Involuntary Displacement and Resettlement — Policy and ... - CEPA

During the implementation of LARC, the decision making process lackedclarity, and the valuation criteria was not explained to the APs, resulting inthe widespread belief that similar problems were provided with differentsolutions. This was particularly the case in the additions to the land andstructure component which, unlike the allowances, had no transparentcriteria, and depended to a large extent on the professional capacity andopinions of the Valuation Department member in the committee. Variationsalso existed in the payment of allowances. However, as the eligibility forthese allowances were much clearer, APs were able to either negotiate theircase at the initial LARC meeting or request follow up meetings.The design of LARC called for separate committees to be established in eachDS division headed by the Divisional Secretary with individual membersrepresenting each DS division. This design increased local knowledge andenabled greater accuracy in deciding on allowances and providing solutions.However, it also created room for variations in problem solving and thereforedifferent solutions being provided for similar problems across administrativeboundaries.Mid-process the STDP acknowledged the level of subjective judgment thatcomes into LARC negotiations, especially in the case of ‘top up’ compensationand, as each DS division had a different set of officials as members of LARC,a control threshold was introduced to LARC via the higher level MinisterialCommittee. To achieve a level of standardisation among LARC decisions andreduce the likelihood of decisions being changed before they were enforced,the Secretary, Ministry of Highways issued a requirement that if thecompensation negotiated for land (structures excluded) at LARC exceeds 25%of the statutory compensation under Section 17 of the LAA, then ministryapproval is required to effect payment.A particularly interesting impact of LARC on equity is in the treatment oflandless persons. Non titleholders, APs without documented title to theirlands and the landless, including squatters, have been recognised as eligiblefor compensation as specified in the RIP. Such APs were eligible to allallowances as well as 10 perches of land in resettlement sites. These LARCentitlements have clearly had a beneficial impact on this group who wouldotherwise have been very vulnerable to severe poverty and disruption. Thestandard of living and the asset ownership of this category improvedsignificantly.172