RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN FOR PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS IN KAMPALA

Ministry of Local Government

Kampala City Council

Kampala Institutional Infrastructure Development Project (KIIDP)

VOLUME I

RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN

Geomaps Africa, Delta Partnership, Interface Consulting and RESCO

October 2006

The impact of involuntary resettlement on individuals, families and businesses to provide land for infrastructure development can be extensive. While well managed, timely and fair compensation may repay (but not necessarily replace) physical assets, there are losses that are not easily quantified such as the loss of childhood or family links, or tradition. It is important that measures are in place to mitigate negative impacts from both measurable and non-measurable losses on the affected population.

Executive Summary

This volume of this report outlines a Resettlement Action Plan for persons, families and businesses that will be affected by the proposed improvements under a project to improve infrastructure and institutional capacity in Kampala. The purpose is to provide a strategy to implement physical works whilst minimising the negative impacts on the entities in their path. Development projects although well intentioned can have negative impacts on livelihoods.

The RAP was developed in two phases: inception which devised the methodology of the assignment, and the main stage in which the following activities were carried out:

  • Sensitisation and mobilisation of the affected population
  • Cadastral survey and engineering design review
  • Socio-economic census
  • Stakeholder consultation
  • Document review
  • Valuation

Approach

The approach was to emphasise in-depth understanding through the use of qualitative methods, and breadth of understanding through exposure to a wide range of stakeholders.

The combination of reaching the whole affected population through the census (and not sampling), qualitative data collection through the community dialogue workshops and semi-structured interviewing of institutional stakeholders, and field observations ensured the generation of both breadth and depth of understanding, which has characterised the study throughout. Moreover, every effort has been made to make the study as participative as possible.

Over 1000 (one thousand) individuals were covered in the census, and over 500 (five hundred) interviews and discussions, either one-to-one or in groups. During the fieldwork, it was important to elicit and understand all viewpoints, minimise animosity, and to maintain open mind. This led to better understanding of issues such as fair and prompt and adequate compensation and non-measurable losses which are not as simple as they first appear,discussed in more detail in the RAP.

Activities for information collection were carried out by administrative division, in a defined sequence starting with mobilisation and sensitisation of persons, likely to be affected, cadastral survey, valuation, engineering review and socio-economic census of affected entities.

Outputs

Both phases revealed many issues and reinforced the need to improve both infrastructure and the institutional capacity within KCC.(See Annexes 3 and 4)

Component / Outputs
  1. Mobilisation and sensitisation
/ Workshop reports
  1. Cadastral Survey and design review
/ Survey data, Strip maps, maps
  1. Valuation
/ List of affected persons, affected property and values
  1. Institutional stakeholder consultation
/ Retained interview notes
  1. Review of related work
/ Case studies, insights

Recommendations

The following recommendations were made for the RAP:

In order to minimise resettlement and negative project impacts, roads will be strengthened within the current dimensions.

The main resettlement measure will be fair, adequate and prompt compensation. Provision has been made for disturbance and non-measurable losses to reduce the negative impact of resettlement on vulnerable households. The basis of valuation has been market values since in the city market value is higher than replacement cost.

Affected Population

Scenarios:

The RAP discusses two scenarios: the first is the ideal where all impacts and losses are based on the designs by KCC. The second scenario incorporates changes in the designs to reduce the impact and losses and this scenario has been accepted by KCC for implementation.

According to Scenario 2, 415 entities (individuals, households and businesses)are affected, and out of these, 141 will relocate. Depending on the site conditions, some may choose to relocate on the same plot, whilst others may choose a completely new site. Associated costs (additional 15% on value of property) for both cases have been included in the resettlement/compensetion cost.

Eligibility and Cut off Dates

The following categories of stakeholders are eligible for payment of compensation, based on the Land Act, 1998 and the World Bank OP 4. 12

  1. Registered land owners with either leasehold or private mailo land titles.
  2. Bonafide occupants—persons sitting on registered, having been settled by government or its agents and those having settled on the land between 1983 and 1995without interference by the registered owner (also recognised as having interest on that land).
  3. Lawful occupants—person who came onto the registered land with the permission of the registered owner (according to the Ugandan law).
  4. Licensees—those without legal claim to the land but with permission from the land owner to carry out activities on the land (kiosks, growing seasonal crops).
  5. Squatters—those using the land without the permission of the landowner and have no legal nor traditionally recognised claim to the land.

The cut- off date is April 15th 2006, the day collection and verification of baseline socio-economic information were completed. Affected persons have been informed that any developments after the date of referencing the property and baseline socio-economic survey will not be eligible for compensation. The cut-off date will be followed by the legally binding disclosure exercise where affected persons, land parcels and developments will be displayed.

Grievance Procedures

A three stage procedure is proposed which will be communicated at disclosure of the planned developments.

  1. The division is the first point of call where a complaint will be recorded, and:
  2. Dealt with by the RO—explaining the basis for valuation and compensation
  3. Forward complaints that can not be resolved at the division to City Hall.

In both cases, the record shall be on appropriately designed standard form filled with the assistance of the resettlement officer and signed by the complainant.

  1. Throughout the thirty day period, KCC headquarter (City Hall) will receive complaints from the division, and these shall be dealt with in a similar manner by the resettlement officer and the Principal Valuer—RO and PV to provide more professional explanation about the basis of valuation and compensation in consultation with the PCU and Consultant. At this stage, complaints will be clustered into major categories to be responded to by KCC, within a period not exceeding fourteen days after the thirty day period of receiving complaints. Response by KCC will be in the form of written letters to affected individuals, and public announcements. KCC will dialogue with complainants who are still dissatisfied and offer the following options:
  • To choose from a list of certified valuation surveyors a valuer to re-value their property. The valuer chosen (by at least 60% of the complainants) will offer services procured by the district land tribunal, and paid for by KCC.
  • To propose independent valuers to be paid for by the complainant (typical fees area range between 250-300 US Dollars per property valued) to provide estimates for compensation. It is anticipated as in the case of the Northern By Pass that complainants would have been paid already, based on the initial valuation, and will therefore be able to pay for these services.

Estimates from the valuation exercises will be debated by the respective valuers in a meeting called by the district land tribunal. On the one hand the Chief Government Valuer will defend the initial value—on behalf of KCC and government, whilst the complainants’ valuer justifies their estimate. The DLT will make a decision on the value to be compensated upon which KCC will make arrangements to further payment to the complainant. KCC will meet the costs of the DLT activities under this project.

  1. If the complainant is not satisfied with the decision of the DLT (which is an equivalent to a magistrates court), they can proceed to the High Court. Each party (KCC and the complainant) meets their own expenses at this stage.

Engage with the affected population

KCC should continue the dialogue with affected communities building on what is in place from this Consultancy, through different channels to ensure continued cooperation.

Budget

Total Budget for implementation of the RAP is United States Dollars Two Million, Five Hundred and One Thousand, Five Hundred Seventy Seven ($2,501,577). Budget lines are reparation, technical assistance, capacity building, and legal aspects.

Institutional Framework

The following institutional framework has been proposed:

a)Kampala City Council (KCC) through its Directorate of Community Services should manage the whole process. The Principal Valuer, in the Directorate of Finance should provide technical support on compensation issues. Departments to be involved in the resettlement process should be assisted to prepare for and carry out the respective tasks.

b)Resettlement desks should be established within the KCC and its decentralised structure to be staffed by experienced sociologists from the directorate of gender and community development to endorse criteria and mechanisms to implement the plan and to interface with the affected population.

c)For compensation the Chief Government Valuer (CGV) should provide support to the Project Coordination Unit both directly, and through the KCC valuer.

d)The CGV must be assisted to deliver these services to KCC.

e)The Ministry of Local Government (MoLG) should support the KCC by ensuring release of funds for the various activities from the Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development (MoFPED).

f)All implementing agencies in this framework should propose an individual to a Resettlement Steering Team which will monitor the resettlement, ensuring that goals are met and provide advice to enable more efficient and effective implementation.

Getting Started

The following activities are proposed for KCC PCU to undertake until the appraisal process is complete:

  • Disclosure of the results of the valuation and who will be affected to the different stakeholders including the affected population
  • Fund raising: possibilities to obtain funds from the Ministry of Finance should be explored in addition to utilising resources within KCC.
  • Secure buy-in: Several actors in the institutional framework should be brought up to speed about the project, and ground rules established for the implementation of the Resettlement Action Plan.
  • A detailed work programme for the first year and quarterly activity plan for the subsequent years should be developed.
  • Monitoring and evaluation procedures for the different project milestones should be put in place.

Table of contents

Annexes

Tables

Text Boxes

Glossary of Abbreviations Used

1.Introduction

1.1KIID Project Description

1.2Description of infrastructure for which RAP is prepared

1.2.1Road works

1.2.2Traffic Improvement Measures

1.2.3Drainage works

1.2.4Solid waste disposal

1.2.5Markets

1.2.6Benefits from improving infrastructure

1.2.7Potential Impacts

1.3Purpose, Outputs and Outcomes

1.3.1World Bank Policy

1.4Terms of Reference

1.4.1Contract Framework

1.4.2Scope of Works

1.5Acknowledgements

1.6Report Format

2.Methodology for the Resettlement Action Plan

2.1Introduction

2.1.1Approach

2.2Mobilisation and sensitisation

2.2.1Objective

2.2.2Method

2.2.3Method adjusted

2.3Cadastral survey and design review

2.3.1Objective

2.3.2Technique

2.3.3Mailo/Freehold Land Records

2.3.4Leasehold and Planned survey Records

2.3.5Engineering Design Review

2.4Socio-economic census

2.4.1Objectives

2.4.2Method

2.4.3Data Analysis

2.5Stakeholder consultation

2.6Valuation

2.6.1Objective

2.6.2Methods

2.6.3Inspection and Data capture

2.6.4Data Analysis

2.6.5Basis of Valuation

2.6.6Kampala District Compensation Rates

2.6.7Replacement cost and market value

2.7Review of related work

2.7.1Objective

2.8Outputs

3.Description of the Project Area and Potential Impacts

3.1Makindye Division

3.1.1Drains

3.1.2Markets

3.2Nakawa Division

3.2.1Roads

3.3Kawempe Division

3.3.1Roads

3.3.2Traffic Junctions

3.3.3Drains

3.3.4Markets

3.4Rubaga Division

3.4.1Roads

3.4.2Traffic Junction

3.4.3Drains

3.4.4Markets

3.5Central Division

3.5.1Traffic Junctions

3.5.2Drains

3.5.3Markets

3.6Solid Waste Landfill

3.7Maintenance is critical

3.8Valuation Assessment

3.8.1Affected Property

3.8.2Land Tenure Systems

3.8.3Affected land

3.8.4Makindye Division

3.8.5Nakawa Division

3.8.6Kawempe Division

3.8.7Rubaga Division

3.8.8Central Division

4.Findings from the socio-economic census

4.1General

4.1.1Selection of infrastructure where survey was carried out

4.1.2Entities within the project area

4.1.3Reasons for Movement

4.1.4Household Organisation and other Characteristics

4.1.5Standard of Living

4.1.6Vulnerability

4.1.7Land Tenure and Transfer Systems

4.1.8Patterns of Social Interaction

4.2Resettlement Measures and Options

4.2.1Preferences expressed during the Socio-economic census

4.3Perceptions about infrastructure

4.3.1Roads

4.3.2Drains

4.3.3Solid waste facilities

4.3.4Market facilities

4.4Detailed Profile per Road and Drain

4.4.1Mbogo Road

4.4.2Kibuli Road

4.4.3Bukoto-Ntinda Road

4.4.4Bukoto-Kisaasi

4.4.5Ntinda –Kisaasi

4.4.6Kalerwe Road

4.4.7Kawempe-Mpererwe Road

4.4.8Kimera Road

4.4.9Hoima Road

4.4.10Secondary 5

4.4.11Nalukolongo Secondary 2

4.4.12Lubigi Channel

5.Valuation and Compensation for losses

5.1.1Identification of owners

5.1.2Poor state of the land registry

5.1.3Valuation Results

6.Resettlement Action Plan

6.1Objectives of the Resettlement Plan

6.2Legal Framework of Resettlement and Compensation

6.2.1Relevant national law and agencies

6.2.2Kampala City Council

6.2.3Directorate of Community Services

6.2.4Minister of Water, Lands and Environment

6.2.5Attorney General

6.2.6Chief Government Valuer

6.2.7Uganda Land Commission

6.2.8District Land Board

6.2.9Town and Country Planning Board (1964)

6.2.10The 1995 Constitution of Uganda

6.2.11The Land Act 1998

6.2.12The Land Act of 1998 as amended in 2004

6.2.13The Land Acquisition Act of 1965

6.2.14The Roads Act of 1964

6.2.15World Bank Group Safeguard Policies and Guidelines

6.3Resettlement measure

6.4Eligibility and Cut-Off Dates

6.4.1Squatters and renters

6.4.2Land transactions

6.4.3Non measurable losses

6.5Community Participation

6.5.1Transparency is crucial

6.5.2Anxiety related to overlapping interests over the same piece on Land

6.5.3Engage with affected population

6.5.4Strengthen Community Services within KCC

6.6Alternatives to achieve Acceptable Impact and Cost (Scenario 2)

6.6.1Maintenance of bitumen roads

6.6.2Limit road reserve

6.6.3Design review at Bwaise Junction

6.6.4Design Review of Kimera Road

6.6.5Exclusion of Minor/Peripheral Developments

6.6.6Land within the road reserves

6.6.7Harvest of perennial crops

6.6.8Impact under Scenario 2

6.6.9Conclusions

6.7Timetable and budget

6.7.1Grievance Procedures

6.7.2Integration into host population and effect of resettlement on the environment

6.8Organisational Responsibilities

6.9RAP Assumptions

6.10Getting Started

6.10.1Fund Raising

6.10.2Disclosure

6.10.3Detailed Work Programme

6.11Monitoring and Evaluation

6.11.1Logical Framework

Annexes

Annex 1: Terms of Reference

Annex 2a: Socio-economicInventory Form

Annex 2b: Census Questionnaire for the RAP

Annex 3: Minutes of meetings between Consultant and Community Groups

Annex 4: Minutes of meetings to sensitise local leadership

Figures

Figure 21 Consultant’s approach

Figure 22 Change of approach to community mobilisation

Figure 23 Relevant studies and strategies reviewed

Figure 61: Proposed Institutional Framework

Tables

Table 11 Consultant Team

Table 21 Agencies included in consultation

Table 22 Project Outputs

Table 31 Roads to be improved in Makindye Division

Table 32 Drains to be improved in Makindye Division

Table 33 Market in Makindye Division

Table 34 Roads in Nakawa Division

Table 35 Kawempe Division Roads

Table 36 Junction in Kawempe Division

Table 37 Drains in Kawempe Division

Table 38 Markets in Kawempe Division

Table 39 Rubaga Division Roads

Table 310 Traffic Junction in Rubaga Division

Table 311 Drain in Rubaga Division

Table 312 Roads in Central Division

Table 313 Central Division Junctions

Table 314 Central Division Drains

Table 41 Survey entities per division Table 42 Household density on the roads

Table 43: Summary of entities within the project area by infrastructure

Table 44: Location of income generating activity

Table 45: Own ranking of standard of living of entities within the project area

Table 46: Vulnerability of Households

Table 47: Tenure system and means of acquisition

Table 48: Patterns of Social Interaction

Table 49: Suggested options for resettlement

Table 410 perceived problems by survey respondents

Table 411 Socio-economic Profile for Mbogo Road

Table 412 Profile for Kibuli Road

Table 413 Profile for Bukoto-Ntinda

Table 414 Profile for Bukoto- Kisaasi

Table 415 Profile for Ntinda-Kisaasi Road

Table 416 Profile for Kalerwe Road

Table 417 Profile for Kawempe- Mpererwe

Table 418 Profile for Kimera Road

Table 419 Profile for Hoima Road

Table 420 Profile for Nakivubo Secondary 5 – Kayunga Channel

Table 421 Profile for Secondary 2

Table 422: Profile for Lubigi Channel

Table 51 Different values assessed along infrastructure

Table 61 Laws relevant to the project

Table 62 Compensation Values based on Scenario 2

Table 63 Effect of Scenario 2

Table 64 Preliminary cost estimates

Table 66 Logical Framework

Text Boxes

Text Box 11 KIID Project Goals

Text Box 12 Involuntary Resettlement

Text Box 61 Some Unhappy Voices

Glossary of Abbreviations Used

BLB:BugandaLand Board

CAO: Chief Administrative Officer

CBD: Central Business District

CGV: Chief Government Valuer

DLB:DistrictLand Board

DLT:DistrictLand Tribunal

EIA: Environmental Impact Assessment

H.E: His Excellence

IHK:InternationalHospitalKampala

KCC:Kampala City Council

KDMP: Kampala Drainage Master Plan

KIIDP:Kampala Institutional and Infrastructure Development Project

KUSP:Kampala Urban Sanitation Project

LC: Local Council

LGDP: Local Government Development Programme

LVEMP: Lake Victoria Environmental Management Programme

MoFPED: Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development

MoGLSD: Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development

MoLG: Ministry of Local Government

MP: Member of Parliament

MWLE: Ministry of WaterLands and Environment

NEMA: National Environmental Management Agency

NCRP: Nakivubo Channel Rehabilitation Project

OP 5: Five year Operational Plan for the Sector

OP: Operational Manual

PAP: Persons Affected By the Project

PCU: Project Coordination Unit

PV: Principal Valuer

RAFU: Roads Agency Formation Unit

RAP: Resettlement Action Plan

RO:Resettlement Officer

SIP 15: fifteen years Sector Investment Plan

ToR: Terms of Reference

URA:Uganda Revenue Authority

URC: Uganda Railways Corporation

UWA:Uganda Wildlife Authority

VIPP:Visualisation In Participatory Planning

1

RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN FOR PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS IN KAMPALA

1.Introduction

KampalaCity is the economic and political hub of Uganda and as such is required to have facilities and public services of an international standing. At the moment the institutional capacity of local authorities to develop and manage the requisite policy environment and infrastructure which generates and supports urban economic growth has been outstripped by the tempo of the city’s growth. The high 3.9% demographic growth rate will only increase the pressure on the current drainage, road and solid waste disposal facilities whose inadequacy has a direct negative impact on the city as well as the country’s overall economic performance. From the level of garbage collectors deciding on daily tasks, to the engineers designing and supervising the construction of drainage channels and senior civil servants tackling policy, and determining budgets, all resources need to be strategically managed and coordinated.