3 - World Bank
REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN
FERGHANA VALLEY WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROJECT – PHASE 1
RESETTLEMENT POLICY FRAMEWORK AND
SPECIFIC RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN
(FIRST 37 FARMERS)
20 July 2009
CONSULTANTS:
Tahlil Center for Social Research/ Social Assessment LLC.
(Team Leader Prof. Ayse Kudat)
Under Management of the Project Implementation Unit
REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND WATER RESOURCES
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT
Contents Page
1 Description of the Project 8
1.1 Background to Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project 8
1.2 Project Area 8
1.3 Population and Project Affected People 10
1.4 Elements of Project that Affect Land Acquisition 10
2 Potential Impacts 11
2.1 Project components and activities that give rise to resettlement 11
2.2 The alternatives considered to avoid or minimize resettlement 19
3 Objectives of Land Acquisition and Resettlement Policy Framework. 20
4 Results of the Socio-economic Census of 37 Affected Farms 21
4.1 Introduction 21
4.2 Basic characteristics of Project affected leasehold farmers’ households 21
4.3 Agricultural Activities of Leasehold Farms, Assets and Incomes 23
4.4 Lands acquisition 27
4.5 Farmers’ awareness about the Project, readiness to participate and suggestions about the future land acquisition process 32
4.6 Risks related to land acquisition 35
5 Legal Framework 37
6 Institutional Framework 47
7 Eligibility / Right to Compensations and Assistance 48
8 Valuation of and Compensation for Losses 50
9 Compensation and Entitlement Matrix 56
10 Selection of Plots for Farmers Whose Existing Plots are Significantly Reduced During Land Acquisition 59
11 Provision with Housing, Objects of Infrastructure, and Social Services 59
12 Environmental Protection and Management 60
13 Public Participation 60
14 Integration with Host Communities 61
15 Grievance Procedures (Procedures for consideration and resolution of complaints) 61
16 Organizational Responsibilities for Implementing Resettlement 61
17 Implementation Schedule 62
18 Costs and Budget 65
19 Monitoring and Evaluation 73
Annex 1: Decree On Optimization of Cropping Areas and Increasing of Food Crop Production 77
Annex 2: Instruction On Constitution of a Special Committee (SC) in charge for development of proposals on optimization of farm enterprise plots 79
List of Tables
Table 1. Suggested new and rehabilitated infrastructure and links to the resettlement issues 12
Table 2. Sources of forage and pastures for livestock in households of affected farmers 23
Table 3. Year of establishment of affected leasehold farms 23
Table 4. Farming information about affected leasehold farms 24
Table 5: Officially registered indicators of performance on affected leasehold farms in 2008 (extracted from accounting books of farms) 25
Table 6. Crops structure on the leasehold farm plots affected by IDs 25
Table 7. Availability of own machinery to leasehold farmers 26
Table 8. Affected farms and future land acquisition by Raion 27
Table 9. Information about affected farms in Altyaryk raion. WUA “Katput” 28
Table 10. Information about affected farms in Rishtan rayon. WUA “Tuda obi hayot”. 29
Table 11. Information about affected farms in Bagdad raion. WUAs “Kushtegirmon”, “Sabibullo Hodji Muhiddinov”, “Dashtda dustlik bogi”, “Besh uglon zamini” 30
Table 12. Negative consequences expected by farmers from the construction of IDs 33
Table 13. Farmer’s requests for assistance/information in connection with possible beginning of construction IDs. 34
Table 14. Crop structure in Project farms, whose land will be acquired for ID construction (taking into account permanent crops) 51
Table 15. Estimates for compensations most common fruit trees and bushes 53
Table 16. Average annual production of crops in Project districts, 2006-2008 54
Table 17. Estimates of compensations for loss of annual crops 55
Table 18. Entitlement Framework 56
Table 19. Calculation of compensations for acquisition of lands under annual crops in 37 farms, for the purposes of ID construction 66
Table 20. Calculation of compensations for acquisition of 200 ha of lands under annual crops, for the purposes of installation of 100 km long SHD 67
Table 21. Calculation of amount of trees on the routes of interceptor drains 69
Table 22. Estimates of compensations for loss of fruit and mulberry trees during ID construction 70
Table 23. Total estimates for RF implementation, ‘000 USD 72
Table 24. M&E matrix 74
List of Figures
Figure 1. Map of the Project Area 9
Figure 2. Interceptor drains location and characteristics in Altyaryk district 14
Figure 3. Interceptor drains location and characteristics in Bagdad district 15
Figure 4. Interceptor drains location and characteristics in Rishtan district 15
Figure 5. Interceptor drains location within the Project Area 16
Figure 6. Preliminary location of SHDs. 17
Figure 7. Readiness of farmers and family members to participate in paid construction work, if opportunity/necessity is present 34
Glossary
|Ameliorative |Term used in the context of improving the drainage conditions of soils |
|Dehkan farm / Dehkan plot |In Uzbekistan, a dehkan farm is a family-based small-scale enterprise that produces and markets agricultural |
| |products; it uses family labor and cultivates a plot adjacent to the family home. Such a plot is locally referred to|
| |as ‘tomorka’ and is usually smaller than 0.1 ha. About 10 percent of households have additional dehkan plots, often |
| |outside, but close to, their communities. These additional dehkan plots (0.15-0.2 ha) are used for cultivation and/or|
| |for house construction. Dehkan plots (both tomorka and additional dehkan plots) are held for a lifetime and can be |
| |inherited. Dehkan farms may be registered as legal commercial agricultural entities; but there is no requirement of |
| |registration. |
|Dehkan farmer |1) Peasant, farmer; 2) in Uzbekistan this word means an owner of a dehkan plot |
|Horizontal drainage |An open or closed (buried) drain designed to lower the water table in the fields |
|Khokimiyat |Local authorities/government. |
|Makhalla |Territorial community, community of neighbors; |
| |In Uzbekistan, this word means an organ of self-governance of citizens. |
|Optimization of farms |The process triggered by the Decree “On Optimization of Cropping Areas and Enhancing Food Crop Production” and |
| |“Instruction On Constitution of a Special Committee (SC) in charge of developing proposals for optimization of farm |
| |plots” issued by the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan in October 2008. The key objective of the decree is to |
| |consolidate a large number of existing small (less than 10 ha) leasehold farms into sustainable (around 50 ha) |
| |agricultural enterprises and to improve the efficiency of irrigation. |
|Project districts |Administrative districts of Ferghana region (Baghdad, Rishtan and Altyarik) where the Project Area is located. |
|Project Area |Territory of nearly 67,000 hectares spanning approximately a half of irrigated land of the Project districts |
|Rural Assembly of Citizens |A body of local self-governance in rural areas. One RAC consists of either one or several Makhallas. |
|(RAC) | |
|Salinization |High salinity level in soil and/or water impeding plant growth, also the term mineralization is used |
|Shirkat |Agricultural cooperative |
|Uzgeocadastre |Land Registration office |
|Tomorka |Household garden plot |
|Vertical drainage |A system of deep wells designed to control the water table |
|Waterlogging |Lands with high water table, impeding soil aeration and plant growth |
ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS
|AW | |
| |Artesian well |
|BAIS |Basin Administration of Irrigation System |
|DIWIP |Drainage, Irrigation and Wetland Improvement Project |
|DP |Demonstration Plot |
|FS |Feasibility study |
|FV |Ferghana valley |
|FWRMP-I |Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project Phase-I |
|HGME |Hydro-Geological Meliorative Expedition |
|I&D |Irrigation and Drainage |
|ID |Interceptor Drain |
|LDFA |Leasehold and Dehkan Farmers Association |
|MAWR |Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources |
|M&E |Monitoring and Evaluation |
|MOM |Management, Operation and Maintenance |
|OFWM |On-Farm Water Management |
|O&M |Operation and Maintenance |
|PAD |Project Appraisal Document |
|RAP |Specific Resettlement Action Plan for the First Segment of the Project (for 37 farmers) |
|RF |Resettlement Policy Framework and Specific Resettlement Action Plan |
|PIM |Participatory Irrigation Management |
|PIU-WI |Projects Implementation Unit for Water Infrastructure |
|PRW |Pressure relief well |
|RAC |Rural Assemblies of Citizens |
|RBA |Rishtan-Bagdad-Altiarik |
|SHD |Subsurface horizontal drainage |
|TA |Technical Assistance |
|ToR |Terms of Reference |
|UZGI |Uzgiprovodkhoz Institute |
|UNDP |United Nations Development Programme |
|VDW |Vertical Drainage Well |
|WB |World Bank |
|WUA |Water Users Association |
Description of the project
1 Background to Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project
The Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project Phase-I (FWRMP) has been devised to address constraints on agricultural productivity in parts of the Uzbekistan territory lying within the Ferghana Valley (FV). In addition, it seeks to tackle chronic problems of water-logging which are affecting infrastructure and buildings within this part of the Valley.
A major problem in the Valley is the high water table, especially in the lower and central parts. This widespread problem is particularly associated with the irrigated areas. The high water table is due to the absence of an adequate drainage system; or a drainage system that is no longer properly functioning because the necessary rehabilitation and maintenance has not been carried out during the past two decades. Poor water management practices have also contributed to this ecological problem. As a result, the area is suffering from substantial water logging as well as soil and water salinization. The high water table has mobilized salt in the soil which, together with water-logging, has resulted in destruction of buildings and residential houses located near the collector drains. For crops, it has resulted in lower yields and therefore lower incomes for the people living in the area.
As stated in the Final Feasibility Report (September 2008), the main objectives of the Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project Phase-I (FWRMP) are to:
(a) Promote sustainable irrigated agriculture production, increase employment, and generate farm incomes in the Uzbek part of the Ferghana Valley by improving drainage and irrigation systems and overall water resources management;
(b) Reduce damage to private and public infrastructure, and improve environmental and public health conditions by controlling water logging. In so doing, the Project will enhance standards of living;
(c) Introduce participatory irrigation management through Water Users’ Associations (WUAs) and improved agricultural and irrigation practices so as to enhance innovative cropping patterns and the value of agricultural produce and farm incomes in the Project area; and
(d) Strengthen water management, and irrigation and drainage institutions.
Improved water productivity is understood to mean greater agricultural output per unit of water used, and will be achieved through rehabilitation of irrigation and drainage (I&D) systems, improved groundwater management, and other measures to support local agricultural producers and communities. Improved overall water resources management will be measured through increased quantity and reliability of flows in Syr Darya basin on the basis of Water Balance studies. The Project’s objectives would contribute to Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) goals of increased agricultural production, employment, incomes and living standards as well as improved environment.
2 Project Area
The Ferghana Valley is a large broad-bottomed valley surrounded by foothills of the western Tien Shan and Pamir Mountains, which are in turn located at the western end of the Himalayas. The Valley is almost totally encircled by mountains, which rise to about 4500 m, with only a narrow mouth to the west through which the Syr Darya river drains the valley, first into Tajikistan, and then across the Uzbek and Kazakh steppes to discharge into the Aral Sea. The valley floor has an elevation of about 450 m above sea level (asl).
The Project Area is located in the south-central part of Ferghana Valley on the left bank of Syr Darya river roughly between 40( 20’ and 40( 38’ northern latitude and 71( 04’ and 71( 28’ eastern longitude. Part of the area sits on the Sokh and Shahimardan river debris cones in the northern foothills of the Alay-Turkestan mountain range.
Administratively, the Project area covers most of Baghdad raion (excepting the extreme southern and eastern sections), about the northern half of Rishtan raion, and the middle section of Altyarik raion, all being part of Ferghana oblast, as well as the cities Rishtan, Baghdad and Altyarik (Map 1). The borders of the Study area are: on the north – Middle Kizyltepe and North Bagdad Collectors; on the west and east – borders of Baghdad and Altyarik raions; on the south – the Burgandin massive of the Republic of Kyrgyzstan. This area slopes slightly from north to south and from east to west with land elevations from 490 to 370 m above sea level (asl).
Figure 1. Map of the Project Area
[pic]
Improving water resources management in the Ferghana Valley and rehabilitating the I&D system over the entire area is an enormous task requiring large investments. Therefore, the improvement and rehabilitation process will be undertaken through a long-term program, to be implemented in several phases over the next 15 years. The FWRMP is the first of a series of Projects for implementation by the Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Program.
The Project area is about 67,000 hectares; of this amount, 48,000 hectares are cultivated. About one third of the cultivated area is under cotton production and about the same amount is devoted to growing wheat. The remaining area is used for orchards, vineyards, vegetables, and other crops. The crop intensity is about 112 percent and increases when short duration fodder crops and vegetables follow wheat. It is therefore possible for farmers to minimize construction and rehabilitation damage to standing crops provided that they have timely information.
.
3 Population and Project Affected People
The Project area accommodated 490,000 people in early 2007. Currently, agricultural activities are carried out primarily by leasehold or dehkan farmers; the state cooperative farms (shirkats) no longer operate in the Project area. The leasehold farmers used to have 20 hectare holdings, on average. In the process of farm consolidation (optimization process) rapid changes have taken place, and every 2 to 3 leasehold farms were merged under one management selected from among one of these farms. Thus, the legal entities, i,e, the newly emerging farms that deliver the produce, pay taxes, etc., have been reduced from 3,900 in 2007 to 1,800 in 2009. The leasehold farmers are organized into 35 WUAs which, are based in the former shirkat areas.
While a relatively small number of leasehold farmers cultivate most (75 percent) of the cultivable land, the greatest majority of the farming families rely on 12,000 ha or one-quarter of the cultivable area for their living. There are some 88,000 dehkan households with very small holdings of 0.14 ha (garden plots) adjacent to their homes; about 10 percent of the households have an additional dehkan farm of 0.15 ha outside the settlements, away from their homes. All Project construction and rehabilitation works will take place on the lands of leasehold farmers. This land is owned by the State. No works will be performed on the very small plots of dehkan farm land adjacent to the homes, or to home gardens. Because the Project will rehabilitate the entire I&D infrastructure, however, there is a possibility that some of the dehkans farms may also be affected[1]. Thus no adverse Project impacts on standing crops will fall on the shoulder of the greatest majority of the people in the three districts - the dehkan farmers with no additional land outside the villages. The largest impacts will be on leasehold farmers whose land holdings are significantly larger than any of the dehkan farms.
4 Elements of Project that Affect Land Acquisition[2]
For the areas where the Project involves construction of open IDs, the Project Implementation Unit (PIU) prepared the first full list of affected farms. Based on extensive socio-economic surveys and farm interviews, a detailed inventory of land that each farmer will lose was prepared, including the number, type, and age of the trees; as well as the type and amount of standing crops, vegetables, and orchards the farmers had in 2008. There were 37 farms to be affected, of which 36 were leaseholder and one was a small plot (a garden of 0.16 Ha)[3]. All farmers were informed of the project and possible land acquisition[4]. A full Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) was prepared for this segment of the Project and is included in this document. A budget for Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF), including the full budget for the component of land acquisition on 37 farms, is presented in section 18 of this document. Elements of the remaining impacts are addressed through the creation of a special Fund that sets aside resources for compensation for economic displacement, as well as for administration and monitoring/evaluation purposes.
Although the extensive rehabilitation and repair works under the Project will affect more than 37 farms, two factors make it difficult to identify these additional farms and prepare an inventory of affected assets. First, the lack of in-farm roads may require the use of machinery in parts of the affected plots that are not directly subject to land take; as a result, the specific impacts on land and standing crops can be identified only during the course of Project implementation. Secondly, although information on the first group of farms was available at the time of Project design, the initiation of the government’s farm consolidation process made the identification of affected assets for the remaining farms impossible (see Annexes 1 an 2) because the boundaries of leasehold farms have changed, and are still changing. Until the farm consolidation process is complete, it will not be possible to obtain information on which farmers' land will be affected. Thus, while the broad boundaries of the Project area are known, the affected assets will only be identified during Project implementation. When they are identified, the Project’s land acquisition process and the mitigation of adverse impacts on economic displacement will be subject to the policies and principles described in this document.
Potential impacts
1 Project components and activities that give rise to resettlement
The Project interventions are primarily to improve drainage and off-farm irrigation systems that are largely “public goods.” The project does not include on-farm investments. The Project components consist of the following:
Component A: Improvement of Irrigation and Drainage Network This component aims at addressing the problem of high groundwater levels by financing improvements in the surface drainage network and irrigation system as well as the installation of vertical drainage wells.
Component B: Institutional Strengthening and Agricultural Development Support. This component covers institutional strengthening support to public and private institutions/organizations involved in the enhancement of water resources management (I&D system O&M, water utilization) and agriculture production in the project area. The component would finance training and study tours, outreach demonstration plots, field and O&M equipment, laboratory, IT and office equipment, and institution and training support consultancy services.
Component C: Project Management and Audit, and Monitoring and Evaluation of Project Impact, consisting of operational expenditures for project management, consultancy services for auditing project expenditures, and for the M&E of project impacts, and for the preparation of a future project.
Component A is by far the largest of these and directly related to WB OP 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement. The main works of this Component and potential linkages with the OP 4.12 are summarized in Table 1:
Table 1. Suggested new and rehabilitated infrastructure and links to the resettlement issues
| |Construction/Rehabilitation works expected |Potential/probability of |
| | |Leasehold farms and households land |Resettle-ment of |
| | |acquisition |people, or |
| | | |damage to immovable |
| | | |assets |
| | |Temporary |Permanent | |
| |Open interceptor drains: construction 24.9 km |Yes |Yes |No |
| |Subsurface horizontal drainage (SHD): cleaning / repair – 230 km; new 100 km |Yes |No |No |
| |Drains: rehabilitation of off-farm and on-farm – 1 150 km |Yes[5] |No |No |
| |Canals: rehabilitation of off-farm and on-farm – 2 500 km |Yes[6] |No |No |
| |Rishtan town: upgraded electricity supply – New transformer; power line – 50 km; |Yes[7] |No |No |
| |repair of drainage flumes | | | |
| |Vertical Drainage Wells (VDWs): rehabilitation, including mechanical and |No |No |No |
| |electrical components – 240 units. | | | |
| |Pressure relief wells (PRWs) and Artesian wells (Aws): new - 1 420 pcs. |No |No |No |
| |Cross regulators and outlets: repair of off-farm and on-farm - 625 pcs. |No |No |No |
| |Cross regulators and outlets: new off-farm and on-farm – 265 pcs. |No |No |No |
| |Water measuring structures: new - 750 units |No |No |No |
| |I&D culverts and siphons: repair – 450 units |No |No |No |
The implementation of the Project will not require physical resettlement; rather, it will have some adverse impacts on standing crops and thus cause economic displacement. The impacts will be more prominent along the ID, affecting 37 farmers. As mentioned, extensive detailed surveys were carried out with these farmers and an inventory of their affected assets has been prepared. This document incorporates the full RAP completed for the ID area and the broader resettlement policy framework that covers the remaining works.
The construction and rehabilitation works are highly complex and require the use of various types of heavy machinery. The use of the machinery within the existing farms may result in unavoidable yet minimal damage to standing crops. However, other than the construction of IDs, the works would involve temporary economic displacement. Most of the Project components will not involve permanent and/or temporary impacts on farm land and/or standing crops.
Construction of open IDs on 37 farms (25 km) will involve extensive work in individual leasehold farms. New IDs are expected to be relatively wide open drains (canals) of 5 meters deep and 10 meters width. The construction and further maintenance of the drains also will require reserving up to 10 meters of land from each side of the drain. Preliminary calculations show that about 42 hectares of land will be used permanently to install 25 km of proposed IDs. The excavation works and the necessity to store the excavated soil will require an additional 10 meters of land from each side of ID, or 25 ha of land on a temporary basis. Thus, considering the scope of the works, the land acquisition requirements for this major component of the Project will be 70 hectares, of which 42 hectares will be permanent. These drains will discharge into the existing network. The location and scope of works are shown in “Feasibility Study Working Paper 6: Irrigation and Drainage” [MMTS, 2008f].
There will be 6 IDs (8 km) constructed in the Altyaryk raion, 13 IDs (15 km) in Bagdad, and 2 IDs (2 km) in Rishtan district, as shown in Maps 2-5 below.
Figure 2. Interceptor drains location and characteristics in Altyaryk district
[pic]
Figure 3. Interceptor drains location and characteristics in Bagdad district
[pic]
Figure 4. Interceptor drains location and characteristics in Rishtan district
[pic]
Figure 5. Interceptor drains location within the Project Area
The construction of subsurface horizontal drainage (SHD) will involve 100 km of subsurface drains to improve the situation on 1000 ha of land. Closed drainage installation will require specialized excavators to dig a ditch (1 m wide and 3-5 m deep) to place perforated plastic of pipe of 100mm pipe; thereafter the ditch will be covered. Drainage pipes will have to be installed in parallel lines every 100-150 mt. Thus, installing closed drains on 1 ha plot (100m x 100m) will require digging 6-10 parallel ditches and installing 1 km of pipes. Thus, the impacts on the affected farms will be significant. The area over the ditch will be levelled and can be used for cultivation but not for planting of trees. It may cause temporary land acquisition/loss of incomes for one season for affected farmers. The impacts can be minimized through timely information provision to the farmers and careful scheduling of construction activities.
Initially, the SHD pipes have been proposed for the north of Baghdad raion and the north of Rishtan raion. For Bagdad, the loamy soils allow a typical drain spacing of 90 m whereas in Rishtan the spacing can be increased to 120 m, thus reducing the requirement for land acquisition[8]. Later, the specialists changed the location of SHD slightly to the southwest and in January 2009 the preliminary location of SHD has been proposed in sectors 4, 9-11, and 14-15 in map 6.
Figure 6. Preliminary location of SHDs.
[pic]
Note: SHD location is intended to be to the south from the bold red line.
The details of the relevant works subsequent to the preparation of the Feasibility Studies are not available. However, it can be assumed that the construction of 100 km of new SHDs will require only 3 hours for the construction per km if specialized layer machinery is used and 15 days if partially mechanized procedures are adopted. Accordingly, the width of the ditch will vary from 1 m to 3-5 meters with pipes at a depth of 2.5 m. Consequently 1 meter of SHD installation may require a spacing of up to 20 m width of lands of leasehold farmers, and up to 200 Ha of lands will be temporary occupied. It is expected that the work within each farm will take a short period of time and the farmers would be able to plant the temporarily affected areas almost immediately.
The Feasibility Study (FS) shows that inter farm drains typically show signs of bank failure. Many banks stand vertical. The beds of drains are flat and the drains are narrow. The steep banks may fail under the surcharge of an excavator and bed deepening may cause further failure, thus widening the collector. If drain side slopes are battered back to 1 in 1.5 or 1 in 2, this would involve significant earthwork quantities and land take. On a majority of drains, fields are planted right up to the edge of the collector. This is contrary to standard practice in Uzbekistan, and irrigation so close to the collector adds to the instability of the side slopes. Nevertheless, in such situations, the standing plants will be affected and farmers will have to be compensated.
In addition, in some cases, there is no room for excavators to clean the drains from the bank without passing on cropped land; there is also no room to place spoil apart from on agricultural land. Thus collector deepening may reduce the area of agricultural land. The FS shows that in the Bagdad pilot area the collector density is 60m/ha; if a 10m strip of agricultural land alongside each collector and irrigation canal is used, about 7.5 percent of land in the affected area will have to be taken by the Project.[9] The details of the relevant rehabilitation works will be clear at the later stages of Project implementation. Thus it is impossible to assume the scale of this temporary land acquisition and the extent to which the state-owned and privately held property will be affected, to allow the preparation of a full scale RAP with a detailed compensation budget. As a result, the policies, principles, and mechanisms described in the following chapters of this RF document will be used if land is acquired from leasehold farmers or dehkans.
The two other rehabilitation activities (rehabilitation of 1,150 km of existing off-farm and on-farm drains, and 2500 km of canals) might also require temporary land acquisition. Despite the fact that the National Land Code prohibits to use of the reserve lands along canals and drains, households and farmers might be using these for agricultural activities or for planting poplar, fruit, and mulberry trees, as well as other crops. Some farmers plant seedlings to ensure rapid growth, others may cultivate wheat, cotton, or vegetables, and still others may plant poplar and/or other trees. While this activity severely threatens the sustainability of I&D infrastructure, shortages of water creates incentives for illegal planting. Poplars are not bought and sold; they are used by families often for cooking energy. Seedlings are replanted elsewhere in farms once they grow. Wheat, cotton, and other crops are harvested periodically. Mulberry trees have no commercial value because households do not breed silkworm cocoons.
No information is yet available on the list of the drains to be rehabilitated. Although there are variations within the regions, construction of new drains and the extensive rehabilitation would have involved 4,000 leasehold farmer families that lived in the 3 raions in 2007. It now appears that the number of leasehold farms is substantially reduced to 1,800 as a result of the Government’s optimization process. The drains and rehabilitated infrastructure will be unevenly distributed among the affected provinces. Leasehold farmers will lose different amounts of land; at the same time, each farmer will lose a different proportion of his land. Almost none of the 88,000 dehkan farmers are expected to be adversely affected.
2 The alternatives considered to avoid or minimize resettlement and principles to be applied
In compliance with the WB policy OP 4.12 (Involuntary Resettlement), all measures were being taken by the Feasibility Study Team in the development of the project activities to avoid impacts on residential areas and/or on immovable built assets. There will be no physical resettlement as a result of Project activities. Similarly, the temporary use of land will be minimized through screening of repair and rehabilitation options and continuous monitoring of economic displacement affects during the construction phase.
The Feasibility Study indicates that the subprojects will require a small amount of permanent land acquisition in the three project raions without displacement of household and existing village infrastructure; there may be some, but minimal, temporary occupation of land for the completion of the works. Because there is potential for adverse economic displacement impacts on people, a RPF and Specific RAP has been formulated in accordance with the WB policies on involuntary resettlement.
Several principles will guide Project implementation:
a. No new or rehabilitation works will be carried out that will cause physical displacement (resettlement); all such works will avoid adverse impacts on homes and infrastructure;
b. Permanent land take will be minimized through design arrangements;
c. Temporary adverse impacts on land will be minimized through careful implementation of construction/rehabilitation works; additional measures will be taken so as to inform the farmers so that damage on standing crops can be minimized;
d. Every effort will be made to limit construction and rehabilitation works to avoid dehkan farms inside or outside villages; should minor works cannot be avoided in dehkan farms outside the settlement areas, affected land and standing crops/trees will be compensated;
e. Compensation values for affected crops and trees will be determined by free market retail prices to leaseholders and to dehkan farmers;
f. Entitlements of affected farmers will be disclosed widely and in a transparent manner, involving, among others, the Water User Associations (WUA);
g. Farmers will be able to express their grievances and seek compensation; and
h. Implementation of RF policies outlined here will be monitored internally by PIU as well as through an Independent Panel of Experts, composed of three members.
i. Compensation will be fully provided to the affected parties before any construction and rehabilitation works may begin.
Objectives of resettlement policy framework
These consist of the following:
a. Ensure construction, rehabilitation, and rehabilitation/repair works are implemented in accordance with the policies and principles outlined in this document;
b. Provide a basis for consultations with relevant stakeholders;
c. Enable farmers to have firm knowledge of their entitlements and responsibilities;
d. Guide affected groups to launch grievances through appropriate channels; and
e. Ensure monitoring of arrangements for economic displacement.
Results of the socio-economic census of 37 affected farms
1 Introduction
The following summarizes the results of socio-economic census of farms and farmer’s families to be affected during the construction of interceptor drains (IDs) in 3 project raions.
The Feasibility Study suggests that the construction of 25 km of interceptor drains (wide open drainage collectors) along southern border of the three raions to cut-off the groundwater flowing from the Burgandin massif of Kyrgyz Republic and to divert excess water from the lower parts of the project area should start as early as possible.
According to the data as of Jan 1, 2009, the total number of farms to be affected during the construction of IDs in 3 raions is 37. The PIU identified these farms using the lists of 43 farmers prepared by Ferghanagiprovodkhoz Institute in autumn 2008. The process of consolidating/merging of farms, launched after the Decree “On Optimization of Cropping Areas and Increasing of Food Crop Production” issued by the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan on 20 October 2008 (see Annexes 1 and 2), has significantly reduced the number of leasehold farms in the region. Some farms within the IDs construction area were also reorganized and the number of farms in the ID construction areas has been reduced from 43 to 37. In addition, the process of farm consolidation is not yet complete; during 2009 it will be continued with the emphasis on the consolidation of farms involved in cropping orchards. According to the information received from MAWR, farmers who manage orchards and mulberry trees (used for feeding silk warms under State order) will be also merged so as to have at least 5 ha of land.
Of the 37 farms surveyed, only one plot is not a registered leasehold farm, but a small 0.16 ha plot given from a former shirkat in 2004 to the guard of pumps on drainage wells instead of paying him a salary. He has no any documents for this plot, and seems to be more vulnerable in terms of land acquisition, because, according to the FS calculations, “his” plot will be fully occupied or destroyed by the IDs, and he will have no chance to keep at least a small piece of this plot after the completion of construction works.
2 Basic characteristics of Project affected leasehold farmers’ households
Leasehold farmers’ households are larger; thus they have greater opportunities to make use of family labor. The average family size of affected leasehold farmers (7.1 persons) is higher than the average rural family size in the Project Area (5.9 persons). Less than half of the members of the leasehold farmer households surveyed in 2009 are women (48.3 percent). The average age of the family members is 27.2 years. Leasehold farmers’ families have the same share of children under 16, as compared with average households – 30 percent, and the percentage of pension-age persons[10] is 8 and 10 percent, respectively.
The educational level of leasehold farmer family members is much higher than the average in the Project area. Among leasehold farmers, 28 percent of men and 9 percent of women have completed higher education or have a post-graduate degree.
Agriculture is the most significant source of income for leasehold farmers and their families. The percentage of working age persons is very high in the surveyed households and 66 percent of family members aged 16 and above (including the farmers themselves) work on the leasehold farm plot. The employment and economically active rate is high among both male and female family members. More than 30 percent of economically active family members have at least one additional job. There are no registered unemployed in leasehold farmer’s households; the share of pensioners is only 3 percent (comparing with average 8-10 percent for other households). In addition, there are no vulnerable members (e.g., disabled or very old people) in leasehold farmers’ households.
Cash incomes of leasehold farmers’ families are much larger than those of the dehkan households. In December 2008, total cash income of the surveyed farmers’ households was 498,000 soums (USD 360), and the average per capita monthly income was 77,000 soums (USD 56)[11]. Incomes measured through expenditures are even much higher than incomes from cash income. Cash expenditures of leasehold farmers’ families in December 2008 averaged 709,000 soums (USD 514) and per capita monthly expenses were 118,000 soums or USD 86. None of leasehold farmers’ households live on USD 1 per person a day or below, but, according to the SA-2007 survey, about 60 percent of the Project area population did so. Moreover, 95 percent of surveyed farmers considered themselves rich; only 2 of these farmers (5 percent) consider themselves poor[12].
All of the 37 Project affected farmers have their own garden plot (tomorka) on irrigated lands with an average size of 0.2 ha, of which 0.1 ha is occupied by crops, gardens, and vineyards. This additional garden plot owned by leasehold farmers is significantly larger than those held by dehkan farmers. The leasehold farmers use their garden plots effectively; the average cash income they make from marketing the crops they raised on these plots for last 12 months was 488 thousand Sums (US$375). Additionally, the average consumption from these plots in 2008 was 341,000 sums (US$260 a year). The Social Assessment conducted in 2007 showed dehkan farms to have higher productivity; the first group of leasehold farmers that will be affected by the Project also obtain higher yields from their dehkans than other farmers.
Thirty four of the 37 leasehold farmer households (92 percent) have livestock on their garden plots. The average livestock they hold consists of 3.6 cows and 5.2 sheep (comparing with 2 cows and 3 sheep as the average for the Project area households). Even in December 2008, incomes from the sale of home grown agricultural products, including livestock products grown on the family dehkan plot, constituted 21.7 percent of leasehold farmers’ household incomes. Additionally, 38.3 percent of incomes came from the leasehold farm activities and 6.2 percent was from the salary of farmers. Overall, the agricultural incomes of leasehold farmers, even in winter, constituted more than 65 percent of their cash household income. Leasehold farmers’ plots are also an important source of forage and are also used to graze livestock (Table 2).
Table 2. Sources of forage and pastures for livestock in households of affected farmers
|Pasturing |Sources of Forage |
|On family’s dehkan farm |Along sides of the roads, |On public pastures |Fodder raised on own |
| |canals, etc. | |dehkanplot |
|As a % of affected leasehold farmers |11% |14% |76% |
|Main specialization of leasehold farms, % of farms |
|Cotton/wheat raising * |0 |0 |100 |
|Gardens* |21 |26 |53 |
Source: 2009 SA survey
*Note: this sub-division on cotton/wheat and orchards farmers is limited and is done only on the basis of plots size. Some of the surveyed cotton/wheat farmers have sub-plots with hundreds of fruit trees also. Tables 9-11 below clearly describe the current assets of all the affected farms.
Twenty-one of the 37 surveyed farms (57 percent) have one plot, but others have several plots situated close to each other, but separated by roads, or other farm’s plots. Further, 58 percent of orchard farmers have from 2 to 5 separate sub-plots, while 72 percent of cotton/wheat raising farmers have only one plot; 4 farmers have 2 plots; and one farmer has 10 separate plots. The soil quality of their plots is close to the average for the Project area and the ball-bonitet varies from 42 to 76 with an average of 61 balls.
Affected farms are very different in terms of the size of their land holdings. Plot size varies from 1 to 72 ha, as shown in the table 4. Six of the seven gardens to be affected are located in Altyaryk raion and the only large (21.5 ha) garden affected is in Rishtan raion.
Table 4. Farming information about affected leasehold farms
| |Altyaryk |Rishtan |Baghdad |Total |
|Total number of farms |9[13] |5 |23 |37 |
|Main specialization of leasehold farms, No of farms | |
|Cotton/wheat raising |3 |4 |23 |30 |
|Gardens |614 |1 |0 |7 |
|Average size of plot, Ha | |
|Cotton/wheat raising |66 |47.7 |54.3 |54 |
|Gardens |1,9[14] |21.5 |- |4.3 |
Source: 2009 SA survey
Affected leasehold farms provide significant employment. The average number of permanent employees in the affected leasehold farms is almost 13 persons (including the farmer) and varies from 2 to 34 people. All the workers are officially registered workers and have signed contracts with the farmer. The average number of person-months spent on-farm by all the permanent workers was 100 person-months which is an equivalent of a full year for about 8 workers. The maximum number of temporary workers was high – 59 people on average, and the average number of person-months spent on-farm by all the temporary workers was 307 months (which is an equivalent of a full year for 26 people). Thus, the average affected farm provides full-year equivalent employment to 34 people. Despite the fact that orchard farms are small in terms of the amount of land, the number of permanent workers on these farms is similar to those dealing with cotton and wheat. The maximum number of temporary works is required for cotton farms and for gardens during the harvesting season. In terms of negative effects on employment, the most vulnerable farms will be the 6 small orchard farms in Altyaryk district, because most of them, even with the replanting of lost trees will have to shed at least 1/3 of their workers. Others will have no adverse impact in terms of employment.
Expenditures per hectare are relatively uniform over the Project districts. The average income of leasehold farms over 12 months preceding the SA survey consisted of 20 percent of the gross revenue. Farmers who grow fruits have the highest income per hectare, while those who deal with cotton or wheat may even lose money. However, among the orchard farmers, there were two without cash incomes because the gardens are still very young and no harvesting has yet occurred.
Bookkeeping is a very weak part of leasehold farmer’s activities. Cotton and wheat growing farmers are very vulnerable in terms of freedom of using their banking accounts:
• One the one hand, the necessity to sell sufficient produce within the State order system discourages farmers from showing a poor yield. In some cases, unsuccessful farmers have to buy wheat at local markets and pass it to the State to fulfill their contract and prevent sanctions (if the farmer does not fulfill the State order during 3 years, the leasing contract on the land can be denounced).
• On the other hand, too much production may cause requests to sell the production on fixed price (lower than the free market) if a raion has not fulfilled the State order.
Balancing between these two choices, most farmers try to have close-to-zero balance in their accounting books, as it shown in Table 5 below.
Table 5: Officially registered indicators of performance on affected leasehold farms in 2008 (extracted from accounting books of farms)
| |Total |Orchards |Cotton/wheat |
|Average official annual income (000 soums) |22,000 |24,338 |19,637 |
|Official gross net income (000 soums) |3,765 |4,581 |2,898 |
|Proportion of farmers with no profit, % |8 (3 farms) |2 |1 |
Source: 2009 SA survey
Also, farmers unofficially reveal the harvesting of secondary crops after wheat and hide both cash expenditures and incomes from this type of activity. The tanshes system (credits from the State to grow cotton and wheat) restricts the use of money from their banking accounts to buy necessary inputs for secondary crops; thus, the farmers have to buy many inputs using their own cash without revealing this in their accounting books.
In terms of reimbursements for land acquisition, all farmers are vulnerable because in most of cases they cannot reveal their real yields, expenditures, and incomes. The average figures, used by Geodezcadastre bodies (average ball-bonitet of the soil, average yields, average net incomes etc.) may cause significant uncovered losses to farmers should large-scaled land acquisition takes place. This is an important reason to conduct unofficial surveys and, if possible, censuses so that real losses can be identified. Thus, to calculate compensation to farmers in the context of the current RF, realistic and accurate data were collected.
Cotton and wheat are the predominant crops on leasehold farm plots, while the areas of other these crops are insignificant. Leasehold farmers keep cropping patterns as instructed by local authorities; the cropping patterns depend on the planned target output of cotton and wheat to be sold to the state procurement organizations. Fruit and vegetable farmers are free to grow anything they want and sell it on the free market, but their land plots are too small and the share of crops excluding cotton and wheat is about 20 percent in the area affected by IDs.
Table 6. Crops structure on the leasehold farm plots affected by IDs
| |No of farms and % |Mean, Ha |Minimum, Ha |Maximum, Ha |Average weighted, % |
| |Valid |Missing | | | | |
|Cotton |30(81.1%) |7(18.9%) |12.24 |5.3 |23.3 |43.0% |
|Wheat |29(78.4%) |8(21.6%) |10.13 |3.3 |20.8 |34.4% |
|Corn |3(8.1%) |34(91.9%) |2.07 |0.6 |5 |0.7% |
|Rice |1(2.7%) |36(97.3%) |1.00 |1 |1 |0.1% |
|Potato and vegetables |10(27.0%) |27(73.0%) |1.23 |0.02 |5 |1.4% |
|Melon, water-melon |2(5.4%) |35(94.6%) |2.20 |1.4 |3 |0.5% |
|Bean crops |2(5.4%) |35(94.6%) |0.59 |0.38 |0.8 |0.1% |
|Fodder root crops |14(37.8%) |23(62.2%) |5.76 |0.4 |13 |9.5% |
|Hay, Lucerne |2(5.4%) |35(94.6%) |5.50 |2 |9 |1.3% |
|Apple tree |7(18.9%) |30(81.1%) |0.69 |0.1 |2.2 |0.6% |
|Apricot tree |9(24.3%) |28(75.7%) |1.68 |0.02 |11 |2.3% |
|Peach tree |10(27.0%) |27(73.0%) |1.64 |0.005 |6 |1.9% |
|Merry tree |4(10.8%) |33(89.2%) |0.10 |0.005 |0.25 |0.0% |
|Pomegrenate |1(2.7%) |36(97.3%) |2.00 |2 |2 |0.2% |
|Persimmon |2(5.4%) |35(94.6%) |0.40 |0.1 |0.7 |0.1% |
|Circassian walnut tree |2(5.4%) |35(94.6%) |0.55 |0.1 |1 |0.1% |
|Mulberry tree |6(16.2%) |31(83.8%) |4.08 |0.6 |14.7 |2.9% |
|Vine (table variety) |1(2.7%) |36(97.3%) |6.00 |6 |6 |0.7% |
Source: 2009 SA survey
Despite having their land with high ground water table, and having the limitations on watering secondary crops, the farmers use their plots intensively, and the amount of land under secondary crops was about 12 percent during 2008 (so the land usage was 112 percent).
As one can see from the table above, cotton and wheat occupy 77.5 percent of the land. It is important to note that the structure includes all types of crops and trees, including secondary crops and plants between the trees. This crop structure has been used for the calculation of sums to be reimbursed to farmers before the land acquisition for IDs. All calculations and other relevant figures for the calculation of reimbursements are included in the Chapter 8 “Valuation of and compensation for losses” below.
Shortage of machinery and high costs of leasing machinery is one of the acute problems for agricultural operators. Small farmers do not have any machinery. Only the highest-income leasehold farmers (particularly, leasehold farmers whose plots are more than 30 ha) can afford to buy independently a tractor or seeding machine, etc. Moreover, farmers with small plots, especially if they work on one to two orchard plots, have no need to buy heavy machinery.
Table 7. Availability of own machinery
| |Percentage of leasehold farmers who have |Average quantity of machinery owned by |
| |own machinery, % |leasehold farmers, pieces |
|Tractor |57 |1.2 |
|Combine harvester |0 |0 |
|Plows, seeding machines |46 |2 |
|Thrashers, mills, rice mills |5 |1 |
|Truck |5 |1 |
|Water pumps |5 |1 |
|Electric generator |11 |1 |
|Car |62 |1.1 |
|None of above |22 | |
Source: 2009 SA survey
In terms of other assets and infrastructure, the surveyed farmers almost have nothing. Only one of the surveyed farmers has a building for storage, one person has a barn in the fields, and few farmers have summer camps in the fields. None of the existing infrastructure will be damaged during the construction of IDs.
3 Land acquisition
There will be 6 IDs (8 km) constructed in Altyaryk raion, 13 IDs (15 km) in Bagdad and 2 IDs (2 km) – in Rishtan district. The aggregated information about the lands to be affected is shown in the Table 8.
Table 8. Affected farms and future land acquisition by Raion
| |Altyaryk |Rishtan |Baghdad |Total |
|Total amount of land in farms, Ha | |
|Cotton/wheat raising |198.2 |190.8 |1249.2 |1638.2 |
|Gardens |9.76 |21.5 |- |31.3 |
|Total |208 |212.3 |1249.2 |1669.5 |
|Temporary land acquisition, Ha | |
|Cotton/wheat raising |4.96 |8.75 |48.9 |62.6 |
|Gardens |6.51 |0.7 |- |7.2 |
|Total |11.47 |9.45 |48.9 |69.8 |
|Permanent land acquisition, Ha | |
|Cotton/wheat raising |4.51 |5.17 |27.5 |37.2 |
|Gardens |4.66 |0.4 |- |5.1 |
|Total |9.17 |5.57 |27.5 |42.2 |
|Temporary land acquisition, as % of lands | |
|Cotton/wheat raising |2.5 |4.6 |3.9 |3.8 |
|Gardens |66.7 |3.3 |- |23.5 |
|Total |5.5 |4.5 |3.9 |4.2 |
|Permanent land acquisition, as % of lands | |
|Cotton/wheat raising |2.3 |2.7 |2.2 |2.3 |
|Gardens |47.7 |1.9 |- |16.6 |
|Total |4.4 |2.6 |2.2 |2.5 |
Source: 2009 SA survey
The more precisely information about the affected farms is summarized in the tables below.
Table 9. Information about affected farms in Altyaryk raion. WUA “Katput”
|No. |Farm name |First and last |
| | |names of farm head|
|There will not be any negative consequences for my family from the construction of drainage systems |12 |32 |
|Income of my family will decrease |22 |60 |
|One or several family members will lose permanent job |4 |11 |
|Communications (roads, water flumes) may be damaged |4 |11 |
|Production on the plot will become unprofitable: the plot will be too small and there will be no point in |3 |8 |
|dealing with it | | |
|Construction works will impede sowing/collection of harvest |3 |8 |
|Quality of soil may deteriorate during the construction (diesel fuel, construction waste, damage to structure |3 |8 |
|and layout of land by heavy machines, et | | |
|Expenditures for fruits and vegetables, which we have earlier gotten from the leasehold farm plot, will increase|2 |5 |
|Poplars and other trees, which we planted along the road/canal and were going to use for own needs |1 |3 |
|(construction, timber, heating, etc.) will be destr | | |
|Outhouses may be damaged |1 |3 |
|We will have to buy guza-paya for heating of housing |1 |3 |
|We will lose a business: processing of leasehold farm products |0 |0 |
|We will be involved in unpaid work or give money for construction and food for workers |0 |0 |
Source: 2009 SA survey
The farmers themselves and the members of their families are ready to participate in the construction works, if their help needed.
Figure 7. Readiness of farmers and family members to participate in paid construction work, if opportunity/necessity is present
[pic]
Source: 2009 SA survey
The vast majority of the farmers are very interested in receiving information about the future works and all the aspects of the future land acquisition. During the FGDs, most of them insisteding on being provided with written official information about the forthcoming land acquisition, mechanisms of compensation, and grievance procedures. The requests were summarized during the census and presented in the Table 13 below.
Table 13. Farmer’s requests for assistance/information in connection with the possible beginning of construction of IDs.
|Full information about work plans, date of beginning and duration |Information about the size |Information about the |
| |and the location of the |procedure of land |
| |expropriated land plot |expropriation |
|Cotton |717.9 |43.0% |
|Wheat |574.4 |34.4% |
|Corn |12.1 |0.7% |
|Rice |2 |0.1% |
|Vegetables |24 |1.4% |
|Melon, water-melon |8.6 |0.5% |
|Bean crops |2.3 |0.1% |
|Fodder crops / corn for silo, Hay, lucerne |179.4 |10.7% |
|Apple tree |9.4 |0.6% |
|Apricot tree |39.1 |2.3% |
|Peach tree |32.1 |1.9% |
|Merry tree |0.8 |0.0% |
|Pomegranate |3.9 |0.2% |
|Persimmon |1.6 |0.1% |
|Walnut tree |2.2 |0.1% |
|Mulberry tree |48 |2.9% |
|Vine (table variety) |11.7 |0.7% |
|Total |1,669.5 |100% |
Compensations for acquisition of lands under permanent crops (fruit trees, vineyards, berry bushes) shall be calculated separately for each tree/bush.
Calculation of compensations for permanent acquisition of land under permanent crops. Agricultural producers shall be paid gross annual income for 1 year, received from all trees on the plot. Gross income from one tree shall be calculated as cost of produce in current market prices, based on data on average production of one tree for last three years, and the data on the number of trees. Valuation shall be performed separately for each crop, so that an average weighted annual income is obtained. Besides, agricultural producers are entitled to lost income, which would have been received until the end of productive life of trees. Compensation of lost income per tree shall be calculated as net income for the previous year, in current prices, multiplied by the remaining period of productive life of the tree. Remaining period of productive life shall be calculated by extracting current age of a tree as of the date of calculations, from the maximum production life. Productive lives of fruit trees are shown in Table 15.
For calculation of compensation for permanent acquisition of land being used for permanent crops, the following data is required for each type of orchard:
• Number of trees by type;
• Average production from each tree during last three years;
• Current market prices for fruits;
• Age of trees; and
• Maximum productive life.
If orchard farmers, whose plots are to be acquired, will get replacement land of similar quality, apart from the compensation of lost income for 1 year, they will be provided with funds for setting up new orchards. These compensations include expenditures related to planting trees (cost of plant, transportation expenses, plus planting expenses), as well as lost income for the period until the tree becomes productive (expenses for planting new tree, and ages of productivity of various sorts of trees are shown in Table 15).
Valuation of compensations for temporary acquisition of lands under permanent crops includes expenses related to orchard recovery. These include expenditures related to planting trees, as well as lost income for the period until the trees become productive.
For calculation of compensation for starting a new orchard (when a replacement plot is allocated and in instances of temporary land acquisition), the following data is required on each type of trees:
• Number of trees;
• Costs of planting one tree;
• Net income from 1 tree per year, in market current prices; and
• Age of productivity.
Estimates of compensations for temporary and permanent acquisition of land being occupied by permanent crops, are presented in Table 15.
Table 15. Estimates for compensations most common fruit trees and bushes
| |Productive life of |Average price of |Cost of planting a |Cost of growing and |Ave-rage (for 3 |Market price (UZS/kg), |Annual income (‘000 UZS) |
| |trees, years |a 2-year-old |new tree (UZS) |collecting harvest |years) pro-duction |2008 | |
| | |plant (UZS) |(plant+cost of |(UZS per year) |(kg) | | |
| | | |transportation and | | | | |
| | | |planting) | | | | |
| |1 |2 |3 |
|Permanent acquisition of land being occupied by | |Gross income from all crops for 1 year |ID construction |
|annual crops | |State order amount reducing (in case the land is under cotton/wheat |SHD construction |
| |Leasehold farmers and dehkans (if any) |cultivation) | |
| |with land use rights | | |
|Temporary acquisition of land being occupied by |Leasehold farmers and dehkans (if any) |Gross income from all crops for 1 year |ID construction. |
|annual crops |with land use rights |State order amount reducing (in case the land under cotton/wheat) |SHD construction |
| | |In case of construction delays, net income from all crops shall be paid for| |
| | |the 2nd year | |
|Restriction of rights of land users |Leasehold farmers and dehkans (if any) |Gross income from all crops for 1 year |SHD construction |
| |with land use rights | | |
|Permanent acquisition of land being occupied by |Leasehold farmers and dehkans (if any) |Gross income from all trees for 1 year |ID construction |
|permanent crops |with land use rights | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Option A. If a replacement plot is not allocated: compensation of lost | |
| | |income (lost income for the rest of productivity life of trees) | |
| | |Option B. If a replacement plot of equal value is allocated: cost of | |
| | |starting a new orchard and compensation of lost income for the | |
| | |pre-productive period of new trees | |
| | | | |
| | |The affected farmer will determine whether he or she will receive Option A | |
| | |or Option B on the basis of full disclosure of the land that would be made | |
| | |available in exchange for the land acquired for project implementation. | |
|Temporary acquisition of land being occupied by |Leasehold farmers and dehkans (if any) |Gross income from all trees for 1 year. Cost of starting a new orchard and |ID construction |
|permanent crops |with land use rights |compensation of lost income for the pre-productive period of new trees | |
|Removal of poplars in reserved areas of canals and|Households |All farmers will be informed at least 6-8 months in advance 2-3 times of |Rehabilitation works on canals |
|roads | |the Project activities, and instructed not to plant poplars in reserve | |
| | |areas. | |
| | |All farmers will be informed of the threat that planting in reserve areas | |
| | |will create for the maintenance irrigation and drainage infrastructure. | |
| | |Water User Associations will take special responsibility to ensure that | |
| | |illegal cultivation activity is discontinued to ensure Project | |
| | |sustainability; | |
| | |Farmers will be asked to re-plant poplars elsewhere in their farms. They | |
| | |will be free to cut and use them for any purpose they see fit | |
|Removal of trees with commercial value in reserved|Households and Leasehold farmers |All farmers will be informed at least 6-8 months in advance 2 to3 times |Rehabilitation works on canals |
|areas of canals and roads | |about the Project activities and will be instructed not to plant any trees | |
| | |in reserve areas. | |
| | |All farmers will be informed of the threat that planting in reserve areas | |
| | |will create for the maintenance of large investments to be made irrigation | |
| | |and drainage infrastructure. | |
| | |Water User Associations will take special responsibility to ensure that | |
| | |illegal cultivation activity is discontinued to ensure Project | |
| | |sustainability; | |
| | |Farmers will be asked to re-plant trees and seedlings elsewhere in their | |
| | |farms. They will be free to cut trees and use them for any purpose they see| |
| | |fit; | |
| | |If there are nevertheless any fruit trees in the reserve areas once the | |
| | |Project works start, farmers will be asked to provide evidence through | |
| | |their makhalla committees and neighbors that the trees belong to them. | |
| | |Once such evidence is provided, they will be compensated for the fruit | |
| | |trees based on the income they would generate. Gross income from all | |
| | |trees for 1 year, and compensation of lost net income for 2 additional | |
| | |years. | |
|Compensation for damage of houses and other |Owners of the property |Full replacement value of property |Works in Rishtan city |
|property (if any) | | | |
Selection of plots for farmers, whose existing plots are significantly reduced during land acquisition
During the past 15 years, almost all arable lands in the Project area was either allocated to households and dehkans, or leased to farmers. Available arable land reserve is very small and dispersed throughout the districts. Thus, in case of land acquisition, khokimiyats will have limited choice of replacement land of equal value. As agreed with the World Bank, in cases where leasehold or dekhan farmers will lose arable land, it will be the farmer who will determine which option he prefers. The farmer will make this decision on the basis of full disclosure of the land that would be made available in exchange for the land acquired for project implementation.
On the other hand, during consultations with farmers conducted as part of RF development process revealed that leasehold farmers with large land holdings were not interested in replacement. The farmers with 25 ha or larger holdings said that it was unrealistic to get 1-2 ha worth of land elsewhere to replace the land lost during IDS construction, and that they did not see the benefits of getting scattered small land plots. Their major concern is for the compensation of losses and reduction of amount of crops sold under contractual obligations to the State.
Among the leasehold farmers that would be affected during the first phase of the ID construction the most vulnerable is a group of 5 farmers and 1 guard-dehkan, who have 1-3.6 ha land plots under fruit trees and vegetables in Altiaryk district. Construction works will mean 25 to 50 percent loss of land and reclassification from farmers to dehkans. These farmers expressed their preference to receive replacement land plots.
Similar vulnerabilities may emerge during the Project activities in other places as well. For this reason, PIU specialists, together with farmers, have to coordinate with local khokimiyats the process of allocation of replacement land to those farmers whose plots are smaller than 5 ha, and will be significantly reduced during construction works or IDS rehabilitation.
All legal steps towards formalizing land use issues and rights of these farmers to own or lease the land, will be taken together with Geocadastre specialists, who will participate in selection of new land plots, and with khokimiyats, and in close collaboration/consultation with farmers.
Provision with housing, objects of infrastructure, and social services
The Project will not affect settlements or homes; it will therefore avoid physical resettlement. Thus, there is no need to develop RPF activities aimed at provision of housing, infrastructure, and facilities for social services.
Environmental protection and management
Measures for protection and sustainable use of environment shall be developed within the framework of the EA of the Project.
Besides, at the stage of land selection for construction works, Geocadastre will determine the necessity and scope of activities on restoration of land for farming activity, including removal and temporary storage of topsoil, and shall determine the need in sanitary and water-protection zones around facilities being constructed and the rules and restrictions to be followed within such perimeters.
According to the requirements of the Land Code and nature protection legislation, the oblast State Committee for Nature Protection will carry out the environmental examination, which will assess the impact of facilities being put into operation and that of technologies being used during construction process, and shall, if necessary, implement measures towards rational use and protection of lands. It is prohibited to put into operation facilities and implement technologies without ensuring measures for protecting land from degradation or damage, and positive environmental assessment.
Public participation
Participation of affected leasehold farmers has been assured at the outset of the first stage of the Project. The first phase of the SA, conducted in 2007, aimed at the analysis of farmers’ views on potential temporary or permanent acquisition of part of their lands. During the second phase, discussions were conducted with farmers who will be affected by Project-related construction works. Extensive discussions were also held with representatives of all State agencies responsible for land acquisition activities. The following problems were discussed:
• Acceptability of the decision on land by farmers, and the impact of such measure on farms;
• Preferred compensation options; and
• Compensation payment schemes.
During discussions, most farmers agreed that measures on land acquisition for construction of drainage facilities are necessary and inevitable. Discussion participants also showed understanding that in conditions of shortage of agricultural land in the region, provision of replacement land will be highly problematic. Therefore, payment of fair and economically justified cash compensations for damages incurred, including lost future income, is considered to be an acceptable measure. It should be noted that many farmers are ready to waive their right to legitimate compensation if measures to rehabilitate drainage are successful and lead to increased productivity and income.
Nevertheless, under WB OP 4.12, any persons who suffer any adverse financial effect during the Project, regardless of their status and legality of their affected crops, shall be entitled to compensation and assistance from the Project, provided that (a) their income decreases owing to Project activities (cutting trees), and (2) they provide proof that these trees belong to them.
Participation of the public in confirming the rights for crops and trees within reserve areas will be very important because the only way for people to prove ownership for the crops/trees is by referring to their neighbors/makhalla committees.
Forms and amounts of individual compensation will be agreed upon with affected farmers to be resettled at the stage of selection of construction sites. Legislative procedures require participation of all land users or their representatives in decision making on selection of lands to be exempted, on land acquisition, during land marking plan preparation, etc., and on the amounts of damages and losses. Farmers will have a sit in the evaluation commission, and certificate of agreement for land acquisition may not be signed without their consent.
Integration with host communities
The Project does not envisage any activities that could affect settlements or housing; thus, there will be no physical resettlement. Therefore, there is no need in development of activities aimed at integration into accepting communities.
Grievance procedures (procedures for consideration and resolution of complaints)
During consultations and discussions, it was discovered that farmers to be resettled do not foresee any serious reasons for conflicts and complaints during land acquisition. It must be emphasized that the risk of complaints will be reduced to a minimum owing to the fact that the farmers to be resettled will be involved in the evaluation commission and will have an opportunity to reach consensus during joint discussions. Should such a consensus not be reached, farmers may submit prejudicial claims to local authorities (district and regional khokimiyats) against the decisions of the evaluation commission. If local authorities also fail to satisfy legitimate claims of farmers, the latter may appeal the commission’s decisions in court, in accordance with established procedures.
Organizational responsibilities for implementing resettlement
The Project will not affect settlements or housing; it will not resettle any households. Therefore, there is no need in development of operational measures on population resettlement.
Implementation schedule
The preliminary schedule of project activities, which will require temporary and permanent acquisition of land and payment of compensation, is presented in the Table below:
|Type of works |1st year |2nd year |3rd year |4th year |5th year |6th year |
|Construction and deepening of intersection drains | |
| |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |
| | |Trees |Number |Trees |Number | | |
| | |diameter |of trees |diameter |of trees | | |
|Baghdad raion |
|B-1 |
|A-1 |
|P-1 |Apricot |0.2-0.3 |
Source: Explanation letter to research. Report of the Ferghanagiprovodhoz Institute on calculation of trees within the area to be acquired for construction of interceptor drains. September 2008. Prepared by R. Isakov
Estimates of compensations for losses incurred by gardeners by construction of interceptor drains, are shown in Table 22. Compensations for temporary land acquisition will be about 89 million UZS (including 88.7 million UZS for apricot trees), and those for permanent land acquisition with provision of equal quality replacement plots will be 212.4 million UZS (including 211.5 million UZS for apricot trees). Most expensive option is compensation of damages for fruit trees without allocation of replacement plots, about 700 million UZS, including 687 million UZS for apricot trees.
If replacement plots are provided, compensations will amount to 301 million UZS, or 215 thousand USD. If local authorities cannot provide replacement land to gardener farmers, compensations will go up to 785 million UZS, or 560.5 thousand USD.
Table 22. Estimates of compensations for loss of fruit and mulberry trees during ID construction
| | |Formula |Apricot |Mulberry (leaves)|
|Number of trees within ID construction area * |1 | |1,277 |141 |
|including on lands to be permanently acquired |2 | |900 |113 |
|including on lands to be temporarily acquired |3 | |377 |28 |
|Productivity life of trees, years |4 | |30 |80 |
|Average cost of 2-year-old plant, UZS |5 | |1,800 |2,000 |
|Expenses for growing new tree (plant+transportation and planting expenses), UZS |6 | |2,700 |3,000 |
|Expenses related to cultivation of the tree and picking harvest, UZS per year |7 | |7,950 |400 |
|Average age of trees, years |8 | |16.8 |18.8 |
|Average annual production from 1 tree, kg |9 | |45 |30 |
|Average market price, UZS/kg, 2008 |10 | |800 |40 |
|Annual income from 1 tree, ‘000 UZS |11 | |36.0 |1.2 |
|Net income from 1 tree, ‘000 UZS |12 |(8)-(4) |28.1 |0.8 |
|Non-productive period, years |13 | |7 |5 |
|Remaining productive period, years |14 |(4)-(8)+(13) |20.2 |66.2 |
|Option A. Estimates of compensations for permanent acquisition of land without |15 |(18)+(19) |686,697.9 |9,089.4 |
|allocation of replacement plot, ‘000 UZS | | | | |
|Compensation for 1 tree until the end of productive life, ‘000 UZS |16 |(8)*(12) |471.2 |15.0 |
|Number of trees to be cut, pcs |17 |(2) |900 |113 |
|Compensation of lost income for 1 year, ‘000 UZS |18 |(2) * (11) |32,391 |135 |
|Compensation of lost income until the end of productive life, ‘000 UZS |19 |(2)*(12)*(14) |654,306.5 |8,954.1 |
|Option B. Estimates of compensations, if equal quality replacement plot is provided, |20 |(21)+(22)+(23) |211,488.9 |924.3 |
|‘000 UZS | | | | |
|Compensation of lost income for 1 year, ‘000 UZS |21 |(2) * (11) |32,391 |135 |
|Compensation of lost income until the end of non-productive period of new trees, |22 |(2)*(12)*(13) |176,668.2 |450.9 |
|planted after return of lands, ‘000 UZS | | | | |
|Expenses for growing new trees, ‘000 UZS |23 |(6)/1,000*(2) |2,429.4 |338.1 |
|Mandatory component. Calculation of expenses for temporary acquisition of land, ‘000 |24 |(27)+(28)+(29) |88,669.9 |231.9 |
|UZS | | | | |
|Compensation for 1 tree for the remaining productive period, ‘000 UZS |25 |(8)*(12) |471.2 |15.0 |
|Number of trees to be cut on temporarily acquired lands, pcs |26 |(3) |377 |28 |
|Compensation of lost income for 1 year, ‘000 UZS |27 |(3) * (11) |13,580.6 |33.9 |
|Compensation of lost income until the end of non-productive period of new trees, |28 |(3)*(12)*(13) |74,070.8 |113.1 |
|planted after return of lands, ‘000 UZS | | | | |
|Expenses for growing new trees on returned lands, ‘000 UZS |29 |(6)/1,000*(3) |1,018.5 |84.9 |
| | | | | |
|Total expenses for Option A (without allocation of replacement land), ’000 UZS | |(15)+(24) |775,367.8 |9321.3 |
|Total expenses for Option A (without allocation of replacement land), ’000 USD | | |553.8 |6.7 |
|Total for Option A, for all sorts of trees, ’000 USD | | | |560.5 |
| | | | | |
|Total expenses for Option B (with allocation of replacement land), ’000 UZS | |(20)+(24) |300,158.9 |1,156.2 |
|Total expenses for Option B (with allocation of replacement land), ’000 USD | | |214.4 |0.8 |
|Total for Option B, for all sorts of trees, ’000 USD | | | |215.2 |
Compensation budget is not limited solely to compensations for agricultural producers. It also includes RF administration and M&E expenses, as well as incidental expenses.
A RF Special Reserve Fund (15%) is being established in order to compensate losses, which cannot be calculated before the development of a detailed design. The largest expenditure to be covered from the SRF will be for compensations to owners of illegal fruit, silkworm, and other trees, that have commercial value, as well as for illegal crops within canals’ reserve areas, as envisaged by WB OP 4.12. Under WB OP 4.12, however, any persons who suffer any adverse financial effect during the Project, regardless of their status and legality of their affected crops, shall be entitled to compensation and assistance from the Project, provided (1) their income decreases owing to Project activities (cutting trees), and (2) they provide proof that these trees belong to them.
Total estimates for RF are given in Table 23.
Minimum RF budget is estimated to be 733.5 thousand USD (provided that construction timelines are observed and gardener farmers receive equal quality replacement plots). If construction is extended or replacement plots are not available, RF budget will exceed 1,150,000 USD. In any case scenario, major expenses fall on two first years of construction, as it is planned to implement a large amount of works, entailing the necessity in allocation of considerable compensations.
Table 23. Total estimates for RF implementation, ‘000 USD
| |Total |1st year |2nd year |3rd year |4th year |5th year |6th year |
|Compensations for temporary and permanent acquisition of lands,| | | | | | | |
|being occupied by annual crops, for ID construction | | | | | | | |
|OPTIONS |construction |68 |35 |33 | | | |
| |timelines are | | | | | | |
| |observed | | | | | | |
|OPTIONS |
|Minimum |
|Minimum |
|Minimum |30.6 |9.3 |11.9 |2.1 |2.6 |2.1 |2.6 |
|Minimum |733.5 |222.3 |
|Identification of compensation |Checking the list of compensation recipients against |Number of persons in the list of compensation |
|recipients |eligibility criteria for compensations. |recipients, who do not meet eligibility criteria |
| | |(mistaken inclusion) |
| |Identification of persons, who may claim eligibility to |Number of persons, who meet the criteria, but are not|
| |compensation, but are not included in the lists of |included in the list of compensation recipients |
| |compensation recipients. Separate check should be |(mistaken exclusion) |
| |performed on each type of compensation | |
|Controlling types of |Confirmation of temporarily or permanently affected areas |Area of land subjected to temporary acquisition, for |
|compensation |against RF |which compensations have been paid |
| | |Area of land subjected to permanent acquisition, for |
| | |which compensations have been paid |
| |Fruit trees actually affected against the data in RF |Number of trees, for which compensations have been |
| | |paid |
|Controlling compensation |Examination of financial documents |Number of persons, who received compensation in time |
| | |and in full amount, disaggregated by compensation |
| | |types |
| |Identification and analysis of reasons for compensations |Number of persons, who did not receive compensation |
| |not being paid in full amount and in time |in time and in full amount, disaggregated by |
| | |compensation types |
| | |Number of persons, who received compensation in time,|
| | |disaggregated by compensation types |
| | |Amount of funding allocated for payment of |
| | |compensations |
| |Identification of reasons, for which funds for |Rate of spending of funds allocated for |
| |compensations have been under/overspent |compensations, % of envisaged by RF |
|Additional compensation in case|Monitoring time limits of temporary land acquisition |Number of persons, on whose plots temporary |
|the construction works will be | |acquisition needs to be extended |
|delayed (In this case affected | | |
|farms will have to be | | |
|compensated for the second | | |
|agricultural season losses) | | |
| | |Area, on which construction works will be continued |
| | |after the established deadline |
|Consultations and participation|Determining the level of involvement, and identification |Number of compensation recipients, who participated |
| |of reasons of inadequate participation |in consultations and coordination meetings at each |
| | |stage of land acquisition |
| |Analysis of disputes’ and complaints’ content. Resolution |Number of complaints |
| |of conflicts | |
| | |Number of complaints resolved |
| | |Level of satisfaction with the types and sizes of |
| | |compensations |
External monitoring
According to the requirements of the WB, PIU will hire a consultant for external monitoring of resettlement. Expenditures for external monitoring activities shall be included in the resettlement budget. Main functions of the external monitoring specialist will be the following:
• Development of recommendations on the organization and implementation of internal monitoring of resettlement, including a system of monitoring indicators, timelines and procedures, reporting forms, etc.;
• Analysis of, and preparation of recommendations on, the preliminary lists of persons, who incur damages and may be eligible for compensation;
• Analysis of the RF, payment of compensations, procedures for approving and payment of compensations, and preparation of recommendations on their compliance with the WB resettlement policy;
• Participation (as an observer) in consultative meetings on land acquisition;
• Monitoring the timeliness of the allocations of funds for compensations; preparation of respective recommendations on adjustment of measures;
• Monitoring land acquisition timelines and terms of temporary land acquisition; preparing recommendations on the adjustment of timelines/terms; and
• Conducting special baseline update surveys with affected farmers who incurred damages resulting from construction works under the Project, in order to identify the level of satisfaction with types and sizes of compensations.
Annex 1: Decree On Optimization of Cropping Areas and Increasing of Food Crop Production
Issued by the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan on 20 October 2008
Due to recurring low availability of water during recent years, a steady food price surge in the international market, and also in order to assure further increase of production volumes and to expand foodstuff range with the purpose to provide the most possible satisfaction of the population’s demand on foodstuffs, and finally, to leverage incomes and enhance living standards of the rural population, this Decree envisages the following:
1. To accept the proposal initiated by the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (MAWR) and the Ministry of Economy of Uzbekistan on decreasing (starting from 2009) of the volumes of raw cotton production being produced under contractual agreements, and accordingly, on downsizing of the cotton crop areas, as stated in the Attachment 1.
2. Having released cotton crop areas:
a. To increase sown areas under cereal crops of 2009 growing season, as stated in the Attachment 2.
b. To arrange planting of vegetables and other food crops in the rayons and farms where appropriate.
3. In process of crop zoning, the MAWR, the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Karakalpakstan, Regional and Rayon Khokimiats shall pay specific attention to the following:
a. To plant only those crops for which appropriate conditions are available including skills and experience of farms to grow specific crops.
b. To consider the status of irrigation and land improvement systems, as well as the level of water availability in the regions.
c. To try to expand plantings on the rainfed areas, particularly of oilseeds, fodders and melons.
4. The MAWR and the Regional Khokimiats shall make comprehensive arrangements for the additional sowing of winter cereals in October-November 2008, as prescribed in the Attachment 2. The Minister of Agriculture and Water Resources, Regional and Rayon Khokims shall bear personal responsibility for duly and appropriate implementation of the activities on fall-ploughing and sowing of cereal crops for 2009 crop yield.
5. The following is assigned to the Joint Stock Company Uzdonmakhsulot:
a. To duly provide the farms with high quality treated wheat seeds in appropriate volumes to assure timely sowing of the additional winter cereal crops in October-November of the current year.
b. During weekly period, in cooperation with the MAWR, to submit to the Cabinet of Ministers a proposal on increasing of the cereal seed stock to be sown on the irrigated areas in 2009 crop season.
For the additional sowings, to permit using of cereal seeds provided to the State Seed Stock above the required volume.
6. The MAWR in cooperation with the Ministry of Justice and the other stakeholders to submit to the Cabinet of Ministers in ten day period a proposal on amendments to the Resolution #PP-956 of 4 September 2008 issued by the President of Uzbekistan On arrangements of winter cereal crop sowing, variety pattern and public procurement of cereal harvest of 2009, resulting from this Decree.
7. To assign Mr. Sh. Mirziyoev, the Prime Minister of Uzbekistan, to be responsible for implementation of this Decree.
I. Karimov,
The President of the Republic of Uzbekistan
Tashkent city
20 October 2008
Source: UzA, 22 October 2008.
Annex 2: Instruction On Constitution of a Special Committee (SC) in charge for development of proposals on optimization of farm enterprise plots
Issued by the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan on 5 October 2008, # F-3077
To develop proposals on efficiency improvement of farm enterprise operation through optimization of their land plots, the following is instructed:
1. To constitute the SC to be in charge for development of proposals on optimization of farmer plot sizes being under tenure of farm enterprises and on merging of the plots for efficiency improvement. A composition of the SC is listed in the Attachment.
2. The SC (Mr. Sh. Mirziyoev) shall visit regions and localized zones to conduct an in-depth and thorough inventory including size of land plots being in actual tenure, a status of their rational use, their efficiency for operation of the farm enterprises.
a. To critically review financial status of the farms including the status of their material and technical base.
b. To pay special attention to the extent of equipping the farms with needed machinery, the capacity of farms to arrange effective operation.
c. Based on the inventory outcomes and comprehensive review of the performance efficiency, to determine the most appropriate sizes of farm plots for every localized zone having in mind the goal of increasing efficiency of farm operation. To make emphasis on specific conditions of the zones – a density of population, employment rate and sectorial specialization (cotton production, cereal production, growing of fruit and vegetables, grape production, livestock breeding).
3. Based on the in-depth study and review of the above mentioned areas, the SC (Mr. Sh. Mirziyoev) shall develop and submit to the Cabinet of Ministers (by 15 November 2008) the proposals on optimization of land plot sizes being tenured by the farm enterprises by each zone, including implementation mechanisms for merging some small farms, which would not be responding to the optimal sizes.
To assign Mr. Sh. Mirziyoev, the Prime Minister of Uzbekistan, to be responsible for supervision over implementation of this Instruction.
wb15100
C:\Documents and Settings\wb15100\My Documents\FVWRMPfinalRFandRAPApril17,2009.doc
04/17/2009 4:43:00 PM
-----------------------
[1] No works are anticipated in dehkan farms inside or outside the villages; should there be any need to do any repair work in some dehkans, compensation will be provided.
[2] As stated the Projects’ adverse impacts will be shouldered primarily by leasehold farmers. They lease the land from the State, which owns all the potentially affected areas. Thus, no land will be acquired; rather compensation will only involve for standing crops. Thus, for purposes of this Project, we would be referring to damage on crops with acquisition of land.
[3] This plot was used by person who received the land from a former shirkat in 2004. This person worked as a watchman for shirkat and continues to work in the same capacity guarding pumps on drainage wells. He has no salary and uses this garden as a payment for guarding. He has no documents to make a legal claim. Nevertheless, he will be compensated as indicated in the Compensation Matrix.
[4] The process of ‘optimization’ or farm consolidation has affected these farmers during the past 2 months. Thus, some of them are not yet fully informed how the Project work will affect their land. However, given all lease holding farms are in the process of getting larger, the impacts are likely to be small. Farmers stress the immediacy of the need to complete the drainage works and are less interested in compensation as the farms were given to them free of charge by the Government.
[5] A large portion of the potential adverse impacts that will occur as a result of rehabilitation works will be avoided by advance notice to farmers. Nevertheless, some damage to standing crops may occur.
[6] See footnote above.
[7] During the construction of the new power line, some damage may occur. The repair work could likewise cause damage to property. These will be avoided through advance notice to people.
[8] A spacing of 100 m has been assumed for calculating the affected land.
[9] This is estimated as follows: for the 3650 km of canals at least 10 meters on each side will be needed which will require 36,500,000sqm or 3,650ha. This amounts to 7,6 percent of the irrigated lands (48,000).
[10] The pension age is 60 and 55 years old for men and women respectively.
[11] According to SA-2007 data, in June 2007, the average monthly income of families in the Project districts was 250,000 soums (about USD 200); the average per capita income was 42,600 soums (USD 34).
[12] One of these two persons was not a farmer, but the watchman, mentioned above.
[13] Including the plot of the guard man
[14] Excluding o.16Ha plot of the guard man
[15] Currently, there are no maps indicating farm borders.
[16] 1USD=1400 UZS rate used
-----------------------
RP820
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- world bank unesco education
- world bank financial inclusion
- world bank poverty line 2019
- world bank financial inclusion 2020
- world bank business environment index
- world bank doing business 2020
- world bank ease of doing business 2019
- world bank doing business rankings
- world bank retiree portal
- world bank pension log in
- world bank retiree website
- world bank staff retirement plan