· web view2011/12/06 · the rpf is a requirement for projects that may entail involuntary...

RESETTLEMENT POLICY FRAMEWORK (RPF)

FOR THE

LIBERIA SMALLHOLDER TREECROP REVITALIZATION SUPPORT PROJECT (STCRSP)

DRAFT REPORT17 October 2011

AGRER S.A. Etudes et Conseils

Brussels


TABLE OF CONTENT

List of Tables ii

Acronyms/ Abbreviations ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii

1. INTRODUCTION: PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND METHODOLOGY 1

2. PRINCIPLES AND OBJECTIVES OF WORLD BANK OP 4.12 4

3. LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES AND GUIDELINES 8

4. ESTIMATED POPULATION AND CATEGORIES OF AFFECTED PERSONS

15

5. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR AFFECTED PERSONS 22

6. METHODS FOR VALUING AFFECTED ASSETS 23

7. ORGANIZATIONAL PROCEDURES FOR DELIVERY OF ENTITLEMENTS

27

8. IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS 31

9. GRIEVANCE REDRESS ARRANGEMENTS 33

10. FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS 38

11. CONSULTATION AND PARTICIPATION MECHANISMS 46

12. MONITORING ARRANGEMENTS 49

13. DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS 51

References 52

ANNEXESA. ADMINISTRATIVE ANNEXES

A-1 TOR

A-2 ITINERARY AND CONSULTATIONS AT NATIONAL LEVEL A-3 LIST OF PEOPLE MET DURING FIELD CONSULTATIONS

B. TECHNICAL ANNEXES

T-1 ENTITLEMENT MATRIX MOA FOR TREE CROP LOSS/ DAMAGE

T-2 DEVELOPMENT OF RESETTLEMENT (ACTION) PLANS OR ABBREVIATED RESETTLEMENT PLANS

T-3 IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS INCLUDING CIVIL WORKS

T-4 SMALLLHOLDER LAND USE REPORT

AGRER S.A RESETTLEMENT POLICY FRAMEWORK i


LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Comparison between World Bank and Liberian Laws and Mitigation Measures

Table 2 Total targeted acreage and direct beneficiaries

Table 3 Acreage and direct beneficiaries targeted by Project year – Cacao/ coffee

Table 4 Acreage and Direct beneficiaries targeted by Project year - rubber

Table 5 Acreage and direct beneficiaries targeted by Project year – oil palm

Table 6 Eligibility criteria

Table 7 General guidelines and methods for costs preparation

Table 8 Eligibility criteria

Table 9 Entitlement Matrix

Table 10 Proposed schedule for Grievance Redress

Table 11 Itemisation of budget

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATONS

CDA Cooperative Development Agency EPA Environmental Protection AgencyEPO Equatorial Palm OilESMF Environmental and Social Management FrameworkESMP Environmental and Social Management (Mitigation) PlanEU European UnionFO Farmer OrganizationGOL Government of LiberiaHa hectareLISGIS Liberia Institute of Statistics and Geo-Information ServicesMARCO Morris American Rubber CompanyMLME Ministry of Lands, Mines and EnergyM&E Monitoring and Evaluation,MOA Ministry of AgricultureMOF Ministry of Finance NGO Non-Governmental OrganizationPAP Project Affected PeoplePIU Project Implementation UnitPMU Program Management UnitRAP Resettlement Action PlanRPF Resettlement Policy FrameworkSIA Social Impact AssessmentSRC Salala Rubber CompanySTCRSP Smallholder Tree Crop Revitalization Support Project TOR Terms of ReferenceWB World Bank

AGRER S.A RESETTLEMENT POLICY FRAMEWORK ii


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The proposed project will be the first, preparatory stage of a long term pro-poor growth program focused on developing the tree crop sector in Liberia. The target group will be poor smallholders in the main country’s tree crop producing counties, with particular attention given to the participation of women and youth.

This RPF was developed as part of the accompanying reports on Environmental and Social management Framework (ESMF) and on the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) conducted in Liberia in July-September 2011.

The RPF is a requirement for projects that may entail involuntary resettlement as mentioned above. Such involuntary resettlement may imply issues of compensation, land acquisition, impact on people’s livelihoods, restriction of access and restriction of access to assets including economic and natural resources. Besides this requirement, the RPF presents an opportunity for project stakeholders on how to address compensations issues relating to affected properties, livelihoods, land matters and incomes generated through project implementation and has the potential to make PAPs better off than what their previous conditions were prior to the commencement of the project if mitigation measures are well developed, effectively implemented and consistently evaluated and monitored.

The policy objectives of OP 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement relevant for this Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) comprise the following broad principles:(a) Involuntary resettlement should be avoided where feasible, or minimized, exploring all viable alternative project designs;(b) Where it is not feasible to avoid resettlement, resettlement activities should be conceived and executed as sustainable development programs, providing sufficient investment resources to enable the persons displaced by the project to share in project benefits. Displaced persons3should be meaningfully consulted and should have opportunities to participate in planning and implementing resettlement programs;(c) Displaced persons should be assisted in their efforts to improve their livelihoods and standards of living or at least to restore them, in real terms, to pre-displacement levels or to levels prevailing prior to the beginning of project implementation, whichever is higher.

The RPF addresses the issues of estimated population and categories of project affected people (PAP), the consultation and participation mechanisms, their eligibility criteria and methods for valuing their assets, the organizational procedures for the delivery of entitlements, implementation, funding, grievance redress mechanism and M&E arrangements. The RPF is prepared to take care of any potential social impacts related to land, restriction of access and livelihood impacts.

AGRER S.A RESETTLEMENT POLICY FRAMEWORK iii


1. INTRODUCTION: PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND METHODOLOGY

IntroductionThe Government of Liberia is exploring the feasibility of a World Bank supported agricultural development project – the Smallholder Tree Crop Revitalization Support Project (STCRSP), with the principal objective of improving the income opportunities of poor farmers by a combination of rehabilitating unproductive farms, undertaking replanting and new planting programs, facilitating future replanting and development programs, and improved financing mechanisms and institutional arrangements. The proposed STCRSP has been identified in response to this request.

The proposed project activities include rehabilitation of existing farms owned by small holders in cooperatives through various support mechanisms, rehabilitation or development of nurseries, rehabilitation of feeder roads and reconstruction of small bridges and office refurbishment. These activities have potential social safeguards implications and could lead to impacts that would need to be mitigated.

As a result, the proposed project has triggered the World Bank policy on involuntary resettlement, OP 4.12 which aims at reducing adverse social impacts associated with project development and implementation and outlining mitigations measures where avoidance of impacts would not be possible. The GOL has responded to this policy by preparing a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) to serve as guidance for the project since the actual sites for project intervention are not known at the early project preparation stage. The GOL through the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) is applying part of the fund secured to prepare this RPF.

Project Description The following is a short description of the Project’s main features, for more details refer to Annex A-1.

The main characteristics of the Liberian tree crop sector at present are the old age of plantations, as there have been no significant replanting activities for the last twenty five years, and their low productivity. The proposed project will be the first, preparatory stage of a long term pro-poor growth program focused on developing the tree crop sector. The target group will be poor smallholders in the main country’s tree crop producing counties, with particular attention given to the participation of women and youth.

Objectives

The proposed project’s development objective is “to increase incomes and productive assets of poor smallholder tree crop farmers by facilitating their access to finance, markets and inputs, and strengthening their organizations, and prepare a national development program for the various tree crops through testing various technical options and institutional and financial mechanisms.”

AGRER S.A RESETTLEMENT POLICY FRAMEWORK 1


To achieve such an objective, the project is structured around three components: (i) Smallholder Tree Crops (cocoa/coffee, oil palm & rubber) Revitalization; (ii) Institutional Building and Preparation of Future Large Scale Tree Crop Development Program; and (iii) Project Coordination and Management.

Components

Component 1: Smallholder Tree Crop Revitalization Component one has three sub-components focusing on cocoa, coffee, oil palm and rubber revitalization. The activities to be implemented under the component include rehabilitation of existing small farms, new planting, and promotion of improved marketing and value chain system. Other activities include the strengthening of farmer-based organizations at all levels through provision of technical and managerial advice, capacity strengthening of commercial banks to provide financial services appropriate to the needs of small holder farmers and development of nurseries at the village level and seed gardens. To enhance the FOs’ bulking and marketing functions, the project would enhance FOs abilities to access finance from internal and external sources. The component will also support the establishment and strengthening of farmer organizations (oil palm blocks associations, cooperatives); (iv) provision of training and technical advice to small farmers; (v) limited infrastructure rehabilitation (access roads and related small bridges and drainage structures) wherever it is critical to provide access to groups of farms; and (vi) the establishment of small scale processing facilities for the farmers’ run plantation -where no modern mills are present.

Component 2: Institutional Building and Preparation of Future Large Scale Tree Crop Development Program

The component would aim at: (i) strengthening the main public and private institutions involved in project planning, coordination and implementation, particularly: the MoA; the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA); institutions in charge of securing access to land (Ministry of Lands, Mine and Energy -MLME; Land commission -LC) and of agriculture research; (ii) preparing a follow-up large scale smallholder tree crop development program; and (iii) contributing to the strengthening and effective performance of the MoA’s Programs Management Unit (PMU) that serves all projects implemented by the MoA, and of which the project coordination team would be part. The component has three main sub components: (a) Institution Building (b) Preparing Future Large Scale Smallholder Tree Crop Development Programs and (c) Project Preparation Facility.

Component 3: Project Coordination and Management

The objectives of this component are to: (i) ensure an effective strategic and operational planning and monitoring and implementation of the STCRSP project; (ii) ensure an efficient coordination amongst the two “technical” components of the project on one hand and the various sources of funding and implementation partners within and outside MoA on the other hand; and (iii) adequately monitor the STCRSP implementation progress and evaluate of its final results and impacts on smallholders. This component has two main sub-components: (a) Strategic planning,



coordination and implementation support; and (b) Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E), Information and Knowledge sharing.

Methodology The methods applied for developing this RPF were both qualitative and quantitative. Particular focus was on literature review, interviews using questionnaires, focus group discussions, stakeholders’ workshops and key informant interviews (see Annex A-2 and Annex A-3 for a list of stakeholder consulted).

These varied tools for data collection provided a wide scope to reach the different categories of people for the purpose of developing this RPF. In addition, the ESMF and SIA conducted in conjunction with the RPF and the Report on Securing smallholder Land Rights commissioned by the borrower and the Bank (Annex T-4) provided the larger framework of the methodology used.



2. PRINCIPLES AND OBJECTIVES OF WORLD BANK OP 4.121

The RPF is a requirement for projects that may entail involuntary resettlement as mentioned above. Such involuntary resettlement may imply issues of compensation, land acquisition, impact on people’s livelihoods, restriction of access and restriction of access to assets including economic and natural resources. Besides this requirement, the RPF presents an opportunity for project stakeholders on how to address compensations issues relating to affected properties, livelihoods, land matters and incomes generated through project implementation and has the potential to make PAPs better off than what their previous conditions were prior to the commencement of the project if mitigation measures are well developed, effectively implemented and consistently evaluated and monitored.

The policy objectives of OP 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement relevant for this Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) are as follows:

(a) Involuntary resettlement should be avoided where feasible, or minimized, exploring all viable alternative project designs;

(b) Where it is not feasible to avoid resettlement, resettlement activities should be conceived and executed as sustainable development programs, providing sufficient investment resources to enable the persons displaced by the project to share in project benefits. Displaced persons3should be meaningfully consulted and should have opportunities to participate in planning and implementing resettlement programs;

(c) Displaced persons should be assisted in their efforts to improve their livelihoods and standards of living or at least to restore them, in real terms, to pre-displacement levels or to levels prevailing prior to the beginning of project implementation, whichever is higher.

In the context of the proposed STCRSP Project, Given that the Project aims at establishing effective community consultation mechanisms for its sub-projects, involuntary taking of land would be avoided as much as possible, i.e. any action that would be taken without displaced persons’ informed consent or power of choice. This issue was also discussed in the parallel Social Impact Assessment Report.

The resettlement policy framework includes measures to ensure that the displaced persons are:

(i) informed about their options and rights pertaining to resettlement;

(ii) consulted on, offered choices among, and provided with technically and economically feasible resettlement alternatives; and

(iii) provided prompt and effective compensation at full replacement cost for losses of assets attributable directly to the project.

1 World Bank December 2001, revised February 2011: OP 4.12 - Involuntary Resettlement



If the impacts include physical relocation, the resettlement plan or resettlement policy framework includes measures to ensure that the displaced persons are:

(i) provided assistance (such as moving allowances) during relocation; and

(ii) provided with residential housing, or housing sites, or, as required, agricultural sites for which a combination of productive potential, locational advantages, and other factors is at least equivalent to the advantages of the old site.

Where necessary to achieve the objectives of the policy, the resettlement plan or resettlement policy framework also includes measures to ensure that displaced persons are:

(i) offered support after displacement, for a transition period, based on a reasonable estimate of the time likely to be needed to restore their livelihood and standards of living;

(ii) provided with development assistance in addition to compensation measures such as land preparation, credit facilities, training, or job opportunities.

From this, the hypothesis can be drawn, that a prime approach of the project for cases of any relocation and compensation should comprise the option to become a project beneficiary which would entail entitlement to livelihood support through the project measures which include training and credit facilities for farmers.

During any transition period after displacement, such as in case of feeder road construction, the prime compensation should also comprise entitlement to participation in public works for the construction of the feeder road for income generation.

OP 4.12 further places emphasis on considering vulnerable groups including children and youth, the aged, single headed households, disabled persons, indigenous groups and generally people in the poorest category below the poverty line.

For resettlement in general, land-based options are to be preferred wherever feasible, particularly for affected people deriving their livelihoods from land based activities such as from farming. If sufficient land is not available at a reasonable price, non-land-based options built around opportunities for employment or self-employment should be provided in addition to cash compensation for land and other assets lost.

Cash payment for lost assets may be appropriate where livelihoods are land-based but the land taken for the project is a small fraction (less than 20%) of the affected asset and the residual is economically viable. Upon identification of the need for involuntary resettlement in a sub project, the borrower carries out a census to identify the persons who will be affected by the project. In the proposed Project, this would only be the case after each concrete sub-project site is finally selected.



The procedure includes provisions for meaningful consultations with affected persons and communities, local authorities, and, as appropriate, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and it specifies grievance mechanisms.

Criteria for Eligibility would entail classification of displaced persons in one of the following three groups:

(a) those who have formal legal rights to land (including customary and traditional rights recognized under the laws of the country);

(b) those who do not have formal legal rights to land at the time the census begins but have a claim to such land or assets--provided that such claims are recognized or become recognized under the laws of the country;

(c) those who have no recognizable legal right or claim to the land they are occupying.

Resettlement Instruments

Resettlement Policy Framework

For sector investment operations that may involve involuntary resettlement, the Bank requires that the project implementing agency screen subprojects to be financed by the Bank to ensure their consistency with OP 4.12. For these operations, the borrower submits, prior to appraisal, a resettlement policy framework that conforms to this policy. The framework also estimates, to the extent feasible, the total population to be displaced and the overall resettlement costs.

Resettlement Plan

Would be required if a concrete subproject gives rise to resettlement only. And it would only be applicable where impacts on the entire displaced population are minor (no physical relocation, asset loss less than 10%) or fewer than 200 people are displaced, in which case an abbreviated resettlement plan (ARP) may be agreed with the borrower.

It is because the precise sitting alignments of the Project’s sub-projects can not be determined at this stage that the borrower submits this Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF).

In the case of the proposed STCRSP Project, the resettlement policy framework (RPF) is the only document per the OP 4.12 that needs to be submitted as a condition of the loan. However, the subproject-specific resettlement plans (or abbreviated resettlement plans) to be developed for any concrete sub project2 at a later stage, would need to include baseline census and socioeconomic survey

2 See: World Bank, Dec. 2001, rev Feb. 2011: OP 4.12, Annex A, Involuntary Resettlement Instruments



information; specific compensation rates and standards; policy entitlements related to any additional impacts identified through the census or survey; description of resettlement sites and programs for improvement or restoration of livelihoods and standards of living; implementation schedule for resettlement activities; and detailed cost estimate.

It is to be noted also that assistance to the borrower regarding land and resettlement policies, strategies, legal frameworks and planning at national, county and local levels has been proposed to be part of the Project by the land experts employed as part of the project preparation and pre-appraisal process (see Annex T-4).



3. LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES AND GUIDELINES

The Liberian Constitution and several statutes have been enacted to govern the rights of individuals to land and properties. The Constitution provides that an individual or group title to land can be expropriated for national or security purposes. However, there is no statute that clearly defines the manner by which said individual or group can be compensated or resettled. Further, most of the statutes concerning the subject matter were enacted many years ago and some issues therein do not meet present day reality.

The Land Tenure Legislation of Liberia

Applicable Liberian laws with relevance to Land Tenure ownership, compensation and resettlement are the following:

The Constitution of the Republic of Liberia, 1986 The Land Act, 1905 The Land Acquisition Act of 1929 The Revised Laws and Administrative Regulations for Governing the

Hinterland, 1949 The County Act of 1969

Liberian Constitution 1986Article 22 of the Constitution gives right to all individuals to own property, either on an individual basis or in conjunction with other individuals, as long as they are Liberian citizens. The right to ownership of property however does not extend to mineral resources on or beneath the land.

Land Act 1905Before independence, land acquisition and distribution in Liberia was done on the basis of relationship and class system. This system of land tenure was seriously opposed and it led to the establishment of a set of rules known as the ‘Digest of Law to govern the affairs of the settlers in terms of land distribution.’ This subsequently culminated in the Land Distribution Act of 1856, which removed the restriction to land distribution on the basis of citizenship. Later, this Act was repealed by the 1905 Land Act to provide for the expansion of the country from a few miles along the coast into the interior and ownership of the new vast amount of land and people therein.

County Act 1969The Act first instituted official distribution and demarcation of land boundaries inLiberia. Heretofore, counties were created through political means. For example, the three oldest counties in Liberia—Montserrado, Sinoe, and Maryland—were all products of political consideration.

Land Acquisition Act of 1929The Act outlines procedures for obtaining rights to any piece of land in Liberia through purchase. It distinguishes land in Liberia into two categories: the hinterland and the county area.

The procedure for obtaining land located in the hinterlands is as follows:



Obtain consent of Tribal Authority to have a parcel of land deeded to the individual by the Government;

Pay a sum of money as a token of one’s intention to live peacefully with the tribesmen; Paramount or clan chief signs a certificate which purchaser forwards to the office of the District Commissioner (who also acts as the Land Commissioner for the area);

The District Commissioner, after ascertaining that the land is not encumbered in anyway, approves that the land be deeded to the applicant and he issues a certificate to the applicant;

The procedure for obtaining land located in the county is as follows: Application to the Land Commissioner in the county in which the land is

located; The applicant obtains a certificate from the Land Commissioner, if he is

satisfied that the land is unencumbered; After the purchaser completes the above steps, he pays to the Bureau of

Revenues the official value of land which is not less than fifty cents per acre. Thereafter, the purchaser shall obtain and submit a receipt to the President for an order to have the land surveyed. A deed will then be prepared by the Land Commissioner, authenticated, and given to the purchaser.

The Land Tenure System

Customary TenureCustomary tenure involves the use of land which the government has granted to people in the hinterland through customary rights. Such rights begin with the Town Chief, then the Clan or paramount Chief and finally the District Commissioner. The District Commissioner prepares Customary Land Grant Certificates which are subsequently legalised by the president of Liberia.

Freehold TenureIt derives its legality from the constitution and its incidents from the written law. It involves holding land in perpetuity or a term fixed by a condition and enables the holding to exercise, subject to the law, full powers of ownership.

Leasehold TenureThis is created either by contract or by operation of the law; it is a form under which the landlord or lessor grants the tenant or lessor exclusive right of the land, usually for a specific period in return for a rent, granting the tenant security of tenure and a proprietary interest in the land.

Land Valuation System

Title to all land vests in the state. Thus the GoL is the original grantor of land and the public are all grantees. One who obtains land from the state has a bona fide title and right to full possession and use of the land. However the state has the right to revoke any previously granted title. Before such power can be exercised, the state through its institutions is statutorily obliged to first evaluate the current market value of the property to be acquired with the aim of providing just compensation to the affected



owner. Where the land to be revoked is in public use, the state has the burden of replacing it with one of commensurate value.

In the case of public land, section 31 of the 1986 Liberian Code provides the procedure for determining the cost as follows:

One dollar per acre for land on the margin of a river Fifty cents per acre for land in the interior Thirty dollars per lot for town lots.

Compensation

Article 24 of the 1986 Liberia Constitution provides the basis for compensation for acquired land.

It states that, “expropriation may be authorized for national security issues or where the public health and safety are endangered, or for any other public purposes, provided.”

For the expropriation to be successful the following issues need to be addressed:• Prompt payment of just compensation• That such expropriation or the compensation offered may be challenged freely by the owner of the property in a court of law with no penalty for having brought such action; and• That when property taken for public use ceases to be soused, republic shall accord the former owner, the right of first refusal to reacquire the property.

World Bank Safeguard Policy on Involuntary Resettlement

The World Bank OP/BP 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement is applicable to all projects with direct or indirect resettlement impacts. Highlights of resettlement are as follows:

I. All viable project designs shall be explored to avoid or minimize the need for resettlement and when it cannot be avoided, to minimize the scale and impacts of resettlement;

II. Resettlement measures should be taken so as to provide sufficient resource Resettlement measures should be taken so as to provide sufficient resources to give the person displaced the chance to improve former production levels, income earning capacity, and living standards or at least restore them to levels they would have been without the projects;

III. Displaced persons will be: Compensated at full replacement cost prior to the actual move Assisted with relocation Assisted and supported during the transition period.

IV. Adequate attention will be given to vulnerable groups;



V. PAPs and Communities in different levels will be given opportunities to participate in planning, implementing and monitoring their resettlement;

VI. Resettlement will be linked to the main project implementation schedule, so that PAPs should be resettled and or compensated before being affected by the construction or sector activities.

;

VII. There should be adequate measures of monitoring and evaluating replacement land; and

VIII. Compensation for land/assets will be encouraged and cash compensation may be appropriate when resident land holdings are economically viable.

According to OP 4.12, the resettlement plan should include measures to ensure that the displaced persons are:

I. Informed about their options and rights pertaining to resettlement;II. Consulted on, offered choices among, and provided with technically and

economically feasible resettlement alternatives; and III. Provided prompt and effective compensation at full replacement cost for

losses of assets attributed directly to the project.IV. If the impacts include physical relocation, the resettlement plan should include

measures to ensure that the displaced persons are:

Provided assistance (such as moving allowances) during relocation; and Provided with residential housing, or housing sites, or as required,

agricultural sites for which a combination of productive potential, location advantages, and other factors is at least equivalent to the advantages of the old site.

Where necessary to achieve the objectives of the policy, the resettlement plan also should include measures to ensure that displaced persons are:

I. Offered support after displacement, for a transition period, based on a reasonable estimate of the time likely to be needed to restore their livelihood and standards of living; and

II. Provided with development assistance in addition to compensation measures, such as land preparation, credit facilities, training, or job opportunities.



Principles and Objectives

These principles are intended to minimize negative impacts. However, it will not always be feasible to avoid displacement or land acquisition. In addition to the impact minimization measures, mitigation measures are needed, hence this RPF.

Regulatory FrameworkAny impact of the Project on land and/or people (land acquisition, resettlement, and livelihood restoration of affected people) will be addressed in compliance with the Constitution of Liberia, with other Liberian regulations, and with the World Bank safeguard policy on involuntary resettlement (OP 4.12). Where there are gaps or inconsistencies between Liberian laws and the World Bank policy, the World Bank policy OP 4.12 will apply.

Minimization of DisplacementIn line with the World Bank safeguard policy OP 4.12, the Project will minimize displacement through the following design procedures:

Wherever inhabited dwellings may potentially be affected by a component of a sub-project, the sub-project shall be redesigned (facility relocation, rerouting) to avoid any impact on such dwellings and to avoid displacement/relocation accordingly;

Wherever the impact on the land holding of one particular household/family/individual is such that the household/family/individual may not be sustainable in the long term, even if there is no need for physical displacement, the sub-project shall be redesigned (facility relocation, rerouting) to avoid any such impact; and

Pipelines, other linear infrastructure (power lines) required by the Project will be routed inside right-of-ways, easements or reservations (roads, streets, power lines) wherever possible.

Fair and adequate compensation

One paramount principle of World Bank safeguards is that where people are affected by an undertaking, the aim of compensation or resettlement must be that they should be “no worse-off if not better off” after the compensation or resettlement has taken place. The compensation package will include loss of income or livelihood restoration assistance or relocation assistance as appropriate plus a disturbance allowance.

Compensation payment

Compensation principles will be as follows: Compensation shall be paid prior to displacement or destruction; Compensation will be at full replacement value.

By contrast with the depreciated or net value of a structure, the “replacement value” includes the full cost of materials and labor required to reconstruct a building of similar surface and standing. In other words, the affected person must be able to



have their structure rebuilt in a different location using the compensation paid for the old building.

Community involvement and sensitization

Communities within the project areas will be sensitized on the project and likely project impacts and the extent of their involvement to ensure project success. Measures instituted to address negative project impacts will be well communicated to the community.

Compensation of National and International Practices

Although Liberia has several laws concerning title to land and property, as compensation for acquisition of property, these regulation are ‘asset-oriented’ in contrast to the World Bank policies which focus on both asset and the restoration of livelihoods. The asset oriented scheme of the GoL focuses on compensation based on pecuniary estimate of lost assets in exclusion of the socioeconomic losses. A summary comparison between Liberian regulations and applicable WB policies is shown in Table 1below.

The project’s compensation and resettlement program is designed to meet the provisions of the WB policies and Liberian legislation. In case of any differences between Liberia and World Bank policies, the World Bank policies will be applicable. In particular, the project’s compensation and resettlement policies include provision for compensation at ‘replacement cost’ and financial and technical assistance to affected people to support economic and livelihood restoration activities. The right of an aggrieved to seek redress is statutorily recognized under Liberian laws. The RPF however provides a comprehensive grievance redress mechanism as the first point of call to address possible and potential grievances. Where the grievance is against an agency of GoL, the steps in seeking redress is to lodge a complaint with the GoL Ministry or agency which shall conduct a hearing and make a determination on the matter. Such decision is subject to appeal to a regular court.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms including mediation are readily available. In the case of the ADR mechanism, the aggrieved party refers the dispute to a third party for a decision binding on both parties, and arbitration, where both parties appoint a board of arbitrators who make a binding decision on the dispute.



Table1: Comparison between World Bank and Liberian Laws and Mitigation Measures

Theme Liberian Legislation World Bank Policy OP 4.12 Mitigation Measures

Categories of Affected People

There is no distinction between affected individuals.• Land owners, land users, owners of buildings and owners of perennial crops are all lumped together and treated likewise.• There are no separate provisions for especially vulnerable classes of people.

Involuntary Resettlement should be avoided where feasible,or minimized.-There is distinction between affected people since they receive different types of support or compensation• Particular attention should be given to vulnerable groups• Affected persons should be assisted to improve their livelihoods and standards of living or at least to restore them to pre-project levels.

Project should be designed to distinguish between classes of affected individuals and this should be taken into consideration in giving compensation and support.

ImpactsAddresses only direct physical impact of acquiring land. Socio-economic considerations are not given priority

Compensation involves direct economic and social impact caused by acquisition.• It is good practice for the borrower to undertake social assessment and implementation measure to minimize adverse impacts, particularly to poor and vulnerable groups.

Design project to take socio-economic issues into consideration in determining compensation.

Compensation and Participation

Affected person are to be informed before repossession of land.• There is no provision on the notice period, and• There is no distinction between farmed land, and developed land

Affected persons should be:• Informed in a timely manner on their options and right pertaining to resettlement• Offered choices, and provided with technically and economically feasible resettlement alternatives.• Provided with timely and relevant information to host communities receiving re-settlers.

Adequate communication between government agencies and affected individuals well ahead of scheduled period of repossession.

Eligibility for Compensation and Benefits Compensation is restricted to individuals

having a legal title to affected land or required

The absence of legal title to land or other assets is not, in itself, a bar to compensate for lost assets or other resettlement assistance.

Design project to extend compensation or support (Social and economic) to individuals who do not have legal title to property

Monitoring and Evaluation External evaluation is not required Internal monitoring and external evaluation are required

Design project to involve third party input in assessment of compensation to be paid.



4. ESTIMATED POPULATION AND CATEGORIES OF AFFECTED PERSONS

Acreage and direct beneficiaries targeted by the Project sub componentsThe Project targets poor smallholder farmers3 and household members at sub-project sites who participate in the project in the main country’s tree crop producing counties, with particular attention given to the participation of women and youth. An estimated total of 4,900 smallholder households are expected to benefit from the project. This represents a total direct beneficiary population of around 27,440 household members (based on average rural household size of 5.64) as shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Total targeted acreage and direct beneficiaries

Crop NumberCocoa/coffee revitalizationTotal acreage (ha) 6,000Targeted households 3,000Rubber revitalizationTotal acreage (ha) 2,600Targeted households 1,300Oil palm revitalizationTotal acreage (ha) 1,200Targeted households 600Total acreage ha 9,800Total households 4,900Total direct beneficiaries (hh members) 27,440

These figures can be detailed further according to the four focal tree crops targeted by the respective sub-components and acreage and number of direct beneficiaries (heads of households and family members) concerned.

Cacao and coffee

3 Smallholders are, for the purpose of this project, defined as farmers, both male and female, who mainly derive their food and cash income from farming (including from tree crops) and mostly using their own family labor. Effective cultivated acreage under tree crops and food crops vary between counties, according to existing production systems. The project would support these smallholders to rehabilitate/replant/newly plant enough tree crops acreage that would allow them to: (i) be lifted out of poverty; and (ii) become specialized tree crop farmers (i.e. deriving most of their cash income from rehabilitated/(re)planted tree crops with project assistance), acknowledging the fact that part of the available family labor should still be devoted to their food crops (cassava, rice, plantain, etc.) to ensure food security and protect households against high risks of food prices variations.

4 According to the 2008 National Census, there were 331,695 agricultural households in Liberia comprising 1,857,301 members (average hh size of 5.6).



Table 3: Acreage and direct beneficiaries targeted by Project year – Cocoa/ coffee

Nimba, Bong and Grand Gedeh Counties

Project YearY1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Total

Rehabilitation (high input) ha 0 300 700 1,000 2,000Households targeted 0 150 350 500 1,000direct beneficiaries (hh members) 0 840 1,960 2,800 5,600Rehabilitation (medium input) ha 0 500 1,000 1,500 3,000Households targeted 0 250 500 750 1,500direct beneficiaries (hh members) 0 1,400 2,800 4,200 8,400New planting (high input) ha 0 0 500 500 1,000Households targeted 0 0 250 250 500direct beneficiaries (hh members) 0 0 1,400 1,400 2,800Total Cocoa (ha) 0 800 2,200 3,000 6,000Total Households targeted 0 400 1,100 1,500 3,000Total direct beneficiaries (hh members)

0 2,240 6,160 8,400 16,800

Rubber

Table 4: Acreage and Direct beneficiaries targeted by Project year - rubber

CountyProject Year

Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 TotalMaryland with CRC Replanting ha 0 200 400 400 1,000New planting ha 0 0 200 300 500sub-total (ha) 0 200 600 700 1,500Households targeted 0 100 300 350 750Direct inbeneficiaries (hh members)

0 560 1,680 1,960 4,875

Margibi with SRC Replanting ha 0 100 150 150 400New planting ha 0 0 150 250 400sub-total (ha) 0 100 300 400 800Households targeted 0 50 150 200 400Direct inbeneficiaries (hh members)

0 325 975 1,300 2,600

Montserrado with MARCO New planting ha 0 0 100 200 300Households targeted 0 0 50 100 150Direct beneficiaries (hh members)

0 0 325 650 975

Total Rubber (ha) 0 300 1,000 1,300 2,600Replanting ha 0 300 550 550 1,400New planting ha 0 0 450 750 1,200FO/Coops supported (new per year)

0 2 5 7 14



Total Households targeted 0 150 500 650 1,300Total direct beneficiaries (hh members)

0 975 3,250 4,225 8,450

Oil Palm

Table 5: Acreage and direct beneficiaries targeted by Project year – oil palm

Project YearTotal Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4

Farmers' run plantation in Bong, Nimba and/ or Grand Gedeh a/Rehabilitation ha 0 100 100 100 300Households targeted 0 50 50 50 150direct beneficiaries (hh members) 0 280 280 280 840Replanting ha 0 100 100 100 300Households targeted 0 50 50 50 150direct beneficiaries (hh members) 0 280 280 280 840sub-total (ha) 0 200 200 200 600Sub-total Households targeted 0 100 100 100 300Sub-total direct beneficiaries (hh members)

0 560 560 560 1,680

Out growers scheme with EPO in Grand Bassa (high input model)

Rehabilitation ha 0 100 100 100 300Households targeted 0 50 50 50 150Direct beneficiaries (hh members) 0 280 280 280 840Replanting ha 0 100 100 100 300Households targeted 0 50 50 50 150Direct beneficiaries (hh members) 0 280 280 280 840sub-total (ha) 0 200 200 200 600Sub-total Households targeted 0 100 100 100 300Sub-total direct beneficiaries (hh members)

0 560 560 560 1,680

Total Oil palm (ha) 0 400 400 400 1,200Total, Rehabilitation ha 0 200 200 200 600Total Households targeted 0 100 100 100 300Total direct beneficiaries (hh members) 0 560 560 560 1,680Total, Replanting ha 0 200 200 200 600Total Households targeted 0 100 100 100 300Total direct beneficiaries (hh members) 0 560 560 560 1,680Famers' run plantations Block FOs supported (new)

0 4 0 0 4

Farmers' run plantations - Coop. (new) 0 1 0 0 1Out growers FOs supported (new per year)

0 2 2 2 6

Grand Total Households targeted 0 200 200 200 600Grand Total direct beneficiaries (hh members)

0 1,120 1,120 1,120 3,360

Cocoa/ coffee



New planting (high input) ha 0 0 500 500 1,000Households targeted 0 0 250 250 500direct beneficiaries (hh members) 0 0 1,400 1,400 2,800

It is to be said that even in new planting of cocoa/ coffee, the Project will primarily target existing land holdings of cocoa smallholdings, so that in principle no new farm land would need to be opened up. In this sense, also no real resettlement issues would come up.

Rubber

In rubber, the Project aims at targeting smallholders in the vicinity or within existing concessions only, so that land issues should not play a role as the concessionaires have obtained a legal title for the land (usually 50 years concession) for it from the GOL including the MOA who is the Client of the Project. As far as we understand from the interactions with the Concessionaires also, CRC in Maryland, SRC in Margibi and MARCO in Montserrado, no real out-grower schemes are pursued but mostly arrangements whereby smallholders from the area are mobilized to act as additional workers on replanting and new plantings to be made within their concession land. In this sense, no resettlement issues again would come up.

Oil palm

For oil palm, in case of the partner EPO in Grand Bassa, the same as for rubber applies, i.e. the 600 ha targeted would lie on the existing concession land and no resettlement issue would come up normally.

Regarding the farmer run plantation, most likely in Konobo/ Grand Gedeh, of 600 ha, a former GOL owned but dysfunctional cooperative is targeted which again, in principle, should not imply land ownership issues and potential resettlement issues, except if new land expansion would be pursued which could be avoided in the sub project identification phase.

Project proposed infrastructure

Cocoa/ coffee

For this sub component, the following infrastructure elements have been proposed:

establishment of small-scale primary processing facilities (into cocoa butter, coffee powder, etc.) targeting the national and regional food and cosmetics markets; and

rehabilitation of feeder roads, wherever it is critical to provide access to groups of farms (50 km in total).

The exact location of this infrastructure however has not been decided by the Project yet. It is in the identification phase of sub projects that this decision will be made. It is



also possible that the Project would make such decisions only at a later point in the project cycle.. Following this RPF and the parallel ESMF, then careful consideration will be given to avoid any potential resettlement issues from the beginning.

Rubber

For this sub component for the three sub project sites foreseen (CRC in Maryland, SRC in Margibi, and MARCO in Montserrado), the following infrastructure element has been proposed: limited feeder road rehabilitation (access feeder roads or farm tracks and related

small bridges and drainage structure; about 70 km in total), wherever it is critical to provide road access to groups of farms.

The Project partners of Concessionaires are competent organizations with a lot of experience and awareness of the legal implications of eventual resettlement issued which are to be avoided as far as possible in any feeder road construction to be proposed once the respective sub project would have started in their area. A careful process of planning in cooperation with the PMU/ MOA and the MOPW would be followed taking into account the guidelines of this RPF and the parallel ESMF to avoid any potential risks associated.

Oil Palm

For this sub component, for one of the three sub project sites under consideration (Bong, Nimba or Grand Gedeh), the following infrastructure elements have been proposed:

limited infrastructure rehabilitation (access roads and related small bridges and drainage structures) wherever it is critical to provide access to groups of farms; and

the establishment of small scale processing facilities for the farmers’ run plantation -where no modern mills are present.

Regarding the feeder road construction eligible once the sub project has been decided upon, the same careful consideration by the competent project partner, EPO in this case, will be given taking into account the applicable Liberian laws and regulations as well as this RPF and the ESMF guidelines, aiming to avoid any potential land and resettlement issues as much as possible.

Regarding the small-scale processing facilities on the farmer run plantation, the location will be identified later in sub-project identification. Such facilities would be rather small in size, no real land issue and resettlement issue should arise. Moreover, the land on which the farmer run plantation is to operate should comprise land which is still owned by the GOL as the original permit for the GOL owned cooperative is to be still valid. If not, then a careful following of this RF and the ESMF guidelines and respective laws and regulations of Liberia will be followed in order to avoid wherever possible eventual land or resettlement issues.



Indirect Beneficiaries

Indirect beneficiaries would include: (i) the general population in and around the target sites, who would benefit from the opportunities provided by the improved rural infrastructure, in particular access feeder roads; (ii) supply and value chain stakeholders who would benefit from increased supplies and business opportunities generated by the expanded tree crops area and improved partnerships with concessionaires.

The number of indirect beneficiaries is hard to predict at this stage.

Regarding (i) the general population, the numbers are to be found in the Appendix 5 of the Social Impact Assessment report.

But this population is not concerned by eventual resettlement issues. The same applies to (ii) supply and value chain stakeholders.

Potential Project Affected People (PAPs)

People affected eventually by resettlement issues, are people who due to the project activity implementation would have their (1) standard of living adversely affected, (2) have some assets acquired for the purposes of project implementation (3) have access to certain resources restricted or affected in a negative way or (4) have their livelihoods adversely affected. From the assessment below it is estimated that the number of potential PAPs will not be huge but will be within manageable proportion typical of category B projects.

Assistance to vulnerable peopleDuring the implementation of the compensation phase of any resettlement program,vulnerable people should be considered. Vulnerable people include orphans, people with disabilities, elderly persons, HIV/AIDS affected/or infected, widows, widowers, andpeople suffering from serious illnesses. Chronically food insecure households, particularly female headed hh, and extreme destitute population, including the landless, should be added to this category.

Assistance Mechanism

(i) Assistance to vulnerable people would include the following steps/obligations:

− Identification of persons and cause of vulnerability through interviews with such persons, other community members and leaders;

− Identification of required assistance at the various stages of the process, negotiation, compensation, moving, etc.;

− Monitoring and continuation of assistance after moving, if required.

(ii) Assistance shall take the following form depending upon the needs of the vulnerable persons:



− Assistance in effecting compensation;

− Assistance in moving, providing vehicles, and facilitation at the moving stage;

− Assistance in building, providing materials, workforce or building houses, should the situation require;

− Health care, if required during the moving process.



5. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR AFFECTED PERSONS

All affected persons who will lose land, buildings, houses, crops or sources of income and restriction of access will be compensated according to the types and amount of their losses. People with no titles to land will be compensated according to OP/BP 4.12 requirements and hence, people with no legal entitlements to lands they occupy will also be supported so that they can lead a life at least equal to the one they had before they became affected by the project.

If the project encroaches on areas used for farming, alternative land must be assigned such use. The cut – off date for compensation eligibility will be set once all detailed measurements have been completed. The cut-off date usually starts from the date of announcement of intention. Cultivating land, constructing buildings or settlements in the affected areas after the cut-off date will not be eligible for compensation.

Eligibility Criteria

Project affected persons are described as persons affected by land acquisition, relocation, or loss of incomes associated with the acquisition of land and/or other assets, and restriction of access to legally designated sites and protected areas.The RPF gives an indication of the persons and property likely to be affected by the project. However, based on an understanding of the social structure of the rural community and the nature of the projects as per our field study, it appears the most likely affected persons are individual farmers and the respective land owners.

Table 6: Eligibility Criteria

Category of affected persons

Assets Type of compensation

Persons with formal legal rights to land.

Physical and non- physical assets such as residential structures, productive lands, farm lands, cultural sites commercial/ business properties, tenancy, income earning opportunities, and social and cultural networks and activities

To be provided compensation for land lost and other assistance

Persons without formal legal rights to land at time of notification but have claims to property recognized by community leaders


Persons with no recognizable legal right or claim to land they are occupying, e.g. squatters

To be provided resettlement assistance in lieu of compensation for land occupied.

Persons encroaching on land after the notification

Not eligible for compensation or any form of resettlement assistance



6. METHODS OF VALUING AFFECTED ASSETS

Basis of Valuation

The Constitution of Liberia and the World Bank Operational Policy 4.12 indicate some basis for valuation of property. However, neither the Constitution nor any other statutory laws clearly indicate the value for properties. Where some values have been indicated by the statutes or regulations, the amounts seem unrealistic with present reality.

At present, the governmental agency tasked with assessing real properties is the Division of Real Estates within the Ministry of Finance. The Division has in place a Real Estate Valuation Guideline that estimates the values of real properties on set criteria. The guideline distinguishes real properties on the basis of residential, commercial, commercial-residential, and industrial categories. It further defines real properties in these categories based on the size, basic condition, and materials used for construction.

Ministry of Public Works (MPW) and Ministry of Finance (MoF) are the two main GoL institutions valuating property, land and buildings. The methodology used by MoF is regarded as being more advanced.

It follows a “Land Valuation Average Market Value for Tax Determination (based on Market Intelligence)” grid for valuation of land in Monrovia, Upper Montserrado and outside Montserrado Counties.

Counties form groups according to their proximity to Monrovia, and in each group in principle three classes are applied (administrative centres, other major cities and economic zones, and towns and urbanized villages). In each class, then it is distinguished between an “average minimum value on vacant land” and the “value on developed land” (see Table..in Annex).

Method of Valuing Assets

In accordance with the WB OP/BP 4.12, the replacement cost method is the preferable basis for compensation. This will ensure that affected persons are at least as well off after resettlement actions as before. Hence, the replacement cost method will be the first approach for valuing assets.

Replacement Cost Approach

The Replacement Cost approach is that where market sale and other information is not available, value can be arrived at by using the cost approach. The assumption is that the price is equivalent to the cost of replacing the asset with an equivalent one plus a reasonable and fair profit margin. Additionally the method considers professional and labor fees and other technical services charges that can be attributable to the assets. However, when the replacement cost approach is deemed inadequate to achieve the goals of OP/BP 4.12, the following methods may be considered:



Investment MethodThis method treats assets like any other investment in the market, where the main factors influencing investment decisions are security of principal, adequate yield, security of income, administrative costs, and capital growth.

Direct Comparison MethodThis method will be used to value assets by comparing like with like. It is a very reliable method if current market information is available on sale prices. Adjustments may have to be made for age, condition, or location.

Methods of Compensation

There is no statutory compensation methods enacted in Liberia. Hence, should it become necessary for compensation during the implementation of STCRSP, the common methods of compensation will be considered:

(a) Market value compensation based on market value paid in private ownership.This is defined as the price the interest on land or assets would derive in the open market, assuming a willing buyer/willing seller situation.

(b) Compensation is based on value of improvements where land is communal or belongs to the Government and compensation is required.

(c) Values method of compensation and amount of compensation against the market price at a particular historical date.

(d) Existing value based on the market value of asset on its existing use and discounting any potential value attributable to development possibilities or changes in the market.

Valuation and Compensation of Crops

In regard to the valuation of agricultural crops which might be affected by resettlement activities, there exist certain price scales fixed by MOA.

According to the 2009 scale, for example the price for mature trees of cocoa, coffee, rubber and oil palm was set at USD 6 per tree, whereas the value of a premature tree was half of this value5.

Valuation of crops is estimated by the guidelines set by the Ministry of Agriculture, in the absence of a statutory regulation. However, for crops not considered under the guidelines set by the Ministry of Agriculture, it should be estimated at what a prudent and well informed purchaser would be willing to pay at a fixed time for the right to receive the income stream produced by that particular crop. Crops used for commercial

5 See: Republic of Liberia, Ministry of Agriculture, Announcement of prices for claims compensation for expropriation/ damaged major tree crops for 2009



purposes will be compensated under market value based on historical production records.

Valuation and Compensation of Buildings

Should resettlement be necessary during the implementation of sub-projects funded by the World Bank, , the assessed value of real properties and/or building(s) thereon should be estimated by the valuation guidelines of the Real Estate Division of the Ministry of Finance and guided by OP 4.12 and this RPF.

Regarding real estate properties (buildings), the main instrument used is “Republic of Liberia, Ministry of Finance, Administrative Regulation No. 7.2000-1/MOF/R/28 August 2009 to all owners of real properties, tax assessors, enforcers, and private and public appraisers” on appraisal methods and criteria. In a cost approach, technical appraisal rates are applied based on costing units (above average quality, average quality and below average quality) and taking into account the material composition of the building and materials used in the construction (foundation, floor, walls, windows, tiles, roofing sheets). The appraisal arrives at a technical appraisal rate (TAR) in this way by dividing the total cost of construction by the square footage using the formula:

Property Assessed Value = Total Square Area X Technical Appraisal Rate (TAR) – Age Depreciation + Land Value

Valuation and Compensation of Loss for Economic Activities

Valuation and compensation for loss of economic activities shall be determined by the Project Team to be composed during the implementation of projects and to include the implementing agency, technical experts, government representatives, NGOs, and others.

Disturbance & Transportation Allowances

Disturbance allowances shall be paid in addition to the compensation value of the affected assets/properties. Disturbance should be paid for the following situations:

In the case of an individual property/land owner whose property/land is being acquired for the proposed project; or

Where a project site has been subsequently abandoned in favor of another site and the landowner of the abandoned site was required to relinquish his interest over the land; or

Where during the course of executing the proposed project an individual’s interest in land suffered proven physical damage/disturbance. Transport allowances shall be calculated on the basis of transporting an individual 25 kilometers from the point of displacement, plus a reasonable amount for luggage/loads.

However, transport, accommodation and loss of profit allowances shall not be paid for unoccupied land. Accommodation and loss of profit shall not be paid concurrently over



the same property. Finally, accommodation and loss of profit shall only be paid to the property owner and not tenant(s).

Disturbance and transportation allowances shall be assessed by the Project Teams to be established for the implementation of projects of the borrower or other collaborating/implementing partners, in consultation with the PAPs.

Table 7: General guidelines and methods for costs preparation

Item Types MethodBuilding, structures

Cement, roofing sheets, doors, wood, paint, sand, stones etc

Replacement cost method would be used to determine market value and will be based on (1) land in comparable site, (2) drawings of buildings, related structures and support services, (3) average replacement costs of different types of buildings based on information on quantities and types of materials for construction, (4) prices of items on the local market, (5) costs of transportation, (6) estimates for construction of new buildings.

Businesses Kiosks, containers, workshops, communication centres, chop bars, saloons

Farm crops Crops and fruit trees (cassava, oil palm tree, etc)

Market value as at the time of replacement

Standing trees

Coconut trees, etc. Follow EPA requirement. Pay cash for every tree felled and in addition plant two more at location similar to where the other was felled.

Forests Dedicated community forest areas, sacred groves, cemeteries, shrines

Replacement cost method would be used and should be done in consultation with and acceptable to the traditional authorities or community leaders.

Losses of income and livelihood

Farming, Fishing, etc.

Estimation of net monthly profit for business based on records; application of net monthly profit to the period when business is not operating.

Disturbance allowance

- 10% of total compensation



7. ORGANIZATIONAL PROCEDURES FOR DELIVERY OF ENTITLEMENTSEligibility Criteria

Project affected persons are described as persons affected by land acquisition, relocation, or loss of incomes associated with the acquisition of land and/or other assets, and restriction of access to legally designated sites and protected areas.The RPF gives an indication of the persons and property likely to be affected by the project. However, based on an understanding of the social structure of the rural community and the nature of the projects as per our field study, it appears the most likely affected persons are individual farmers and the respective land owners.

Table 8: Eligibility criteria

Category of affected persons

Assets Type of compensation

Persons with formal legal rights to land.

Physical and non- physical assets such as residential structures, productive lands, farm lands, cultural sites commercial/ business properties, tenancy, income earning opportunities, and social and cultural networks and activities


Persons without formal legal rights to land at time of notification but have claims to property recognized by community leaders


Persons with no recognizable legal right or claim to land they are occupying, e.g. squatters

To be provided resettlement assistance in lieu of compensation for land occupied.

Persons encroaching on land after the notification

Not eligible for compensation or any form of resettlement assistance

Entitlement Matrix for Resettlement/Compensation

The entitlement matrix for compensation issues for the Project is given in the table below.



Table 9: Entitlement Matrix

Asset Type of impact

Entitled person Eligibility criteria

Entitlement

Land

Permanent acquisition of land

Landowner (individual, household, stool)

Person with formal legal right to land /without formal legal right to land but have claims to property recognized by community leaders

Replacement with an equivalent piece of land located in the vicinity of the affected area. If land is not available then cash compensation at full replacement value as well as disturbance allowance

Temporary acquisition of land


As above Full reinstatement to pre-project conditions;Rent to be agreed upon for the period during which land is occupied.

Acquisition of RoWs


As above Cash compensation to be negotiated based on value; Disturbance allowance

Crops

Destruction of crops

Landowner/ tenant/ or farmer

Farmer Cash compensation for crops not ready for harvesting at time of entry, and negotiated with LVB; Disturbance allowance

Damage of crops

Landowner/ tenant/ or farmer

Farmer Cash crop compensation for damaged crops, and negotiated with appropriate authority; Disturbance allowance,

Forests Destruction of family/ community dedicated trees

Landowner (individual, household, community)

Person with formal legal right to land /without formal legal right to land but have claims to property recognized by community leaders

Cash compensation to be negotiated based on replacement value as well as disturbance allowance





Entitlement

Damage to sacred groves and other cultural heritage such as cemeteries and shrines

Landowner (individual, household, community/traditional authority)

As above Relocation of cultural heritage to a similar site in consultation with family/community leaders as well as disturbance allowance. If relocation to a new site is not possible then cash compensation at full replacement value (to be negotiated with family/community leaders and appropriate authority) as well as disturbance allowance

Structures

Destruction of permanent immovable structures

Owner Confirmed owner (with evidence) of affected structure irrespective of land ownership

Resettlement to a similar dwelling in a similar location, orCash compensation at full replacement value of structure.Cost of movingDisturbance allowance

Occupant Tenant Cost of movingDisturbance allowance (3 months rent)

Temporary displacement of moveable structure

Owner Confirmed owner (with evidence) of affected structure irrespective of land ownership

Cost of displacing the affected structureCost of moving the affected structure back to project affected landDisturbance allowance

Livelihood Agriculture Farmer as distinct from affected plot owner

Been using affected land for agriculture irrespective of ownership situation

Cash compensation of any loss of incomeAssistance to livelihood restoration





Entitlement

Businesses Business person as distinct from owner of structure

Been operating business on project affected land irrespective of ownership (includes squatters)

Cash compensation for temporary loss of incomeAssistance to livelihood restoration

Use of communal resources

User of such resources (individuals/ communities)

Use of communal resources for livelihood

Assistance to identify and access similar resource elsewhereCash compensation of temporary loss of income



8. IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS

The overall organizational arrangements for implementing resettlement issues would be, in line with the arrangements proposed in the Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF), the establishment of a Project Implementation Unit (PIU) within the overall PMU at MOA.

This PIU would comprise a dedicated unit dealing with all issues related to land and potential resettlement issues.

In order to ensure successful delivery of the project, including the mitigation and improvement measures, it will be necessary for the PMU to put in place appropriate processes and mechanisms, and strengthen the capacity of the implementing agencies and the participating communities to achieve the project objectives in an efficient and sustainable manner. Involvement of the stakeholders at key stages in the development and operation will be a key factor in avoiding challenges and conflicts. There is a requirement to be accountable which necessitates appropriate dissemination of information and transparent policies.

The PIU will need to appoint an Environmental and Social Manager to take responsibility for the implementation of the ESMP and follow up on the RPF and implementation of any possible resettlement action plans (RAPs). This could be a shared (with another responsibility) position within the PIU, but for clarity and focus it would be best if responsibility was invested in a single position. This appointee would be the point of contact for all environmental and social management issues related to the project. Similarly, an Environmental and Social Officer should be designated in each of the target counties. The person designated could be a current officer within the MoA/EPA/Other. In addition, each section within the PIU structure should designated to a person to be the point of contact with regard to any environmental issues relating to that section activities. Collectively these officials will be the project’s Environmental and Social Management Team (ESMT).

In analogy to this proposal, for land and resettlement issues, a Land/ Resettlement Manager would be appointed along with a Land/ Resettlement Committee (LRC).

Each member of the project management team will be responsible for conforming to applicable laws and regulations, and for conducting their work responsibilities in accordance with permit requirements and the ESMP and any RAPs that will be prepared during implementation. The environmental and social management controls that should be used at each of the project development locations to assist in meeting the overall environmental/social management objectives for the project should include, but not be limited to:

Environmental and Social Awareness Training; Environmental and Social Compliance Reviews and Co-ordination Meetings; and Environmental and Social Compliance Inspections and Documentation.

The above PIU Offices, along with a representative from the EPA, an environmentally and socially focused NGO, and up to three other organizations one of which should



have technical knowledge of the land tenure system in Liberia, should form a Project Environmental and Social Management Committee (ESMC) which will guide the implementation process, review policies and procedures, and generally guide the implementation of the ESMP. The Committee should have the power to co-opt other members (e.g. with specific or appropriate technical knowledge).

The following activities of the overall STCRSP need to be taken into account in the implementation process for the RPF as well.

Conducting sub project, site specific environmental & socioeconomic (census) studiesAfter forming the Project Team, the MOA or other implementing agency shall ensure the conduct of site-specific environmental and socioeconomic studies (subproject baseline studies) in each project area to establish social and environmental potentials and opportunities. Where necessary, the Local Traditional Council shall be fully involved.

Identifying, assessing and valuating resulting impacts on assets/livelihoodThe results of the environmental and socioeconomic site/ subproject studies shall be used in identifying and assessing resulting impacts on assets and livelihood. This exercise shall be undertaken by the Project Team, preferably utilizing the services of an independent consultant.

Identifying affected groups and individualsAffected groups and individuals shall be identified within the surveys conducted duringthe environmental and socioeconomic impact studies.

Preparing Resettlement Costs and Funding PlansThe PT shall be responsible for preparing a detailed list of resettlement cost. The MOA/ GOL and WB shall be responsible for funding the cost, or sourcing funding for the cost.Within this RPF, however the estimated costs of implementing all activities related to these questions have been elaborated (see chapter 10 below).

Compensating the PAP and Feedback to the WBThe PT shall ensure that all affected people (PAP) are compensated appropriately. ThePT shall prepare forms, which shall be signed by the concerned and submitted to the WB for signifying that the people concerned have effectively received the compensation.

Compensation ProcedureWhere compensation is required, the Project Team shall effect the compensation according to administrative and legal procedures as agreed in this RPF. The PT will submit reports to the MOA, WB and cooperating agencies, confirming that the compensation has been effected fully.



9. GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISMS

Potential Grievances and Disputes

There is the possibility that grievances and disputes may arise during the implementation of resettlement and compensation activities, resulting from the following:

(i) Inventory mistakes made during the site survey, census as well as inadequate valuation of properties.

(ii) Mistakes related to identification and disagreements on boundaries of individuals’ lands and development.

(iii) Disagreements on asset valuation.

(iv) Family issues resulting in ownership or share disputes amongst heirs.

(v) Disputed ownership of assets by different individuals.

(vi) Disagreement of resettlement package including locations, should resettlement be considered by PAPs.

Proposed Grievance Management and Redress Mechanisms

Grievances and disputes that may arise during the implementation of the projects shall be best resolved by the Project Team, based on the due diligence undertaken by the team in preparation of RAPs and socioeconomic assessments. The PT may use as a reference the applicable laws of Liberia and only in the case of disputes that cannot be resolved through the PT and other mechanisms within the scope of the RPF (and only as a last resort the case is to be referred to the Judiciary).

Administrative MechanismParticularly in the counties where the STCRSP is to be implemented, there exist Local Traditional Councils or County Administrative Councils. These bodies shall be considered in resolving any disputes that may arise during the implementation of the projects by the MOA or other implementing partner, along with the Project Team. The Judiciary shall be always only the last resort, which in principle should only be triggered where amicable or internal redress mechanisms have failed to settle the grievance or dispute.

Grievance Redress and Management Mechanism

Proposed Grievance Management and Redress MechanismIn such compensation and resettlement operations, it often appears that many grievances derive from misunderstandings of project policy, which can usually be resolved through adequate mediation. Most grievances can be settled with additional explanation efforts and some mediation.

Court cases are known to be cumbersome and it is therefore proposed to make available satisfactory grievance management mechanisms, which will provide aggrieved



people with an avenue for amicable settlement without necessarily opening a Court case. Aggrieved people would however remain free to open a Court case without having registered their grievance.

The proposed mechanisms will comprise of the following steps: Registration; and Amicable mediation/litigation and settlement

Registration of grievancesMinistry of Agriculture (MOA) will establish a register of resettlement/compensation related grievances and disputes. The existence and conditions of access to this register (where, when, how) will be widely disseminated within the community/town as part of the consultation undertaken for the project in general.

Amicable mediation and settlement The group of mediators attempting amicable mediation/litigation will be selected from among the following members:

Representatives (preferably two) from the implementing company An attorney of the affected person(s), if available; Local council representative/ Assembly man; and Traditional leader from chiefdom(or representative)- paramount chief

When a grievance/dispute is recorded as per above-mentioned registration procedures, the mediation committee will be established, and the mediation meetings will be organized with interested parties. Minutes of meetings will be recorded. The existence of this mechanism will be widely disseminated to the affected people as part of consultation undertaken for the project in general. It is important that these mediation committees be set up as soon as compensation report or resettlement plan preparation starts. Disputes can arise from census operations and it is therefore important that the mediation mechanisms be available to cater for claim, disputes and grievances at the early stage.

Court of AppealCourts of law will be a “last resort” option, in view of the first and second level mechanisms. The Ghanaian Constitution allows any aggrieved person the right to access to Court of law.

Documentation and TracingA complaint log book and file will be opened for all complaints at the project level. The complainant’s name, date of complaint, nature of complaint, follow-up actions and their dates will all be logged for future referencing. The Grievance mechanism should be built around existing institutions. The Chiefdoms, regional and national levels should be involved in the processes to be adopted.



Chiefdom Level: The first level for receiving and addressing grievances related to the project will be at the chiefdom level. The proposed membership of this Grievance and Advisory Committee are the District Agriculture officer, Representatives of recognized youth group, recognized women’s group, the Dean Elder and the Paramount chief, representative of farmer’s cooperative. The Paramount chief should be the chair whilst the District Agriculture Officer will be the Secretary to the Committee (5 reps).

Regional Level: The Second level Committee will be made up of the County Superintendent who will be the Chair, EPA representative, County Attorney and Regional Agriculture Officer and representative of the PAPs. The RAOwill be the Secretary, (5 members).

National Level: The third and highest level committee will be at the National level. In order for consistency, this will be made up of same members of the Steering Committee for projects at the Ministry of Agriculture.

Steps for Grievance ResolutionThe complaint form developed by the project will be used to record all complaints. The record should include the complainants details for example name, contact number (if applicable), house number etc (should be optional), the nature of the complaint, the date of the complaint, and the receiving officer’s name.

Step 1: The receiving officer will issue a note of acknowledgement to the complainant after recording the details spelt out above. The note should include tentative date the complainant will hear from the committee and whom to contact.

Step 2:The receiving officer files the complaint and gives it a file number (determined by MOA). Then he informs the committee, who will launch an investigation into the matter with the aim of finding a (re)solution.

Step 3:Once the complaints are addressed, there should be a close – out form on the complaint.Duration: The Chiefdom level complaints should be investigated and completed within 14 days of receiving complaints.

Step 4:If complaint is beyond the Terms of Reference of the Chiefdom level, then the chiefdom level committee will agree and authorize the District Agriculture Officer (the Secretary) to forward complaint and appropriate documentation to the Regional level, who then takes up the investigation into the matter. The Regional Secretariat will issue a note acknowledging receipt of documents from the Chiefdom Secretariat. The complainant should be informed at any stage in the process and the time factor involved as well as the contact person he/she/they can deal with.



Step 5:Regional Level: There may be need for additional investigations. Regional Committee uses information handed over from the District Agriculture Officer for the Committee members to take investigate and find an agreeable solution to the issue or complaint. Duration: The Regional level Committee has up to 21days to address any issues brought before it. Any issues that are not resolved within this period and or which may be beyond the mandate of the Regional level will have to be forwarded to the Steering Committee with a cover note.

Table 10: Proposed schedule for Grievance Redress Steps Process Description Time

frame Other information

1 Identification of grievance

Face to face; phone; letter, e-mail; recorded during public/community interaction;

1 Day Email address; hotline number

2 Grievance assessed and logged

Significance assessed and grievance recorded or logged (i.e. in a log book)

4-7 Days Significance criteriaLevel 1 –one off event; Level 2 – complaint is widespread or repeated; Level 3- any complaint (one off or repeated) that indicates breach of law or policy or this RPF provisions

3 Grievance is acknowledged

Acknowledgement of grievance through appropriate medium

7-14 Days

4 Development of response

-Grievance assigned to appropriate party for resolution-Response development with input from management/ relevant stakeholders

4-7 Days 10-14 Days

5 Response signed off

Redress action approved at appropriate levels

4-7 Days Senior management staff of MOA/Project should sign off

6 Implementation and communication of response

Redress action implemented and update of progress on resolution communicated to complainant

10-14 Days

7 Complaints Response

Redress action recorded in grievance log bookConfirm with complainant that grievance can be closed or determine what follow up is necessary

4-7 Days



Steps Process Description Time frame

Other information

8 Close Grievance

Record final sign off of grievance If grievance cannot be closed, return to step 2 or recommend third-party arbitration or resort to court of law

4-7 Days Final sign off by Designated official from MOA

Besides the above framework for grievance redress, there are traditional dispute resolution mechanisms within communities which can be used to resolve disputes among community members which some NGOs have learned to work with.



10. FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS

Budget and Funding Arrangements

The budget will be developed from the specific social assessment studies and mitigation/livelihood restoration measures to be developed. It will cover resettlement activities including compensation cost for affected assets.

The cost will be derived from expenditures relating to (1) the preparation of the resettlement/compensation plan, (2) relocation and transfer, (3) income and means of livelihood restoration plan, and (4) administrative costs. These bullet points give the cost centres:

Preparation of Plan Cost of survey of affected persons, valuation and inventory of assets; Compensation payments for structures

Relocation and transfer Cost of moving and transporting items Cost of site and infrastructure development and services Subsistence allowance during transition Cost of replacement of businesses and downtime

Income and means of livelihood restoration plans Cost of estimating income losses Cost of income restoration plans

Administrative costs Operation and support staff Training and monitoring Technical assistance Grievance redress mechanisms

Table 11 below is a template for the itemization of budget centres to be prepared under the compensation plan or (A) RP with mainly land and cash compensation in mind. No resettlement housing is included. The template may be modified to suit the specific situation.



Table 11: Itemization of budget

# ITEM USD1.0 PREPARATORY PHASE COST1.1 Inventory of affected persons, assets and livelihoods 32,000

1.2 Valuation fees (LVB or private valuer) 32,000

1.3 Preparation of resettlement plans or compensation reports 38,000

1.4 Subtotal 1 (Preparatory phase cost) 102,0002.0 COMPENSATION COST2.1 Compensation for permanent acquisition of land 20,074

2.2 Compensation for temporary occupation of land NA

2.3 Compensation for destruction of standing crops 21,926

2.4 Compensation for destruction of permanent immoveable structures

NA

2.5 Cost for temporary displacement of moveable structures NA

2.6 Subtotal 2 (Compensation cost) 42,0003.0 LIVELIHOOD RESTORATION /MITIGATION MEASURES

COST3.1 Compensation for farmers ' loss of income 19,000

3.2 Cost of special assistance to vulnerable persons 5,700

3.4 Subtotal 3 (Livelihood restoration/mitigation cost) 24,7004.0 CAPACITY BUILDING & IMPLEMENTATION COST

4.1 Capacity building for key stakeholders –MOA Staff/NGOs/Local representatives

100,000

4.2 Overhead cost for compensation disbursement/grievance redress/ M & E

80,000

4.3 Leg al fees (in case of court dispute) 50,000

4.4 Subtotal 4 (Capacity building & implementation cost) 210,0005.0 TOTAL COST (addition of all subtotals) 378,7006.0 CONTINGENCY (5% OF TOTAL COST) 18,935

7.0 GRAND TOTAL COST (Total Cost + Contingency) 397,635

The figures of the template have been calculated as follows.



PREPARATORY PHASE (INVENTORY, VALUATION, PREPARATION)

The inventory of potential affected persons, assets and livelihoods is to be undertaken during sub project selection process, and should be costed along with the costing of this project phase.

Cocoa/ coffee

For this sub component, the following infrastructure elements have been proposed:

- establishment of small-scale primary processing facilities (into cocoa butter, coffee powder, etc.) targeting the national and regional food and cosmetics markets; and

- rehabilitation of feeder roads, wherever it is critical to provide access to groups of farms (50 km in total).

The exact location of this infrastructure, however has not been decided by the Project yet. It is in the identification phase of sub projects that this decision will be made.. It is also possible that the Project would make such decisions only at a later point in the project cycle, i.e. after sub project identification, sensitization of communities, start-up phase in year 1 with formation of farmers’ organizations/ cooperatives starting and the project activities of first rehabilitation started in project year 2, and only in years 3 and 4 when expected cocoa production becomes closer towards the end of the project (4 years) such eventual infrastructure elements would be added.

Costs: Small-scale processing facilities are negligible as they will mostly be situated on existing land of participating farmers or public communal land such as in within the traditional village or township (market site etc.). Only for feeder roads, eventual inventory and other costs would arise. Inventory of affected persons, assets and livelihoods as well as valuation undertaken by valuers and preparation of (abbreviated) resettlement plans could all be done in the same exercise as they relate to the same feeder roads to be screened including population residing alongside. This activity could be conducted as part of preliminary planning of feeder roads to be rehabilitated in any of the three counties concerned.. As only rehabilitation of existing feeder roads is concerned, no significant occurrences of PAPs eligible for compensation can be expected, but the activity of inventory plus eventual valuing could be carried out in any case to confirm this assumption.The combined cost for the 90 km of feeder road screening for such potential cases in up to three counties is estimated at USD 30,000. For the unlikely case that for a limited number of PAPs (90) in this process, resettlement (abbreviated) plans would need to be prepared, a sum of USD 18,000 is estimated. Subtotal: USD 48,000

Rubber



For this sub component, for the three sub project sites foreseen (CRC in Maryland, SRC in Margibi, and MARCO in Montserrado) the following infrastructure element has been proposed:- limited feeder road rehabilitation (access feeder roads or farm tracks and related small bridges and drainage structure; about 70 km in total), wherever it is critical to provide road access to groups of farms.

Costs: For the 70 km of feeder roads in the three counties concerned, for an inventory of affected persons, assets and livelihoods and the eventual valuation fees of valuers, an estimated combined amount of USD 24,000 can be set.

In case, PAPs subject to relocation or compensation (estimated number of 70) would be identified in the process, a sum of USD 14,000 is to be reserved.for preparing resettlement (abbreviated) plans.

Subtotal:38,000 USD.

Oil Palm:

For this sub component, for one of the three sub project sites under consideration (Bong, Nimba or Grand Gedeh) where a farmer run plantation model is to be implemented, the following infrastructure elements have been proposed:

- limited infrastructure rehabilitation (access roads and related small bridges and drainage structures) wherever it is critical to provide access to groups of farms; and - the establishment of small scale processing facilities for the farmers’ run plantation -where no modern mills are present.

Whereas the small scale processing facilities will be so minor that they will no involve land acquisition or relocation of people Only the feeder road part is considered to trigger eventually land/ resettlement issues. Assuming a length for this single project area of some 30 km, the combined cost of inventory and eventual valuation can be estimated at USD 10,000.

For an eventual, preparation of resettlement (abbreviated) plans (for an estimated number of 30), an additional sum of USD 6,000 can be reserved.

Subtotal: USD 16,000.

COMPENSATION COST/ LAND

Compensation could arise for a limited number (190) of project affected people (PAP) who would be eventually identified during the inventory and valuation process in regard to the feeder road elements in cocoa, coffee, rubber and oil palm sub-components.



Cocoa/ coffee

A number of 90 PAPs could be concerned in feeder road rehabilitation eventually.

For land acquisition, only in cases where the existing feeder road would need to be widened, Assuming that this would be the case in half the cases, 45km of length, for 2 metres would make 90,000 sqm being 90 ha or 222.39 acres.

In Bong and Nimba counties, the official land value is set at 50 USD per acre, leading to a value of 11,120 USD to be reserved for eventual compensation cost of land.

Subtotal: 11,120 USD.

Rubber

For this sub component, for the three sub project sites foreseen (CRC in Maryland, SRC in Margibi, and MARCO in Montserrado) the following infrastructure element has been proposed:

- limited feeder road rehabilitation (access feeder roads or farm tracks and related small bridges and drainage structure; about 70 km in total), wherever it is critical to provide road access to groups of farms.


For land acquisition, only in cases where the existing feeder road would need to be widened, assuming that this would be the case in half the cases, 35km of length, for 2 metres would make 70,000 sqm being 70 ha or 173.97 acres.

For Margibi and Maryland counties, the land value is set at USD 50 per acre, for Montserrado county at 350 USD.

Assuming an even distribution among the three counties, i.e. 11.66 km per county. For Margibi and Maryland, this amounts to 23.34 times 50 USD being 1,167 USD and for Montserrado (11.66 times 350 USD) to 4,081 USD.


Oil Palm


For land acquisition, only in cases where the existing feeder road would need to be widened, assuming that this would be the case in half the cases, 30km of length, for 2 metres would make 30,000 sqm being 30 ha or 74.13 acres.



For the three counties concerned (Bong, Nimba and Grand Gedeh), the value of land is set at USD 50 per acre. The land value to be considered would assume to an amount of USD 3,706.


SUBTOTAL ALL LAND: 20,074 USD.

COMPENSATION COST / CROPS

Cassava: Average value for mature and premature plants is USD 60/ acre.Assuming cassava to be present on 10% of eventually affected land acreage (47.1 acres), the value to be compensated would amount to USD 2,826.

Plantain: Average value is USD 2.25 per crop. Assuming 100 crops per acre value is USD 225 per acre. Assuming its presence on 10% of land concerned (47.1 acres), value amounts to USD 10,586.

All other crops (including tree crops, except sugar cane): Average value is USD 4.50 per tree, assuming 20 trees per acre on 10% of total land concerned, 950 trees concerned, value of USD 4,275.

Sugar cane: Value is set at USD 90 per acre, assuming its presence on 10% (47.1 acres), value is USD 4,239.

SUBTOTAL ALL CROPS: 21,926USD.

LIVELIHOOD RESTORATION/ MITIGATION COST

Compensation for farmers ' loss of income from the land to be taken for feeder road enlargement discussed above, was already paid for the loss of crops concerned which form the basis for eventual ,loss of income by the same time. No additional compensation is to be paid therefore normally.

In case, there would be a need for additional income substitution due to loss of livelihood on top of the compensation paid for crop loss (such as for those who could not secure their livelihho on their remaining land, an amount to be used for income substitution could be foreseen as follows.

190 PAPs affected eventually on feeder road enlargement works, an amount of 100 USD per PAP to start up alternative livelihood activities could be reserved.




Special assistance to vulnerable persons, who might be included in above PAPs. In addition to the livelihood restoration compensation already reserved for all potential PAPs, assuming that 30% belong to categories of vulnerable people, another amount could be reserved for special assistance to 57 persons (another USD 100/ person): 5,700 USD.


SUBTOTAL: 24,700 USD.

CAPACITY BUILDING AND IMPLEMENTATION COST

Capacity building for key stakeholders –MOA Staff/NGOs/Local representatives

For capacity building of MOA at central level (USD 10,000) and at county/ district levels concerned in the 7 focal counties and 8 project site districts (3 in cocoa, 3 in rubber and 2 in oil palm), USD 40,000, a subtotal of USD 50,000 is to be foreseen.

An equal amount of USD 50,000 is to be added for the capacity building of the NGO to be subcontracted for project implementation.


Overhead cost for compensation disbursement/grievance redress/ M & E

For compensation, grievance redress and related M&E, for MOA at central level, this cost is to be included in the overall component 3 of the STCRSP budget, in regard to the PIU and associated Environmental and Social Committees to be established at central and local levels.

If taken as separate element of RPF, it can be estimated at USD 5,000 per project site over the project’s duration (as the exact time when OP 4.12 would be triggered following land inventory of feeder roads for rehabilitation).


For the implementing NGO (and private sector operators in the case of the three rubber operators and one oil palm concessionaire), an amount should be included in the budget of the STCRSP implementation budget, subcomponent RPF as follows:USD 10,000 per each of the 8 project sites (during period of the project as OP 4.12 will be triggered only if feeder roads would be rehabilitated, what can be at any point during this period).


Leg al fees (in case of court dispute)



An amount of 50,000 USD could be reserved for this purpose.

SUBTOTAL: 210,000 USD.

TOTAL ESTIMATED BUDGET FOR RPF: USD 397,635.

The exact cost of implementing resettlement action plans and compensation under the STCRSP Project shall be determined during the environmental and socio-economic impact studies to be conducted at each subproject site once it has been determined or at resettlement action plan stage.

The compensation modality shall be agreed upon between the PAPs, beneficiaries/ communities, and the Project Team before a particular subproject will be funded by the borrower or participating institutions (after consent by the Bank). The Project Team shall include representatives of the implementing agency, cooperating governmental agencies, county/district representatives, NGO representatives, consultants, and others as necessary.



11. CONSULTATION AND PARTICIPATION MECHANISMS

Consultation on the Resettlement Policy FrameworkIn accordance with the World Bank Policy OP. 4.12, information and consultation on the Resettlement Policy Framework shall be organized as follows:

(i) Organize Resettlement Policy Framework validation workshop for all relevant stakeholders for comments;(ii) Share RPF with stakeholders and the World Bank for comments; and

Consultations and interviews for preparing the RPFThe methods applied for developing this RPF were varied. Particular focus was on literature review, interviews using questionnaires, focus group discussions, stakeholder workshops and key informant interviews. These varied tools for data collection gave a wide range of options to reach the different categories of people for the purpose of developing this RPF.

At central level, key national stakeholders from national institutions, private sector, NGOs and development partners were consulted intensively (see Annex A-2 for details).

In each of the target counties, stakeholder consultations were conducted with government officials, private sector and NGOs.

At the level of communities and around concessions targeted by the proposed project, tree crop and non tree crop farmers who are the intended future beneficiaries, traditional authorities, concessionaires, private sector and NGOs were interviewed using focus groups discussions, workshops, individual interviews, formal (survey) interviews.

The participants in these field level consultations held, are represented in Annex A-3.

Land related issues in regard to the RPF were discussed and the perceived constraints and solutions and expectations of stakeholders, intended beneficiaries and a potentially affected people recorded. The main findings have been incorporated in this RPF and the report is attached as an annex to this RPF (see Annex T-4).

Consultations with project affected people - General Guidelines

Under the STCRSP, project affected people (PAP) would be consulted with in the following ways.

(a) Public Participation: At a very early stage after the design of the projects, persons to be affected by the projects \ invited and their involvement taken into consideration.

(b) Notification: The affected individual’s identification will be made during the process. There shall be both formal and informal notification.



(c) Documentation of Holdings and Assets: The project implementation teams shall arrange and coordinate all meetings with affected individuals or groups. Documentation of properties or assets to be affected shall be considered during these meetings.

(d) Agreement on Compensation: The types of compensation described above shall be explained to the PAPs. The project teams shall prepare the necessary documentation to be executed between the parties.

(e) Compensation Payments: The MOA or other participating GOL authorities in cooperation with implementing partners shall ensure that all payments are made to the PAP before the commencement of civil works. The venue for payment shall be decided by the teams, at places easily accessible to the PAP. Payments shall be made by check and not in cash.

Consultation Procedures and Participation of potential project beneficiaries of sub projects

Based on the nature of each subproject that will require resettlement, different consultation procedures that will be deemed effective and adequate shall be implemented.

(i) The consultation with affected group or individual will be carried out by the Project Team, the local community leadership, and affected individuals. The assets involved shall be assessed by competent appraisers in accordance with the guidelines of the Real Estate Division of the Ministry of Finance, and as provided for in this Resettlement Policy Framework. Where the PAPs are dissatisfied with the assessment of the valuator, independent valuators shall be contracted. The compensation and other documents relating to the resettlement shall be signed by the PAP as a group or individually depending on the legal status of their property and the subproject Team on behalf of the overall STCRSP.

(ii) Disclosure and Meetings: Meetings shall be organized and conducted withinthe project areas, where PAPs will have easy access. The principle forcompensation for the various types of loss will be detailed. The list ofproperties and assets to be affected by the projects will be mentioned in suchmeetings which will include the names of the affected persons.

(iii) The Project Teams shall ensure amicable discussions are held at all times withthe PAPs during the compensation and resettlement processes. Communityleaders shall form part of the discussions.

(iv) The values and compensation for the assets of PAPs shall be transparent andwhen deemed necessary and appropriate.

(v) The whole process shall be held in accordance with the laws and proceduresapplicable, and when PAPs have agreed, a compensation report agreementshall be signed by the parties involved.



(vi) Compensation Options: The options of compensation for resettlement will beexplained to the PAPs for their selection. The parties shall sign a compensation certificate which will clearly describe the mode and scope of the compensation, as well as the responsibilities of the parties.



12. MONITORING ARRANGEMENTS

One of the main fields relevant for this RPF is the envisaged prevention/ avoidance and mitigation of potential land/ resettlement risks, relating to the following broad areas of monitoring:

Reduction through family/community validation of the number of farmers involved in the project whose participation is undermined by land tenure insecurity;

Higher levels of participant effort and investment due to relief from tenure insecurity;

Reduction of the number of disputes concerning land involved in the project

Appropriate M&E indicators in this perspective would be:

a) Number of Ministry and service provider staff trained in identification of land tenure issues and implementation of land activities under the project.

b) Percentage of participants and local authorities reached with sensitization messages regarding land activities, and the extent to which key messages are understood.

c) Percentage of cases in which family/community validation was completed successfully.

d) Percentage of cases involving new planting in which survey and tribal certificates were successfully obtained.

e) Percentage of participants in the project whose participation is threatened by disputes.

f) Percentage of cases in which land disputes threatened project participation but were effectively resolved by the project.

The M&E for land activities would need to be carried out as an integral part of the overall M&E strategy for the project and implemented by those responsible for the overall M&E program.

Indicators for monitoring preparation and implementation of activities for an RPF or resulting (A) RPs would comprise the following.

Establishment and cost of PIU unit dealing with land/ resettlement issues (manned by a shared responsibility with environmental issues);

Establishment and cost of county/ project area specific land/ resettlement units; Establishment and cost of Land/ Resettlement Management Committees at

national and local levels;

Number and cost of meetings per year (PIU/ project records);

Number and cost of consultations with communities, project affected people and other stakeholders conducted at different levels/ project areas per year;

Number and cost of inventories conducted per sub project/ per year; Number of valuations conducted per sub project per year; Number and cost of compensations handled per sub project per year;



Number and cost of grievance redress activities conducted per sub project per year;

Number and cost of legal cases per sub project per year; Number and cost of capacity building activities conducted per sub project per

year.



13. DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS

The Resettlement Policy Framework when completed will be widely disclosed. Methods that can be employed for the disclosure may include the following:

(i) Distribution of copies to different institutions in project areas and relevant to the project.

(iii) Conduct of meetings and workshops for discussion of the plan. The meetings and workshops will be conducted at various places including the place where the resettlement will take place.

(iv) At the World Bank Infoshop and Web sites of the implementing agencies (MOA etc.) and the MOA local offices.

(iv) Newspaper advert placement, public notification at the national, county and chiefdom levels, institutional notice boards etc.

In addition, comments received as part of this disclosure would be incorporated into the RPF or project implementation manual. It should be noted that this is a living document and that in the event that any significant change(s) is required, the implementing agency would develop an addendum to the original document. The addendum will address all new issues related to impacts and compensation.



References

Bruce, John W. (International Consultant) & Boakai N. Kanneh (National Consultant), 16 Febr 2011, Reform of Liberia’s Civil Law Concerning Land. A Proposed Strategy, Report to the Land Commission (Final)

Fannoh, Reginald W. James Ntozi, John A. Mushomi, Alfred B. Stevens, 2008, National Population & Housing Census Analytical Report On The Agricultural Data. A Draft Document, LISGIS

Republic of Liberia, Ministry of Agriculture, Announcement of prices for claims compensation for expropriation/ damaged major tree crops for 2009

Republic of Liberia, MOA/ WB, 2011, Proposed Smallholder Tree Crop Revitalization Support Project (STCRSP), March/April 2011 Pre-Appraisal Completion Mission, Final Aide-Memoire

Republic of Liberia, MOA/ WB, 2011, Smallholder tree crop revitalization support project (STCRSP), Technical Note, Pre-appraisal Completion Stage, July 2011

Republic of Liberia, Ministry of Finance, Administrative Regulation No. 7.2000-1/MOF/R/28 August 2009 to all owners of real properties, tax assessors, enforcers, and private and public appraisers

Wilcox, Michael D., 2007, Tree Crops to Ensure Income Generation and Sustainable Livelihoods in Liberia: Unlocking the potential of the cocoa sub-sector, R5. Market and Information Systems Report, Sustainable Tree Crops Program/ International Institute of Tropical Agriculture/ CGIAR, University of Tennessee Extension/ USAID

World Bank December 2001, revised February 2011: OP 4.12 - Involuntary Resettlement

World Bank, Dec. 2001, rev Feb. 2011: OP 4.12, Annex A, Involuntary Resettlement Instruments


ANNEXES

A. ADMINISTRATIVE ANNEXES

A-1: Terms of Reference

A-2: Itinerary and persons met/ Consultations held at Monrovia level

A-3: Consultations Held at Field Level

B. TECHNICAL ANNEXES

T1: Entitlement Matrix MOA for tree crop loss/ damage

T-2: Development of Resettlement (Action) Plans or Abbreviated Resettlement Plans

T-3: Implementation Process including Civil Works

T-4: Securing Smallholder Land Use Rights, STCRSP

ANNEX A-1: TOR

The TOR for the RPF are contained in the TOR for the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) to be carried out as part of the STCRSP. The relevant section on RPF (para 35) is bolded.

TERMS OF REFERENCE

SMALLHOLDER TREE CROP REVITALISATION SUPPORT PROJECT

SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

RESETTLEMENT POLICY FRAMEWORK

A. BACKGROUND

1. The Government of Liberia is exploring the feasibility of a World Bank supported agricultural development project – the Smallholder Tree Crop Revitalisation Support Project (STCRSP), with the principal objective of improving the income opportunities of poor farmers by a combination of rehabilitating unproductive farms, undertaking replanting and new planting programs, facilitating future replanting and development programs, and improved financing mechanisms and institutional arrangements. The proposed STCRSP has been identified in response to this request.

2. The main characteristics of the Liberian tree crop sector at present are the old age of plantations and their low productivity. There have been no significant replanting activities for the last twenty five years due to the war, and a large proportion of the country’s rubber and oil palm plantations are now at the end of their productive life, necessitating replanting. The main constraint to the implementation of a large scale replanting program, particularly for smallholders, is the lack of long term credit. This situation is consistent with the experience in other tree crop producing countries in Asia or Africa, where commercial banks are generally reluctant to provide long term credits to farmers for tree crops mainly due to the crops’ long gestation period (7 years for rubber, 3-4 years for oil palm and cocoa), the perceived high credit risk and the lack of collateral.

B. THE PROPOSED PROJECT

3. The proposed project will be the first, preparatory stage of a long term pro-poor growth program focused on developing the tree crop sector. Specifically, it will be aimed at preparing future large scale tree crop replanting and development programs by testing different replanting and new planting models and associated financing and implementation mechanisms, and strengthening the capacity of key public and private sector/civil society institutions involved in tree crop development. At the same time, the proposed project will also seek to have a short term impact on farmers’ revenues by supporting the rehabilitation of both immature and mature smallholder tree crop farms, which will generate additional revenues that farmers could subsequently use towards financing of replanting, thereby at least partially alleviating financing constraints.

4. The proposed project development objective would be “to increase poor tree crop farmers’ income opportunities by rehabilitating unproductive farms and supporting tree crop replanting and new planting, and by supporting preparation activities toward the future development of the tree crop sector and effective smallholder participation”. The proposed project will be the first, preparatory stage of a long term pro-poor growth program focused on developing the tree crop sector. The target group will be poor smallholders in the main country’s tree crop producing counties, with particular attention given to the participation of women.

5. The proposed project will contribute to national and local revenues through increased foreign exchange from tree crop exports and will directly benefit smallholder households through increased incomes from the rehabilitation of their tree crop farms. It will directly support Government of Liberia (GoL)’s policy for economic revitalization, based on the promotion of export oriented economic growth, through consolidating the role of the private sector, while also facilitating rural development, increasing rural incomes, and contributing to poverty reduction. Furthermore, the proposed project is also aligned with MoA’s priority of achieving a viable and sustainable Tree Crop Sector within the Liberia Agriculture Sector Rehabilitation Program (LASIP) under the framework of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP).

6. Proposed Project Description The main characteristics of the Liberian tree crop sector at present are the old age of plantations and their low productivity. There have been no significant replanting activities for the last twenty five years due to the war, and a large proportion of the country’s rubber and oil palm plantations are now at the end of their productive life, necessitating replanting. The main constraint to the implementation of a large scale replanting program, particularly for smallholders, is the lack of long term credit. This situation is consistent with the experience in other tree crop producing countries in Asia or Africa, where commercial banks are generally reluctant to provide long term credits to farmers for tree crops mainly due to the crops’ long gestation period (7 years for rubber, 3-4 years for oil palm and cocoa), the perceived high credit risk and the lack of collateral.

7. Project Scope. The proposed project will follow a two pronged approach: (i) rehabilitating existing mature and immature small tree crop farms, which will have a short-term impact by generating additional revenues that farmers could subsequently use towards financing of replanting; and (ii) supporting tree crop replanting and new plantings, using different models and associated financing and implementation mechanisms, while strengthening the capacity of key public and private sector/civil society institutions involved in tree crop development, with the aim of laying out the foundations for future smallholder tree crop development programs. It will be implemented over a period of four years in several districts of the country’s main tree crop producing counties.

8. The proposed project Components. The proposed project would include three components as follows:

9. Component 1 - Tree Crop Revitalization

10. Sub-Component 1.1 - Cocoa/Coffee Revitalization. The component would be implemented in the country’s three main cocoa & coffee producing counties, Lofa, Nimba and Bong, as shown below.

Lofa(ha)

Nimba(ha)

Bong(ha)

Total(ha)

Cocoa Rehabilitation a/ 6,000 5,000 1,000 12,000

Cocoa New Planting 1,000 1,000 2,000

Sub-Total Cocoa 7,000 6,000 1,000 14,000

Coffee Rehabilitation 1,000 1,000 500 2,500

Total Cocoa/Coffee 8,000 7,000 1,500 16,500a/ half the area under high input, half under low input

11. The component would be aimed at: (i) rehabilitating existing smallholder cocoa and coffee farms, according to two different models: (a) the low model input, consisting in under brushing, reducing the shade, weeding and pruning, without applying fertilizers and fungicides, and (b) the high input model, consisting in the same operations together with the application of fertilizers and fungicides for three years; (ii) supporting new plantings of cocoa as there are good market prospects and comparative advantage for cocoa in northern Liberia; (iii) to a lesser extent, rehabilitating existing smallholder coffee farms, as it would generate much less income than cocoa; and (iv) promoting improved cocoa/coffee marketing and value addition, including small scale processing (into cocoa butter or cocoa liquor and coffee powder) using adapted technologies.

12. This would include: the development of village nurseries and the maintenance of seed gardens, complementarily with other ongoing initiatives; supporting the organization and strengthening of farmers’ groups (farmers’ associations -FOs- and cooperatives) dealing with bulking, marketing and primary processing; the provision of training and technical and management advice to smallholders and their organizations; the construction (or rehabilitation) of warehouses and installation of solar dryers and procurement of quality control equipment (at section FOs, clan cooperatives and district cooperatives levels); the establishment of pilot processing plants at district level (including access to working capital) at district level; and limited feeder road rehabilitation and related small bridges and drainage structure, wherever it is critical to provide access to groups of farms (indicatively 100 km).

13. Under the low input model, even 40 to 50 years old cocoa trees can be rejuvenated. The production slightly declines during the year of rehabilitation but subsequent yields are much higher (from 250 kg/ha to 1000 kg of dry beans per ha). The high input model has been extensively applied in Ghana (more than 10,000 farmers) and much higher yields are reported after rehabilitation (up to 1,600 kg of dry beans per ha). The various crop models (rehabilitation with low or high input, replanting, and new planting) could be implemented simultaneously or during subsequent years on the same farm. It would depend on the available labor and financial resources as well as the condition of the trees.

14. The component would be implemented in partnership with NGOs and non governmental service/input providers, under contracting arrangements to be determined during project preparation. Since most cocoa farmers are also coffee farmers, the same implementing agency would deal with these crops jointly. Considering the limited labor requirement, farmers would provide their own labor for the rehabilitation or planting operations. Thus little external financing would be required for rehabilitating cocoa/coffee farms under the low input model (tools

package). Implementation of the high input model, however, would require the financing of inputs (mainly fertilizers and fungicides) through credit, that would be extended in kind by specialized input retailers. The supplier would be paid back by farmers in cash or in cocoa beans. The project would support the installation of such retailer(s) and/or the first year credit requirements. Credit and cost recovery mechanisms are still to be determined.

15. Sub-Component 1.2 – Smallholder Oil Palm Revitalization. The component would be implemented in the counties of Lofa, Bong, Nimba, Grand Gedeh and Grand Bassa, as shown below.

Rehabilitation (ha)

Replanting(ha)

Total(ha)

Smallholder Oil Palm Model in northern Counties a/

300 300 600

Smallholder Oil Palm Model in Grand Bassa ( in partnership with Concessionaire)

300 300 600

Total Oil Palm Component 600 600 1,200a/ Lofa, Bong, Nimba and Grand Gedeh

16. The smallholder oil palm model in the northern Counties refers to farmer run plantations without processing facilities (Foya plantation district in Lofa, Zleh Town and Debe plantations in Grand Gedeh, and Kpatawee plantation in Bong). It is envisaged that, during preparation, a detailed study on smallholder oil palm revitalization will review whether there are other similar farmer run plantations in Lofa, Bong, Nimba, and Grand Gedeh and will assess their potential for rehabilitation. Based on the outcome of the study, the area for rehabilitation (provisionally estimated around 600 ha) will be updated accordingly during appraisal. The inclusion of the smallholder oil palm revitalization model in Grand Bassa in partnership with a concessionaire (Libinco) would also need to be confirmed during appraisal.

17. The component would be aimed at: (i) rehabilitating old smallholder oil palm farms, which would consist in clearing the undergrowth (under brushing), weeding around the trees and between the rows, and applying fertilizers; (ii) supporting replanting of smallholder oil palm; (iii) supporting the organization of farmers’ groups and the provision of training and technical advice to small farmers; (iv) limited feeder road rehabilitation (access roads and related small bridges and drainage structure) wherever it is critical to provide access to groups of farms (indicatively 30 km); and (v) the promotion of small scale processing facilities for farmers’ run plantations where no mills are present and/or facilitate access to small scale processing technology and finance for interested private investors (SMEs), in collaboration with commercial banks and guarantee or equity funds.

18. The smallholder oil palm revitalization model in the northern Counties would be implemented in partnership with NGOs and private sector service input providers and processors under contracting arrangements to be determined during project preparation. The smallholder oil palm revitalization model in Grand Bassa would be implemented in partnership with the concessionaire/primary processor (LIBINCO/Equatorial Palm Oil) through out-grower type arrangements.

19. Farmers would provide their own labor and only a small grant would be needed for procuring a tools package for oil palm rehabilitation (credit under the out growers

model). Replanting would require the financing of land preparation (poisoning and felling old palms) and inputs (mainly seedlings and fertilizers) through credit. The project would finance the provision of extension services facilitation services in support of farmer group establishment and training, credit for land preparation and input provision for replanting, small scale processing facilities and the rehabilitation of small infrastructure. Smallholder credit and cost recovery mechanisms are still to be determined.

20. Sub-Component 1.3 – Smallholder Rubber Revitalization. The component would be implemented in the counties of Margibi and Maryland, as shown below.

Montserrado, Margibi, Bong(ha)

Maryland(ha)

Total(ha)

Proposed Operator or Concessionaire

MARCO SRC CRC

Rubber Replanting 400 1,000 1,400

Rubber New Planting 300 400 500 1,200

TOTAL Rubber 300 800 1,500 2,600

21. The component would be aimed at: (i) supporting replanting of existing smallholder rubber farms; (ii) new planting targeting smallholders who already have some rubber plots as well as newcomers in the sector, particularly women and youth; (iii) the provision of training and technical advice to smallholders (including for tapping techniques) and supporting the organization of farmers’ groups in rubber growing areas; and (iv) limited feeder roads rehabilitation and farm access roads development (and related small bridges and drainage structure), wherever it is critical to provide access to participating farms (indicatively 90 km).

22. The component would be implemented in partnership with concessionaires (primary processors) through out-grower type arrangements. Only the high input model would be supported, and would be based on the use of high quality stumps and of fertilizers during the immature period. Under such model, each participating rubber farm would be developed according the same technical standards as the concessionaire. Farmers would provide their own labor for replanting and planting operations. Replanting and new planting would require the financing of land preparation, labor (under the high input model only) and inputs (mainly fertilizers) through credit. A grant element would be introduced to lower the establishment cost (planting year), particularly the seedlings costs. Smallholder credit and cost recovery mechanisms are still to be determined.

23. Component 2 – Institutional Capacity Building and Preparation of Future Large Scale Smallholder Tree Crop Development Programs.

24. The component would aim at: (i) building and/or strengthening the capacity of the main public and private institutions involved in project planning, coordination and implementation, particularly: the MoA’s Program Management unit (PMU), of which the project coordination team would be part; MoA’s technical divisions at HQ and targeted MoA County offices; the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) at HQ and county level; targeted County offices of institutions responsible for land allocation and registration, including the Land Commission and the National Archives; and other implementation partners supporting smallholders, notably agriculture research

institutions; and (ii) preparing future large scale smallholder tree crop development programs before the completion of the proposed project and building on its lessons learned.

25. Sub-component 2.1: Institution building. Capacity building of MoA and CDA staff would target technical staff involved in the project planning, coordination and monitoring and evaluation (M&E), both at Headquarters (HQ) and county level. A training of trainers (ToT) approach would be used. A rapid assessment of staff skills and training needs would be carried out. Training would tackle the following domains: economic development and empowerment of FOs/cooperatives; financial management and procurement; policy and project design; agronomic issues related to tree crops; computer literacy; training of FO facilitators. Support to MoA County offices. The project would contribute to the strengthening of the seven targeted County Agricultural Offices (CAC) in order that these effectively exercise their promotion, planning, coordination and M&E role of projects’ activities in their respective county. This would include: field allowances to carry out sensitization or supervision activities; a contribution to procuring the necessary field equipment or transport means (motorbikes); and associate running costs of the CAC office. Support to CDA. Similarly, as the CDA has a key role to play in the promotion of FOs/cooperatives, the project would strengthen CDA’s operational capacity to deliver its services through its current five offices at county level. This would include support for: procuring necessary transport means and office equipment for field offices and associate running costs; and field allowances for HQ and field offices staff in order to deliver training, business development and managerial advice to FOs/ cooperatives. Support to the Land Commission at county level. The project would complement ongoing support received by the Land Commission in order that its county offices could adequately expedite the issuance of land titles or deeds to participating smallholders. That would include: support to carrying out land surveys; and a contribution to the equipment of county offices, operating costs and field allowances. Support to adaptive tree crops research. Proposed activities would be linked to the tree crops sector and could cover: the establishment and maintenance of seed gardens (cocoa & coffee), in collaboration with other ongoing programs; refurbishing facilities for soil testing, germplasm production, biological analyses, etc.; support to adaptive research on tree crops, including socio-economic issues; training of scientists up to Masters or Doctorate level if needed; exchange visits to neighboring countries and regional agricultural research institutions; and scientific coaching and organizational advice through national and international consultants. Support to the MoA Program Management Unit (PMU)6. The project would contribute to the setting-up and effective performance of the PMU, of which the STCRSP coordination team would be part. This would encompass a contribution to the staffing of top managers of the PMU (PMU Manager, Financial Advisor, and Procurement Advisor) and associated operating costs of the PMU.

26. Sub-component 2.2: Preparing future large scale smallholder tree crop development programs. This would include: (i) the preparation and validation of Master Plans for all targeted tree crops. Plans would detail strategic options for development, scope, detailed activities, operational modalities, costing, as well as phasing. During this process, a national tree crops database including a GIS system would be established to better reflect the current situation of tree crops at national and

6 The PMU has been established within MoA with the support of various donors including World Bank, USAID, EU, AfDB, etc, with the aim of providing the Ministry with the capacity to manage and coordinate all donor funded projects.

county levels (acreage, number of farmers, size of farms, status of trees, localization, etc.); (ii) the elaboration and validation of a National Policy/Strategy for Farmers Organizations and Cooperatives development: this would comprise technical assistance from a specialized international consultant, setting up and support to a core country drafting team, and organization of validation workshops; and (iii) the preparation of a large scale smallholder tree crop development program encompassing the following activities: mid-term review of the proposed STCRSP; detailed feasibility studies, notably building upon the strategic options and conclusions of the adopted tree crops master plans; and final evaluation of the STCRSP to make sure lessons learned from phase I would be integrated in the larger scale program.

27. Component 3 - Project Coordination, Management, Monitoring and Evaluation.

28. Sub-component 3.1: Strategic Planning and Coordination and Implementation support. This would comprise two main groups of activities: (i) Support to Steering Bodies. That would include: the organization of project launching workshops at county and national level; supporting regular coordination meetings at County level (under the responsibility of the CAC) assembling representatives from all stakeholders involved in the agricultural sector and particularly in tree crops development; an operational support to the National Project Steering Committee; and (ii) Support to the Project Coordination Unit (PCU). The coordination, management, monitoring and evaluation of project activities would be under the responsibility of a specific team, to be established within and reporting to MoA central Project Management Unit (PMU). The team would include a limited number of highly qualified and motivated staff, consisting of a project coordinator, one or two specialists (agronomist or agro-economist, capacity building specialist), finance, M&E, procurement and administration staff, to be selected on a competitive basis. The responsibilities for financial management and procurement, however, would be located under the Project Financial Management Unit (PFMU) in MoF, until the capacity of the PMU is assessed as being adequate. It would encompass: a contribution to the staffing costs of the PCU (Project coordinator; Planning and M&E officer; Institution development officer; Agri-business officer; Information, education, communication and knowledge sharing officer, Accountant; and administrative support staff); the procurement of necessary transport means and of computer/office equipment; staff training and exchange visits; office operating costs of the PCU; the installation of a project accounting and management software and of management control tools; and short term technical assistance in key areas relevant to project implementation.

C. THIS CONSULTANCY

Purpose and Objectives

29. The broad purpose of the Social Impact Assessment is to ensure inclusion and participation, empowerment, transparency and accountability, security and effective implementation through analysis of social opportunities, constraints, risks and sustainability of the Project.

30. The Social Impact Assessment must serve as guidance during project preparation to adjust and if necessary re-design project activities with the active support and involvement of individuals and groups that will potentially be the beneficiaries or otherwise affected by the STCRSP activities. There will be an Environmental Assessment conducted at the same time as the Social Assessment consultancy. The

Consultant is to provide professional technical services (“the services”) to undertake a Social Impact Assessment, with the objectives to:

a. Ensure that the views and perceptions of all key stakeholders are considered during project design and implementation through a participatory framework.

b. Increase opportunities for optimizing social and economic development outcomes through identification of Project beneficiaries and their needs, ideas, and expectations.

c. Verify the validity and outcomes of the consultation process that has given rise to the proposed project components.

d. Examine possibilities for effective community participation within the Project components.

e. Identify and propose mitigation measures for any adverse social impacts which might be caused by the Project.

f. Identify any social issues of potential impact on the project design and implementation, and propose measures to deal with these.

g. Identify any issues relating to land tenure, ownership and/or dispute that may impact on the project design and implementation, and propose strategies and measures to deal with these.

31. This assessment shall give special attention to significant variations (if any) among the various indigenous/ethnic groups by identifying the various communities, consulting with them and assess potential project impacts, both positive and adverse. Specific social mobilization and joint consultation/planning arrangements should be adapted to particular socio-political conditions existing in the main project counties, to allow decision making to be inclusive and ensure equity in access to benefits.

32. The assessment should also comprehensively analyse the background issues and factors outlined hereto in Attachments 1 & 2. These include:

land access, ownership and sustainability; stakeholder analysis; socio-cultural, historical and political dimensions; social targeting, participation and empowerment; gender and social diversity; vulnerability, social risks and HIV/AIDS; institutions, rules and behaviour; communication, accountability and transparency; social benefits, risks and outcomes; and legislative and regulatory issues.

Scope of Services

33. To reach the above objective, the Consultant will undertake a study which will involve the following:

a. Conduct, jointly with the Environmental Assessment consultant, fact-finding workshops in each of the project areas and in Monrovia. The client (MoA) will assist with the physical organisation of these workshops. In Monrovia the audience should comprise ‘higher level’ participants (e.g. relevant Government departments, academic & research institutions, donors, NGOs, etc.).

b. Conduct, in each of the project areas, a workshop and “fact-finding” consultative meetings and interviews with county, district and community representatives, farmer associations and coops, women's groups, NGOs and other relevant stakeholders including donor agencies, academic and research institutions operating in these areas. The workshop audience should comprise the main STCRSP stakeholders (e.g. farmers – both tree crop and other, concession holders, plantation growers, processing companies, county council representatives, district committee representatives, women’s groups, clan representatives, NGOs, and religious groups. This will inform planning for the stakeholder analysis and will determine: (i) the needs and desires of potential project beneficiaries, including women’s specific requirements, if any; (ii) the potential positive and negative impacts that could result from project interventions; (iii) consultation processes and participatory strategies; and, (iv) criteria for selection of project beneficiaries.

c. Carry out a Stakeholder Analysis, including: (i) stakeholder identification and determination of their stakes, strengths, and needs. Issues that affect stakeholders must encompass all of the social, economic, land, ethnic and cultural aspects as outlined in Attachments 1 & 2. The analysis will have to map (including a situational analysis of ethnic and cultural differences, the various ethnic groups development prioritisation, the relations between the various ethnic and social groups, and gender aspects), the ethnic fabric/composition in the project area in order to identify and enable the STCRSP to address the needs of identified groups. (ii) The analysis must explore ways and criteria by which farmers and other stakeholders could participate voluntarily and equitably in STCRSP activities in order to realise their expectations and opportunities. (iii) The role to be played by the farmers' and other stakeholders' principal social organisations (i.e., women’s groups, community groups of women, district committees, religious groups, growers associations, village committees, NGOs, and CBOs) also needs to be examined. The aim is to ensure that the Project’s core activities (increased sustainable tree crop production) are acceptable and beneficial to, the target beneficiaries.

d. Conduct a Beneficiary Assessment and subsequently prepare a Beneficiary Participation Framework (BPF). The BPF will have 2 parts (i) propose a framework for beneficiary participation in project implementation & management in order to encourage the sustained involvement of smallholders involved in rubber, cocoa and oil palm based farming systems and;. (ii) propose a similar framework for beneficiaries who are not involved in rubber, cocoa or oil palm production but could potentially benefit from organized communities interactions with service providers and identify measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate or compensate any adverse effects. The framework will also include an outline of grievance procedures, monitoring and evaluation arrangements and the budget for implementing the planned measures.

e. A household-level baseline survey will be required for the monitoring of social impacts and to measure Project performance during and after the implementation period. The actual data collection, analysis and report of the survey will not have to be part of the Social Impact Assessment. The Social Impact Assessment must, however, provide a detailed framework and operational instruments, such as action plan, units of analysis, questionnaires, checklists for group discussions, staffing plan, costing etc, for the household baseline survey. The design of the survey will be based on the findings of the stakeholder analysis, and the survey will be an

integral part of the system for monitoring socio-economic performance under the Project, which is described in the Social Impact Assessment (below).

f. Conduct an Institutional Assessment of the capacity, relationships, roles and behaviour of the various institutions representing the smallholder farmers, both formally and informally at national, county and district levels. For instance, there should be an institutional capacity assessment of farmer cooperatives, associations, village committees, NGOs and other such groupings with respect to how they may be utilised to improve the development and well-being of smallholder farmers7. The assessment should also look at the relationship (information flow, decision making, coordination and collaborations etc) of these locally-based organizations with national-based organizations and how the existing relationships affect their respective operations and roles in the proposed project.

g. As part of the institutional assessment, review the current arrangements regarding (i) participation in the decision making process relating to equitable service provision by relevant industry organisations, farmer coops and associations, plantations, concession holders, processing companies, and export companies, and (ii) equitable access to the benefits from the support to smallholder farm rehabilitation and planting, extension services, infrastructure and other benefits to be delivered by the Project and make recommendations for possible improvements.

34. Based on the above, develop the Social Assessment Report which should

(i) Propose guidelines for adopting a socially sustainable project design -these guidelines must be based on stakeholders equitable access to available project activities in consideration of their economic, social, ethnic, and gender differences to ensure inclusion regarding decision making and equity in access to benefits.

(ii) Formulate key socio-economic and social accountability indicators for project monitoring and evaluation.

(iii) Include in the Social Assessment report socio-economic performance indicators for evaluating the implementation of the Project; the latter have to be created taking the stakeholders/beneficiaries considerations into account.

(iv) Recommend any necessary changes to the proposed project design and/or implementation arrangements.

(v) Prepare Gender and HIV/Aids plans indicating how gender and HIV/Aids issues will be addressed during project implementation.

The Resettlement Policy Framework

35. The project triggers the World Bank safeguards policy on involuntary resettlement; OP 4.12 This requires the preparation of a resettlement policy framework (RPF) since the specific locations for the project are not known until during implementation. The consultant should prepare a Land Acquisition (to further assess acquisition of land by concessionaires and NGOs the project intends partnering with) and Resettlement Policy Framework according to World Bank and GoL guidelines. The consultant must also investigate possible

7 The Institutional Assessment should be integrated as much as possible with work being undertaken by the Farmer Organisations/Extension Specialist under a separate project preparation consultancy. The consultant should liaise with the MoA Project Coordinator and the World Bank Task Team Leader on this matter.

problems in the Project areas that might arise from ‘ex-combatants’ and others illegally occupying land. The RPF should include the following key issues besides the background: (Refer to the World Bank Policy OP4.12 for guidance)

Project Description Legal and institutional policies and guidelines World Bank safeguards Policy (OP 4.12) Socio-Economic survey (tap from the bigger survey) Estimated population and categories of affected People Eligibility criteria for various categories of affected people Entitlement matrix for resettlement /compensation Methods for Valuing Assets Organizational arrangements and procedures for delivery of entitlements Methods for consultations with project affected people (PAPs) Grievance Redress Mechanism Budget and funding arrangements Implementation schedule and monitoring arrangements - Template for designing resettlement action plan (RAP).

Please Note that the RPF is a requirement for Appraisal and should be completed and disclosed prior to appraisal.

Methodology and Data Collection Instruments

36. The consultant shall apply or employ both qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection. The qualitative methods should include but not limited to, literature reviews, current participatory methods of data collection like focus group discussions, informant interviewing, conventional interviews, observant participation, community meetings and workshops. In addition, they should provide the rationale for the sampling protocols employed, including criteria for research sites and selection of respondents, for all data collection activities for the entire set of activities including the stakeholder analysis.

Composition, Profile and Expertise of Consulting Team

37. The actual makeup of the consulting team will depend to an extent upon the range of skills and experience. However, it is expected that it may at least comprise members covering the following areas:

a. Social Assessment Specialist/Team Leader:

Responsible for providing overall team coordination and leadership, the Social Assessment Specialist will also have primary responsibility for undertaking all aspects of Section 3.1 under “Scope of Services” above. He/she will have:

Compulsory

A post graduate qualification in sociology, anthropology, or similar;

A minimum of ten years professional experience, with at least three of those working in the West Africa region;

Detailed knowledge of World Bank Safeguards Policies, especially OP 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement;

Strong communication skills in spoken and written English; and

A strong track record, with experience and demonstrated skills in preparing social assessment reports for international development projects.

Preferred

Self motivated, dynamic and able to relate easily in an international and multi-cultural environment.

Considerable professional experience in Liberia.

b. Social Development Specialist:

The Social Development Specialist will work closely with the Social Assessment Specialist and will have especial responsibility for coordinating the local survey teams in the consultations and local assessment process. He/she will have:

Compulsory

A graduate qualification in sociology, anthropology or similar;

A minimum of five years professional international development experience, with at least two of those working in the West Africa region;

Strong communication skills in spoken and written English; and

A strong track record, with experience and demonstrated skills in organising and conducting community social surveys at the ground level.

Preferred

Self motivated, dynamic and able to relate easily in an international and multi-cultural environment.

Knowledge of social and customary structures, systems and issues in Liberia

Considerable professional experience in Liberia.

Knowledge of local languages.

c. Social Survey Team

An experienced local survey team will be recruited by the consultant to assist with the social survey work.

Consultant Inputs

38. It is expected that the following consultant inputs will be required:

Position Total Weeks Work8

Social Assessment Specialist 15

Social development Specialist 11

Social Survey Team (6 people * 8 weeks) 48

Administrative Arrangements

39. The Consultant will ultimately report to the PMU Director but will report on a day to day basis to the PIU Project Preparation Coordinator. He/she will also liaise closely with the World Bank Task Team Leader or anyone appointed by him. The work will

8 These inputs have been reduced, following contract negotiations 17-18/06/2011, inter alia to 8.57 weeks (60 days) for Social Assessment Specialist (Team leader) and to 6 weeks for the survey.

be conducted in close collaboration with MoA, other relevant Government agencies both in the field and in Monrovia (eg Ministries for Gender Development and Health & Social Welfare, research institutions, etc), and other representatives of the sub-sectors. The Consultants will work with the PIU based within the PMU of MoA, including with the Program Coordination Adviser, who will provide guidance to the consultants in country and ensure that the consultants’ inputs meet the requirements of Government and those of the World Bank. MOA will provide guidance and logistic support (as defined under the Consultants contract) to the Consultant, who will also receive guidance from the World Bank.

Deliverables

40. The Consultant will be required to produce a number of reports as outlined above. The reports must present the study’s findings and define proposals for each of the critical issues identified. The main documents are:

Workshop Report addressing social issues from national and county level;

Social Assessment Report; which should have specific sub reports on stakeholder analysis, institutional assessment, a gender plan, and HIV/AIDs Plan in addition to all other inputs spelt out in the detailed TOR.

Beneficiary Assessment Report and Beneficiary/Stakeholder Participation Framework;

Resettlement Policy Framework; and

Project Area Survey reports (for each proposed project area)

41. The reports must first be submitted in draft form to MoA and the World Bank, which will provide comments and decide upon wider distribution. Following comments on the draft reports, the consultant will prepare the final documents.

Timetable

42. The total duration of the consultancy will be about 12 weeks, which could include about 2 weeks for desk review, about 6 weeks for field activities, and about 4 weeks for writing the required reports.

43. The estimated timetable for the assignment will be around the following period:

Desk Review: Early June, 2011

Field Visits: Mid June to mid July 2011

1st draft of reports: End July 2011

Final draft (incorporating comments from MoA, World Bank, and relevant stakeholders and organisations): Mid August 2011

1.0 FACILITIES & INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CLIENT

44. The Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) will designate a suitably qualified and experienced officer to act as counterpart for the study and to assist with liaison and coordination with meetings etc. The MoA Project Management Unit (PMU) will also provide ongoing support and assistance for the team, especially with administrative issues and required documentation.

45. Otherwise, the Consultant will be required to source and fund its own office accommodation, equipment and transport.

46. In order to facilitate the study, the consultant will be made available with the following documentation concerning the sector and the project:

• Aide Memoires and Working papers produced by the FAO/WB July/August 2010 Preparation Mission and November/December 2010 Pre-Appraisal Mission.

• Draft WB Project Appraisal Document (PAD) -including its annexes.

• Data from the Ministry of Public Works (Infrastructure Unit), the International Labor Organisation (ILO), the World Bank, and Liberia Institute of Statistics & Geo-Information Service (LISGIS), with regards to the road sector (including feeder roads), notably ongoing/planned projects, rehabilitation methods, costs, road maps etc.

• Available sectoral background documentation, including; the National Medium Term Investment Programme (NMTIP) and a Bankable Investment Project Profile on tree crops prepared in 2006 in the framework of CAADP; the 2007 Comprehensive Assessment of the Agriculture Sector; the 2008 Diagnostic Trade Integrated Study (DTIS); the Liberia Agricultural Sector Investment Plan (LASIP) recently presented at the ECOWAS Business Review Meeting in Dakar on 14 June; the 2008 National Food Security & Nutrition Strategy; a recently prepared National Agriculture Policy; and the draft Agro-Industry Strategy that was discussed on at a stakeholders workshop on 20 July 2010.

• Relevant documentation gathered from NGOs and other stakeholders during the Pre-Preparation and Preparation missions, as well as any other document considered relevant by the FAO TTL, the World Bank TTL or the PMU Director.

Consultant Guidance and Feedback

47. In order to ensure that the consultant adequately meets the project objectives the following briefings/consultations will be required:

i. Prior to the start of the desk review: a briefing from the World Bank TTL and relevant Bank Social staff regarding detailed requirements of the assignment;

ii. Following submission of draft reports: in addition to obtaining written feedback from GoL and World Bank, the Consultant will be required to participate in a consultation meeting with GoL and World Bank representatives to discuss the draft findings and to ensure that the next steps are clearly understood and agreed.

ANNEX A-2: ITINERARY AND CONSULTATIONS AT NATIONAL LEVEL

MISSION ITINERARY Date Place Activity

Initial Phase in MonroviaSu 24/07 Monrovia Team leader, flight to MonroviaMo 25/07 Meetings: AEDE, Briefing at MoA, TL ESMFTu 26/07 National Holiday (Independence Day), reading documents, Team

discussionsWe 27/07 Logistics arrangements, meeting with survey team AEDETh 28/07 Guidance to AEDE survey team; participation in ACC meeting/ MoAFr 29/07 AEDE management/ funding issues; planning of SIASa-Su/30-31/07

Preparation of Inception report

Mo 01/08 Monrovia Elaboration/ submission of draft inception report + methodological annex by SDS;Meetings in AEDE (team meetings, follow-up to field survey done by Mr. Peters and team); further discussions for revision of meetings at level of Monrovia (national stakeholder consultation, briefing with MOA) and field work schedule;Meeting with “Core Design Group” of MoA, briefing on the assignments (ESMF+SIA), discussions; preparation for joint (ESMF+SIA) national stakeholder workshop;

Tu 02/08 Meeting with CDA; fine-tuning/ further revision of itinerary and methodology for Inception report; further preparation of national level Stakeholder Workshop at MoA (joint ESMF/ SIA);

We 03/08 Finalisation of methodology for revised workplan/ budget/ inception report; preparation of presentation for national stakeholder consultation (at MoA scheduled for Thursday, 04/08)

Th 04/08 National level Stakeholder Workshop – ESMF + SIA jointly c/o MoA; presentation of methodology (Inception Report);

Fr 05/08 Meeting at AEDE, discussion of field phase in light of comments from stakeholders; adaptation of tools, division of labour, logistics; debriefing of ESMF team

Sa-Su 06-07/08

Further elaboration of field tools, methodology, reading of documents;

Mo 08/08 Monrovia Meeting with WB consultants (pre-appraisal completion) team and PPC (FAO, social specialist WB Accra, land consultant, Washington) at AEDE: discussion of methodology, TORs, urgent request for advancing the RPF; integration of SIA with technical survey; revision of methodology

Tu 09/08 Team meeting: methodology/ tools for qualitative studies of SIA; discussion with land consultant on critical land issues, revision of tools; Revision of methodology/ logistics for field work, team splitting: TL on priority basis working on RPF; SDS and team preparing for adjusted field itinerary;

Team splitting: Field team on the ground, TL working from MonroviaField team Team leader

We 10/08 Mobilization for field work of a team of 9: Social Development Specialist, field agronomist and 7 socio-technical interviewers

We 10/08 Margibi County

Travel to Margibi County: - Meeting with District. Commissioner at Weala;- Meeting at SRC: interviews with Deputy Plantation Manager and Personnel manager;

- stay overnight in Kakata

Priority activities relevant for RPF:Meeting at Ministry of Public Works; meeting at Ministry of Finance, Real estate tax division;

Th 11/08 - FGD at Weala, Cinta District ( 18 farmers);- Interview 1 female clan chief;

Meeting at LISGIS, GIS data base, 2008 Census data on rural population, tree crops;

- Meeting with executives of Rubber Brokers Union (NARBFUL) in Kakata

Meeting at Ministry of Lands, land policy;Meeting at Ministry of Internal Affairs, research division;Meeting at Land Commission, land and resettlement issues;Meeting at LISGIS follow-up on data;Meeting with Liberia Cocoa Corporation;

Fr 12/08 - FGD with 8 farmers;- individual interview of 8

farmers;- individual interview: 1

female town chief in - Proceed to “Botota”: FGD

with 16 cocoa/coffee & rubber farmers:

- individual interviews at Gbenequelle (6 persons) and Gbalukpala...

Meeting at Liberia Refugee, Repatriation and Resettlement Commission;

Sa 13/08 Bong County

- travel to “Gbarngah”: stakeholder consultation with 24 persons;

- stay overnight

Elaboration of 0 draft of RPF

Su 14/08 Nimba County

- Travel to Saniquellie (stay overnight)

Elaboration of 0 draft of RPF

Mo 15/08 - Meeting with Nimba County commissioner, Asst. supt. for dev. and the CAC at Saniquelle;- FGD with cocoa 4 and rubber 23 farmers at Ganta;- consultative meeting with Bain-Garr dist. Commissioner at Ganta;

Submission of 0 draft of RPF

Tu 16/08 - Meeting at COCOPA with plantation manager;

- Travel to Yarsonnoh: interviewed 12 farmers;

- Meeting with District Commissioner;

- Travel to Karnwee: FGD with 20 cocoa farmers of the Kwakeseh farmers Assoc.

- Travel to Sacklepea: market day, no farmer meeting possible (stay overnight)

Continuation of regular SIA activities:Participation in Presentation to MOA extended design group of pre-appraisal completion mission’s revised project document (FAO consultant, WB consultants)

We 17/08 From Saclepea split into 2 teams:- Team 1 travel to Butuo: FGD with 17 cocoa and 2 rubber farmers; - Team 2 travel to Tengbehin: interview of 23 farmers;- overnight in Saclepea

Meeting with Tom Walton, WB staff on safeguards, ESMF, RPF, SIA, telephone conference with TL of ESMF at WB office with PPC

Th 18/08 Grand Gedeh County

- Travel to Zleh Town: FGD with cocoa farmers;- consultative meeting with AMENU farmers’ Coop. society executives (3); - Meeting with field supervisor of AEI;- overnight in Zleh town

Data collection at LISGIS; meeting with RPAL; meeting with ACDI/VOCA, LIFE project;

Fr 19/08 River Gee - Travel to Zwedru: Meeting with IITA/ STCP;

County stakeholder meeting could not be held;

- Rest of team travelled to Konobo District: FGD (17) at Tuglor (17 farmers;

- Individual interviews (7); - Travel to Sennitru town:

interviewed 6 farmers; - overnight in Zwedru

Contact with SIDA on new project including tree crops;

Sa 20/08 River Gee County

- Travel to Fishtown, proceed to Freetown: meeting with CRC out-grower manager to Freetown;

- FGD with75 persons: elders, chiefs, youth groups, women groups, and farmers from 8 communities;

- overnight in Fish town

Reading of documents, reporting

Su 21/08 Maryland County

- Travel from Fishtown to Maryland County, Pleebo town: FG meeting with CRC mgt. staff, buying agents, farmers, outgrowers and farm owners(21);- individual interviews (3)-overnight at Pleebo

Reading of documents, reporting

Mo 22/08 - consultative Meeting with CRC managing Director and Outgrower manager;- Travel to Harper, County capital: consultative meeting with CAC, AO, County superintendent, mayor and protocol officer;- overnight in Pleebo

Meeting at MOA; meeting at Ministry of Youth; meeting at MARCO; meeting at EU;

Tu 23/08 - Travel from Pleebo to Ganta Public holiday (election referendum), reporting

We 24/08 - Travel from Ganta to Monrovia

Public holiday (election referendum), reporting

Th 25/08 Montserrado County

- Travel to rubber concession in the morning, Todee District, MARCO’s farm: FGD;- travel to Pleemu community: FGD and individual interviews;- return to Monrovia

Travel with Team to Montserrado, meeting with concessionaire and stakeholders (15 farmers, et als.); meeting at Pleemu community, focus group with farmers (12);Return to Monrovia

Fr 26/08 - Travel to Montserrado county office: meeting with CAC and staff;

- Return to Monrovia

Meeting with UNDAF (UNDP, ILO, etc.);Meeting at Ministry of Gender;Meeting with USAID;

Sa-Su 27-28/08

Reading of documents, reporting Reading of documents, reporting

Mo 29/08 Grand Bassa County

- Travel to Buchanan, County stakeholder workshop

- stay overnight in Buchanan

Travel with team to Buchanan, stakeholder consultation at county level (CAC), focus group discussion with 18 people (11 men, 7 women) incl farmers (6 men, 5 women);Return to Monrovia

Tu 30/08 - Travel to EPO Oil Palm concession: consultative meeting with Managing Director and environmental officer of plantation;- Rest of team proceed to communities of “Kota”, “Juah”, “Harmonville”, “Little Kula”: meeting with farmers;

Meeting with Ministry of Planning; Meeting with LISGIS;Meeting with LRDA;

- Return to MonroviaTeam re-united in Monrovia

We 31/08 Monrovia Team meeting at AEDE: results of field work, preparation of team presentation next day; Meeting with NARBFUL;Meeting on HIV/AIDS (NACP/ Ministry of Gender);Meeting with Buchanan Renewables & Farm Builders;

Th 01/09 National Stakeholder Workshop at MOA: Presentation of preliminary results of SIA, discussion;Meeting with LPMC;

Fr 02/089 Team meeting at AEDE, organization of work plan, division of labour, debriefing – departure of TL back to Europe;

TL and key Expert at home base – local team working in LiberiaSa 03/09 – Tu 13/09

Monrovia Local team stays in Liberia for data analysis at AEDE;

Mo 05/09 – 25/09.

Germany/ Ghana

Entire SIA team: elaboration of field results; SDS Expert to elaborate SIA qualitative study results in Ghana; key experts from Ghana and Liberia with local field team to elaborate findings of socio-economic survey; TL in Germany to coordinate and to elaborate revised RPF and comprehensive draft SIA.

STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AT NATIONAL LEVEL

A. MOA Stakeholder Meeting 04/08/2011Name Function Organization Tel.

Johansen VokerManager: Planning, Policy and Legal Affairs

Environmental Protection Agency 06520042

Brian Caoute Co-founder Farmbuilders, Sinkor, Monrovia 077075010Isaac D. Smith Officer Farmbuilders, Sinkor, Monrovia 06405529Morris M. Koffa CEO Africa Environmental Watch (NGO) 02404172545Eric Opoku Programme Officer UNDP, Monrovia 08808235Masaneh Bayo Gender Officer UNDP, Monrovia 06579251

Stephen Ntow Consultant Child Survival UNICEF, Monrovia 0880640892

Henry Danso Programme Officer ILO, Monrovia 06914382

Martha E.G. Lukens Technical Support Officer IITA/ STCP, Monrovia 077985608

Candace Eastman Chief Marketing Office AEI, Monrovia 077112465

Richelieu Deputy Minister Ministry of Agriculture 06786068Sizi Z. Subah Zinnah Deputy Minister TS Ministry of Agriculture 06557104Paul Jallah Assistant Minister Ministry of Agriculture 06471166Edward B. Perry Director/Extension Ministry of Agriculture 077011985

James K. Morlu Sr. Agriculture Officer Ministry of Agriculture 0880552012

Daniel Wrayee Assistant Director Crop Ministry of Agriculture 077040333

Daxenous G. Tyah Agronomist Ministry of Agriculture 0765508779Daniel Korfeh Technical Assistant Ministry of Agriculture 0637456Moses Sinnah Director PMU Ministry of Agriculture 06420955Kwasi Poku PPC STCRSP Ministry of Agriculture 0667826

B. PARTICIPANTS OF STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATIVE WORKSHOP AT MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE -- September 1, 2011

# Name Organisation Phone Email1 George S. Weefor BNF/MOA 6652587/ georges [email protected] 2 Annie Demen AEDE 06571375/ [email protected] David W. Peters AEDE 06419769/ [email protected] Emma Owiredu AGRER 0880681985/ [email protected] Kwasi Opoku AEDE 0880951576/ [email protected] Archibald B. Amah AAL 0776852508/ [email protected] Mark S. Sherman Bucco BAC 0776320730/ [email protected] Francis W. Mwah MOA 06400878/ [email protected] Henry N. Goffa MOA 0777026242/ [email protected]

10 Daniel Wrayee MOA 0777040333/ [email protected] Jerry N. Blamo LAFA 0777349685/

12Maxwell S. B. Nimely AEDE 06542605/ [email protected]

13 Lodean C. Teage LRDA 06523576/

14Augustus Fahnbulleh MOA -Quarantine 06439982/ [email protected]

15 P. Arthur Logan LRDA 0880661332/ 16 Andrew Kovarik Winrock Int'l 0880641440/ [email protected] Winstone Nkhoma Samaritan's Purse 06135817/ [email protected] Tom G. Koenig RAA 06549319/ [email protected] Chloe Brown OICI 06704199/ [email protected] Moses Zinnah MOA/PMU 06420955/ [email protected] Stanley W. Toe Land Commission 077738240/ [email protected] John O'Connell MOA/PMU 0880841975/ [email protected] Boima Bafaie EPO-Liberia 06550599/ [email protected] Ken Hasson USAID -Liberia 077727789/ [email protected] Bill Massaquoi USAID 077553373/ [email protected] Martha Lukens STCP/ITTR 077985608/ [email protected]

27Kamal Bhattacharyya CRS 06787371/ [email protected]

28 Esther Paegar AEDE 06510684/ [email protected] Michael D. Titoe MOA 06517569/ [email protected] Ousman S. Tall MOA 06517202/ [email protected] Dominic Sobreh WIENCO 0880807654/ [email protected]

32 Kwasi PokuMOA/PMU/STCRSP 06678266/ [email protected]

33 Suliman V. Kamara ACDI/VOCA 077936134/ [email protected] Samuel Odura-Asare WIENCO 0880845446/ [email protected] Alfred C. Kargbo MARCO 0880666409/ 36 Sidi M. Jarju Childfund Liberia [email protected] Alex Dennis Childfund Liberia 06440645/ [email protected]

38Mafoi Dennis -Metzger

MOA /Disabled Farmers/youth 06103231/ [email protected]

39 W. W. Koon LEDFC 06542133/ [email protected] Adolfo Cires Alonso EU 07731776/ [email protected] Apodeboe T. Barwu MOF 06429165/ [email protected] Princetta Varmah MOF 06547865/ [email protected] Roger Sherman RPAL 06514373/ [email protected] Emery Dennis RPAL 06512289/ [email protected] Obetoe Kerkulah CDA 06660463/ 46 Harris B. Wennie CDA 06535314/ [email protected] Dehpue Zuo LIMPAC 06749530/ [email protected]

C. Individual Meetings Held in MonroviaDate Name Affiliation Tel. Email2-Aug G.Momoh

TulayCooperative Development Agency, Registrar General

6 842201, 6 518759

[email protected]

8-Aug Marc Fantinet FAO/TCI, Rome +39-06-57056855

[email protected]

Beatrix Allah-Mensah

Social Development SpecialistWorld BankAccra Office

Tel: +233-30 221 4120Cell:+233-20-8111121

[email protected]

Zongmin Li Senior Economist, Land and Development Solutions International (LADSI)

+1-703-4856209 [email protected]

10 Aug Sebastian A. Weah

Director, Ministry of Finance, Real Estate Tax Division

7-77 250560,5-458250

[email protected]

11 Aug Dr. T. Edward Liberty

Director General, LISGIS 6-519628, 2-7311001

[email protected], [email protected]

Thomas L. Davis

Director, GIS, LISGIS 6-550678 [email protected], [email protected]

Kormay Adams Assistant, LISGIS 6-709694 [email protected] Peter W. Kuw Je

Assistant, LISGIS 880-658385 [email protected]

George Miller Asst. Minister, Ministry of Lands

[email protected]

Wilmot G. Kokulo

Director, Research & Planning, Ministry of Internal Affairs

7-77 26362 [email protected]

MacArthur M. Pay-Bayee

Executive Director, Land Commission

6-545113 [email protected]

Momolu Tolbert

CEO & Founder, Liberia Cocoa Corporation


12 Aug Kojo N. Ross Liberia Refugee, Repatriation and Resettlement Commission, Asst, Program Officer

6-529703, 7-7529703

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


















17 Aug Thomas E. Walton

Environmental Consultant, Africa Region, World Bank

+1-301-758 1537, +1-240-478 4839

[email protected]

18 Aug Roger Sherman President, Rubber Planters Association of Liberia

6-514 373 [email protected]

Suliman V. Kamara

Dty Chief of Party, ACDI-VOCA Liberia

7-7936134, 6-594698

[email protected]

19 Aug Dr Amare Tegbaru

Country Rep and Project Manager Liberia, IITA


Martha Lukens Technical Support, IITA 7-77985608 [email protected] Jonathan B. Birbri

Program manager, IITA 6-553754 [email protected]

22 Aug James K. Morlu MOA 6-518572 [email protected] Ousman S. Tall Asst Minister of Planning

and Development, MOA6-517202 [email protected]

Edward Perry Director of Extension, MOA

Sam Hare Dep. Minister of Youth Development, Ministry of Youth & Sports


Manfred E. Jones

Administrator, MARCO 7-77408460 [email protected]

Francis Ngafwa Comptroller, MARCO 6-515286 [email protected]

26 Aug Dominic Sam UNDP Country Director 880-60365 [email protected] Abdulai Jalloh Programme Specialist

MDGs, UNDP6-418786 [email protected]

Yvonne Wolo Program Analyst/ Governance, UNDP


Wellington Jah Program Assistant, UNDP


L. Beato UNMIL/ HRPS-DHCHR 6-991425, 5-319082

[email protected]

Samuel Quermorllue

ILO 6-427610 [email protected]

Joseph K. Boiwu

Asst Rep. (Prog), FAO 880-416035 [email protected]

Samuel S. Peter Program Assistant, FAO 6-544070 [email protected]

Anthony Borley Ministry of Gender and Development, Director of Policy

Michael L. Boyd

USAID, Senior Economic Growth Officer


30 Aug Mulbah B. Sayka

Planning Officer, Regional and sectoral Planning Department, Ministry of Planning & Economic Affairs


Sidiki Quisia MOPEA, County 6-756671























development officerWilliam G. Miller

Senior Planning Officer, Regional Planning, MOPEA


Joseph Zangar Bright, Jr.

Pillar Technical Advisor – GRL, Liberia Reconstruction & Development Committee (LRDC), MOPEA


Dorothy D. Johnson

Senior Demographer, LISGIS


Loden Tenge Sr.

Liberia Rubber Development Authority, National Coordinator (LRDA)

6-523576

Daniel Barday LRDA 6-417205 [email protected] P. Arthur Togar LRDA, Operation Officer 880-661332

31 Aug James W. Sayekea

President, NARBFUL 6-436655 [email protected]

Roland Kaine Senator 6-522009, 7-6520719

[email protected]

Jansay Jones National AIDS Conrol Program, Dty Program Manager, M&E


H.H. Zaizay National Program Officer, Gender and HIV, Ministry of Gender and Development

[email protected]

Brian Caouette Co-Founder, Farmbuilders


1 Sept Nyangbeanquoi A. Yoko

Liberia Produce Marketing Corporation (LPMC), Agriculture Manager













ANNEX A-3: LIST OF PEOPLE MET DURING FIELD CONSULTATIONS

No. Name Sex Position Organization Contact Type of meeting

County Venue Date

1. Willie Cooper M AO Margibi Consultation Margibi Kakata 10-Aug2.

Tarr Sackie MDist Commisioner Cinta Consultation Margibi Weala 10-Aug

3. Jallah Mensah M P & PR Manager SRC Consultation Margibi Weala 10-Aug4. Shanil Allppy M Dep Pt. Mgr SRC Consultation Margibi Weala 10-Aug5. James W. Saykpea M Nat. President NARBFUL 6436655 Workshop Margibi Kakata 11-Aug6. Tues G. Davis M Vice President NARBFUL 76440465 Workshop Margibi Kakata 11-Aug7. Safiyatu Fahnbulleh Field Inspector NARBFUL 6776482 Workshop Margibi Kakata 11-Aug8. Chester Nyan M Coordinator NARBFUL 77203237 Workshop Margibi Kakata 11-Aug9. Lorpu G. Nupolu F Depot monitor NARBFUL 6892429 Workshop Margibi Kakata 11-Aug10. Menleker N. Dolo Depot monitor NARBFUL 6331710 Workshop Margibi Kakata 11-Aug11. S. Augustine Siafa M Field Inspector NARBFUL 76556735 Workshop Margibi Kakata 11-Aug12. Hellen K. Noimini F Security NARBFUL 6912410 Workshop Margibi Kakata 11-Aug13. Lord-Nentor Gaye M Co. Inspector NARBFUL 6657009 Workshop Margibi Kakata 11-Aug14. Biawoe J. Tiatun Statistical Clerk NARBFUL 6475920 Workshop Margibi Kakata 11-Aug15. Musu Yango F Clan Chief Cinta 6485865 FGD Margibi Weala 11-Aug16. Konah Jarwo M Township Clerk Cinta 6535836 FGD Margibi Weala 11-Aug17.

Joetta Clinton FDep. Com. officer Cinta 6481211 FGD Margibi Weala 11-Aug

18. Musu Waito F Peace Council Cinta 6463996 FGD Margibi Weala 11-Aug19. Anthony S. Varnie M Gen. Town chief Cinta 77951721 FGD Margibi Weala 11-Aug20. John Cornad M Gen. Town chief Cinta FGD Margibi Weala 11-Aug21. William Benda M Town chief Cinta 880943281 FGD Margibi Weala 11-Aug22. Thomas Swary M Town chief Cinta FGD Margibi Weala 11-Aug23. John Yoryor M Youth leader Youth 880193025 FGD Margibi Weala 11-Aug

24. Famatta Gornor F Women Leader Konoquelleh FGD Margibi Weala 11-Aug25. Dargon Diton M Gen. Town chief Konoquelleh 6874255 FGD Margibi Weala 11-Aug26. Tumu Sackie F Women Leader Wiah clan FGD Margibi Weala 11-Aug27. Esther Harmon F Women Leader Wiah clan FGD Margibi Weala 11-Aug28. Norwa Kerkula F Women Leader Wiah clan 6687997 FGD Margibi Weala 11-Aug29. Roland Deyelih M Town chief Weala 76295882 FGD Margibi Weala 11-Aug30. Joseph Tengbeh M Farmer Cinta 6371229 FGD Margibi Weala 11-Aug31. Yeh Cooper M Farmer Cinta FGD Margibi Weala 11-Aug32. Musu Yango F Clan Chief Cinta 6485865 KII Margibi Weala 11-Aug33. J. Madason Tarplain M Co. Coordinator NARBFUL 6460418 Workshop Bong Gbarnga 13-Aug34. Abraham Gbanyan M Dept Coord. NARBFUL 6463174 Workshop Bong Gbarnga 13-Aug35. J. E. Woods M Dep. operations NARBFUL 6344068 Workshop Bong Gbarnga 13-Aug36. Richard Neingor M Estate manager LPMC 6682186 Workshop Bong Gbarnga 13-Aug37. D. AlexanderTonolah M Student 777986711 Workshop Bong Gbarnga 13-Aug38. Naynpu Tonorlah F Farmer Workshop Bong Gbarnga 13-Aug39. Quitea Flomo F Chief caretaker Workshop Bong Gbarnga 13-Aug40. Harloh Konrata F Care taker Workshop Bong Gbarnga 13-Aug41. Tennea Borkai M Care taker Workshop Bong Gbarnga 13-Aug42. J. Flomo Binda M 6607687 Workshop Bong Gbarnga 13-Aug43. Yata B. Freeman F Financial Sec Women Org 6672615 Workshop Bong Gbarnga 13-Aug44. Nat M. Queelyne M Project planner MIA 6656570 Workshop Bong Gbarnga 13-Aug45. Prince J. S. Kainah M Adm. Clerk MIA 880982264 Workshop Bong Gbarnga 13-Aug46. Anthony B. Sheriff M Dev. Supt MIA 6721125 Workshop Bong Gbarnga 13-Aug47. Henry G. Kleeme M CAC MIA 6463826 Workshop Bong Gbarnga 13-Aug48. J. Cammue Dormea M Adm. Assistant MIA 6446626 Workshop Bong Gbarnga 13-Aug49. Olivia Weeto F President Women Org 6426308 Workshop Bong Gbarnga 13-Aug50. Sarah Luss F 6727592 Workshop Bong Gbarnga 13-Aug51. Miatta Kollie F Farmer Kpaar 6930356 Workshop Bong Gbarnga 13-Aug52. Joseph V. Kolleh M Farmer MIA 6446709 Workshop Bong Gbarnga 13-Aug

53. Samuel E. Jaylor M 6426451 Workshop Bong Gbarnga 13-Aug54. Theresa Voker F Women Coord. BCWO 6472974 Workshop Bong Gbarnga 13-Aug55. Fleed G. George M Farmer Farming 6841856 Workshop Bong Gbarnga 13-Aug56.

Peter O. Saiweah MAst. Supt for

Dev GoL 77248231 Consultation Nimba Saniquelleh 15-Aug57. N. Samuel Kehleay M CAC GoL 6481927 Consultation Nimba Saniquelleh 15-Aug58. Christiana Dagadu F County. Supt GoL 6405120 Consultation Nimba Saniquelleh 15-Aug59. Hon. Shirley F.

Brown FDs. Commissioner GoL Consultation Nimba Ganta 15-Aug

60. Rebecca Sayekea F Farmer NARBFUL 6870441 Workshop Nimba Ganta 15-Aug61. Marron Sippi F Farmer NARBFUL 6479738 Workshop Nimba Ganta 15-Aug62. Kou Sippi F Farmer NARBFUL Workshop Nimba Ganta 15-Aug63. G. Kehneah Maiway M Farmer LRFU 880753482 Workshop Nimba Ganta 15-Aug64. Moses Fineboy M Farmer LRFU 6842328 Workshop Nimba Ganta 15-Aug65. T. T. Moore M Farmer LRFU 880518069 Workshop Nimba Ganta 15-Aug66. Francis N. Kahn M Farmer NARBFUL 6258292 Workshop Nimba Ganta 15-Aug67. Yah Karn F Farmer NARBFUL 6258292 Workshop Nimba Ganta 15-Aug68. Tommy Wondeyee M Farmer NARBFUL 6727022 Workshop Nimba Ganta 15-Aug69. James N. Monker M Farmer NARBFUL 6318188 Workshop Nimba Ganta 15-Aug70. Amelia Luogon F Farmer NARBFUL 6495947 Workshop Nimba Ganta 15-Aug71. Sundaymah Ben F Farmer NARBFUL 6191904 Workshop Nimba Ganta 15-Aug72. A. Laysegon Kontuah M Farmer NARBFUL 6311458 Workshop Nimba Ganta 15-Aug73. Labala V. Fong M Farmer NARBFUL 6584474 Workshop Nimba Ganta 15-Aug74. James N. Yeanay M Co. Coordinator NARBFUL 77013694 Workshop Nimba Ganta 15-Aug75. Kelvin N. Zuweh M Admistrator NARBFUL 6325976 Workshop Nimba Ganta 15-Aug76. Kou Walker F Farmer NARBFUL 880550693 Workshop Nimba Ganta 15-Aug77. Rita Gbatu F Farmer NARBFUL 6858293 Workshop Nimba Ganta 15-Aug78. Amelia Bullah F Farmer NARBFUL 6432244 Workshop Nimba Ganta 15-Aug79. Lawrence Guannue M Farmer NARBFUL 6403285 Workshop Nimba Ganta 15-Aug

80. Sharon Phew F Farmer NARBFUL 77663754 Workshop Nimba Ganta 15-Aug81. Mark Kartuah M Farmer NARBFUL 6432955 Workshop Nimba Ganta 15-Aug82. Joseph Walley M Coordinator FoCS 6648555 Workshop Nimba Ganta 15-Aug83. Dahn Tiatun M Coordinator Buu-yao 6717197 Workshop Nimba Ganta 15-Aug84. Naomi Gono F Farmer Yarmah Clan 6850005 Workshop Nimba Ganta 15-Aug85. Saye Suah M Farmer Yarmah Clan Workshop Nimba Ganta 15-Aug86. Joseph J. Bowier Sr. M Plantation Mgr. COCOPA 6516765 Consultation Nimba Cocopa 16-Aug87. Augustus Zomie M Town Chairman Kwakeseh As. FGD Nimba Karnwee 16-Aug88. Adophus Nyamiller M Quarter chief Kwakeseh As. FGD Nimba Karnwee 16-Aug89. George Karndea M Member Kwakeseh As. 6334716 FGD Nimba Karnwee 16-Aug90. Joe Karndea M Member Kwakeseh As. 76528506 FGD Nimba Karnwee 16-Aug91. Michael Nyamiller M Member Kwakeseh As. FGD Nimba Karnwee 16-Aug92. Kou Tuopleyee F Member Kwakeseh As. 6657056 FGD Nimba Karnwee 16-Aug93. Anthony W. Vaye M Member Kwakeseh As. 880726784 FGD Nimba Karnwee 16-Aug94. Gideon Saye M Member Kwakeseh As. FGD Nimba Karnwee 16-Aug95. Thomas Dahngbay M Member Kwakeseh As 77890425 FGD Nimba Karnwee 16-Aug96. Johnson Saye M Member Kwakeseh As FGD Nimba Karnwee 16-Aug97. Rachel Quee F Member Kwakeseh As FGD Nimba Karnwee 16-Aug98. Peter L. Dahn M Member Kwakeseh As 76698258 FGD Nimba Karnwee 16-Aug99. Alfred Flumo M Member Kwakeseh As FGD Nimba Karnwee 16-Aug100. Johnson Obantor M Member Kwakeseh As FGD Nimba Karnwee 16-Aug101. J.allenton Brown M Member Kwakeseh As 76523352 FGD Nimba Karnwee 16-Aug102. Dahn Gbantor M Member Kwakeseh As FGD Nimba Karnwee 16-Aug103. John Bartuah M Member Kwakeseh As FGD Nimba Karnwee 16-Aug104. Rufus Sayekeh M Member Kwakeseh As 76180303 FGD Nimba Karnwee 16-Aug105. David Kolakeh M Member Kwakeseh As FGD Nimba Karnwee 16-Aug106. Dorithy Zoemie F Member Kwakeseh As FGD Nimba Karnwee 16-Aug107.

Torman P. Woyah MBusiness manager Sehwordouh FGD Nimba Buutuo 17-Aug

108. Howard Myers F Farmer CHAP FGD Nimba Buutuo 17-Aug109. Arthur Johnson M Farmer Sehwordouh FGD Nimba Buutuo 17-Aug110. Patrick Mongrue M Farmer Sehwordouh FGD Nimba Buutuo 17-Aug111. Robert Toe M Farmer Sehwordouh FGD Nimba Buutuo 17-Aug112. George Tomah M Farmer Sehwordouh 77969323 FGD Nimba Buutuo 17-Aug113. Duo Yabah M Farmer Sehwordouh FGD Nimba Buutuo 17-Aug114. Voker Tweh M Quarter chief Sehwordouh FGD Nimba Buutuo 17-Aug115. James Barlee M Farmer Sehwordouh 77916949 FGD Nimba Buutuo 17-Aug116. Youdee Sehdegor M Farmer CHAP FGD Nimba Buutuo 17-Aug117. Prince Nayean M Farmer Sehwordouh 77213153 FGD Nimba Buutuo 17-Aug118. Peter Y. Tomah M Farmer Sehwordouh FGD Nimba Buutuo 17-Aug119. John Tomah M City major Sehwordouh 77828293 FGD Nimba Buutuo 17-Aug120. Stephen Lartee M Farmer Sehwordouh FGD Nimba Buutuo 17-Aug121. V. K. Leah F Quarter chief Sehwordouh FGD Nimba Buutuo 17-Aug122. Jessie Quamie M Quarter chief Sehwordouh FGD Nimba Buutuo 17-Aug123. Obed Mongrue M Farmer Sehwordouh FGD Nimba Buutuo 17-Aug124. Henry Donsuah M Farmer Sehwordouh FGD Nimba Buutuo 17-Aug125. Johnny Teuhn M Farmer Sehwordouh FGD Nimba Buutuo 17-Aug126. Bestman Geneyom M Chairman AMENU Co-op 0880645965 Consultative Grand

GedehZleh town 18-Aug

127. Fred S Scott M General. Sec. AMENU Co-op 0880876452 Consultative Grand Gedeh

Zleh town 18-Aug

128. Macarty Zleh M Fld. supervisor AEI Consultative Grand Gedeh

Zleh town 18-Aug

129. Roland Jallah M Secretary Konobo MPCS 880425206 FGD Grand Gedeh

Tuglor 19-Aug

130. Harris Tarley M Member Konobo MPCS FGD Grand Gedeh

Tuglor 19-Aug

131. Mark Tarlue M Member Konobo MPCS FGD Grand Gedeh

Tuglor 19-Aug

132. Eric Tarley M Member Konobo MPCS FGD Grand Tuglor 19-Aug

Gedeh133. Jerry Tarley M Member Konobo MPCS FGD Grand

GedehTuglor 19-Aug

134. Patiences Duolo F Member Konobo MPCS FGD Grand Gedeh

Tuglor 19-Aug

135. Addison Duolo M Member Konobo MPCS FGD Grand Gedeh

Tuglor 19-Aug

136. Comfort Doulo F Member Konobo MPCS FGD Grand Gedeh

Tuglor 19-Aug

137. Annie Joeway F Chair Lady Konobo MPCS FGD Grand Gedeh

Tuglor 19-Aug

138. Sopheia Gweayee F Member Konobo MPCS FGD Grand Gedeh

Tuglor 19-Aug

139. Lucy C. Duolo F Member Konobo MPCS FGD Grand Gedeh

Tuglor 19-Aug

140. Peter gaye M Elder Konobo MPCS FGD Grand Gedeh

Tuglor 19-Aug

141. Morris Gwah M Member Konobo MPCS FGD Grand Gedeh

Tuglor 19-Aug

142. Charles Seoh M Member Konobo MPCS FGD Grand Gedeh

Tuglor 19-Aug

143. Ophelia Yarh F Member Konobo MPCS FGD Grand Gedeh

Tuglor 19-Aug

144. Wulue Nyeneon F Member Konobo MPCS FGD Grand Gedeh

Tuglor 19-Aug

145. William Nyeneon M General Chief Konobo MPCS FGD Grand Gedeh

Tuglor 19-Aug

146. Blayee K. Wallace M Teacher Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug147. Foster Nyanlue M Agri-

extensionistFree Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug

148. Harry N. Teah M D. Commisioner Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug149. Kayo Wallace M Paramount Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug

chief150. Hilary N. Watkins Sr M D. Clerk Free Town 6443520 FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug151. Patrick Zuoh M Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug152. Dickson Sayee M Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug153. Kaserate Ernest M Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug154. Eric Nyanway M Township Clerk Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug155. Dedie Nyensoah Leopard Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug156. Ben Teah M Soloblo FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug157. Noma Yehichale F Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug158. Morris Massah M Leopard Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug159. Nyenaoh George M Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug160. Papago George M Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug161. Alfred Boone M Youbor FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug162. Sunday Saylee M Elder Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug163. Anthony Nyanway M Elder Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug164. Jacob Nenneh M Elder chairman Youbor FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug165. Joseph Wallace M Sch Principal Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug166. Philiip Saylee M Elder chairman Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug167. Matthew Teah M Elder speaker Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug168. Isaac Saylee M Elder Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug169. Ben Klayou M Elder Leopard Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug170. Daniel Nyenaoh M Elder Marklah FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug171. Samuel Wonploe M Elder Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug172. Alphonso Weeker M Elder Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug173. Nathaniel Teah M Elder Sarkor FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug174. Zele Johnson M Elder Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug175. Emmanuel Karty M Elder Sallah Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug176. Gnenaho Koulayou M Elder Leopard Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug177. Betty Bannie F Woman group Soloblo FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug

178. Beatrice Waylee F Woman group Leopard Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug179. Lucy Nowon F Woman group Youbor FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug180. William Youty M Youth Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug181. Christ Nyensoah M Youth Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug182. Sussanah Saylee F Elder woman Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug183. Joseph Youty M Elder woman Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug184. Theresa Nyenaoh F Elder woman Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug185. Doris Doleh F Elder woman Marklah FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug186. Evan Saylee F Elder woman Leopard Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug187. Martha Barway F Woman group Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug188. Alphonso Nyanlue M Township Com Harrisville FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug189. Kwiah Solo M Sarkor FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug190. Edward Yarlee M Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug191. Milton Shard M Youth president Youbor FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug192. Augusine Bacuss M Teacher Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug193. Emmenson Pouh M Youth Youbor FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug194. Agerline Walker F Youth Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug195. Harrison Wayee M Youth Genekaro FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug196. Promise Wallace F Youth Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug197. Ekrele Kimounee Youth Leopard Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug198. Leen G. Mutari Youth Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug199. Gnekote Felicite F Youth Leopard Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug200. Eliza Teah F Elder woman Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug201. Jerome Saylee M Youth Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug202. Tuo Takouo Jeannot Elder Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug203. Thomas Djera M Youth Marklah FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug204. Alexander Karty M Clan chief Sallah Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug205. Jerome Youty M Messenger Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug206. Toh Wallace Youth Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug

207. Rita Gaye F Farmer Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug208. Seka Tarty Farmer Youbor FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug209. Thomas Youty M Farmer Youbor FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug210. Amos Bletty M Farmer Youbor FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug211. Alfred Youty M Farmer Youbor FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug212. Joe Kayee M Youth Youbor FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug213. Laurence Williams M Farmer Youbor FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug214. Stephen Teah M Farmer Free Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug215. Francis Kai M Farmer Youbor FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug216. Frank Teah M Farmer Soloblo FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug217. Barry Gare Louise M Youth Zlohn Town FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug218. Aaron Solo M Farmer Sarkor FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug219. Polosko Wesseh Farmer Youbor FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug220. Rebecca Youwah F Farmer Youbor FGD River Gee Free Town 20-Aug221. Thomas Nimely M Buying agent Pleebo 6333391 FGD Maryland Pleebo 21-Aug222. Jerome Wah M Buying agent Nayo Ent. 6519983 FGD Maryland Pleebo 21-Aug223. Emmanuel Young M Buying agent Pleebo 6852127 FGD Maryland Pleebo 21-Aug224. Gabriel Nemah M Owner Glomah farm 6531227 FGD Maryland Pleebo 21-Aug225. Augustine Nemah M Representative Glomah farm 6818896 FGD Maryland Pleebo 21-Aug226. George Nemah Jr. M Representative Glomah farm 880558575 FGD Maryland Pleebo 21-Aug227. Moses Kamah M Representative Brn & Mappy 6822440 FGD Maryland Pleebo 21-Aug228. Dio Neufville M Representative WVS Tubman 6601837 FGD Maryland Pleebo 21-Aug229. Darius S. Soseh M Representative WAT-1&2 6566147 FGD Maryland Pleebo 21-Aug230. Nyemah Doblah M Representative W. Wilson 880903423 FGD Maryland Pleebo 21-Aug231. Amos Dossen M Representative Pleebo 77397153 FGD Maryland Pleebo 21-Aug232. Elix H. Nyemah M Mobile buyer CRC 6671347 FGD Maryland Pleebo 21-Aug233. Quayee T. Toe M Mobile buyer CRC 6652894 FGD Maryland Pleebo 21-Aug234. Hartz B. Mark M Representative Pleebo 6822451 FGD Maryland Pleebo 21-Aug235. Peter Kollie M Mobile buyer CRC 6112698 FGD Maryland Pleebo 21-Aug

236. Gibson Niwon M Mobile buyer CRC 6632002 FGD Maryland Pleebo 21-Aug237. W. Yeabay Brown M Buying agent Pleebo 6208256 FGD Maryland Pleebo 21-Aug238. Africanus D. Reeves M outgrower Pleebo 880728552 FGD Maryland Pleebo 21-Aug239. B. Moses Freeman M Purch.

supervisorPleebo 6685802 FGD Maryland Pleebo 21-Aug

240. Ebenezer Teateh M Data clerk CRC 6272114 FGD Maryland Pleebo 21-Aug241. Alphonso B. Belleh M Manager CRC 6520257 FGD Maryland Pleebo 21-Aug242. Philippe Carty M Managing Dir. CRC 880802998 Consultation Maryland Pleebo 22-Aug243. Beatrice S. Bowman F CAC MIA 6538968 Consultation Maryland Harper 22-Aug244. Brown W. Slobut M Ari- officer MOA 880714285 Consultation Maryland Harper 22-Aug245. Henry Cole M Protocol officer MIA 6958314 Consultation Maryland Harper 22-Aug246. Regina W. Sampson F Mayor MIA 6597609 Consultation Maryland Harper 22-Aug247. J. Glehbo Brown M Superintendent MIA 6518054 Consultation Maryland Harper 22-Aug248. Samuel sims M Farmer Pleemu 6423806 FGD Montser-

rado Pleemu25 Aug

249. Johnny Wheaton M Teacher Pleemu FGD Montser-rado Pleemu

25 Aug

250. Joseph Sims M Farmer Pleemu 77106955 FGD Montser-rado Pleemu

25 Aug

251. Blomo Momo M Asst. Town chief Pleemu 6109776 FGD Montser-rado

Pleemu 25 Aug

252. Nathaniel Sims M Farmer Pleemu FGD Montser-rado Pleemu

25 Aug

253. Eric Sackie M Farmer Pleemu FGD Montser-rado Pleemu

25 Aug

254. Watta Kollie F Farmer Pleemu FGD Montser-rado pleeem

25 Aug

255. Alfred Sims M Farmer Pleemu FGD Montser-rado Pleemu

25 Aug

256. Nancy Lahai F Farmer Pleemu FGD Montser- Pleemu 25 Aug

rado257. Massa Johnson F Farmer Pleemu FGD Montser-

rado Pleemu25 Aug

258. Mama Kpammah F Farmer Pleemu FGD Montser-rado Pleemu

25 Aug

259. Edward Kollie M Farmer Pleemu FGD Montser-rado Pleemu

25 Aug

260. Noywah Kerkula F Farmer Pleemu FGD Montser-rado Pleemu

25 Aug

261. David G. Johnson, Sr M Superintendent Todee 6100493 FGD Montser-rado Todee

25 Aug

262. Manfred Jones M Adm/Marco Todee 777407400 FGD Montser-rado Todee

25 Aug

263. Stephen Sackie M Farmer Todee 77352570 FGD Montser-rado Todee

25 Aug

264. Bawoo Browne M Farmer Todee 6538950 FGD Montserrado Todee

25 Aug

265. George S. Yarsee M Farmer Todee 6528745 FGD Montserrado Todee

25 Aug

266. Diggs T. Barkollie Sr. M Farmer Todee 6467223 FGD Montserrado Todee

25 Aug

267. Joe Y. Gono M Farmer Todee 76135468 FGD Montserrado Todee

25 Aug

268. Edwin Kolleh M MARCO Adm supt

Todee 6124847 FGD Montser-rado Todee

25 Aug

269. Wiliam B. Mitchell M Farmer Todee 6062680 FGD Montser-rado Todee

25 Aug

270. Keymah Willie F Farmer Todee FGD Montser-rado Todee

25 Aug

271. Fonkor Willie M Farmer Todee FGD Montser- Todee 25 Aug

rado272. P. Amos S. Wankah M Farmer Todee 6925542 FGD Montser-

rado Todee25 Aug

273. Morris Kpannah M Farmer Todee 6770571 FGD Montser-rado Todee

25 Aug

274. J. Henry Gwee M Farmer Todee 6236242 FGD Montser-rado Todee

25 Aug

275. John David M Farmer Todee FGD Montser-rado Todee

25 Aug

276. Moses Kpannah M Farmer Todee FGD Montser-rado Todee

25 Aug

277. Vannay Kpannah M Farmer Todee FGD Montser-rado Todee

25 Aug

278. Boima Yahn M Farmer Todee FGD Montser-rado Todee

25 Aug

279. Williette Y. Nuquay F Farmer Todee 6533416 FGD Montser-rado Todee

25 Aug

280. Boima Korgbe M Factory manager

MARCO 77983828 FGD Montser-rado Todee

25 Aug

281. Alfred C. K. Argbo M Office manager MARCO 880666409 FGD Montser-rado Todee

25 Aug

282. Samuel Lawson M Felist MARCO 6751115 FGD Montser-rado Todee

25 Aug

283. Henry Gono M Admistrator Pleemu clan 6666206 FGD Montser-rado Todee

25 Aug

284. J. Ernest Gongar M Commisssioner Todee 6718014 FGD Montser-rado Todee

25 Aug

285. William Lyon Morris M Mgt Trainee MARCO 880723524 FGD Montser-rado Todee

25 Aug

286. Stephen Goba M Paramount Todee 6424036 FGD Montser- Todee 25 Aug

chief rado287. Napoleon S. C.

DennisM NARBFUL Todee 6772210 FGD Montserra

do Todee25 Aug

288. J. marshall Benjamin M Chairman Block-path 880666328 FGD Montser-rado Todee

25 Aug

289. Wesley F. Barker M Coordinator NARBFUL FGD Montser-rado Todee

25 Aug

290. Solomon S. Morris M Yarkpazud Todee 880563514 FGD Montser-rado Todee

25 Aug

291. John Vogbay M DAO MOA 6679257 Consultation Montser-rado Bensonville

26 Aug

292. Moses S. Davies M DAO MOA 6259041 Consultation Montser-rado Bensonville

26 Aug

293. Mulbah J. Bryant M CAC MOA 880648025 Consultation Montser-rado Bensonville

26 Aug

294. Moses Sackie M DAO MOA 6838255 Consultation Montser-rado Bensonville

26 Aug

295. James K. Massaquoi M Farmer G-Bag 77302402 FGD Grand Bassa

Buchanan 29 Aug

296. Alice Brown F Farmer # 4 District 6312739 FGD Grand Bassa

Buchanan 29 Aug

297. Tetee Kpakay F Farmer # 4 District FGD Grand Bassa

Buchanan 29 Aug

298. Edward S. Thilips M Farmer # 1 District 6110547 FGD Grand Bassa

Buchanan 29 Aug

299. Emma Morris F Farmer #2 District 777123426 FGD Grand Bassa

Buchanan 29 Aug

300. Janet kelee F Farmer # 4 District FGD Grand Bassa

Buchanan 29 Aug

301. Oretha Karpeny F Farmer # 3 District FGD Grand Buchanan 29 Aug

Bassa302. Clarence Carter

MData clerk Ministry of

Gender6940673 FGD Grand

BassaBuchanan 29 Aug

303. David MonseeM

Farmer # 3 District FGD Grand Bassa

Buchanan 29 Aug

304. T. Jonathan gbabloM

Social worker Ministry of Gender

880433422 Grand Bassa

Buchanan 29 Aug

305. Emmanuel OttoM

Field officer WOID # 2 District

6617736 FGD Grand Bassa

Buchanan 29 Aug

306. Joseph S. B GarbeM

Advisor M,A 777316082 FGD Grand Bassa

Buchanan 29 Aug

307. Martha C. TrehF

Executive Director

WOID 6431672 FGD Grand Bassa

Buchanan 29 Aug

308. Rufus N. JohnnyM

Accountant MOA 6124026 FGD Grand Bassa

Buchanan 29 Aug

309. Ceasar HarveyM

Farmer # 3 District 6525283 FGD Grand Bassa

Buchanan 29 Aug

310. Samuel WilliamsM

farmer # 3 District 77986473 FGD Grand Bassa

Buchanan 29 Aug

311. Sophia JohnsF

Social worker CWW 6353978 FGD Grand Bassa

Buchanan 29 Aug

312. Jacobs CarterM

CAC Concern 6511799 FGD Grand Bassa

Buchanan 29 Aug

313. Boima BafailM

Environ. Officer EPO-Liberia 6550599 FGD Grand Bassa

Buchanan 29 Aug

314. Preston MarshalM

DAD MOA 6978602 FGD Grand Bassa

Buchanan 29 Aug

315. Charles DavidM

Farmer # 3 District 77977868 FGD Grand Bassa

Buchanan 29 Aug

316. Joseph Kollie M Farmer # 3 District FGD Grand Buchanan 29 Aug

Bassa317. Moses Tawee M Farmer # 4 District 6787432 FGD Grand

BassaBuchanan 29 Aug

318. Robert Garpue M Farmer # 3 District 880515842 FGD Grand Bassa

Buchanan 29 Aug

319. George Sackie M Farmer # 3 District 6811150 FGD Grand Bassa

Buchanan 29 Aug

320. Moses Jabin M Elder Gbar Town Consultation Grand Bassa

Buchanan 30 Aug

321. Peter Bayliss M Managing Dir. EPO-Liberia 0880690545 Consultation Grand Bassa

Buchanan 30 Aug

ANNEX T-1: Entitlement Matrix MOA for tree crop loss/ damage

ANNEX T-2: DEVELOPMENT OF RESETTLEMENT (ACTION) PLANS OR ABBREVIATED RESETTLEMENT PLANS

Development of Resettlement Action Plans

In Resettlement planning, screening of sub-projects is used to identify the type and nature of potential negative impacts resulting from activities proposed under the project and provides adequate measures to address these impacts. Screening for resettlement issues shall be part of the environmental and social screening checklist, as is detailed in the Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF)and Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF). A Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) or an Abbreviated Resettlement Plan (ARP) (as required) shall be prepared by the MOA, preferably with the support of a Resettlement Consultant, for sub-projects that have been determined to result in negative impacts.

The steps to be undertaken for each individual Resettlement Plan (RAP /ARP) include a screening process; a socioeconomic census and land asset inventory of the area; and identification of Project Affected Persons (PAPs). This is followed by the development of a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) or ARP; RP review and approval; implementation of the RP (RAP or ARP) and monitoring of RP (RAP or ARP) implementation and success. The goal of screening is to identify and consider resettlement issues as early as possible.

Screening for Involuntary Resettlement

The general guidelines to determine whether a RP is required are as follows:• Sub-projects that would result in impacts that would not require land acquisition and would impact less than 10% of their assets would require the preparation of an ARP (see Figure 5.1).• Sub-projects with minor impacts (i.e if affected people are not physically d and less than 10% of their productive assets are lost or fewer than 200 persons (between 51 and 199 persons are affected) would require the preparation of ARP.• Sub-projects that would result in impacts that would require land acquisition would require the preparation of a RAP (see Figure 5.2).• Sub-projects with significant impacts (i.e if .affected people are physically d and more than 10% of their productive assets are lost or 200 or more individuals are affected) would require the preparation of a RAP

Development of Abbreviated Resettlement Action Plan

Public consultation and participation are essential because they afford PAP the opportunity to contribute to both the design and implementation of the project activities and reduce the likelihood for conflicts as well as increase benefits being realized by PAPs and the GoL. For this project to be successfully meaningful, effective and close consultation with local communities is a prerequisite.

In recognition of this, particular attention would be paid to public consultation with potentially affected individuals/households. Stakeholders for the purpose of this project shall be defined as all those people and institutions that have an interest in the successful planning and execution of the project. This includes all persons and

institutions positively and negatively affected by the project. To identify the key stakeholders, the table 5.1 below is developed.

All RPs will include a consultation form (see Annex…) to record all stakeholders’ consultations.The consultation process shall ensure that all those identified as stakeholders are consulted subject to PST’s approval. Information about the project will be shared with the public, to enable meaningfully contribution, and enhance the success of the STCRSP project.

Baseline and Socioeconomic Survey

An important aspect of preparing a RP is the collection of baseline data within the project targeted areas to better assess potentially affected communities. Once individual sub projects have been clearly identified, a site specific socio-economic study and census will be used in each case to collect base line data within the targeted areas thereby enabling the social assessment of potentially affected populations/communities, identify potentially affected people on the individual and household levels, vulnerable groups (women, children, the elderly, female headed households, internally impacted people, etc.) and to discourage inflow of people ineligible for assistance.

The socio-economic study would focus on the identification of stakeholders (demographic data), the participation process, identification of affected people (including owners and users of land) and impact on their property and their production systems, the institutional analysis and the system for monitoring and evaluation.

Detailed calculation of individual and household economies and identification of all imp Standard characteristics of the affected households, including a description of production systems, labour, and household organization, and baseline information on livelihoods (including production levels and incomes derived from both formal and informal economic activities) and standards of living and health status of the impacted population.

An electronic database will be developed to store all socio-economic data collected during the survey. All data collected will be disaggregated by gender to ensure women are active participants and beneficiaries of project activities, as well as ensuring women do not experience disproportionate negative impacts.

Photographs of PAPs and their assets will be taken to supplement identification and enable transparency with respect to material assets. The census survey will assist in preparing the sub-project plans for each PAP and his/her household and will be used to monitor the success of the RAP process.

The survey should have the minimum details (see Annex …for details)• Name and family particulars;• Demographic information on social classification, education and occupation of each family member;• Skill base/education level for each member;• Total family income (from all sources);

• Details of land ownership and extent of land loss due to the land; acquisition/negotiation (actual land ownership, and not only in terms of land records);• Details of income loss due to loss of land (if any);• Details of any structure or asset on the impacted land;• Identification of vulnerability (women-headed household, family with physically and mentally challenged members, family with aged members, family with income below poverty line and family losing more than the economic threshold of their land through acquisition/negotiation).

Review and Approval of Resettlement Plans

The Resettlement Plans (RPs) would then be forwarded for screening and approval to the MOA Project Coordinating Unit (PST) in compliance with the project institutional and administrative requirements. All approved sub-projects that trigger OP 4.12 and their respective sub-project RPs would be subject to the final approval of the World Bank to ensure compliance with the WB’s OP 4.12 guidelines ensuring that the subproject RPs are consistent with this RP Facts will be undertaken as part of the socio-economic study and be t determined in the potential compensation process.

Template for the Design of Resettlement Action Plan (RAP)

This template is extracted from OP 4.12 Annex A. Its full description can be found in the World Bank external website. The scope and level of detail of the RAP will vary depending on the magnitude and complexity of resettlement or displacement. The RAP is prepared based on the most recent and accurate information on the: (i) proposed resettlement and its impacts on displaced persons and other adversely affected groups; and (ii) legal issues affecting resettlement. The RAP covers elements that are specific to the project context.

A broad outline of the RAP, as applied to sub-projects covered under a RPF includes, but is not limited to, the following:

Description of the sub-project: General description of the sub-project and identification of sub-project area or areas.

Potential Impacts: Identification of the: (i) the sub-project components or activities that require resettlement or restriction of access; (ii) zone of impact of components or activities; (iii) alternatives considered to avoid or minimize resettlement or restricted access; and (iv) mechanisms established to minimize resettlement, displacement, and restricted access, to the extent possible, during project implementation.

Objectives: The main objectives of the resettlement program as these apply to the sub-projects.

Socio-economic studies: The findings of socio-economic studies to be conducted in the early stages of project preparation, and with the involvement of potentially affected people will be needed. These generally include the results of a census of the affected populations covering:(i) Current occupants of the affected area as a basis for design of the RAP and to

clearly set a cut-off date, the purpose of which is to exclude subsequent inflows of people from eligibility for compensation and resettlement assistance;

(ii) Standard characteristics of displaced households, including a description of production systems, labour, and household organization; and baseline information on livelihoods (including, as relevant, production levels and income derived from both formal and informal economic activities) and standards of living (including health status) of the displaced population;

(iii) Magnitude of the expected loss, total or partial, of assets, and the extent of displacement, physical or economic;

(iv) Information on vulnerable groups or persons, for whom special provisions may have to be made; and

(v) Provisions to update information on the displaced people’s livelihoods and standards of living at regular intervals so that the latest information is available at the time of their displacement, and to measure impacts (or changes) in their livelihood and living conditions.

There may be other studies that the RAP can draw upon, such as those describing the following:(i) Land tenure, property, and transfer systems, including an inventory of common

property natural resources from which people derive their livelihoods and sustenance, non-title-based usufruct systems (including fishing, grazing, or use of forest areas) governed by local recognized land allocation mechanisms, and any issues raised by different tenure systems in the sub project area;

(ii) Patterns of social interaction in the affected communities, including social support systems, and how they will be affected by the sub-project;

(iii) Public infrastructure and social services that will be affected; and(iv) Social and cultural characteristics of displaced communities, and their host

communities, including a description of formal and informal institutions. These may cover, for example, community organizations; cultural, social or ritual groups; and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that may be relevant to the consultation strategy and to designing and implementing the resettlement activities.

Legal Framework: The analysis of the legal and institutional framework should cover the following: (i) Scope of existing land and property laws governing resources, including state-

owned lands under eminent domain and the nature of compensation associated with valuation methodologies; land market; mode and timing of payments, etc;

(ii) Applicable legal and administrative procedures, including a description of the grievance procedures and remedies available to PAPs in the judicial process and

the execution of these procedures, including any available alternative dispute resolution mechanisms that may be relevant to implementation of the RAP for the sub-project;

(iii) Relevant laws ( including customary and traditional law) governing land tenure, valuation of assets and losses, compensation, and natural resource usage rights, customary personal law; communal laws, etc related to displacement and resettlement, and environmental laws and social welfare legislation;

(iv) Laws and regulations relating to the agencies responsible for implementing resettlement activities in the sub-projects;

(v) Gaps, if any, between local laws covering resettlement and the Bank’s resettlement policy, and the mechanisms for addressing such gaps; and

(vi) Legal steps necessary to ensure the effective implementation of RAP activities in the sub-projects, including, as appropriate, a process for recognizing claims to legal rights to land, including claims that derive from customary and traditional usage, etc and which are specific to the sub-projects.

The institutional framework governing RAP implementation generally covers:(i) Agencies and offices responsible for resettlement activities and civil society

groups like NGOs that may have a role in RAP implementation;(ii) Institutional capacities of these agencies, offices, and civil society groups in

carrying out RAP implementation, monitoring, and evaluation; and(iii) Activities for enhancing the institutional capacities of agencies, offices, and civil

society groups, especially in the consultation and monitoring processes.

Eligibility: Definition of displaced persons or PAPS and criteria for determining their eligibility for compensation and other resettlement assistance, including relevant cut-off dates.

Valuation of and compensation for losses : The methodology to be used for valuing losses, or damages, for the purpose of determining their replacement costs; and a description of the proposed types and levels of compensation consistent with national and local laws and measures, as necessary, to ensure that these are based on acceptable values (e.g. market rates).

Resettlement Measures: A description of the compensation and other resettlement measures that will assist each category of eligible PAPs to achieve the objectives of OP 4.12. Aside from compensation, these measures should include programs for livelihood restoration, grievance mechanisms, consultations, and disclosure of information.

Site selection, site preparation, and relocation: Alternative relocation sites should be described and cover the following:(i) Institutional and technical arrangements for identifying and preparing relocation

sites, whether rural or urban, for which a combination of productive potential, location advantages, and other factors is at least comparable to the advantages

of the old sites, with an estimate of the time needed to acquire and transfer land and ancillary resources;

(ii) Any measures necessary to prevent land speculation or influx of eligible persons at the selected sites;

(iii) Procedures for physical relocation under the project, including timetables for site preparation and transfer; and

(iv) Legal arrangements for recognizing (or regularizing) tenure and transferring titles to those being resettled.

Housing, infrastructure, and social services: Plans to provide (or to finance provision of) housing, infrastructure (e.g. water supply, feeder roads), and social services to host populations; and any other necessary site development, engineering, and architectural designs for these facilities should be described.

Environmental protection and management: A description of the boundaries of the relocation area is needed. This description includes an assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposed resettlement and measures to mitigate and manage these impacts (coordinated as appropriate with the environmental assessment of the main investment requiring the resettlement).

Community Participation: Consistent with the World Bank’s policy on consultation and disclosure, a strategy for consultation with, and participation of, PAPs and host communities, should include:(i) Description of the strategy for consultation with and participation of PAPs and

hosts in the design and implementation of resettlement activities;(ii) Summary of the consultations and how PAPs’ views were taken into account in

preparing the resettlement plan; and (iii) Review of resettlement alternatives presented and the choices made by PAPs

regarding options available to them, including choices related to forms of compensation and resettlement assistance, to relocating as individual families or as parts of pre-existing communities or kinship groups, to sustaining existing patterns of group organization, and to retaining access to cultural property (e.g. places of worship, pilgrimage centers, cemeteries); and

(iv) Arrangements on how PAPs can communicate their concerns to project authorities throughout planning and implementation, and measures to ensure that vulnerable groups (including indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities, landless, children and youth, and women) are adequately represented.

The consultations should cover measures to mitigate the impact of resettlement on any host communities, including:(i) Consultations with host communities and local governments;(ii) Arrangements for prompt tendering of any payment due the hosts for land or

other assets provided to PAPs;(iii) Conflict resolution involving PAPs and host communities; and

(iv) Additional services (e.g. education, water, health, and production services) in host communities to make them at least comparable to services available to PAPs.

Grievance procedures: The RAP should provide mechanisms for ensuring that an affordable and accessible procedure is in place for third-party settlement of disputes arising from resettlement. These mechanisms should take into account the availability of judicial and legal services, as well as community and traditional dispute settlement mechanisms.

RAP implementation responsibilities: The RAP should be clear about the implementation responsibilities of various agencies, offices, and local representatives. These responsibilities should cover (i) delivery of RAP compensation and rehabilitation measures and provision of services; (ii) appropriate coordination between agencies and jurisdictions involved in RAP implementation; and (iii) measures (including technical assistance) needed to strengthen the implementing agencies’ capacities of responsibility for managing facilities and services provided under the project and for transferring to PAPs some responsibilities related to RAP components (e.g. community-based livelihood restoration; participatory monitoring; etc).

Implementation Schedule: An implementation schedule covering all RAP activities from preparation, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation should be included. These should identify the target dates for delivery of benefits to the resettled population and the hosts, as well as clearly defining a closing date. The schedule should indicate how the RAP activities are linked to the implementation of the overall project.

Costs and budget: The RAP for the specific sub-projects should provide detailed (itemized) cost estimates for all RAP activities, including allowances for inflation, population growth, and other contingencies; timetable for expenditures; sources of funds; and arrangements for timely flow of funds. These should include other fiduciary arrangements consistent with the rest of the project governing financial management and procurement.

Outline for the preparation of an Abbreviated RAP (applicable where PAPs are less than 200)

This Abbreviated Resettlement Plan covers the following elements: A census survey of displaced persons and valuation of assets;

(dates) Description of compensation and other resettlement assistance

to be provided; Institutional arrangements and consultations with affected people

about acceptable alternatives; Existing legal and policy framework for land acquisition

Institutional responsibility for implementation and procedures for grievance redress;

Arrangements for monitoring and implementation; and A timetable and budget.

ANNEX T-3: IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS INCLUDING CIVIL WORKS

General principles

The organization of the resettlement activities will depend upon the inputs from thefollowing institutions:

(i) The MOA and/ or cooperating agencies will prepare the RPF.

(ii) The WB will review the documents to ensure that safeguards issuesare provided for.

(iii) The MOA and/or cooperating agencies or their representatives/consultants shall sensitize the affected communities on the RPF.

(iv) The communities of affected groups as the final owners of land, properties and assets to be acquired or affected (and the beneficiaries of the encumbrances) will be the participants and responsible for the implementation of the RAPs.

(v) The Project Team (PT), to include the local community leaders or community-based organization, shall be responsible for the oversight of implementation of the RPF.

(vi) Independent NGOs and other stakeholders may be engaged to witness the fairness and appropriateness of the whole process.

(vii) External Audits will include the evaluation of the RAPs. The audits shall include but not be limited to the following:- Resettlement conditions where relevant- Consultation on compensation options, process and procedures- Adequacy of compensation- Adequacy of specific measures targeting vulnerable people.

Identification Stage

During the identification stage of the projects, the implementing agencies (MOA, implementing partners) for the STCRSP will use standardised procedures (see sequence of steps to be taken chapter 8. Of RPF report) to determine whether or not the proposed subprojects in each project location will entail utilization or acquisition of land, required area and availability. The implementing agencies may then propose a project location and available alternatives to the WB. The proposal will also state whether or not the resettlement policy will be triggered. Based on the proposals, the WB may approve or reject the projects.

If required, a resettlement plan shall be prepared by the project team, to be composed of the implementing agency, technical experts, government representatives, and others. The resettlement plan will entail undertaking socioeconomic assessments to determine the impact of displacement, to craft a resettlement action plan, and to effect a valuation report of land assets and landed

properties of the site. The purpose of the socioeconomic study is to collect baseline data within the project targeted areas, thereby enabling the social assessment of potentially affected populations/communities. Under this study a comprehensive census would be carried out to identify potential affected individuals, households and vulnerable groups (children, the elderly, female-headed households, widows, widowers, etc). The socioeconomic assessment will focus on identification ofstakeholders (demographic data), the participation process, identification of affectedpeople, impact on their property, their production or income systems, the institutionalanalysis, and the system for monitoring and evaluation. Detailed calculation of household economies and identification of all impacts will be necessary in the socioeconomic assessment and will be the determining factor in the potential compensation process.

Implementation Schedule

For all subprojects to be implemented under the STCRSP main Project, the ProjectTeam shall devise such implementation schedules as may be appropriate. The schedules shall include the timetable for the conduct of Environmental & Socioeconomic Impact Assessments, screening and evaluation of PAPs, consultation with PAPs, assessment of compensation, grievance handling, resettlement implementation, monitoring and evaluation.

The Project Team shall also ensure that other activities necessary for the successfulimplementation of the resettlement programs are conducted. These programs shall be conducted on an as-needed basis. These programs shall include but not be limited to the following: assessing human resources, training needs, materials and sources of funding; provision of skills consultancy services and equipment as needed.

ANNEX T-4: SECURING SMALLHOLDER LAND USE RIGHTS,

LIBERIA-STCRSP

SECURING SMALLHOLDER LAND USE RIGHTS, ZONGMIN LI, SR. LAND TENURE SPECIALIST

FAO CONSULTANTSEPTEMBER 20, 2011

The terms of access to and property rights in land affect farmer incentives to investand produce, and security of tenure is particularly important where long-term investments, such as tree-planting, are planned. They will in important to the success of this project, but the existing legal framework and situation on the ground regarding security of tenure is a matter of concern. The Government is aware of this, and the current project is taking place in a fluid land policy and legal context. A national Land Commission with constitutional status has been appointed by the President to recommend changes in the legal framework for property rights in land and other measures to move Liberia beyond the current post-conflict disorder in land matters. This makes it particularly important that planning for the project take these uncertainties and the tenure insecurity of farmers into account, maintain active liaison with land agencies to stay up to date with policy development, and remain flexible to adjust the project’s planned land activities to changes in the larger land policy framework.

This working paper first examines the background to land tenure in Liberia, including the history of land tenure, the institutions that deal with land issues, and on-going projects that are confronting these issues. It goes on to note the problems in the land sector, and discusses those which have the potential to affect the attainment of the objectives of this project. It then suggests a strategy for dealing with these issues in our project context, suggests some land-related activities that should be integrated into project implementation, and suggests in some detail how these should be implemented. Finally it considers how to monitor and assess the impact of tenure problems on project objectives and the extent to which the land activities under the project have been successful in ameliorating them.

1. Background: Land Tenure in Liberia

1.1.Statutory Land Rights and Customary Land Tenure

Liberia was settled by free men and women of African descent coming from the United States beginning in 1820. Most initial settlement was in the coastal zone and along rivers into the interior. Those returning to Africa brought with them western forms of property rights and institutions, including private ownership of land, title deeds and deed registration. Early settlers acquired land by purchase from local tribes, and brought this land within the formal legal framework. Later, toward the end of the 19th century, Liberia conquered the tribes in its interior and their land has since been treated as public land.9

9 While the terms “government land” and “state land” are sometimes used in Liberia, the only such category recognized by Liberian law is “public land”. It is functionally the same thing as government or state land.

Land under deeds and other documented rights prevail in the coastal belt, perhaps forty kilometers in from the coast, but further in the interior customary forms of land tenure still control access and use of most land. Large parcels of land in the interior have however been alienated to urban elites through public land sales, and in the past decade the extent of this alienation has increased. That increase has in recent years taken place largely through extensive agricultural concessions to outside investors and the creation of extensive nature reserves. The local communities losing that land have rarely been compensated in any meaningful way. The failure of the state to give full recognition and protection to customary land rights is the most fundamental policy problem facing the country today, and is a source of political tension. The challenge of addressing this issue is made greater by the fact that those customary systems have not been studied and are poorly understood. This is delaying policy action in this area and perpetuating uncertainties about land rights that undermine incentives for project participants who hold their land under custom.

Moreover, after fifteen years of civil war the formal system of property rights in land is in serious disorder. Land records were destroyed in the war, and those fleeing conflict settled on the lands of others. Illegal occupations of land are common and land disputes are rife. Because of the destructions of land records, land fraud is endemic. There is generalized insecurity of tenure in land, and this affects incentives to make long-term investments. The tree crops being grown under this project take three to seven years to produce, and the risk of loss of investment through loss of land extends beyond these periods and into the term needed to recover the investment. The negative impact of insecurity of tenure on investment incentives is far greater than for annual crops.

As a result of the war, the government agencies with land mandates have badly deteriorated capacities, and they have only begun to rebuild. On the positive side, Government is giving land matters some priority. A Land Commission with constitutional status has been established by the President and the Legislature, and is reviewing land policies and laws, and seeking to facilitate settlement of land disputes. Considerable donor funding is being made available for addressing land tenure issues. But these will take some years to bear fruit. This project must find ways to manage within the present unsatisfactory situation.

1.2. Institutional Analysis: Mandates and Capacity

The mandates of the various government agencies with some responsibility for land are not a clear as might be wished, and lines of responsibility among their functionaries at local level tend to be blurred. The capacity of all the line ministries was degraded by years of civil war, and is only very gradually being re-established.

Land Commission: The Land Commission was established by Parliament and the President in 2010 with a five-year statutory life, which can be extended for two additional years. The Commission has a mandate to reform land policy and land law and to facilitate other measures needed to put the land sector in order. It has no operational, implementation mandate. It does however have a strong mandate to coordinate government efforts in the land sector. Careful liaison with the Commission on any land activities under this project is essential. The Commission recently produced “Interim Guidelines” for the public land sale program, interim in that they try to work within existing legislation, until such legislation can be amended or replaced.

The Commission carries out mediation of land disputes brought to it, though it has questionable legal authority to do so, and has recently established a National Center for Land Dispute Resolution, an attempt to network and coordinate the variety of NGO and official land dispute resolution efforts underway. It plans to shortly launch a program to record all existing tribal certificates, one common form of documentation for rural land. It is the principal recipient of donor funding on land matters, and has a number of policy studies underway through programs supported by the World Bank, MCC/USAID, and UN-Habitat/SIDA.

Ministry of Lands, Mines and Energy: While its competences have been badly degraded by the long period of conflict, this Ministry’s Department of Lands, Surveys and Cartography (DLSC) remains the center of competence in surveys and mapping in Liberia. Its surveyors provide services to both private landholders and government in many other contexts, and it has a role in the regulation of the private survey profession. It has no authority to develop land policies or propose land law reforms, and its orientation is more technical. It does not have any specific authority to manage public lands, but its survey role makes it a key player in the public land sale program. The County Land Surveyor, whom the DLSC supervises, prepares the public land sale deeds that go to the President for signature. The DLSC does not carry out deed registration, which is the mandate of the national archives. While the County Land Commissioners are legally subject to the Ministry’s authority, in practice they report to the County Superintendents and through them to the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

CNDRA: The Center for National Documents and Records/Archives (CNDRA) was created in 1979 and is the custodian of the Deeds Register. The President appoints for each County a Registrar of Deeds who serves under the direction of the Director General of the Archives and maintains the Land Register for the county. Those county offices are more operational in some counties than others. Master copies of the deeds register are maintained in the Archives in Monrovia. Contrary to the law, registers from before c. 1979 continue to be held by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which prior to the creation of CNDRA was responsible for deeds registration. Lawyers and surveyors seeking to trace a “chain of title” for a land parcel to establish its ownership must scrutinize the registers at both CNDRA and Foreign Affairs.

Ministry of Internal Affairs: The Ministry of Internal Affairs is responsible for the management of “tribal affairs”, including administration of the tribal courts. It is also mandated to collect and publish the customs of the tribes, a task it has not undertaken. There is no specific mention of land or land tenure in the Ministry’s legal mandate, but because of the role it plays with respect to tribal authorities, and because the County Land Commissioners effectively report to this Ministry through the County Superintendent, Internal Affairs is the government agency most familiar land tenure issues in the interior and relevant to any project interactions with traditional authorities.

Ministry of Agriculture: The Ministry of Agriculture’s mandate does not explicitly mention land or land tenure, or concessions. It simply has a broad mandate for “administering all laws relative to agricultural subjects or rural improvement, including regulatory laws designed to protect the farmer or agricultural means of production or farm commodities.” It is however directly involved in decisions to allocate rural land to agricultural concessions and other agricultural projects. It shares responsibility for

these with a National Investment Commission and a Concessions Board in the Revenue Department of the Ministry of Finance. The relative roles of the different government agencies are not clear. There is no fund of land identified by government as available for concessions, and most concessionaires discuss opportunities on very general terms with the Ministry and then go on to self-select a promising area of “public land” for which they then apply. Land for these purposes is not awarded through any genuinely competitive process.

Forestry Development Authority: The Forestry Development Authority has authority to grant forest concessions. The FDA legal authority over all land under trees or appropriate for forest, explicitly including land which is under farm-forest fallow. Tree crops such as cocoa and coffee are not explicitly excluded from its mandate, but in practice it seems agreed that these fall under the authority of the Ministry of Agriculture.

1.3.Ongoing/Planned Projects and Lessons Learned

World Bank: Assistance to Land Sector Agencies: The World Bank has from 2009 provided State- and Peace-Building (SPF) Funds to: The Land Commission, for four consultancies: the potential of title registration in

Liberia; a law reform strategy for Liberia’s statutory land law; land dispute management in Liberia, and customary land tenure in Liberia. All have been completed and are available but have not been widely distributed.

The Deeds Registry in CNDRA, for refurbishing and equipping the registry facilities and digital copying of deteriorating land records.

The Ministry of Lands, Mines and Energy, to reequip and train survey staff of the DSLC in the use of modern survey methods and equipment.

The Bank funding is currently being reconfigured to meet emerging needs. The project is managed out of the Bank’s Accra office.

UN-Habitat/ SIDA: The UN was the earliest supporter of the Land Commission, and has provided core funding for operations to supplement a limited national budget. The UN Peace-building funding has been administered through UN-Habitat, which has a resident expert in the Commission. These funds have been used to support analysis of urban land issues and Commission activities in the land dispute resolution area. Earlier this year, UN-Habitat received three years funding from SIDA to continue its core funding for the Commission.

Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC): The Norwegian government supports a substantial program of alternative land dispute resolution in Nimba, Lofa and Grand Gedeh counties, initiated in 2006. While a dozen or more NGOs are now involved in alternative land dispute resolution, the NRC is clearly the most experienced and thoughtful. While the program began in the immediate post-conflict period as a returnee protection measure, it has been continued because land disputes are still alarmingly frequent and the courts are ineffective in resolving them.

International Development Law Organization (IDLO) and Sustainable Development Institute (SDI): These two NGOs have been implementing a multi-country Community Land Titling Initiative funded by the Gates Foundation. One of the pilots is in Liberia, and has worked with forty communities in central River Cess county, in Timbo and Morweh Districts. The pilot has worked successfully with these communities to

demarcate community and clan boundaries, negotiate boundary differences with other communities and clans, and develop by-law for community land use. If has pioneers approaches to community consultation and land rights validation.

Weinco Liberia Limited: Cocoa Project. This private investor (a Dutch-Ghanaian partnership) has considerable experience in smallholder cocoa cultivation in Ghana and has begun operations in Lofa, Nimba and Bong Counties. The Liberia country director described the role played by land tenure in their operations in Ghana. In the early stages, it proved difficult to get farmers to seriously commit themselves to project activities. Later, after the project began assisting them to register their titles, activity levels increased and a number of farmers extended their plantings.

USAID: ACDI/VOCA began implementation in 2008 of a Livelihood Improvement for Farming Enterprises Project in Bong, Nimba and Lofa Counties. They are also implementing a Farmer-to-Farmer leader program, the income generation component of the Land Rights and Community Forestry Program, and the business components of the Cocoa Livelihoods Program.

USAID: The Land Rights and Community Forestry Program (LRCFP), initiated in 2008 and on-going, is implemented by a firm, Tetra Tech ARD. Its objective is the creation of an enabling policy and legal environment for community forestry. It field activities have been focused on understanding competition for forest land, working with customary communities near biodiversity and other conservation sites in Nimba and Sinoe counties. It prepares those communities to negotiate and partner effectively with potential investors. It works closely with the Forest Development Authority. While the project is scheduled to end soon, USAID intends to extent the project.

USAID: Land Policy and Institutional Support Project is administered through Tetra Tech ARD, funded by the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Threshold Program for Liberia. Initiated in 2010, the project is supporting studies of customary land tenure at several sites for the Land Commission. It is also providing institution rebuilding funds to the Deeds Registry at CNDRA and the DLSC at the Ministry of Lands, Mines and Energy. A chief of party is based at the Land Commission and there is a resident international expert position in the DLSC.

USAID: The Land Conflict Management Project is a 3-year project to be implemented by Tetra Tech ARD for USAID, to begin around October 1 of this year. The main counterpart is the Land Commission, with coordination with the Commission’s Land Dispute Resolution Task Force and the Ministry of Justice. The project hopes to pilot dispute resolution methodologies, and develop clan-level dispute resolution entities to provide legally recognized ADR services. It is also supposed to establish property rights inventories in 16 towns and villages. The project will work in Lofa and Nimba counties.Lessons Learned: These projects are largely the initial post-conflict involvement of the donors in the land sector. They tend to be focused on policy and law reform, studies, and rebuilding the capacity of government institutions with land sector mandates. Few involve on-the-ground implementation activities. There is more to be learned from recent work by NGOs and private actors:

1) The IDLO/SDI initiative has confirmed the potential for working with local community leaders to resolve land issues, and established SDI as the strongest local NGO working on land issues.

2) The alternative land dispute resolution work by NRC has made it clear that it is possible to engage local community leaders in new approaches to dispute resolution to obtain resolution of difficult land tenure conflicts. NRC clearly has a special competence in this area.

3) The practices of private firms working in the small tree crop sector confirm the need to recognize and deal with land tenure issues. Ignoring them can endanger reaching project objectives.

The following section identifies and analyzes more thoroughly the land tenure issues that could direction impact the project.

2. Land Tenure Issues Affecting the STCRSP Objectives

Land tenure problems faced by farmers under the project must be understood addressed, both to ensure the success of the project and to test approaches that might be used in a future large-scale smallholder tree crop project.

2.1. Insecurity of Customary Land Rights

The smallholder farmers with whom the project will be dealing have limited security of tenure in their holdings. Most will be customary landholders. For them, customary institutions and custom itself can provide considerable security as against challenges from within their communities. Having planted tree crops is at custom strong evidence of the planter’s right to the land, and planting tree crops is seen as a strategy for obtaining rights to land and enhancing tenure security.10

Some groups, however, enjoy less security under custom. These include customary tenants and late-arriving groups who have been allowed to farm land by the clans whose ancestors first settled the land. There may also be farmers who have been displaced during conflict and who have been allowed to farm on land of communities to which they do not belong. The original landholding clans, which usually dominate traditional authority structures, usually refuse to allow members of these groups to plant tree crops, as it poses a challenge to the original clans’ customary title to the land.

Women and youth are also disadvantaged in land access under most customary land tenure systems. Women and youth do not typically have direct access to land under the custom, but must access land through their husbands or fathers. Because women do not traditionally own land, it will likely be considered anomalous for them to plant trees, which at custom asserts a claim to the land. This may complicate efforts by the project to work with disadvantaged groups, and require special efforts to include them in project benefits.

10 Ms. Litz, COP of USAID Land Rights and Community Forestry Program (LRCFP).

All customary holders, however, are insecure in relation to claims to land based on land purchases or grants under statutory law. Historically these originate largely in the public land sale program, which has been functioning for over a century. In many cases, applicants have initiated the process by getting tribal certificates from traditional authorities (an initial step in the process) but have never completed the process – including the expensive survey - to obtain deeds. Where the holders of these tribal certificates or in some cases even deeds have not developed the land, the land may have come to be cultivated by customary users. But the holders of rights under statutory law may, even if they have previously neglected the land, use those documents to challenge the rights of those customary users when project opportunity to develop the land appears. There is no question that a registered deed trumps customary rights under Liberian law, but the legal status of old tribal certificates is unclear.

2.2.Unreliable Records of Statutory Land Rights

It is possible that some smallholders who seek to participate in the project will themselves hold deeds or tribal certificates to the land concerned. But this is likely to be a rare case. Weinco has found at its sites that very few of the cocoa farmers which it has consulted have documentation for their rights.11 The situation may be different in the rubber plantation areas, where deeds are said to be more common. 12 Deeds were typically obtained only by large landholders, but there may be some old large holdings that have been subdivided among heirs and are now farmed by a later generation as smallholdings. In such cases the deed or its registration will probably not have been updated, but may still be in the name of the original grantee.

These deeds describe parcel locations, and the holder may have a sketch map prepared at the time the deed was granted. But the descriptions of the location and size of the land concerned are very general and often inaccurate. These maps are not registered with the deeds, and are usually held by the property owner. There are a good many fraudulent deeds and maps in play. Some of the large operators involved in the project as service providers may themselves have questionable claim to the land they are using and there may be disputes between them and surrounding communities regarding the boundaries involved. The project will need to be careful not to become embroiled in these issues without fully understanding them and a carefully-considered strategy for dealing with them.

2.3.Endemic Land Disputes in a Post-Conflict Context

The lack of clarity in Liberian land law and the history of poor documentation of land claims, when combined with the dislocations caused by conflict, have resulted in endemic rural land disputes. The most effective response to these disputes has come through dispute mediation by a variety of NGOs, notably the Norwegian Refugee Council. These are particularly useful when there are disputes between members of different communities, including cases where outsiders have settled in

11 Mr. Oduro-Asare, Country Director, Wienco Liberia Limited ( cocoa farm supply company), confirmed in conversation with Mr. Kamara, Deputy COP, LIFE (ACDI/VOCA).

12 Information from Rubber Planters Association of Liberia (RPAL), which indicated that most rubber farmers do hold documents for their land.

an area during conflict. Within communities, there are traditional dispute resolution mechanisms which can be used to resolve disputes among community members, and the NGOs have learned to work with these mechanisms.

2.4. Impacts of Tenure Insecurity on Project Activities

It is not possible in advance to state how far these potential problems will materialize among the smallholders who will work with the project. Tenure issues tend to be to some extend site-specific. Unfortunately, the pre-appraisal work for this project did not include land tenure work at the prospective sites. There are some helpful land tenure questions included in a survey now being carried out by an NGO contracted by the Ministry of Agriculture to examine the potential social impacts of the project. These issues will become clearer during the process of selection of project participants. There is some danger that claims that have been inactive for years may be brought forward once it is understood that the land can benefit from the project.

If a smallholder is not recognized locally as the legitimate holder of the land concerned, it will be difficult for him or her to participate in the project effectively. Investments in tree crops take years to pay a return, and they need a longer time horizon than annual crops. If the smallholder is insecure or embroiled in a dispute over the land, his or her incentives to invest his labor and funds in the activity will be undermined by uncertainty. This puts project performance at risk.

This is an issue that requires attention with respect to all holdings, but is a particular concern when the farmer proposes to plant trees, expanding onto land he has not previously been using. This is because that act of tree planting is seen as a claim of right to the land, which if accomplished becomes strong evidence that the land belongs to the planter. Because of this, new tree planting tends to awaken competing claims for the land even where these have not been pressed for some time.

3. Project Land Activities and Rationales

3.1.Objectives: This project cannot resolve the many uncertainties concerning land rights. These are rooted in fundamental problems of statutory and customary land tenure, and are far beyond the ability of this project to address. The project objectives with respect to land are much narrower: To minimize risk that performance under the project will be undermined by

participants’ lack of tenure security. This can be done is two ways: a) in vetting potential participants, the project may decide to exclude those whose insecurity and involvement in land disputes makes them high risks of poor performance, and b) working with participants and their communities to use existing mechanisms to reduce the levels of risk concerned.

To minimize reputational risk to the project, it must not become involved inadvertently in difficult and intractable conflicts over land which may have political implications. Such conflicts might involve issues such as a boundary between communities or clans, a boundary between a large operator and local smallholders, disputes over land between smallholders who are not members of the original clans of the area and those clans, or claims under deeds or concessions to displace large numbers of the customary

smallholders with whom project is working. The project must be alert and recognize the potential seriousness of these issues when they arise during selection of participants and develop strategies for dealing with them, and must in particular seek to avoid involvements that result in displacement of existing land users.

3.2.A Minimalist Approach: To reduce the risks noted, certain land-related activities are planned under the project. They represent a minimalist and relatively cautious approach.

This approach is appropriate because the root issues involved are still awaiting policy decisions by Government. The Land Commission is assessing them, and while important decisions may be made during the life of the project, this seems unlikely to happen in the next year or two. There is as yet no consensus among the land sector institutions as to the way forward. The consultant discussed more ambitious approaches to the land insecurity issues faced by the project with officials of land sector institutions, but was told fairly consistently that the project should move cautiously and avoid getting out ahead of government’s policy-reform process; to try to anticipate directions and pilot innovate approaches could result in wasted effort if policies took a different direction.

Given this, the activities proposed here are the minimum advisable. On the other hand, this project is testing approaches for a larger-scale smallholder tree crop development project. In the land area as well as others, the project needs to be sure it has developed adequate approaches. A mid-term assessment of how well they are working is proposed, with an option for a small-scale of additional efforts to enhance participant tenure security if these turn out to be needed. The policy directions to be pursued by government may be clearer two years from now.

The first three activities below would be carried out as an integral part of Component 1 of the project, for all project smallholder tree-crop farms, including new planting. The fourth would be carried out to increase capacity in the PIU and service providers to address these issues, under Component 2 of the project. The fifth would fall under Component 3, on project management. These activities should be seen as a template, which may need to be varied somewhat at different sites depending on local conditions, but they should in broad outline be followed across all crops and locations.

3.3.Activity 1. Family/Community Validation and Dispute Mediation: The most effective and relatively inexpensive way for the project to assure itself that all those participating have the right to use the land they propose to use under the project is to seek family/community validation of that right.

Consultation with members of the family is important because under the customary tenure systems (and even where a participant has a documented statutory right to the land) arrangements for subdivision of land among heirs are often quite informal and tentative. They will usually not have been subject to probate or other formalities. Members of the family will need to acknowledge that the farmer who wishes to participate in the project does in fact have the right to the land concerned and the tree crops on it.

A second level of validation would need to take place with the community, through consultation with traditional authorities (chiefs and elders). They would need to acknowledge that from the point of view of the community, the farmer has a right to the land concerned. This would include their assurance that there are not outstanding permissions to use this land by others, for instance through tribal certificates. If so, they would need to cancel such certificates. They would also certify that to the best of their knowledge, the land concerned is not subject to a dispute.

The project will find that some of the land of those who seek to participate in the project is affected by land disputes. This would hopefully emerge during the first validation activities described here. If the dispute seems intractable, it might be grounds for excluding the farmer concerned from the project, especially at the selection stage. But it is also possible that the dispute can be resolved relatively easily. This will be particularly true of boundary disputes and other disputes not questioning the basic right to the land concerned. Mediation seems the best approach to handling such disputes expeditiously.

3.4.Activity 2. Support of Land Survey and Tribal Certificates for New Tree Crop Planting: As indicated in the discussion of issues in section 2 of this report, new tree planting can raise special tenure issues because it is proof of customary right to the land. For this reason, and because the investment of project funds is likely more substantial, it is important to be particularly clear in rights to the land concerned. In these cases (relatively limited in number and confined to cocoa and rubber) the project would after the family/community validation is carried out assist the farmer in obtaining a survey of the parcel and going through the process to obtain a tribal certificate. This would both enhance immediate tenure security and enable the landholder, if he or she wishes, to purchase the land from the government.

3.5.Activity 3. Training and Sensitization in Support of Land Activities: The project will need to provide a training workshop early in the project to familiarize those involved in implementation, including key personnel from the PIU and the service providers. It will also need to develop and implement messages concerning land activities and the intentions behind them as part of the project’s overall sensitization strategy. It is important that what the project is doing in this area and the intentions behind those activities be clearly understood by all concerned, and in particular by the participating farmers and local authorities.

3.6.Activity 4. Mid-Term Review and Possible Pilot: The project will conduct a mid-term review to determine whether the approach set out here is dealing adequately with whatever land tenure issues emerge, and if necessary, propose a small-scale pilot to test additional measures for incorporation in the anticipated larger-scale smallholder tree crop project.

3.7.Options Considered and Rejected: The appraisal mission considered a number of more ambitious approaches to ensuring that tenure insecurity did not disrupt the project, including more proactive approaches to increasing tenure security of participants. One was the community land titling and

management approach taken under the IDLO/SDI program, but the determination of the project to focus on selected individual farmers rather than working with communities made this inappropriate. A second was a broader commitment to support survey and registration of land rights at the individual farmer level. In other circumstances a more ambitious approach than that taken here might have been proposed. In this case, however, the policy and legal uncertainty surrounding land tenure issues and the lack of a consensus among those consulted in land sector institutions dictated a cautious approach. It was clear that the Land Commission did not wish the project to get too far ahead of government’s policy development in this area.

4. Implementation Details and Costs

Some of the activities involved would be carried out under each of the three components of the project, and are presented here accordingly.

4.1. Component 1: Smallholder Tree Crop Revitalization a) Implementing Family/Community Validation and Dispute Mediation

This activity would be carried out for all the estimated 4,900 farmer households involved in the project, for all holdings affected, totally 11,300 ha. It would be implemented by all of the service providers, in all project counties, through a contract by the PIU with an appropriate NGO. (This could alternatively be done through sub-contacts by service providers with an appropriate NGO, preferably the same NGO for all providers, but a single contract for the entire project would seem preferable.) The NGO should have relevant experience dealing with rural land issues, and GPS capacity for mapping parcels, recording their location, and calculating their size.

The validation process should be implemented as an integral part of the process to select participating farmers, across crops and whether only rehabilitation or new planting is involved. But farmer selection itself is expected to proceed differently in different cases, and this has implications for how the validation process will be implemented.

For outgrower schemes (oil palm and rubber), it is expected that target areas and potential participants would be selected by the concessionaires who will become the service providers under the project. Some of these concessionaires already have clear ideas of the communities from which the participating farmers would come. Others actually have a list of potential participants or data bases of local smallholders who are potential participants.

The concessionaires should be informed that the proposal that they are required to submit to the MoA/PIU should cover their participant selection strategy and for those participants, a proposed process for family/community validation of their right to use the land use. This will be particularly important with regard to new plantings. Where the project hopes to reach target groups such as women and youth, the proposals should specify how this is to be achieved. An appropriate NGO should be engaged by the PIU to work with the concessionaires and train their staff in family/community validation processes. This should be on-site training, using the first validations as a training exercise for service provider staff.

After this first work, it is assumed that the service provider staff could carry the process forward, including the validation of rights to land for new plantings, expected to take place in PY 3 and 4.

For cocoa/coffee rehabilitation, covering a much larger area, the selection process is expected to take place in steps. The project would first select several districts within the three targeted counties, hopefully before the end of 2011; selection of clans and sections within those districts; and selection of local FOs. The selection process of FOs and participating farmers would begin in PY 2 and continue into PY 3. In some areas the clan FOs are already known, as in the case of 10 clans of the 15 with which ACDI/VOCA has already been working.

For cocoa and coffee, the PIU should contract an appropriate NGO to work directly with the service providers and FOs to conduct the community validation and dispute mediation. Ideally the same NGO should be contracted for the cocoa and coffee areas as for the palm oil and rubber areas, unless compelling reasons emerge to proceed otherwise.

The NGO or NGOs selected should:

Develop an interactive workshop for service provider staff for the exchange of ideas and refinement of strategies for family/community validation and dispute mediation.

On the basis of that workshop, develop an inception report setting out how the strategies would be implemented and how records of validations and dispute resolutions should be conserved and shared with land agencies. It should include a validation manual and note any variations in the process that seem to be needed as between areas.

Develop, in collaboration with the PIU, messages concerning the land activities under the project, to be utilized in public education and sensitization issues for the project. See below, under Component 2, on sensitization.

Participate in the initial validation exercise and any related dispute resolution at each site, using the exercise to train those who in the future would be responsible for the validation process.

o In the case of palm oil and rubber outgrowers, this would be the plantation (service provider) staff responsible for the outgrower program.

o In the case of cocoa/coffee, the officers of the concerned FO (level to be determined).

In both cases this training should training in the use of handheld GPS units and mediation of land disputes.

At the end of the initial selection processes, revise the manual if needed, and report on the validation process results. The report should detail these initial experiences, the issues they raise, further needs for training and any other measures needed.

Remain involved in a quality control role, ensuring that hard copies of validations are maintained at site level, and maintaining for the PIU an electronic data base of the validation and dispute resolution activity results, recorded on a parcel basis.

Participate in the mid-term evaluation of land activities under the project.

It is anticipated that after an initial round of validation and dispute mediation at each site, the service provider or FO will be able to carry out any further validation required.

Tentatively, a validation could proceed as follows:

o The land on which the farmer proposes to rehabilitate, replant or new tree planting must first be identified, and mapped both by traditional methods (reference to neighbors and physical features) and by use of GPS hand-held units to record location of key points.

o Once the land is clearly identified, the validation staff would prepare a sketch map, indicating the calculating the size, location and current use of the land.13

o The validation staff would consult and copy any relevant documentation of land rights (deeds, tribal certificates, etc.) in the possession of the farmer.

o On the basis of that identification of the land, the validation staff would consult first with family members and then with community representatives, in particular the town/village chief. These would need to certify, by signing a form provided, that the farmer has the right to cultivate tree crops on the land concerned.

o The result of this process would be certified by the NGO staff to the selection staff of the service provider in each case as the process is completed.

o If a dispute concerning the parcel prevents successful completion of the validation process, the NGO staff would attempt to resolve the dispute in a pragmatic fashion, if necessary involving the town/village chief. If a resolution cannot in this way be reached fairly quickly which allows the validation to proceed, then a decision will need to be made as to whether the farmer should participate in the project.

The cost of the contract for the NGO would be $120,000, in Years 2-3 of the project, based on an estimated cost of $10.62 per hectare or $24.49 per farm household for validation.

b) New Planters: Obtaining Tribal Certificates and Surveying Holdings

This activity would involve farmers engaged in new plantings. New plantings are expected to be confined to cocoa (1,000 ha) and rubber (1,200 ha). This is 19% of all land to be affected under the project. That for cocoa will be carried out in Nimba, Bong and Grand Jeddah, that for rubber in Montserrado, Marghibi and Bong. (No new plantings are anticipated in Maryland, where the rubber sub-component will be active, because of pressures on land there.) The new plantings are anticipated to take place in Years 3 and 4.

13 Interviews with firms that have been involved in landholding validation for projects suggested that farmers usually seriously overstate the size of their parcels. What is stated to be a ten hectare parcel may in the end be found to be only 1 hectare in size. It will be important to have a clear idea of sizes of the parcels held by participating farmers from the outset.

A firm with certified surveyor capability and experience in the public land sale process will be contracted by the PIU to facilitate the process for obtaining a tribal certificates and surveying these holdings. There may need to be annual contracts to cover this activity, depending upon the timings of new plantings under the project. Work by this contractor should by planned by the PIU so that the contractor would be able, when sending a team to a given site, be able to work with all those doing new plantings at the site.

The contractor would prepare an Inception Report, detailing its methodology and including a Manual. In implementing the activity, it would coordinate with service provider staff dealing with replanting and report the conclusion of the process in each case in a timely manner.

Even if the new planters have already been participating in the rehabilitation and replanting of existing holdings, and have completed the family/community validation process, it will be necessary to make sure that the land on which the new trees are to be planted was included. If not, the validation process, together with any dispute mediation, should be carried out with respect to the new land by the service provider staff, working with the contractor. Where the new planting is part of a larger parcel, the full parcel should be covered in the process.

Once validation is accomplished, the contractor would assist the farmer in completing the Tribal Certificate Process, and then survey the parcel. The contractor will have the survey carried out by a certified surveyor, who should be required to do it to a standard sufficient to support a public land purchase.

In carrying out these tasks, the contractor should coordinate closely with the County Land Commissioner and the Country Surveyor. Given the recent issuance of Interim Procedures for Public Land Sales by the Land Commission and plans for their implementation, the contractor should keep in communication with the Land Commission and the Ministry of Lands, Mines and Energy concerning the most effective approaches in light of these changes.

The contractor would at the conclusion of each contract provide the service provider and the PIU with a copy of a database for the tribal certificates issued and surveys completed.

The estimated cost of this activity would be $ 286,000, in Years 3 and 4, based on an estimated cost of $130/ha.

Component 2: Institution/Capacity Building

a) Ministry Staff and Service Provider Training Needs

The land activities set out in this paper would be carried out not by specialized staff but through a) regular staff of the PIU and service providers, b) contracts with NGOs and firms, and c) occasional inputs from international and local consultants. This will require that the PIU designate one staff member as having specific responsibility for land issues under the project (land issues lead), and that each service provider identify one or more of their staff as responsible for implementation of land activities in their project areas (land activities lead). They would be responsible for ensuring

the contractor-implemented activities within the project are carried out as an integral part of project implementation.

Training materials and manuals should be developed by a local consultant employed by the relevant NGO(s). As mentioned above, the interactive workshop in Year I of the project would provide the NGO(s) concerned with the basis for development of an Inception Report including a Validation/dispute mediation manual. Any training beyond the initial interactive workshop noted above should be delivered not as a separate training exercise but as part of the project training for all PIU and service provider staff, and FO staff, or as on-site training by consultant teams working under contracts from the PIU. The training will need to cover plans for landholding validation, tribal certificates and surveys, and dispute resolution, including use of GPS handheld units.

The PIU’s land issue lead should be given other training opportunities, including a relevant short-course on land tenure in project contexts. The lead would be responsible for interactions with NGOs and firms carrying out work for the project under contracts and for liaison with the service provider land activities leads, and would collaborate with any international consultants on land matters. He would also be responsible for liaison with the Land Commission, the Ministry of Lands, Mines and Energy, and other land institutions, to ensure the project is kept abreast of developments in the uncertain land policy environment.

Each service provider carrying out activities under the project is responsible for familiarizing the land issues lead and the land activities leads with the land-related tasks they are undertaking and how they are being carried out. The land issues lead from the PIU will have primary responsibility, working with the NGOs and firms concerned, for introducing these tasks to the local communities and explaining the relationship of the activities to the large project objectives.

b) Sensitization

Misunderstandings concerning a project’s intentions concerning land arise easily and are difficult to dispel. This means that the project’s plans for dealing with land issues should be a key area of discussion in pre-implementation consultations with target communities, beginning in Year I. It is important that clear messages be developed and delivered effectively. This should be done as an integrated part of the project’s communications strategy. It is be equally important that these messages not be “muddied” later by implementation staff unclear on this part of the project. This will require:

1) The concerned NGO or NGOs assisting with validation should contract a local consultant to assist them in the development of these messages,

2) Development of clear messages prior to briefings of local authorities and consultations with local communities where the project will operate,

3) Development of a flyer detailing those plans, for distribution during sensitization.

4) Participation of the local consultant and the PIU land issue lead on all teams introducing the project to local officials and communities. .

5) Continuing attention to ensure that service provider land activity leads understand what is being done with respect to land and that they continue to deliver clear messages on this to the communities concerned.

The cost of developing and delivering sensitization material and training materials would be $ 19,000.

Component 3: Project Coordination, Management, M&E and Knowledge Sharing.

The project is operating in an uncertain legal and policy environment, and project preparation did not provide an opportunity to explore issues of land tenure insecurity in the project areas themselves. The project is also operating in a very fluid land policy environment, and this requires that the project approach land issues with considerable flexibility. After the first two years of the project, it will be time in assess the adequacy of what has been done so far with respect to land matters and whether land tenure insecurity may still be undermining farmer incentives and the sustainability of project achievements. This is the purpose of a Review and Consultation on Land Matters. If those problems do exist, then the project would pilot a further tenure security enhancement activity in order to

a) Review and Consultation on Land Matters.

In the first six months of Year 3, a team including the international consultant, a local land tenure consultant, representatives of the NGOs and firms involved in land activities, and the PIU land issues lead should conduct a review of the strategy pursued by the project for dealing with security of land tenure issues. That review should include:

1) Consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture staff concerning land issue experiences in other agricultural development projects;

2) Consultation with the Land Commission and the Ministry of Lands, Mines and Energy, and other land sector public institutions on recent changes in policy and law and those anticipated shortly.

3) Consultation with contractors under the project and service provider land activity leads, concerning their experience of land activities and how effective they have been.

4) Consultation with FOs and focus groups of farmers by region and crops to understand their perceptions and felt needs with regard to security of tenure, and how they relate to achievement of project objectives.

The report prepared as the result of that review and consultation would state the findings of the review and the implications for both the remainder of the term of the present project and for a future large scale project to support smallholder tree crop production. To the extent it appears needed, the report will recommend a pilot activity to test improved approaches to tenure security for a future large scale project.

This work would be carried out under consultancy contracts from the PIU and the cost is estimated to be $ 31,500.

b) Piloting Enhanced Tenure Security

This pilot, if it appears needed, should take place late in Year 3 or early in Year 4 of the project. It should be planned and implemented directly by the Project Implementation Unit of the project in collaboration with the service provider(s) for the area(s). While it is not possible to suggest the parameters of this effort prior to the review and its recommendations, funding of $ 8,400 is being set aside for this purpose.

During early implementation, PIU staff should continue dialogue with relevant agencies and other stakeholders concerning options for longer-term approaches. There are a number of more elaborate models for consideration if needed to ensure the security of tenure of participating farmers, covering both existing tree-farmers and new tree-farmers. In Ghana, for example, under a Presidential Special Initiative, palm oil out-growers organized into farmer associations are becoming shareholders in private limited liability companies. Such a company is to be organized by the Presidential Special Initiative at each project site, and the farmers are to receive dividend-paying shares based on their commitment of their customary land as a resource for use by the project. Where land is used by farmers but owned by the chieftainship (in Ghana the “stool”), part of the shares would be issued to the stool. Where the farmers are tenants, they would share a portion of the dividends with their landlords. Farmers retain their rights to the land, which are to be registered in the name of the farmers in a systematic land registration exercise, but that land is committed to the company for the duration of its operations. Farmers would be issued title documents as a guarantee of their titles to their land. (See George A. Sarpong. 2006. Support to the President’s Special Initiative on Oil Palm – Report of the Legal Consultant. Rome: FAO.)

This is a relatively elaborate approach, involving the creation of a number of private companies, and there are differences in the legal framework in Ghana and Liberia that would require adjustments. For instance, while there is a legal basis for systematic registration in Liberia, the administrative machinery to carry it out does not exist, and it is not clear that this is the approach that will be taken by government to land registration. Still, something similar might be accomplished under the currently operational Deeds Registry system. This and other options need to be discussed with stakeholders in and outside government as the project goes forward, in anticipation of the mid-term evaluation of the minimalist tenure strategy pursued by the project.

5. Results, Impacts and M&E

The principal results and impacts of the approach outlined here would be:

Reduction through family/community validation of the number of farmers involved in the project whose participation is undermined by land tenure insecurity;

Higher levels of participant effort and investment due to relief from tenure insecurity;

Reduction of the number of disputes concerning land involved in the project

Appropriate M&E indicators would be:

g) Number of ministry and service provider staff trained in identification of land tenure issues and implementation of land activities under the project;

h) Percentage of participants and local authorities reached with sensitization messages regarding land activities, and the extent to which key messages are understood.

i) Percentage of cases in which family/community validation was completed successfully.

j) Percentage of cases involving new planting in which survey and tribal certificates were successfully obtained.

k) Percentage of participants in the project whose participation is threatened by disputes;

l) Percentage of cases in which land disputes threatened project participation but were effectively resolved by the project.

There will be no comparators for these results, and there are no plans for a study to establish an M&E baseline, but tracking these items should provide an adequate sense of the achievements of the project in this area. It is unlikely that it will be possible to tie them tightly to the ultimate success or failure of the program because of the number of other factors affecting this.

The M&E for land activities would need to be carried out as an integral part of the overall M&E strategy for the project and implanted by those responsible for the overall M&E program.

6. Remaining Issues, Risks, and Next Steps

The land activities here have been designed to be carried out by the regular staff of the PIU and the service providers, with focused interventions by NGOs or firms in three areas: community validation, new planting survey and tribal certification, and land dispute mediation. The activities are not a separate component, but are to be carried out in tight integration with other project activities. The elaboration of details for the land activities has been limited by the fact that many of the other key activities, such as participant selection, remain to be made clear. This has made it difficult, from both a planning and budgeting perspective, to state and cost the land-related activities provided here. For example, the family/community validation activities, which are to be carried out in connection with participants selection activities, may need the involvement of a contracted NGO one or more times, depending on the scheduling of selection activities.

The principal risk involved, hopefully mitigated to some extent by the activities set out in this report, is that the minimal approach proves insufficient to deal with tenure insecurity issues, and performance of farmers under the project is adversely affected by this. The mid-term assessment proposed here should provide a sense of whether this risk is being realized and the particular source of the tenure insecurity concerned.

A second risk is that at some site, the project will become embroiled in a major and intractable land dispute concerning significant numbers of potential participants. This risk is greater because there is no plan for recruitment of a land tenure specialist to work with the project. A great deal will depend upon the extent to which key staff of the PIU and the service providers are sensitized to the potential for such issues to arise.

Next steps include a) early identification of someone (preferably someone with prior interest in land issues) among the PIU staff to serve as the land activities lead. b) selection of an NGO to work with the project on validation and dispute resolution, and c) planning for the initial interactive workshop. Implementation plans are still being elaborated and may well change, and this will require plans for land activities to be adjusted as these change. It will be important to remember that different local situations may require somewhat different approaches in different locations and that policy and regulatory reforms may be coming that will require the project to adjust its strategies accordingly.