the new assets in the resettlement village. The responsibilities of each individual house owner will include those typical of organized towns in Kosovo, such as the payment of property taxes and infrastructure service fees, such as water, sewage and electricity. Households will have to carry these costs themselves independent of this RAP.” According to the information available the responsibility for maintenance of existing infrastructure at New Shkabaj is as follows:

KEDS: connection to the electrical grid and household-level connections.

Municipality of Obiliq: roads and sidewalks.

Regional Water Company (RWC): Sewage and water connections.

However, there is lack of clarity regarding scope of responsibilities for ensuring the operation of community infrastructure at New Shkabaj and delays in responding to complaints from affected households.

4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Summary of Outstanding Issues

The assessment team has conducted several site visits and informal interviews with the population living at the resettlement site at New Shkabaj since October 2013. This information, presented in detail in the Monitoring Reports covering the period from October 2013 to September 2014, in addition to the results from the socio-economic study conducted in June –July 2015 as part of this report and information gathered until February 2016 have informed the creation of the following summary of outstanding issues:

a) Power connection for New Shkabaj: The temporary permit issued by Kosovo Energy Distribution

Services (KEDs) to connect New Shkabaj site to a substation located in Shkabaj satisfies current

demand for residents but has been deemed to be a temporary solution for future occupants. This

temporary set up was set to expire in July 2015. Even though the deadline has passed KEDs has

not suspended its services so the connection remains operational. The permanent solution, which

entails connecting to another substation located in the vicinity, needs to be implemented in order

to support accommodating residents from future resettlements;

b) Sewage: 3 households that had completed construction works in the resettlement village had not

moved into their new houses because of issues related to the sewage system. The sewage issue

was resolved in July 2015. Two out of these 3 households have moved into New Shkabaj since.

Households argue that these issues emerge from the fact that secondary roads are not paved and

therefore do not protect appropriately the underground infrastructure from wear and tear;



c) Secondary Roads: According to the Shala RAP pp. 11 “Roads and sidewalks will be stabilized with

gravel suitable in design for paving (planned for year two of resettlement village construction)”.

This statement therefore confirms that the Shala RAP committed only to stabilize secondary roads

with gravel for this initial phase of development, leaving the base work ready for paving these

roads during a second construction phase for future resettlements. In this sense, it can be argued

that the commitment was completed by MESP. Nevertheless, during the monitoring activities

conducted between 2013 and 2016, rePlan identified the lack of pavement in these secondary

roads as a potential cause for damages in associated site infrastructure such as drainage / sewage,

and access to garages. These damages have the potential of causing significant challenges for the

population that is now living at New Shkabaj. Therefore, rePlan recommends accelerating the

plans to pave secondary roads at New Shkabaj;

d) Unauthorized use of utilities: Both monitoring reports indicated that there is evidence of

unauthorized use of public utilities at New Shkabaj by some households (e.g. some have

connected directly to the main water pipeline and some others have connected without water

meters in place);

e) Enforcement of Construction Code: The Second Monitoring Report revealed that enforcement of

construction practices to ensure that houses abide by the construction code, which is the

responsibility of the Municipality of Obiliq, is not taking place as planned in the RAP. This

supervision is especially important when discussing individual water and electricity connections

from each plot to the community infrastructure. These individual connections are the

responsibility of individual households. If these connections are not appropriately done,

significant damages to community infrastructure (i.e. water, sewage) can ensue, which can result

in further challenges to the community as a whole; and,

f) Stakeholder Engagement:

i) Grievances are not appropriately documented and addressed by the implementing

government agencies as requested by the Shala RAP and international standards;

ii) Appropriate documentation of stakeholder engagement activities during implementation

needs to be put in place as it was done during the planning phase; and

iii) The resettled population has expressed uncertainty with regards to future mine expansion

activities taking place in the area and has requested further information; and

iv) There are still 26 households that have received approvals for construction permits but that

haven’t started building their replacement homes. It is important to engage with these

households in particular and determine if there are any barriers that are preventing their

construction and support overcoming them or if they have decided to move elsewhere.

4.2 Recommendations for Shala Resettlement

The following recommendations for the Government to respond directly to outstanding issues identified in the previous section and aim at ensuring the appropriate closure and sustainability of site at New Shkabaj and its population.



Issue Action

a) Long term power connection

for New Shkabaj

Plan and implement the connection of the community electrical grid to the appropriate substation and with corresponding permits from KEDS to ensure future supply of electricity for residents of new resettlement processes.

b) Problems with sections of

sewage

Engage with the corresponding agency (Regional Water Company - RWC) to correct the issues with sewage in the section affected.

c) Unauthorized use of utilities Engage with the corresponding agencies (e.g. KEDS, RWC, Municipality) to ensure proper connection of all households.

d) Paving of secondary roads Plan, budget and implement the paving of all secondary roads were households have already been built at New Shkabaj

e) Supervision of construction

standards

Request that the Municipality of Obiliq certifies the adequacy of current constructions at New Shkabaj and supervises any future constructions.

f) Stakeholder Engagement

and Grievance Redress

i) Re-establish a Grievance Redress Mechanism to document and

follow up on concerns by the affected community;

ii) Maintain proper minutes and other documentation of all

engagements with the affected community;

iii) Program regular formal engagements with AP to keep them

informed about key developments and facilitate the

formalization of a community organization that can oversee the

current functioning of New Shkabaj and oversee future

developments, and;

iv) Engage with the AP to identify if there are any barriers (real and

perceived) for them to build their homes at New Shkabaj and

address such barriers.

4.3 Conclusion for Shala Resettlement

The Completion Report conducted by rePlan as part of the due diligence for the Shala Resettlement concludes that although most activities laid out in the Shala RAP have been planned and executed in accordance with WB OP 4.12, there are a few areas described in section 4.2 above where actions need to be taken to ensure compliance with the Shala RAP and others that need to be considered as lessons learned for future resettlements which are described in section 4.4 below. With respect to the planning and implementation of compensation, the Shala RAP has complied with the principles established in WB OP 4.12 with regards to recognizing rights and compensating assets in-kind, where appropriate, and with replacement value in cash when necessary. The socio-economic study conducted as part of this report shows that, overall, the resettled population has at least maintained if not improved their living conditions with respect to pre-resettlement conditions. Particularly with respect to households that have been physically displaced and that have already moved to New Shkabaj, there is clear evidence of improved access to public services and better infrastructure,



which has a direct bearing in improved quality of life. Furthermore, the overall population, physically and economically displaced, shows higher rates of employment and improved livelihood conditions than in 2011. Survey information shows that a higher portion of the population now has larger plots of residential land where they can conduct complementary agriculture for their consumption (e.g. vegetable gardens) than in 2011. Site visits have also confirmed that households now living in New Shkabaj are planting crops in their residential land plots (See Annex A). Access to social services such as health care and education have improved and are within the norms for urban areas in Kosovo. Furthermore, the survey conducted as part of this study revealed that there are no significant differences on levels of wellbeing between households that now live at New Shkabaj and those that chose to live in other areas. In conclusion, we find that livelihoods and living conditions have been at least restored and in some instances improved for the AP.

4.4 Recommendations for Future Resettlements

The following are key recommendations that are presented to the government implementing agencies for future resettlements in the area:

Use direct and structured engagement with the population – This will serve as a key tool to

manage expectations. Uncertainty leads to speculation and mistrust;

Derive lessons learned about the Shala resettlement process to inform a potential review of

resettlement legislation, policy and practice in Kosovo – rePlan recommends having a

resettlement workshop focusing on discussing how lessons learned at Shala should be transferred

directly into upcoming resettlement processes planned by KEK or the Government;

Ensure that responsibility for resettlement planning and implementation is clearly allocated in

order to increase accountability and efficiency in execution, It is vital that future resettlements in

Hade are implemented by a clearly defined agency that assumes full responsibility for planning

and execution of agreed activities. Some of the challenges encountered in the Shala RAP sprung

from the lack of clarity about responsibility for implementation of engagement or construction

activities;

Initiate resettlement planning early enough – In order to avoid the need for temporary

resettlement. International experience has shown that temporary relocation as part of

resettlement process often has significant negative impacts on the affected population and

therefore deems it as unacceptable practice in resettlement contexts;

Avoid temporary resettlement - KEK needs to avoid the future need for temporary resettlements

by initiating the planning stages for displacement earlier and ensuring that best practices are

followed with respect to engagement, compensation and delivery of in-kind assets;

Clarify the rental allowances entitlements – the implementing agency needs to clarify in future

RAPs the scope of application and details regarding eligibility, criteria and duration of rental

allowances if temporary resettlement cannot be avoided. For future resettlements it must be

assessed and clarified what should be the specific criteria to determine when the payment of such

allowance should stop; based on a predetermined date or milestone (e.g. access to construction

plots) or as long as it is deemed adequate to ensure that any impacts are mitigated;



Management and payment of temporary allowances – In the case that payment of temporary

allowances is required ensure the equal payment of benefits and the clear determination and

revision of eligibility;

Verification of completion of works at New Shkabaj - Direct involvement of households in the

determination of completion of future infrastructure works should be strongly encouraged to

avoid differing interpretations;

Establish an appropriate information management system – This with a view to document

historical RAP information, commitments and engagements;

Complement employment opportunities with other livelihood support activities – Training in

financial literacy, technical skills or agricultural activities could support the creation of alternative

livelihoods which could help reduce the dependency on KEK for employment; and

Expansion of New Shkabaj to receive future resettlements – Need to advance final “non-

essential” construction activities at New Shkabaj (public lights, park, and the graveyard). It is

recommended that MESP or KEK engages contractors to advance in the construction of non-

essential infrastructure in the following months and communicates the estimated

implementation schedule to stakeholders through a formal consultation process. A review of the

budget available for implementation of these final construction activities is also recommended.

4.5 Lessons Learned to Enhance the Resettlement Policy Framework for the New Mine Area (2011)

The Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) for the New Mining Field, adopted by the Government of Kosovo in July 2011, sets out the procedures and compensation policies to be followed by mine expansion requiring land acquisition in the New Mining Field. The GoK has committed to using the RPF to govern the resettlement of people who may be displaced by the expansion of mining within the New Mining Field, including mandating the preparation of site-specific RAPs, in accordance with the RPF, prior to resettlement. The RPF was thus created to address shortcomings in resettlement policy as laid out in Kosovo’s Expropriation Law with respect to International Standards and particularly the World Bank’s Operational Policy 4.12 on Land Acquisition and Resettlement. As mandated by the RPF, the Shala Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) was developed in line with OP 4.12 to mandate and implement the agreements achieved with the affected population in relation to resettlement for the Shala Neighborhood of Hade Village. The Shala RAP was finalized and made public in October 2011. What follows is a brief analysis of enhancements that could be made to the RPF based on the lessons learned from the implementation of the Shala RAP as well and the changes in the circumstances informing its preparation in 2011.

The RPF should be amended to:

o Reflect that the post-privatization institutional arrangements originally contemplated in

the RPF are no longer relevant. Since privatization of mining operations has not and will

not be taking place as assumed when the RPF was prepared, the roles for all actors should

be reviewed and revised to reflect the current reality;



o Require the documentation of efforts conducted to avoid the need for involuntary

displacement;

o Replace the term expropriation wherever relevant by the concept of involuntary

displacement. The RPF should mention that while lawful expropriation of land use based

on eminent domain can indeed be exercised in the Zone of Special Interest, increased

emphasis of the value (to both Project owner/Government and affected people) of

acquiring land rights through negotiated settlements would help better illustrate the

resettlement planning process contemplated in the RPF. The RPF should clarify that lawful

expropriation of land should be considered as the last recourse after well documented,

good-faith land acquisition negotiations have failed;

o Enhance its requirements for livelihoods restoration efforts to support affected parties;

o Require an assessment of institutional capacity as part of every RAP; and

The RPF should be appropriately placed within the regulatory framework for resettlement in

Kosovo. Currently, some institutions view the RPF as a document that does not have the legal

standing that the Expropriation Law has, and therefore may be reluctant to apply it. This

interpretation leaves the RPF’s applicability open to being challenged.



ANNEX A – SUMMARY OF JUNE 2016 SURVEY FINDINGS In an effort to increase the sample size of resettled households that were surveyed in June-July 2015, a second survey period was undertaken in June 2016. The second survey included four households previously not surveyed. This results in a total combined sample size of 43 of 93 affected households. Two key factors informed the study team’s decision not to integrate the findings of the second survey into the initial survey findings detailed in the body of this report and include them in an Annex. These include:

Timing of survey: Survey results provide a “snapshot in time” of a household’s socio-economic

conditions and, as such, are subject to change. Because the second survey was conducted one

year after the initial survey, the findings cannot be considered directly comparable to those of the

initial survey and should therefore be summarized separately.

Small sample size: The small sample size of this update makes the data vulnerable to error.

However, as noted above, the homogenous nature of the surveyed population enables the study

team to treat the results as representative. In balancing the risk of increased error against the

potential to achieve more robust results, the study team has chosen to manage for error.

Key findings from these four additional observations are summarized as follows:

All four surveys included in the June 2016 sample, come from the pool of physically displaced

affected households. Three of them reside in Obiliq municipality and one in Fushe Kosove.

All four surveyed households have opted for a replacement plot and all four have applied for

and obtained a construction permit in New Shkabaj. None of the surveyed households have

initiated construction in New Shkabaj.

Three out of four households (75%) have up to 5 household members, and one household (25%)

has 10+ household members. Half of all household members are female. The average age of

members of surveyed households is 38.6 years.

None of the households reported having any limitations going to school. Half of the respondents

report quality as the main limitation to accessing health care, whereas the other half reported

no restrictions. Seventy-five percent of households reported a lack of land as a limitation to food

production, and 25% reported soil quality as a limitation.

Among the four heads of households surveyed, two had permanent work (in the mining industry

and for a security company, respectively), one is retired and one is unemployed.

Among all household members in the four surveyed households, almost half (45%) were not

working and are considered dependent. A quarter of the surveyed household members were

retired. Fifteen percent had some form of employment while another 15% were not working but

currently seeking work.

Half of surveyed households (50%) reported an income between 101 and 250 Euros. A quarter

had an income between 251 and 500 Euros, and a quarter had an income exceeding 750 Euros.

Half of the earnings come from regular employment, a quarter of surveyed households receive a



retirement pension and a quarter receives income as a result of renting of an owned facility (a

store).

On average, surveyed households report that over half of their household budget (52.5%) is

spent on food. The second most reported expense is public utilities, which on average consumes

over 15% of a households’ budget (11% for electricity and 4.25% for water), followed by clothes

(7.5%), medical services and drugs (6.75%), and transportation (5.5%). On average, only 2.5% of

the household budget is spent on education.

All surveyed households report having no savings, whereas half of surveyed households report

having incurred a bank loan.

Seventy-five percent of surveyed households report having the same economic status when

compared to a year ago, whereas a quarter stated their economic conditions are worse than a

year ago.

All households possess at least 500 square meters of land. One household owns two other

parcels, both of which are 500 square meters. All parcels are registered with the cadaster office

in the name of the head of the household.

The primary means of transportation for a quarter of the households is public transportation.

Another 25% of households report their primary means of transportation as private car.

All households have access to piped water in their dwelling unit. All households have telephone

access, access to electricity, and are connected to a sewage system.

All households report their primary source of heat as a wood stove.

As discussed in Section 1.2.1 of this report, direct comparability of these survey findings (June 2016) to previous survey findings (June-July 2015) is limited due to the one-year gap between survey periods and small sample sizes. However, the findings of the second survey are generally aligned with those of the first, as summarized below:

While all four households surveyed have opted for a replacement plot in New Shkabaj and have

obtained permits for construction, none of them have begun construction of any kind. Similarly,

the initial survey showed that while 48 of 52 households with replacement plots had obtained

construction permits, only 22 had begun construction at the time of survey. Only anecdotal

evidence exists as to why many households have not begun construction, as detailed in Section

3.1.

The demographic profiles of households surveyed in the second survey are comparable to those

surveyed in June-July 2015. The second survey included a greater proportion of households with

up to 5 members (75% compared to 62.5% in the first survey); however, the general distribution

of household size is consistent between surveys. Seventy percent of household members

surveyed in June-July 2015 were under the age of 39. Similarly, among households surveyed in

June 2016, the average household age was 38.6 years old.

Unlike the households surveyed in June-July 2015, none of the households surveyed in June

2016 reported having any limitations going to school. Limitations to accessing health care were

also different between survey samples, with distance being a major limitation for more than

90% of households in the June-July 2015 survey population and 50% reporting quality as a



limitation among the June 2016 survey population. These differences will likely respond to the

composition of the sample observations. For the June – July 2015, the sample included both

households that were living in New Shkabaj and those that were outside of the resettlement site

(Pristina). The June 2016 survey gathered four observations of households that were living

outside the resettlement site.

The most common limitations to food production were consistent among both survey

populations. The primary limitation reported by both groups was lack of land (51.6% in June-July

2015 and 75% in June 2016). The second-most reported limitation was soil quality, with 32.3%

reporting this in the initial survey and 25% reporting in the second survey.

A lower proportion of heads of households surveyed in June 2016 report being employed (50%)

than those surveyed in June-July 2015 (65.6%). Among other household members, the majority

of those surveyed in both survey periods is not working and considered dependent. In June-July

2015, dependents made up 51.1% of household members; in June 2016, that number was 45%.

Reported income data does not yield similar results for the two survey populations. In June

2016, 50% of surveyed households reported an income between 101 and 250 Euros, whereas

only 15.6% in the June-July 2015 group reported in this category. In the income category

between 251 and 500 Euro, 25% of those surveyed in June 2016 were included here while 56.3%

of the June-July 2105 survey population reported this income. Additionally, there is a

discrepancy in the number of households reporting more than 750 Euros in monthly income,

with 25% of the June 2016 group falling in this category while only 6.2% of the June-July 2015

group reported this income. The very small survey sample size in the June 2016 survey should be

taken into account when interpreting income data.

The June-July 2015 and June 2016 surveys produced very similar results with regard to the

majority of household spending. In both survey populations, households spent a majority of

their monthly income on food (46.8% and 52.5%, respectively). Public utilities ranked second. In

the June-July 2015 population, education was reported to make up 12.2% of the household

Budget, whereas it only accounted for 2.5% among the June 2016 survey population. Household

reporting of savings and debts was very similar between the two survey populations. In the

initial survey, 96.9% reported no savings. In the second survey, 100% of households reported no

savings. However, many households reported debts, particularly in the form of a bank loan

(61.5% in 2015, 50% in 2016).

In terms of overall economic status, significantly more households surveyed in June 2016 report

having the same economic status when compared to one year ago (75%) as did those in the

June-July 2015 survey population (31.2%). However, fewer reported worse economic conditions

(25%) than those participating in the initial survey (43.8%).

Households in both survey populations have similar access to piped water, telephone, electricity

and sewage connections. All households surveyed in June 2016 report a wood stove as their

primary source of heat, with 56.2% reporting the same in June-July 2015.

In terms of transportation, fewer households in the June 2016 survey population rely on private

automobiles (25%, compared to 56.3% in June-July 2015), or public transportation (25%,

compared to 44.7% in June-July 2015).



ANNEX B – New Shkabaj photographic evidence as of July 2015.

Complementary Agricultural Activities for Household Consumption in Residential Plots

Complementary Agricultural Activities for Household Consumption s in Residential Plots with Fences



Henhouse at Residential Plots in New Shkabaj

Completed and occupied residence with a garden in New Shkabaj



Pigeon house at Residential Plot in New Shkabaj



New Shkabaj - Main road and pedestrian walkway to nearby school (approx. 1 km)



Public spaces at New Shkabaj

resettlement action plan - world bankdocuments.vsemirnyjbank.org/curated/ru/... · 9/20/2016 ·...

Documents