ERC LAYDOWN AREA RESETTLEMENT ASSESSMENT · [type text] 2009 erc laydown area resettlement assessment september 2009

[Type text]

2009

ERC LAYDOWN AREA RESETTLEMENT ASSESSMENT

SEPTEMBER 2009

ERC’s LAYDOWN AREA RESETTLEMENT ASSESSMENT 2 September 11, 2009

LIST OF ACRONYMS AfDB African Development Bank C/CSR Communications/Corporate Social Responsibility Manager CDM Construction/Demolition Material CERS Centre for Environmental Research and Studies CID Communities in Development Consulting CLO Community Liaison Officer CORC Cairo Oil Refining Company CRM Community Relations Manager CRT Community Relations Team DMS Detailed Measurement Survey EEAA Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency EGPC The Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation EHS Environmental Health and Safety EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMAS Environmental Management and Audit System EMP Environmental Management Plan EP Equator Principles EPFIs Equator Principles Financial Institutions ER Executive Regulations ERC The Egyptian Refining Company ESCO Establssements Industrials pour la Soie et la Coton ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment ESMP Environmental and Social Management Plan EWA Egyptian Welding Academy FGD Focus Group Discussion GRM Government Relations Manager HH Household IFC International Finance Corporation IGA Income Generating Activities KEXIM Korea Export Import Bank LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas LURC Land Use Right Certificate MSW Municipal solid waste PAP Project Affected People PMC Project Management Consultant QRA Quantitative Risk Assessment RAP Resettlement Action Plan RPF Resettlement Policy Framework SIA Social Impact Assessment SMP Social Management Plan SSA Social Science Advisor VR Valued Receptor WBB Waste‐Based Businesses


WBG World Bank Group

ERC’s Laydown Area Resettlement Assessment

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................................................. 2

ERC’s Laydown Area Resettlement Assessment............................................................................................................................ 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................................................................ 3

LIST OF APPENDICES................................................................................................................................................................. 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................................ 6

I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 8

1.1 Project Overview............................................................................................................................................................... 8

1.2 Project Area Layout........................................................................................................................................................... 8

1.3 Potential Resettlement Issues Identified............................................................................................................................ 9

1.3.1 South Plots: CORC Tenant Relocation ........................................................................................................................ 9

1.3.2 North Plot: No Resettlement ........................................................................................................................................ 9

1.3.3 Laydown Area: No Significant Impact Requiring Resettlement.................................................................................. 9

1.4 ERC’s Laydown Area Impact Assessment...................................................................................................................... 10

2. MINIMIZING IMPACTS......................................................................................................................................................... 11

2.1 ERC’s Principles for Minimizing Adverse Impacts ........................................................................................................ 11

2.2 Results of Efforts to Identify and Avoid Adverse Impacts.............................................................................................. 11

2.3 Efforts to Engage Laydown Area Communities’ Residents and Users ........................................................................... 11

3. SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF THE LAYDOWN AREA.......................................................................................... 12

3.1 Area Description.............................................................................................................................................................. 12

3.2 Demographics.................................................................................................................................................................. 13

3.3 Vulnerability Status ......................................................................................................................................................... 13

3.4 Education Status of Residents near the Laydown Area................................................................................................... 14

3.5 Income and Livelihoods .................................................................................................................................................. 14

3.5.1 Income Generating Activities ..................................................................................................................................... 14

3.5.2 Employment and Livelihoods ..................................................................................................................................... 15

3.5.3 Income and Expenditure ............................................................................................................................................. 15

4. IMPACT CONSULTATIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 16

4.1 Overview of Initial Impact Consultations........................................................................................................................ 16

4.2 Initial Laydown Area Residents and Users Identified ..................................................................................................... 17

5. Laydown Area Surveys - Overview.......................................................................................................................................... 18

5.1 Aim and Objectives ......................................................................................................................................................... 18

5.2 Approach and Methodology ............................................................................................................................................ 18

5.3 Survey Teams .................................................................................................................................................................. 19

5.4 Summary of Surveys ....................................................................................................................................................... 19

5.5 Survey Constraints .......................................................................................................................................................... 22

5.5.1 Constraints Due to Sensitivity of Activity and Security Issues................................................................................... 22


5.5.2 Constraints Due to Blocked Access ............................................................................................................................ 23

5.5.3 Constraints Due to (Possible) Survey Impact.............................................................................................................. 24

5.5.4 Socio-Political Constraint – Reaction to Swine Flu, May 2009.................................................................................. 25

5.5.5 Constraints due to Surveyors Deployed from Outside the Laydown Area Communities ........................................... 26

6. DETAILED MEASUREMENT SURVEYS: Time Studies .................................................................................................... 26

6.1 DMS: Collectors.............................................................................................................................................................. 26

6.2 Significance of Livelihood Dependency/Waste Value.................................................................................................... 27

6.3 Reasons for Use of Laydown Area.................................................................................................................................. 30

7. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 30

7.1 Summary of FGD Information with Young Male Sorters and Collectors ....................................................................... 30

7.2 FGD with Young Male Sorters and Collectors................................................................................................................ 32

7.2.1 Summary of FGD Information.................................................................................................................................... 32

7.2.2 Potential ERC Impact and Livelihood Support/Community Development Discussions............................................. 34

7.2.3 CID Consultations with Boy/Youth Roamers/Sorters................................................................................................. 34

7.3 Livelihood Enhancements for Sorters/Collectors ............................................................................................................ 34

7.4 Focus Group Discussion with Waste Dealers.................................................................................................................. 35

7.5 Summary of Focus Group Discussions with Area Waste Dealers................................................................................... 37

7.6 Livelihood Alternatives to Waste Dealing ...................................................................................................................... 38

7.7 Waste Supply Chain ........................................................................................................................................................ 39

8 Other User Groups .................................................................................................................................................................... 40

8.1 Types of Non-Waste Based Livelihood Use of Laydown Area ...................................................................................... 41

8.2 Night Time User Groups ................................................................................................................................................ 41

8.3 Alternatives for Laydown Area Use................................................................................................................................ 41

8.4 Prioritized Concerns of Residents from Nearby Communities........................................................................................ 42

9. ANOMALIES IN DATA COLLECTION................................................................................................................................ 44

9.1 Estimation of Time.......................................................................................................................................................... 44

9.2 Traffic through Site ......................................................................................................................................................... 44

9.3 Territorial Rights to Waste Pooling Sites ........................................................................................................................ 45

9.4 Identification of Laydown Area User Groups ................................................................................................................. 45

10. LEGAL FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................................................................................... 46

10.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................... 46

10.2 International Standards.................................................................................................................................................... 46

10.3 Egyptian Regulations....................................................................................................................................................... 47

10.4 Gaps between International and Egyptian Laws and Regulations................................................................................... 48

11 IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION .................................................................................................................... 49

11.1 Impacted Groups ............................................................................................................................................................. 49

11.2 Negative Impacts ............................................................................................................................................................. 49

11.3 Positive Impacts .............................................................................................................................................................. 50

12 IMPACT MITIGATION PLANS........................................................................................................................................ 58

12.1 Impact Avoidance Alternatives ....................................................................................................................................... 58

12.2 Livelihood and Common Property Resources Impact Mitigation Plans.......................................................................... 58

13. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE.................................................................................................................................... 63

14. PARTICIPATION AND CONSULTATION...................................................................................................................... 64


14.1 Objectives of Stakeholder Consultation .......................................................................................................................... 64

14.2 Public Participation during Resettlement Assessment..................................................................................................... 64

14.3 Consultations during Impact Mitigation Implementation................................................................................................ 65

15. ERC’S GRIEVANCE MECHANISM................................................................................................................................. 65

15.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................... 65

15.2 Management and Tracking of Grievances....................................................................................................................... 66

15.3 Monitoring and Reporting of Grievances ........................................................................................................................ 66

16 MONITORING AND EVALUATION ............................................................................................................................... 70

16.1 ERC’s Monitoring and Evaluation Plan .......................................................................................................................... 70

16.2 Laydown Area Monitoring and Evaluation ..................................................................................................................... 71

16.3 Monitoring and Evaluation Reporting............................................................................................................................. 72

17 BUDGET ............................................................................................................................................................................. 73

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1.1 Glossary of Resettlement Terminology Applicable to ERC Resettlement Investigations Appendix 3.1 May – June 2008 Socio‐Economic Household Baseline Questionnaire Appendix 3.2 Income Generating Activities Questionnaire Appendix 3.3 Infrastructure and Social Services Baseline Questionnaire Appendix 5.1 Egyptian Laws Appendix 6.1 Social Study of Waste Based Livelihoods in Laydown Area: Time Study Questionnaire Appendix 6.2 Time Study Results – Sorters/Collectors (October – November 2008 and March‐April

2009) Appendix 7.1 May – June 2008 Socio‐Economic Focus Group Discussion Guidelines Appendix 7.2 2009 Social Study of Waste Based Livelihoods in Laydown Area: FGD Checklist Appendix 7.3 Laydown Area Waste Depots Identified in July 2009 WBB Study Conducted by CID.

Appendix 9.1 Traffic Recorded Going across the Laydown Area’s Access Route in Day Light Time Study, 24 March – 7 April, 2009

Appendix 10.1 Comparison between Egyptian Laws and International Standards for Involuntary Resettlement


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Egyptian Refining Company (ERC), incorporated in July 2007 as a Law 8 Company, will upgrade the existing Cairo Oil Refining Company (CORC) refinery and further process products from CORC to produce high‐quality lighter petroleum products. This Project, which is to be located in the Mostorod District in the Qalyoubia Governorate 40 km outside Cairo, will be built within the existing Mostorod Petroleum Complex. Construction activity will be over a three‐year period. The operational lifespan of the facility is expected to be approximately 25 years.

In May 2008, at the start of ERC’s impact assessment as part of the ESIA process, potential areas where persons might be displaced and/or livelihoods affected were identified. These were investigated in May‐June 2008 by the SIA and Resettlement Teams and a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) was produced. Following the initial December 2008 RPF (ESIA, Vol. 2, Chapter 11), ERC identified additional issues requiring further study to determine the potential for social and/or economic displacement of users of the land leased by ERC for the ERC contractor’s staging area (Laydown Area).1 Additional social surveys and consultations were then conducted with Laydown Area users, March ‐ May 2009. To complete its understanding of the individuals involved in waste‐based livelihoods, in June 2009 ERC engaged CID Consulting, Egyptian social specialists in Cairo’s complex waste industry, to provide detailed information regarding the waste supply chain, territorial rights, waste valuation, and waste‐based livelihood enhancement activities. ERC’s social investigations, spanning sixteen months, identified the following groups as having the potential to be impacted by ERC’s activities in the Laydown Area:

a) Domestic (household) waste dumpers, residing in communities near the Laydown Area;2

b) The Abd El Maqsoud farming family that owns the strip of agricultural land which divides the Laydown Area into two plots;

c) Roamers (predominantly young boys/youth from nearby Laydown Area communities) who collect and sell waste to nearby waste depots;

d) Scavengers, generally young boys, who casually collect waste to sell to the closest waste depot;

e) Sorters, both males and females, who sort the waste that has been brought to the waste depots;

f) Depot dealers (residents of the communities near the Laydown Area) who operate from waste depots bordering the Laydown Area;

g) Residents from nearby communities who also use the site for access and sport/recreation;

h) Other social users, e.g., one individual interviewed maintained he used the site to dry plastic which he cleans in another area;

i) Collectors/sorters (from communities outside the Laydown Area) who sell to waste dealers who operate waste depots near the Laydown Area; and

1 Four communities comprise the area referred to as the “Laydown Area” in this resettlement assessment: El Kattawi, Amal City, Ezbet

Shaker, and the Abd El Maqsoud’s farm land. 2 Residents from nearby communities who disposed of HH waste on the plot confirmed they had been dumping on the Laydown Area since

they moved to the area. The few domestic waste dumpers interviewed confirmed this by stating proximity of the Plot to their place of residence and shops but also stressed the lack of HH/domestic waste collection system as the main reason for dumping waste at the Laydown Area.


j) Commercial waste dumpers who evade the guards to dump construction rubble without authorization.

After surveying residents in communities near the Laydown Area and individuals involved in waste‐based businesses, ERC and its social advisors have confirmed that there is no economic and social function loss which would require a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) under IFC Guidelines. In fact, the expressed opinion of those resident in the Laydown Area communities is that the Project’s clean‐up and lighting of the area will be beneficial to the community.

Therefore, ERC’s extensive investigative process found no economic and social function loss which could not be mitigated with appropriate plans, management and monitoring and no loss of fixed assets.

Despite the lack of economic/social displacement and/or loss, ERC will nevertheless target the residents of the Laydown Area communities in its impact mitigation actions. The five general categories of impact mitigation actions are summarized as:

1. Maintaining Access; 2. Supporting Skills / Livelihood Development Programs; 3. Facilitating Household waste disposal; 4. Improving Quality of Life: Environment and Safety; and 5. Offering Additional Community / Youth Activities.

Details of each action are found in the Impact Mitigation Plan (Section 12) of this report.

“ERC’s Laydown Area Resettlement Assessment” summarizes the results of the 2008‐2009 social investigations which led to the conclusion that the insignificant adverse impact ERC’s activities may have on Laydown Area users can be mitigated through its mitigation actions. This assessment details the extensive information‐gathering and analytical process that ERC employed over a period of sixteen months to identify Project impacts on the communities’ residents and other users of the Laydown Area.


I. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Overview

With the expansion and development of the Egyptian economy, the domestic demand for refined petroleum products, especially diesel, has rapidly increased. In addition, as more natural gas is utilized to meet Egypt’s expanding requirements for electricity, the demand for fuel oil decreases. The technology in most of Egypt’s refineries produces large amounts of fuel oil, but the growing demand is for lighter products such as diesel. The increased demand for lighter petroleum products is one of the most important challenges Egypt’s oil and gas industry faces.

In response to increasing demand for refined oil products in Egypt, the Egyptian Refining Company was incorporated in July, 2007 as a Law 8 Company to upgrade the existing Cairo Oil Refining Company (CORC) refinery with additional product processing units. ERC will further process products from the CORC refinery to produce high‐quality lighter petroleum products essential to Cairo and Upper Egypt consumers.

This Project, which is to be located in the Mostorod District in the Qalyoubia Governorate 40 km outside Cairo, will be built within the existing Mostorod Petroleum Complex. Construction activity will be over a three‐year period. The operational lifespan of the facility is expected to be approximately 25 years.

Private Egyptian and Arab investors, led by Citadel Capital, own 85% of ERC shares. The Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation (EGPC) owns the remaining 15% of shares. To obtain the funding for this major Project, a number of international lenders will be involved; therefore, ERC engaged international and Egyptian environmental and social scientists to develop an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) of the Project. The Non‐Technical Summary of the ESIA is posted on the ERC website: www.ercegypt.com.

According to project classifications of the International Finance Cooperation (IFC), the proposed ERC Project is Category B (projects expected to have limited adverse social and/or environmental impacts that can be readily addressed through mitigation measures). ERC’s ESIA and ESMP are compliant with the relevant standards even if the Project were considered to be or upgraded to a Category A project.

1.2 Project Area Layout

The Project Area comprises the following plots:

• South Plot

• Laydown Areas

The South Plot will accommodate ERC’s process infrastructure and related facilities. A portion of the South Plot is currently being used by Government product distribution companies. Prior to re‐development by ERC, the existing structures will be demolished and the soil remediated.

As the Project Area is space‐constrained, particularly for equipment placement and temporary storage, a Laydown Area, separated from the actual construction site, is required. For this purpose, ERC has leased a site to the west of the Ismailia Canal for a three‐year period from ESCO, a government‐owned company which owns the land. The Laydown Area comprises two parts separated by a strip of land owned by a farmer who raises crops.

In the initial stages of the Project’s design, a North Plot, comprising 193,000 square meters, was purchased from three different industrial companies to accommodate processing units. In response to ERC’s concerns about perceived impacts on the nearby communities and consultations with stakeholders, modifications in


Project design were agreed in June 2008 which changed the use of the North Plot to accommodate only non‐operational activities. Subsequently, in May 2009, the Project Area was further modified to eliminate any ERC activity on the North Plot.

1.3 Potential Resettlement Issues Identified

At the start of the resettlement investigations process in May 2008, ERC identified three areas that had the potential to displace persons and/or livelihoods. These were investigated in May, June, October, and November 2008 by the SIA and Resettlement Teams for potential displacement within the context of an evolving Project description. Additional Detailed Measurement Surveys (DMS) for the finalization of the Laydown Area Resettlement Assessment were then conducted in March‐July 2009. Investigations indicated that the following areas could potentially displace persons and/or livelihoods.

1.3.1 South Plots: CORC Tenant Relocation

The South Plot (within the CORC Refinery grounds) includes three CORC‐owned residential buildings, housing 20 employees and their families (107 individuals). Based on consultations with CORC management and the current tenants, these families will be resettled in a new, improved apartment complex provided by ERC. In the ESIA Volume 2, Chapter 11, ERC details the Resettlement Framework Plan the Project will undertake to ensure the CORC tenant relocation complies with WBG/IFC standards.

1.3.2 North Plot: No Resettlement

After the 2008 impact investigations, ERC management took key decisions to alter the design of its facilities on the North Plot to avoid resettlement and minimize disruption to nearby communities. Subsequent to the resettlement surveys, ERC decided not to build any facilities on the North Plot. Moving all ERC activity to the South Plots ameliorated the earlier concern regarding the close proximity of residential apartments, small businesses and a school to Project operations in the North Plot. This area is now a zone of secondary impact and will be addressed accordingly, e.g. residents will have access to ERC’s Community Development activities and programs, including access to ERC’s Grievance Mechanism (described in Section 15).

In addition to including residents from communities near the North Plot in community activities, ERC also has representation on the Mostorod Geographical Committee, decreed by the Ministry of Petroleum, to coordinate issues related to all companies operating in the Mostorod Petroleum complex. Topics typically addressed include:

• Road improvement; • Fire Fighting Services; • Traffic Safety; • Facility Safety ;and • Environmental Performance.

While ERC has no authority to delegate to the public and private companies that are represented on the committee, ERC can propose that Egyptian and international “Best Practice” standards are implemented.

1.3.3 Laydown Area: No Significant Impact Requiring Resettlement

The land ERC has leased for three years for materials fabrication and equipment storage is near four communities: El Kattawi, Amal City, Ezbet Shaker, and the Abd El Maqsoud farming strip which separates the area into two sections.3 The Laydown Area is used as an informal waste dump for primarily construction /demolition material (CDM) rubble. Without authorization, trucks dump building materials

3 Hereafter in this report, the four communities of El Kattawi, Amal City, Ezbet Shaker, and the Abd El Maqsoud farm land will be referred

to as “the Laydown Area communities.”


such as concrete blocks and broken tiles on the boundaries of the open plots. Informal waste collectors sporadically scavenge the area for re‐usable waste. Several waste depots are located along the perimeter of the area, although they do not obtain their waste from the Laydown Area. The dealers who operate the depots employ “sorters” as salaried employees to organize the collected waste. Residents in the nearby communities cross the site to access the main road and sometimes use the area to dump household and organic waste. When the site is cleared and fenced for use during the construction phase, Laydown Area users will not be able to access the site.

After the preliminary scoping surveys for the ESIA (March – April 2008) and in order to determine the potential for Laydown Area user groups’ social and/or economic displacement and/or other loss, ERC engaged social scientists to conduct social impact investigations beginning in May 2008. Impact investigations of the informal waste livelihoods and other uses of the Laydown Area continued through July 2009.

The investigative process found no economic or social function loss which could not be mitigated with appropriate plans, management and monitoring and no loss of fixed assets. The process and results of those investigations as well as ERC’s mitigation efforts are the focus of this report.

1.4 ERC’s Laydown Area Impact Assessment

ERC’s extensive social investigations spanning sixteen months concluded that a Resettlement Action Plan for the Laydown Area is not required. Although a RAP is not required, ERC will take steps to mitigate the social/economic loss through appropriate plans as part of its commitment to the Laydown Area communities’ residents and users. “ERC’s Laydown Area Impact Assessment” summarizes the results of the 2008‐2009 social investigations which led ERC to this conclusion. ERC has undertaken this study to ensure that a systematic assessment of potential losses is made and action is taken to minimize damage or loss to Laydown Area communities’ residents and/or users. The assessment considers loss of access, e.g., waste dump area, access through and around the Laydown Area.

“ERC’s Laydown Area Resettlement Assessment” details the information‐gathering and analytical process that ERC employed to ensure Project development would have minimal adverse impact on affected communities. The Assessment’s objectives are to evaluate all physical or economic impacts, displacement, or temporary or permanent loss of assets or facilities that may be experienced by the residents of nearby communities and/or other users of the Laydown Area.

The Resettlement Assessment builds upon the following sources:

• Initial scoping surveys, (March‐April 2008); • 100% sample (69 households in the Laydown Area communities) for the socio‐economic

baseline/census (May‐June 2008); • Consultations with local government regarding waste alternatives (Nov 2008); • Broad consultation with stakeholders (May 2008‐June 2009); • Social/network analysis timed studies (Nov 2008 and March‐ April 2009); • Focus Group Discussions with Laydown Area Collectors/Sorters and Waste‐Based Businesses and

Residents of communities near the Laydown Area (Nov. 2008 and April‐May 2009); • Individual consultations with Waste‐Based dealers/collectors/sorters (June‐July 2009); and • Studies on the waste‐based industry in Cairo (secondary source material.)


2. MINIMIZING IMPACTS

As ERC’s commitment is to avoid and/or minimize resettlement and livelihood displacement, ERC undertook surveys and impact investigations of the Laydown Area to identify and address any potential adverse impact issues.

2.1 ERC’s Principles for Minimizing Adverse Impacts

ERC established general principles to minimize the impact of potential displacement of community residents. The following principles apply directly to Laydown Area user groups:

(i) Rehabilitation assistance will be provided to residents of the Laydown Area communities to assist them to improve their pre‐project living standards, incomes and productive capacity. Particular attention will be paid to the needs of the poorest people and vulnerable groups. This may include households headed by females, the elderly or disabled and other vulnerable groups such as the illiterate who may need special assistance in reading notices.

(ii) Lack of legal title to affected assets including access routes will not bar Laydown Area users from entitlement and assistance;

(iii) Adequate resources will be identified and committed to implement impact mitigation plans. This includes adequate budgetary support made available to plan, supervise, liaise and monitor all community activities;

(iv) Appropriate reporting, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms will be drafted and set in place as part of the mitigation management system. ERC staff will be trained on M & E process and impact mitigation commitments; and

(v) Detailed plans will be translated into Arabic and placed in the Community Relations Office for the reference of Laydown Area communities’ residents as well as other interested groups.

2.2 Results of Efforts to Identify and Avoid Adverse Impacts

As a result of the extensive studies of the Project Areas, ERC determined a Project design which would minimize relocation and/or negative impacts on affected people/groups. Such considerations with respect to the Laydown Area include:

• Selecting an area for materials storage which will not require any residential or structural displacement; and

• Providing a paved, lighted, secure access route through the Laydown Area after financial closure when Project activity begins.

Extensive surveys of the Laydown Area communities found no requirement for physical relocation and no structures and/or businesses will be replaced. The economic and social function loss will be mitigated with appropriate plans, management and monitoring which are detailed in this assessment report. The surveys also confirmed no loss of fixed assets.

2.3 Efforts to Engage Laydown Area Communities’ Residents and Users

ERC has established a Community Relations Team to disclose information about the Project and implement and monitor social mitigation actions. The Team’s primary roles are to disseminate consistent Project messages and oversee timely implementation of ERC’s Social Management Plan. The Team will play an important role in managing expectations within the Laydown Area communities.

The Community Relations Team consists of the ERC Community Relations Manager, the Communications / Corporate Social Responsibility Manager, the Government Relations Manager, Social and Environmental


Scientists, and Community Liaison Officers (CLOs). The CLOs, whom the CRM recruited from the local communities, will play a vital role in engaging community members throughout the life of the Project. CLOs are gender balanced to ensure that both men and women from local communities are consulted in a culturally‐appropriate manner.

In addition to being available for consultations in the Community Relations Center, CLOs will actively engage Laydown Area community residents after financial close when Project activities begin. At these meetings Project information will be disseminated, questions answered and concerns addressed. CLOs will alert the CRM to any displacement issues which arise.

Additionally, the ERC Grievance Mechanism will be activated shortly before financial close to provide Laydown Area residents with an avenue to express their concerns or offer suggestions (See Section 15.)

3. SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE OF THE LAYDOWN AREA

The results of the socio‐economic baseline surveys (May‐June 2008) are detailed in the ESIA, Volume 2, Chapter 9 and summarized below. (Questionnaires located in Appendices 3.1‐3.3.)

3.1 Area Description

The Laydown Area, currently a vacant plot of land, will be used for approximately three years, during the Project’s Construction Phase, for temporary storage and fabrication of Project assets. The land has been leased by ERC from ESCO, a government‐owned company. A strip of farm land owned by a farming family (Abd el Maqsoud) separates the Laydown Area into two plots (the North and South Plots.) The communities of El‐Kattawi and Amal City border the Area, while Ezbet Shaker lies to the north of Amal City. The Laydown Area is used from time to time as an unauthorized, informal dump site which attracts occasional waste collectors/sorters. An unpaved track used by pedestrians and bicyclists bi‐sects the Laydown Area South Plot providing a direct route to the Ismailia Canal from which point local residents access key transport routes.

Figure 1: Laydown Area Communities

The buildings around the Laydown Area are recently established (nearly 70% of the population have been there for less than 10 years). Many of the units are still vacant. Though unplanned, streets, passages and

Amal City

Ezbet Shaker


buildings in the area are nevertheless regular in alignment. Streets in the entire area are unpaved and height of buildings varies between two and four stories. All buildings are built of brick and concrete and are relatively new. There are three dwelling clusters: El‐Kattawi, Ezbet Shaker (including Amal City) and Abd el Maqsoud which is the cluster of buildings on the western boundary of the farmland. Dwellings surrounding the Laydown Area are either an apartment in a building (67%) or a brick built house (33%). In 75% of cases, the units are owned and in 25% they are rented.

The area lacks most public infrastructure services, i.e., public piped water and sanitation network although there is electricity. Social services are not available, except one pharmacy and one oriental café. However, communication services, i.e., landlines, cell network and internet are available in the area4.

3.2 Demographics

The population/census survey included 69 households with 317 family members which is the entire population of the Laydown Area communities. 99% are present residents/occupiers, 57% are male, and 43% female. Only 5.8% of total Households in the area are female headed. 56% are working age (20‐59 years), while only 23.7% are completely dependent (1‐9 years and over 60 years of age)5.

Of the total sample of residents in communities near the Laydown Area, 41% are married, and 2.2% widowed. As for duration and previous place of residence, 68.2% have been in the area less than 10 years.

3.3 Vulnerability Status

Indicators used in the socio‐economic study to measure vulnerability included socio demographics, education, employment, income, tenure, housing conditions and expenditure. Using these criteria to establish vulnerability, residents of communities near the Laydown Area, when compared to the residents of Ezbet Atef and Arab El Hessn (communities near ERC’s South Plot), are among the least vulnerable of the ERC Project communities. 11.6% of households live below medium vulnerability circumstances (13‐24 scores out of 36), while a total of 88.4% are living within the low vulnerability context (0‐12 scores out of 36). 81.2% of households’ heads are currently working, 85.5% of these have a permanent job. Nonetheless 30.4% of households’ members are ultra poor (live on less than $1 per day) and 40.6% are poor (live on less than $2 per day).

Table 3.1: Survey Results of Laydown Area Infrastructure/Assets – 100% of households in Area polled: 69 households (317 family members.)

4 Infrastructure and Social Services Questionnaire in Appendix 3.3 5 In ERC’s ESIA, “completely dependent” is defined as ages 1‐9 and over 60 years of age.

Figure 2: Laydown Area (Amal City) – note ‘typical’ unfinished buildings, March 2009.

Figure 3: Smelting/welding business adjacent to the Laydown Area, May, 2008.


Service Percentage of

Households’ Use Access to Water Piped water inside dwelling 71% Manually‐pumped water 24.6% Tanker/vendor supplied 4.3% Water‐borne toilets 65% Pit latrines 35% Utilities Electricity in homes 92.8% Butane Gas (bottled) for cooking fuel 94.2 Waste Disposal Deposited in streets (including Laydown Area) drains and/or canal

53.6%

Collected from homes by local service 46.4% Other Assets Televisions 92.8% Satellite dishes 42% Oven 95.7% Refrigerator 89.9% Cell phones 78.3% Computers 26.1% Private car 4.3% Motorcycle 1.4%

3.4 Education Status of Residents near the Laydown Area

More than a third (38%) of the sample in the vicinity of the Laydown Area completed formal schooling in an educational institution, while 14.4% have no formal education. About one quarter (25%) is currently studying, and 22.1% dropped out. Among those who completed formal schooling, 38.1% completed basic education (23.9% primary and 14.2% preparatory). 43.8% accomplished secondary education and 18.2% claim to have obtained a university degree. Only 8.6% (21 people) of total respondents have received formal vocational/professional skills development training. Among those, 16 people received training on computers and typing and 2 in languages. Verification FGD also found that youth received vocational training/professional skills through informal apprentice schemes with residents who run small businesses in the area (or nearby in Mostorod). These included on‐the‐job training in masonry, mechanics and the waste business.

3.5 Income and Livelihoods

3.5.1 Income Generating Activities

A total of 18 Income‐Generating Activities (IGA) questionnaires were conducted in the Laydown Area communities in May 2008 with different enterprises and businesses. The questionnaires reflected that 8 are involved in carpentry and welding, 7 in ‘commercial’ activities/ waste businesses and 3 in services. Waste‐based activities also include providing animal food products (organic waste for pigs) and household goods including stuffing for furniture. Services are linked to communication and repairs (bikes and household items). More than half the enterprises (55.6%) have started within the last 1‐4 years, 27.8% within the last 5‐9 years, and 11.1% started in 2008. Mean number of years of establishment is 3.89.

The enterprises are mainly individual (17 out of 18) and the remainder is a family enterprise. 14 (out of 18) are not registered or licensed. 6 (out of 18) are run by a single person, usually the owner; additionally 10 have between 2 and 3 employees, and only two employ 4 employees, although family members who work


in the business are typically not referred to as employees. Sixteen (out of 18) of the enterprises are run in a purpose built or hired unit, while only 2 activities are run in the same place as residence6.

3.5.2 Employment and Livelihoods

More than one third (38.4%) of the total sample in the area is currently working, 3.8% currently not working, 9% dependent/retired, a quarter (26%) housewives, almost a fifth (21%) students, and 2% are economically inactive. 85.1% are wage earners, while only 13.9% are self employed. 78.2% are permanently employed, and 13.3% are temporarily employed.

Types of Employment include:

• Welding and Carpentry 40.6% • Service Industry 28.7% • Technical Occupations 18.8%

Unemployment7 is low at 9% for the Laydown Area sample. Among those who are not working (3.8%), 2.3% have worked before and 1.5% is seeking a first job. All (100%) currently not working have been unemployed for 1‐4 years. Main reasons for unemployment is not finding work (70%) and not finding suitable work, in terms of salary, location and specialty (10%)8.

3.5.3 Income and Expenditure

The main income source for households near the Laydown Area is salaries (89.8%). In addition, about 17.4% receive pensions, 15.9% work in agriculture and 17.4% depend on regular aid.

Of those individuals earning wages, 62.4% are paid per month, 26.7% per day and 7.9% per week. Monthly individual salary earnings include:

• Less than LE 250 (approximately $479): 40.6% • LE 251 and 500 ($47‐93): 23.8% • LE 501 and 750 ($94‐139): 18.8% • LE 751 and 1000 ($140‐186): 8.9% • No data provided: 7.9%

The mean monthly salary is LE 476.21 (approximately $89).

Monthly household earnings from salaries range from:

• Less than LE 500 ($92): 10.1% • LE 500 and 999 (approximately $93‐185) 46.4% • LE 1000‐1499 ($86‐279): 16% • LE1500 and 1999 ($280‐373): 11.6% • No data provided: 15.9%

Mean total household monthly income is LE1160.00 (approximately $216)10.

Around half (49.2%) of the households in this area spend between 50% and 75% of their monthly income on food and 39.1% spend between 25% and 50%. Expenditure on food is followed by annual education

6 IGAs questionnaire, Q 1, 3, 2, 4, 5, & 7. 7 Unemployment rate is calculated as percentage of those who have worked before and/or are seeking first job against the total labour force

15+ (working now, worked before and seeking first job). 8 HH questionnaire, Q 3.01, 3.02, 3.03, 3.05, 3.06, 3.08 & 3.09. 9 One Dollar is calculated equivalent to LE 5.36 based on stock market rate on the 6th of June, 2008. 10 HH questionnaire, Q 6.01, 6.07 & 6.03.


costs (LE 692.59, approximately $130), followed by clothes (LE 515.08, approximately $96 annually), and health care and services (LE 102.00, approximately $19 annually)11.

4. IMPACT CONSULTATIONS

4.1 Overview of Initial Impact Consultations

For potential social/economic displacement issues, the initial Impact Consultations conducted in May‐June 2008 aimed to:

• Identify potential impacts to Laydown Area user groups and those residing near the Laydown Area from use of the Laydown Area by ERC;

• Seek participatory solutions to avoid potential adverse impacts by discussing solutions and mitigation;

• Advise ERC of Laydown Area communities residents’ expectations from Laydown Area use and of any potential grievances that could arise; and

• Promote consensual decision‐making and realistic participation in agreements for problem solving and/or mitigation.

The Impact Consultations, undertaken as part of the ESIA (Appendix 7.1), were led by an International Consultation specialist working with an Egyptian Human Rights facilitator, two Egyptians with a background in Community and Government Relations in the petrochemicals industry, and a Community Liaison Officer. In line with IFC Guidance Note 1 (IFC 2007, paragraph G53), the impact consultations were:

• Free (free of intimidation or coercion) – Respondents participated in FGDs and/or completed surveys willingly; Respondents were not required to supply personal contact information (See “Constraints,” Section 5);

• Prior (timely disclosure of information) ‐ Consultations were completed at least 18 months prior to ERC financial close when activities will begin in the Laydown Area; and

• Informed (relevant, understandable and accessible information) – Egyptian social scientist and team deployed; International Social Scientists were accompanied by Egyptian translators and surveyors; Project information leaflets were available in Arabic. Project information was provided during all consultations.

The process included both dissemination of Project information and consultation on nearby community residents and user groups’ opinions and priorities, working together in an iterative process. This is vital because the information to be disseminated and the information collected through consultation each inform the other12. Efforts were also made to ensure that stakeholders targeted were representative of the diversity of residents who live near the Laydown Area and other user groups, along lines such as gender and religion, and included vulnerable stakeholders who might be more exposed to negative Project impacts, less able to access Project benefits and more difficult to engage in Project decision‐making processes.

11 HH questionnaire, Q 6.04 & 6.05. 12 For example, during meetings, stakeholders were informed of the ways in which they can contact ERC to ask questions and express their

concerns, but at the same time, meetings were used to consult stakeholders on their preferred means of contacting ERC, e.g., media of communication, venues for meetings and drop‐ins, etc., leading to changes and improvements in ERC’s structures for communication.


Table 4.1 Social Investigation Sites, Target Groups and Sampling, May‐June 2008

Consultations Socio‐economic Survey Health Baseline Survey

Households Neighbouring Laydown Area

Phase 1 ‐ Impact Discussions FGDs in El‐Kattawi (male & female) and Amal City (male) Phase 2‐DMS (Time Study Questionnaire) & FGD

100% HH Q survey, and IGA questionnaires

100% HH Q survey and FGDs for Farmers

Other Laydown Area User Groups

Impact Discussions/Time Study Questionnaire & Catch Interviews

N/A N/A

Table 4.2 Impact Consultation FGDs attendance in May – June 2008, by Social Categories13

Age Muslim Christian Site Male Female

<30 30‐50

>50 No response

Laydown Area (3 men did not give details)

28 8 7 19 6 1 29 4

The impact consultations were designed to include vulnerable groups, specifically those who were not in the household survey of no fixed abode as the IFC14 states: ‘….the Assessment process should use accepted sociological and health methods to identify and locate vulnerable individuals or groups within the affected community population, collecting data on a disaggregated basis.’ Therefore criteria to identify vulnerable groups among primary stakeholders were developed. These criteria were based on the findings of the Scoping Phase (March 2008), as well as site visits and catch interviews carried out in May 2008 and discussions with secondary stakeholders (Local Government and NGOs) working on issues related to poverty and social vulnerability.

Legitimate stakeholders’ representatives, for primary stakeholder groups, were identified after discussions with primary stakeholders. One feedback from the majority of respondents was an unwillingness to use elected People’s Assembly members as Stakeholder Representatives on the basis that “…they just come and talk but never do anything for the community”.15

4.2 Initial Laydown Area Residents and Users Identified

The impact consultations (May‐June 2008) initially identified several different types of Laydown Area Users who had the potential to be impacted by ERC’s use of the Laydown Area. The potential impact on Laydown Area users was further explored in the DMS of November 2008 and March‐July 2009 including site visits, interviews, FGDs and Time Study questionnaires. The result of all investigations identified the following general groups as having the potential to be impacted by ERC’s activities in the Laydown Area:

a. Domestic (household) waste dumpers, residing in communities near the Laydown Area16; b. Collectors/Sorters (predominantly young boys/youth from nearby Laydown Area communities)

who collect waste; 13 Age and religion details could not be obtained at all meetings. 14 IFC Guidance Note 1 paragraph G24. 15 As expressed in Focus Group 5 in the Mud Brick housing area by the South Plot. 16 Residents from nearby communities who disposed of household waste on the Plot confirmed they had been dumping on the North Plot

since they moved to the area. The few domestic waste dumpers interviewed confirmed this by stating the proximity of the Plot to their place of residence and shops but also stressed the lack of household/domestic waste collection system as the main reason for dumping waste on the Laydown Area North Plot.


c. Waste dealers (residents of the communities near the Laydown Area) who operate from waste depots bordering the Laydown Area;

d. Other social users, e.g., one individual interviewed maintained he used the site to dry plastic which he cleans in another area;

e. Residents from nearby communities also use the site for access and sport/recreation; f. Collectors/sorters (from communities outside the Laydown Area) who sell to waste dealers who

live near the Laydown Area; and g. Commercial waste dumpers who evade the guards to dump construction rubble without

authorization.

The groups initially identified as having the potential to be impacted by ERC’s activities were further explored from July 2008 until July 2009 in a series of surveys, FGDs, and consultations to determine the extent of the impacts.

5. Laydown Area Surveys Overview

5.1 Aim and Objectives Following the impact consultations which identified potential impacts on Laydown Area User Groups, ERC conducted further studies to understand the different social and livelihood activities dependent on access to the Laydown North and South Plots. Specific objectives were to:

• Identify different user groups and frequency and patterns of use;

• Establish types of economic/livelihood activities, e.g. dumpers, sorters/ collectors and dealers;

• Establish any social function of the Laydown Area;

• Establish value of activity (social and/or economic value);

• Ascertain whether economic activities on the Laydown Area are the principal livelihood and main income of Laydown Area communities’ household or supplementary livelihoods;

• Determine levels of livelihood dependency (significance of economic displacement if any and value of waste) of different Laydown Area user groups/individuals;

• Verify and agree findings in FGDs with different user groups;

• Plan, negotiate and agree any loss mitigation strategy; and

• Implement mitigation/community compensation e.g. restoration plans for access routes, employment (training) schemes and/or negotiated and agreed community development initiatives.

5.2 Approach and Methodology

The Laydown Area series of socio‐economic and impact surveys were used to form an initial assessment of social and economic conditions of the Laydown Area and an understanding of Project impacts. Subsequently, Detailed Measurement Surveys for livelihood displacement investigations (Time Study Survey and FGDs) started in November 2008 and continued through March‐May 2009.

Following the DMS of March‐May 2009, ERC identified additional Laydown Area issues which required further study. Therefore, ERC engaged Community and Institutional Development (CID) Consulting, an Egyptian firm with a long history and extensive experience in addressing the social/economic circumstances/issues of those who collect, sort, and deal with waste, to explore determine the:

• complex, fluid social and economic networks of the collectors/sorters/dealers;


• territorial rights of dealers’ waste dump sites; • economic and social value of any livelihood loss; • supply chain issues of the waste‐related activities; and • appropriate livelihood alternatives/enhancements for Laydown Area collectors/ sorters/dealers.

CID mobilized a team of surveyors for this study that was uniquely equipped for obtaining accurate, sector‐ specific information. The field team consisted of surveyors who were familiar with the waste trade and who, in fact, were informal waste workers themselves. They tapped into their knowledge of the market to validate information given by informants. This low‐profile field team was able to study the Laydown Area waste‐based activities more effectively and closely than teams from outside the waste industry.

5.3 Survey Teams

To ensure that all of the surveys were conducted in a culturally appropriate manner, it was important that the surveyors were mostly Egyptian and gender balanced. The following staffing for the ERC’s surveys was established:

• Overall SIA management and technical direction was conducted by a Socio‐Economist with experience of International Best Practice standards in SIA, RAPs and SMPs.

• Stakeholder engagement was led by an International Planning and Consultation specialist working with an Egyptian Human Rights facilitator, two Egyptians with a background in Community and Government Relations in the petrochemicals industry, and a Community Liaison Officer engaged from the community of El Khosos.

• The staffing for the development of the Resettlement Policy Framework was complicated. The international team engaged to develop a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) sent a number of different staff to visit the Project for short periods during May 2008, with insufficient time to conduct field work to support the RPF. Therefore an international Resettlement Specialist, from June 9, 2008 was engaged to provide field inputs to the RPF, with ongoing surveys during the Phase 2 SIA conducted in the Laydown Area, October – December 2008.

• ERC’s social and environmental scientists conducted additional investigations, including a time survey and FGDs, March – May, 2009.

• CID’s seven‐member field team with backgrounds in waste businesses conducted studies in waste‐based businesses, supply chain, territorial rights and livelihood enhancements/alternatives, June‐July 2009.

• Three ERC peer reviewers, each an internationally recognized academic/professional working on participatory urban development, health and resettlement respectively, supported all ERC social investigations.

5.4 Summary of Surveys

The series of Laydown Area resettlement surveys which followed the socio‐economic baseline and impact surveys comprised:

• DMS Questionnaire Time Study Survey Trials – 25th and 26th October 2008;

• DMS Quantitative Survey: including Time Study, November 2008 with Waste Sorters and Collectors: 42 questionnaires were conducted; Domestic Waste Dumpers: 6 questionnaires were completed with residents from communities near the Laydown Area who use the Laydown Area to dump household waste. The March‐April 2009 Time Study included 22 Laydown Area communities’ residents who were waste sorters/collectors;


• DMS Qualitative Survey: Focus Group Discussions with Residents: A total of 5 waste‐based livelihood (dealers and sorters from near the Laydown Area) FGDs and 40 interviews were conducted with residents from communities near the Laydown Area at the Laydown Area in October and November 200817. Interviews were undertaken using the FGDs’ guide, when group meetings were not possible. Numbers of Focus Group Discussions and interviews by area and target group are shown in Table 4.5. The findings of these meetings are discussed below along with the findings of the Focus Group Discussions conducted in May‐June 2008 about ERC impacts in general. These findings were verified and updated in FGDs held in May 2009;

• DMS Qualitative Survey: Focus Group Discussions with Waste Business Owners/Waste Dealers: In November 2008 one FGD was conducted with waste dealers who live in the Laydown Communities of El Amal City/Ezbet Shaker and use the Laydown Area to support ‘family run waste businesses’. This FGD included 8 dealers (heads of business), with family members involved in the business also included in the discussions. In May 2009 FGDs were again held with the waste dealers to verify the change of use patterns identified; 5 dealers took part in the FGD (4 male, one female). It was explained that there were less dealers in the area than before as there was less value from waste in general. In particular residents who had previously stated they were dealers were only transient traders, i.e., those who were between jobs in the formal sector. One had stopped waste dealing, as he had broken his leg and opened a café.

• DMS Qualitative Survey: Focus Group Discussions with Waste Sorters/Collectors and Dealers: To verify changes in patterns of Laydown area sorting/collecting, to explain November 2008 Time Study findings and to confirm findings of March‐April 2009, two FGDs – one with dealers and one with collectors/sorters ‐ were conducted in May 2009, including some who had previously (prior to November 2008) worked on the Laydown Plots at night.

• Social investigations into the waste‐based industry operating near the Laydown Area: To gain a complete understanding of the Laydown Area waste‐based users, additional study was undertaken in June‐July 2009 to identify the Laydown Area waste depots, to understand the waste supply chain, territorial rights, waste valuation, and to propose livelihood enhancement activities. Ten waste dealers (8 established; 2 emerging) operating along the perimeter of the Laydown Area and the roamers who work with them in addition to the itinerant scavengers crossing the Laydown Area were consulted during this additional study. (CID’s report attached.)

The Laydown Area Socio‐Economic Baseline, Impact and Resettlement Investigation Activities and Schedule are presented in Table 5.1 below.

17 This is in addition to the Socio‐economic baseline of these communities conducted in May‐June 2008 – see ESIA Vol 2, Chapter 9.


Table 5.1 LAYDOWN AREA RESETTLEMENT INVESTIGATIONS SCHEDULE 2008‐2009

Mar/Apr08

May 08

June 08

Aug. 08

Oct. 08

Nov. 08

Mar. 09

Apr. 09

May 09

June 09

July 09

Responsible Party

Consultation for Impact Assessments, Socio‐Economic & Health Baseline & Resettlement Policy Framework

Reconnaissance & Scoping Survey, Mapping and Census

SIA Team

Finalize and present Scoping Report SIA Team Selection & Training of SIA &RPF Team, methods & tools

SIA &RPF Team

Information Disclosure & Impact Consultations SIA Team Socio‐economic & health baseline of 100% of Laydown Area households

SIA Team

Data Analysis and SIA & RPF report writing SIA &RPF Team Public Hearing –Residents specifically bussed from Laydown Area

ERC

Detailed Measurement Surveys for Social/Economic Displacement

1st Time Study of Informal Waste Collectors/Sorters, Data Entry, Preliminary Analysis

RS

FGD/consultations with Resident Waste Dealers and start of reporting template

RS

Production of resettlement report/progress updates of findings

SSA

Targeted DM Surveys to verify users and significance of economic activities, 2nd Time Study, Date Entry & Preliminary Analysis

SSA/CRT

FGD Resident & Non Resident Sorters/collectors & Waste Dealers‐ Verification & entitlement, agreement of survey findings, cut‐off date, Costing & Livelihoods/CPR Displacement Negotiations & Agreement

SSA/CRT

CID Consulting’s investigations into WBB supply chain, territorial rights, livelihood alternatives, waste valuation determination

CID Survey Team

SIA Team as set out in the ESIA, RPF Team=Worley Parsons Resettlement Consultants; RS=Resettlement Specialist from Cairo University, SSA=ERC’s Social Science Advisor, CRT=Community Relations Team.

ERC’s Laydown Area Resettlement Assessment 22 September 11, 2009

5.5 Survey Constraints

Within the traditional, closed culture of communities surrounding the Laydown Area, social investigations, particularly those conducted by international surveyors, are viewed with considerable mistrust and suspicion. The 2008 protests against the E‐Agrium Fertilizer complex proposed in Damietta, 200 km (120 miles) north of Cairo, were still front page news. ERC’s stakeholders, including the Governor of Qalyoubia and State Security, were anxious to avoid a similar situation in their area. Because of the illegal nature of many of the waste‐based activities (Appendix 5.1), the people involved were also fearful of responding to surveys or providing personal contact information. Additionally, government officials, careful to avoid the protests which had occurred in Damietta, were understandably anxious to allow international surveys within their zone of influence. Finally, the May 2009 slaughter of pigs in response to the swine flu pandemic angered the numerous farmers who raised pigs in the area near the Laydown Area and heightened suspicions of any outside interference. These events and attitudes, described in detail below, contributed to constraints in conducting social investigations.

5.5.1 Constraints Due to Sensitivity of Activity and Security Issues

The first constraint was in the administration of the DMS survey. The Time Study questionnaire was designed for multi‐use to gain:

• Full quantitative and qualitative data sets;

• Partial data by direct observation recording if interviews are not possible due to sensitivities connected to the informal nature of the livelihoods, i.e., the Laydown Area is being used as an unofficial/’illegal’ dump site.

Due to the sensitivity of the nature of the waste‐based livelihoods, a Time Study questionnaire was difficult to administer. Therefore, best practice determined for the Laydown Area Time Study was to apply direct observation first to complete as much data gathering as possible and then, if considered safe and feasible, an approach would be made for interviews (“catch” interviews.)

Compounding the sensitivity, in October 2008 after a body was reportedly found on the Laydown Area, it was considered a security issue to have the national and International social scientists, who were both female, on the site to conduct the survey. The area has a reported high crime rate. Instead the (male) social statistician, who supervised the socio‐economic baseline field survey, deployed a team of male enumerators for the November 2008 Time Study. Thus for the first Time Study the complex nature of these fluid social networks was not fully captured with ‘less tangible’ data and ‘on the spot’ verification/triangulation not achieved. This was complicated by indicators of change of use patterns. Therefore a second Time Study was conducted in March‐April 2009 when the ‘security alert’ had abated. This survey was closely supervised by the Social Science Advisor with data anomalies investigated as and when they were recorded.

In May‐June 2008 FGDs residents confirmed that there were serious security issues associated with the Laydown Area at night. They stated that the sorting/collecting started late at night and some specifically stated it started ‘after around 11pm as it is an illegal activity and associated with drug taking/’criminal actions’. It appears that some of these sorters/collectors were drug users who come to the Laydown Area plots to earn small amounts of cash to pay for drugs. This, however, has been ascertained by interviews and not witnessed, although it should be noted, it was stated repeatedly in different interviews to different social and resettlement scientists during 2008 and syringes were found at the site. The exact nature of these activities were not directly recorded but were confirmed by the verification surveys albeit with some reluctance to answer specific questions although revealing comments were made such as ‘It’s too dangerous for us out here at night due to the criminals and drug dealers’ and ‘sometimes they even kill

ERC LAYDOWN AREA RESETTLEMENT ASSESSMENT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>23 September 11, 2009

people; there was a body of a woman found at night’.18 However, by May 2009 ongoing monitoring, informal interviews and formal FGDs with waste dealers and then with sorters/collectors confirmed with the increased security in the area the clandestine activities had stopped.

In another move which affected the surveys, State Security mandated that the Time Studies, again for security reasons, could only be applied in daylight hours (from 8 am‐5 pm). Initial (2008) FGD and catch interviews revealed commercial dumpers eluded security to dump illegally at night. Moreover, sorters/collectors reportedly worked at night. Waste sorting often occurred at the Laydown Area neighboring communities’ warehouses after the bulk of the material was collected from the site. However, because of the ban on night time surveys/observations, ERC’s social impact field team was unable to confirm the extent of after dark activities.

5.5.2 Constraints Due to Blocked Access

In November 2008 ERC Social Scientists discovered during a site visit that access to the Laydown Area had been blocked by large mounds of construction rubble dumped at the entry points. Initially, ERC field staff inferred a company had carelessly dumped its construction rubble at the entry points rather than inside the area. However, further investigation revealed the blocked access coincided with the posting of 21 new ESCO security personnel who, as round‐the‐clock guards, forbade dumping as well as any sorting/collecting in the Laydown Area. While never confirmed by ESCO, the general consensus among residents near the Laydown Area was that the ESCO guards had allowed and/or instructed a company to dump at the entry points in order to block access.

The reason for restricting access was never fully determined, although based on knowledge of the area and the situation, as well as informal discussions with residents of Laydown Area communities, the blockage was apparently based on the following:

• ESCO’s enforcement of a ministerial decree which forbade the use of publicly‐held property by a third, unauthorized party;

• ESCO felt compelled to observe the laws regarding illegal dumping while the area was under close observation by ERC’s Egyptian and international surveyors (Appendix 5.1);

• ESCO, financially troubled, secured the area in an effort to curb illicit activities, e.g., drug use/trafficking, in order not to lose the ERC lease agreement; and

• A newly‐appointed ESCO Chairperson enforced stricter security measures, presumably based on observance of Egyptian laws regarding responsibility/liability for publicly‐owned land. (Appendix 5.1).

In FGDs, respondents confirmed that dumping had occurred at night, a practice which previously was allowed by ESCO guards but was stopped by the new ESCO guards after November 2008. After November 2008, however, a few trucks still dumped during the day. During some FGDs it was stated that the ‘old guards’ (before November 2008) accepted payment from factory/construction workers for allowing/turning a ’blind eye’ to dumping19.

While the cause of the restricted access remains unknown, the effect was immediate: dumping of waste declined because the trucks (which had no authorization to dump) could no longer access the area to deposit construction rubble; therefore, the number of collectors declined. However, in the May 2009 FGDs,

18 Verification catch interviews with focus group of 6 women residents and one man of Amal City, 30th November 2008. 19 It should again be noted that this was stopped mid‐November 2008 so verification of this is not possible. However, the SIA survey

Resettlement specialist witnessed some aggression by a security guard in May 2008 at the Laydown Area who did not want to be photographed while supervising sorters/collectors. So it appears there was some kind of connection/relationship at that time between security persons and the waste business.


Laydown Area waste dealers reported that their waste‐based incomes were dependent upon the daily market value of recyclable waste and not access to the Laydown Area site, indicating that the roamers attached to the depots continued to collect valuable recyclable materials from other nearby waste pooling sites.

5.5.3 Constraints Due to (Possible) Survey Impact

Data collected was also influenced by the survey itself; after 5‐6 days of the first Time Study Survey Team being in place, ‘word got around’ that the survey was being conducted. Thus it was believed by a few residents that collectors were told to keep away from the Laydown Area reportedly, but unconfirmed, by ESCO guards who, it was also rumored, previously made financial gain (took backhand payments) for allowing dumping and collectors to occur on the site.20 Indeed over half of the November 2008 Time Study sample was recorded during the first five days of the survey with an average of five different collectors working on the site/day (which is consistent to observations and catch interviews conducted during March‐June 2008). However, after 5 days the number of collectors on the Laydown North Plot per day dropped to an average of around 2 per day for the final 9 days of the Time Study (Table 5.2 below). Then, after the end of the survey, when this data was analyzed and the Team returned for verifications, no collectors were recorded. This coincided with the new guard policy of the site. 24 collectors were recorded in the first week and 13 in the second in the November 2008 Time Study.

It was during the November 2008 FGDs that respondents reportedly revealed that they had been ‘prohibited to go to the Laydown Area for the two weeks of the survey, especially early in the morning’. The source of this information was not made clear nor could it be verified in May 2009 although it should be noted that the Laydown Area collectors are local and most do not use the Laydown Area daily21 but indeed collect from other local sites daily.

Table 5.2 Number of Questionnaires Completed / Day of Survey (Collectors Only) Total = 42 over 15 days of Time Study, November 1‐15, 2008)

Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No of Respondents 6 5 2 6 8 2 0 2 3 1 2 2 0 1 2

For this reason, it was decided to halt the November survey after two weeks. Any longer would present a distorted picture from skewed data. However, partly due to this activity change, the illegal/unauthorized nature of activities, and the apparently low levels of education of the respondents, several discrepancies in the November 2008 Time Study data were found. Therefore, for clearer understanding of livelihoods waste networks and waste costing, the Time Study Survey was resumed in March 2009. By this time the security issue/sensitivity had abated and a social scientist could supervise the surveys and check the data anomalies as and when they occurred.

Moreover, by then the access blocked during the November 2008 survey had been partly removed by Laydown Area users, i.e., most of the mound of dumped waste at the access route eastern entrance had been eroded by resumed foot and bicycle traffic. During this March‐April 2009 Time Study a total of 22 collectors were observed with 16 Questionnaires completed by interview and 6 by observation as shown in Table 5.3 This demonstrates a pattern consistent with the November 2008 survey, after the guards were

20 It could be, however, that these residents from nearby communities wanted to stress the magnitude of ‘their problem with illegal

dumpers and sorters’ as many of them requested ERC ‘clear up’ the Laydown Area (see full DM survey results below). 21 Verification surveys showed that this expression of ‘daily’ use of the Laydown is colloquial/ false, i.e., Laydown Area users did not return

of a daily basis either during the November 2008 or March‐April 2009 Surveys.


posted, i.e., in March‐April 2009, as with the November 2008 survey, more questionnaires were completed in the first week of survey than in the second. In November there was a change in guard policy but the March 2009 survey shows the survey itself may be an influencing factor in reduction of numbers, i.e., 15 in the first week, 7 in the second. For both Time Studies the number of individuals who visited the Laydown Area in the second week of survey is approximately half the number of sorters/collectors present during the first week of survey.

Table 5.3 Number of Questionnaires Completed / Day of Survey (Collectors) Total = 22 Over 15 days of Time Study, March 24‐ April 7, 2009)

Date 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

No of Respondents 2 1 5 4 0 0 3 0 2 3 1 1 0 0 0

5.5.4 SocioPolitical Constraint – Reaction to Swine Flu, May 2009

The Egyptian government’s reaction to the swine flu in May 2009 was to order the slaughter of all its pigs, about 300,000, although there had been no cases of swine flu in Egypt at that time. In spite of International criticism, the authorities did not rescind the order. The government promised pigs would be culled according to Islamic law, but reporters for an Egyptian newspaper documented this was not happening. The methods of the cull prompted an Egyptian and international outcry. The government claimed it was not acting just to prevent swine flu, but that it was providing the zabaleen (Arabic for garbage collectors) more sanitary living conditions. Predominantly Christians who raise pigs amidst the collected organic waste, the zabaleen were convinced that the government used the swine flu scare not to improve their lives but to eliminate their livelihoods.

The culling began in the zabaleen neighborhood of Ezbet el Nakhl in El Khosos (Qalyoubia Governorate), only a few kilometers east of where the ERC Project will be located. The waste‐based business of the zabaleen who live in Ezbet el Nakhl, one of the five established waste dump areas in Cairo, is semi‐formal although in recent years it has been organized, represented and supported by NGOs and CBOs. The zabaleen’s waste industry differs from the informal WWB of the Laydown Area in scope, organization and sophistication. While the zabaleen conduct daily door‐to‐door waste collection from assigned buildings, the informal roamers and scavengers of the Laydown Area collect from any waste pooling site. However, the zabaleen regularly interact with the Laydown Area waste depots as part of the waste supply chain.

The Christian/Muslim communities near the Laydown Area live in harmony, but there were obvious concerns about anyone conducting FGD at the time of the pig cull despite the welcome ERC’s surveyors had been receiving since they first informed the community residents on ERC in 2008. Moreover, complaints raised in the press were that the government’s decision came unexpectedly, without consultation, thus increasing the zabaleen pig farmers and others’ apprehension and anger, especially directed toward outsiders.

In this context, ERC made the decision to keep consultations small and low key. ERC had already consulted one of the main NGOs that supports waste collectors in May 2008 and has good relationships with the waste sorters/collectors and waste dealers as well as the government. Therefore consultations were conducted with consideration of positive maintenance of these relationships. Additionally, CID Consulting, an Egyptian organization specializing in waste‐based industries, was contacted to conduct further low‐key investigations.


5.5.5 Constraints due to Surveyors Deployed from Outside the Laydown Area Communities

The homogeneous communities surrounding the Laydown Area are traditionally conservative and relatively closed. People from outside the communities, both Egyptians and internationals, who venture into the Laydown Area, are viewed with mistrust and suspicion until the purpose of their visit is known and understood.

The international social scientists who went into the communities to conduct the initial studies were constrained by the nature of the closed communities from moving freely to elicit frank and honest responses from Laydown Area users. Speaking to the residents of the Laydown Area communities was relatively easy after relationships had been developed, but consulting people engaged in the unauthorized, tenuous waste‐based industries was more problematic. Collectors/sorters/and dealers were reluctant to provide information regarding their activities fearing that whatever they said could lead to loss of their livelihoods. Even more difficult was determining if the information they did provide was accurate and reliable.

To understand fully the nature of the waste‐based use of the Laydown Area, ERC engaged a local Egyptian consulting firm, CID, to conduct additional studies. CID deployed a team of surveyors with waste‐based background, including one with established trading ties to Laydown Area depots, to elicit additional information and to verify previous statements. Therefore, the data collected through this established business relationship was reliable and credible. CID’s team accurately identified the different waste user groups and tracked the supply chain from the initial collection point to its resale to a waste wholesaler, thus enabling an accurate valuation of the waste retrieved from the Laydown Area which had been grossly exaggerated in previous studies. The CID surveyors with extensive knowledge of the waste‐based industry were able to obtain information that surveyors from outside the area/industry had previously been unable to collect.

6. DETAILED MEASUREMENT SURVEYS: Time Studies

During the 16‐month ongoing, periodic monitoring and SIA surveys, two Time Studies of continuous monitoring were undertaken:

In November 2008 48 questionnaires were conducted with persons using the Laydown Area for waste‐related activities (6 HH waste dumping and 42 sorters/collectors); 47 of these were completed interviews, with only one questionnaire completed by applied observation. This indicates a far higher level of cooperation with the surveyors than suggested with a far lower degree of sensitivity/security than anticipated/advised. Analysis shows that 88% of those who use the Laydown Area during the day do so for waste sorting/collecting and 12% for dumping purposes. The time surveys were followed by FGDs with residents, including those involved in waste‐based businesses.

In March‐April 2009 22 questionnaires were completed with persons using the Laydown Area for waste‐related activities; 16 of these were completed interviews, with 6 questionnaires completed by applied observation when the situation was judged as too sensitive for consultation, e.g., one female reportedly stated she was too frightened to talk to the enumerators. The results of these DMS are presented below according to user group and the discussion is inclusive of verifications/findings from the May 2009 FGDs.

6.1 DMS: Collectors22

22 With some data included on the household (HH) domestic waste dumpers.


Over a period of two weeks in November 2008 and again in March‐April 2009, DMS were undertaken at the Laydown Area sites. Surveyors monitored the daily daytime activity in the Laydown Area plots. The table below summarizes/compares the information collected from questionnaires and catch interviews (Appendix 6.1) with Laydown Users willing to respond during the Time Surveys undertaken in November 2008 and in March‐April 2009.

Table 6.1 Laydown Area Use

LAYDOWN AREA USE1 November 2008 48 respondents

March‐April 2009 22 respondents

From total users, the percentage who are collectors 88% 90% Collectors from outside the Laydown Area 67% 9% Collectors from Laydown Area (El‐Kattawi, Amal City, Ezbet Shaker) 33% 64% Collectors who come to Laydown Area because it is near the homes of waste‐based dealers

95%

Collectors who use large sacks for collection 72% 45% Collectors who use small bags for collection 23% 36% Collectors who use metal tools to extract or “bash” waste 28% 0% TYPES OF WASTE 2 November 2008 March‐April 2009 Plastic 63% 73% Metal 42% 72% Cardboard/paper 40% 36% Organic Waste 13% Clothes 8% Construction Waste 4% VISITS TO THE LAYDOWN AREA November 2008 March‐April 2009 Once a Day 54% 50% Once a week 40% 27%

Time Spent at Laydown Area 2‐16 hours Less than one hour (24 minutes average)

1 Within the Egyptian culture, waste collectors are male; females were recorded passing though the area, casually picking up a piece of recyclable waste for HH use and/or dumping HH waste on site. Statistics of respondents’ gender unavailable.

2 Percentages compute to more than 100% as individuals collected more than one type of waste.

In the November 2008 survey, 93% respondents were not able to estimate the distance from where they came to the Laydown Area but the majority stated that they came to the Laydown as it was ‘local’, i.e., near the residences of dealers. The May 2009 collector FGD confirmed that, prior to November 2008, the majority of sorters/collectors were from outside Laydown Area communities. However, in the May 2009 FGD, collectors were from the Laydown Area communities, i.e., a reduced network area. A minority (27%) was not willing or was unable to answer the question. Again in the May 2009 FGD, sorters/collectors confirmed that post‐ESCO guard posting, most sorters/collectors were from communities near the Laydown Area as outside collectors no longer found valuable waste in the area.

6.2 Significance of Livelihood Dependency/Waste Value

Table 6.2 Significance of Livelihood Dependency/Waste Value

November 2008 March‐April 2009

Very Dependent on the income from this activity 76% 19%

DAILY EARNINGS November 2008 March‐April 2009

LE 20 – LE 40 68% 14%


Less than LE 20 32% 86%

In the November 2008 survey, the most significant value of sorted waste as perceived by all respondents who collected waste was financial, with most stating it was their “main income source”23. It was stated as providing almost twice the daily income of 40.6% of residents from communities near the Laydown Area who live on less than $2/day.

In the March‐April 2009 survey, the percentage of collectors who earned less than LE 20/ day rose substantially, primarily because the majority of the respondents passing through the Laydown Area were youth and boys who were unable to carry as much weight in their sacks as the older, more experienced roamers who had responded in the November 2008 survey. By April 2009, the value of waste collected from the Laydown Area had declined due to the companies’ extracting the most valuable materials, i.e., copper and aluminum, before dumping and trucks no longer having access to dump industrial/construction waste on the site. Therefore, the majority of the roamers had moved on to more profitable sites.

As for value of using waste at home, the majority (95%) believed it was very low or insignificant24. In addition, income from the sorted/collected and sold waste was stated by some respondents as a ‘benefit that feeds us at home.’25 The tables in Appendix 6.2 list the daytime collectors who participated in the Time Studies and Questionnaire completion with an indication of the significance of economic value of the waste collected from the Laydown Area to their overall livelihoods. Because of the low value of the waste, due to the extraction of high value materials prior to dumping and the posting of guards who closed the area to industrial dumping, the April 2009 study indicated that predominantly youth and boy roamers/scavengers and housewives who find the occasional scrap for household use collect from the area.

The July 2009 study confirmed that the amount of waste collected from the Laydown Area was an insignificant part of the overall dealer/roamer’s income. Waste from the site is considered to be residual waste, i.e., the waste dumped after everything of value has been extracted. Although the construction/demolition material (CDM) found on the site has some value on the professional recycling market, the informal Laydown Area dealers do not have the means to process it. Therefore, the rubble remains uncollected until the owner of the land arranges for it to be taken to landfills.

Roaming collectors visit sites which they know will provide an abundant pool of recyclables. If high quality waste which would bring a sizeable profit cannot be found on the street, collectors resort to buying waste from waste generators, i.e., housewives, restaurants. They barter with their clients, usually from poor communities, who sell rather than throw away their recyclable waste. The prices collectors pay the waste generators for their waste (as of July 2009) are contained in Table 6.3 below.

Table 6.3: Prices Collectors Pay Waste Generators for Waste (July 2009)26

The roaming collectors take their collected waste to the depots where dealers weigh it and offer

23 Waste Based Livelihoods Questionnaire, section three, 3Bii. 24 Waste Based Livelihoods Questionnaire, section three, 3A. 25 Waste Based Livelihoods Questionnaire, section three, 3Bi. 26 CID Report: Survey of Livelihoods of Informal Waste Workers in Mostorod, Qalyoubia, page 29.

Item Price / kilo (LE)

Paper 0.25 Carton 0.25 Mixed plastics 1.00 – 1.50 Iron 0.75

Aluminum 9.00 Copper (yellow) 12.00 Copper (red) 15.00


a price. If the collector has not received a cash advance from the dealer, his daily profit is whatever price he is able to bargain with the dealer. If the collector has received an advance (usually LE 200) to purchase items from waste generators, his profit for the day will be whatever remains after his advance has been reconciled. Therefore, the collector has great incentive to find as much “free” waste as possible in order to increase his daily profit. As a result, a collector will not spend much time in the Laydown Area, which does not offer an abundant pool of waste, but rather will visit other nearby sites which yield more profitable materials.

Scavengers do not regularly collect waste, but collect whenever they find something of value or when there is a financial need. Because their collection is unscheduled and they are not attached to a dealer who provides cash advances, they, too, visit the sites with the most valuable waste. When they feel they have found sufficient reusable waste, they take it to any depot where the waste will be weighed and a price calculated.

Table 6.4: Valuation of Waste Collected by Scavengers/ Roamers from Laydown Area27

Number of Roamers Working at Depots1

Profile Sources of recyclables Estimated average quantity and value of recyclables/day

from all sites visited

25 Between 15‐ 35 years old; (However, 2 roamers, approximately 40‐50 years old, are transitioning to become dealers although they still roam with their sons.)

• Mostorod, Bahtim, Shubra El Kheima, and El Khosos

• Closest public waste pooling sites & street containers in El Kattawi, Bahtim, Ezbet Shaker

• Nothing or only a negligible amount from the Laydown Area.

An adult roamer typically earns about LE 50 per day if he collects 200 kg of mixed recyclables, as the average price for one kilo is about LE 0.25. ($.04) Younger boys who cannot carry the heavy sacks will earn less.

1Ages of workers were provided by depot owners; however, the recorded ages are estimations only. The actual ages of workers could be older or younger as dealers, who do not keep records of their workers, may not have accurate information. Many people involved in the waste industry, along with a sizeable portion of the Egyptian population, do not possess certification of birth dates. Therefore, the dealers contacted in the CID study provided a range from the youngest age of employment by Egyptian Law, Article 98 (age 15) to a mid‐adult range. In reality some of the workers are likely to be aged below the legal limit for employment, i.e., 15.

Respondents (scavengers and roamers) in the Time Study reported that the average value of the waste collected in November 2008 from the Laydown Area was 19 LE/day; the average value of waste collected in March‐April 2009 was estimated to be 10.50 LE/day. 28

The July 2009 survey of the waste supply chain disputes the previous estimated prices. After tracking the waste through the supply chain, a valuation of waste could be accurately determined. For a roamer or collector to receive LE 10.50/day from the Laydown Area waste, he would have to collect 42 kilos of materials (as the average price paid/kilo is LE .25). The Laydown Area simply does not currently yield that much waste (1,050 kilos) to the approximately 25 roamers and scavengers who cross through each day. Only if the most expensive recyclables, i.e., aluminum and copper, were found in sizeable quantities (over one kilo/collector) would the collectors earn LE 10.50/day from Laydown Area waste. However, the

27 CID Report: Survey of Livelihoods of Informal Waste Workers in Mostorod, Qalyoubia, p. 17. 28 This amount is disputed by the CID Study.


aluminum and copper were extracted long before reaching the Laydown Area, leaving only the poorest quality waste for the collectors to find. Therefore, the July 2009 study concluded that the value of waste found on the Laydown Area was negligible. However, youth roamers in the May 2009 FGD reported that their average income had not been impacted, evidence that the roamers and scavengers had found alternate sites to compensate for the loss of the Laydown Area.

6.3 Reasons for Use of Laydown Area

The collectors indicated that they came to the Laydown Area North Plot for three reasons:

• Because ‘many factories in the neighborhood dump their industrial waste on this plot so there is good supply of wood, metal scrap and sawdust’.29 This was stated in 2008 but by 2009 the situation had changed as CDM was the most prominent material dumped in the area;

• It is close to sorters/collectors’ residences as well as the residences of the dealers (May 2009 FGD); and

• It offers sufficient space for sorting activities.

No specific social reasons for coming to the Laydown Area were mentioned by collectors, except that of using the Laydown Area as a shortcut route to and from the surrounding areas30. The reasons sorters/collectors stated they first started to use the Laydown Area are they:

• No longer have access to other places/sites;

• Cannot carry heavy things over a long distance;

• Recently moved to live in the Laydown Area community, hence they decided to use a more local place to sort/collect waste; and

• Two stated that previously they had used the Laydown Area as a reliable source of waste. They used to ‘wander around to any place where they can find solid waste, either walking or using a bike’ (October 2008 FGD with sorters and dealers). One stated that he wandered around looking ‘for any place where waste can be found, even large bins on the roads.’

7. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS

7.1 Summary of FGD Information with Young Male Sorters and Collectors

In order to obtain more information about the waste‐based activities in the Laydown Area, ERC’s Community Liaison Officers in conjunction with the Community Relations Manager and Government Relations Manager, visited waste‐based businesses which border the Laydown Area in May 2009 to invite them to focus group discussions the week prior to the scheduled meeting. The dealers sent the boys and youth who work for them as either sorters or roamers to the FGD.

Contacting the collectors and sorters, including the child scavengers, surveyed during both Time Surveys was extremely difficult due to the respondents’ hesitation to provide contact information and state security’s reluctance to allow additional international surveyors in the field to contact the respondents of this traditionally closed culture. In order to reach as many collectors and sorters possible, ERC Community

29 Respondent in the November 2008 DMS. The few domestic waste dumpers interviewed confirmed this by stating the proximity of the

plot to their houses and shops but also stressed the lack of a household/domestic waste collection system as the main reason for dumping waste on the Laydown Area.

30 Waste Based Livelihoods’ Questionnaire, section one, 1Bi, 1Bii.


Relations Team contacted the waste‐based businesses who operate along the perimeter of the Laydown Area.

Attendance was low due to the reluctance of the collectors/sorters to attend a meeting with people from outside their communities, including an international social scientist. While six attendees may not be the optimal size for a Focus Group Discussion, the number represented those collectors/sorters that were willing to meet with ERC consultants during the heightened security due to the pig cull, Egypt’s reaction to the Swine Flu pandemic.

The young boys in attendance had been hired by the waste dealers to collect or sort waste. As described below, the tradition of young boys as roamers (sarriha in Arabic) is an established tradition in the waste‐based industry.

Box 1: The Sarriha – Roaming Waste Collectors31

Roamers as waste traders can be found throughout Egypt. Their name derives from the nature of their “roaming” activity. The Sarriha (singular sarrih) roam the neighbourhoods and streets of Cairo, buying, trading, and exchanging recyclable waste items. They have no designated neighbourhood where they live or work, as the established garbage collectors (zabaleen) of Cairo, nor do they have a community‐based organization to represent them.

Sarriha exchange plastics and metal which housewives have set aside for them in return for household items of utility or cash. They may also purchase source‐segregated waste from commercial and institutional waste generators such as supermarkets, butchers, and metal workshops. Their roaming follows familiar routes where previous reconnaissance identified the best sites for abundant, non‐organic waste found in vacant lots, on city streets or in containers which have not been emptied by municipal collection services.

In general, roamers may either work independently or be attached to a depot/middleman. The roamers possess limited capital, especially if they work for themselves. Therefore they may attach themselves to a trader who owns a depot (a mo’allem) who supplies their donkey cart and the day’s cash for cash transactions. Attaching to the mo’allem is advantageous because the dealer possesses capital and storage space and thus is able to buy whatever the roamers recover from their day’s bartering activities with residents. He also has better market information than the roamers.

A roamer’s profit at the end of each day is whatever he gets after selling to the depot. Therefore a roamer tries to negotiate lower prices when buying recyclables from customers so as to make a higher profit when selling to the middleman/depot who advanced him the small operating capital.

Roamers who are able to save and amass some capital set up their own depots, graduating from being roamers or itinerant waste buyers to middlemen or intermediary buyers/dealers owning their own depots. Two small depots in the Laydown Area are operated by Sarriha who are transitioning from roamers to dealers.

Roamers are more organized, regular collectors of waste from waste pooling sites they have identified as providing a plentiful, valuable supply of material; scavengers collect waste sporadically wherever they happen to find it, i.e. neighborhood trash bins, waste deposited on streets. Roamers are connected to

31 CID Report: Survey of Livelihoods of Informal Waste Workers in Mostorod, Qalyoubia, page 21.


depots, but scavengers will take their collected waste to any convenient depot or waste buyer. Roamers tend to be older and more experienced than the scavengers. Both scavengers and roamers are generally male as it is culturally unacceptable for females to collect waste.32

Numerous waste pooling sites exist near and within the Laydown Area communities from which all waste collectors find recyclable materials. Because the municipal service is inadequate and inefficient, household waste and construction rubble are dumped wherever a convenient spot is found. Additionally, the municipal waste collectors do not provide service to some of the impoverished neighborhoods of the Laydown Area. As a result, the streets in the areas located near the Laydown Area teem with valuable, recyclable waste which can be collected without fear of conflict with municipal collectors, a problem the established zabaleen often encounter. Local police patrols also do not frequent the area, allowing the roamers and scavengers in the Laydown Area communities to collect without constant fear of intimidation.33

7.2 FGD with Young Male Sorters and Collectors

The boy/youth waste collectors working the Laydown Area share the following general characteristics:

• Their work is informal, unregistered, and unregulated; • They have not been surveyed or documented (unlike the semi formal zabaleen); • They have not organized and thus are not represented by an organization, e.g. an NGO, association

or cooperative; • They have not had been part of the community development activity which has been part of the

zabaleen communities since the 1980s; • They have been forced into the trade as a result of rural to urban migration, poverty, illiteracy and

lack of skills, and limited employment opportunities; • They have increased in numbers as a result of escalating urban poverty; • They are constantly being harassed by law enforcement officials who threaten confiscation of their

donkeys, carts and recyclables, relenting only when bribes are offered.34

Sorters, who can be both male and female, share the following characteristics: • They are often the dealer’s family members; • As salaried employees, they enjoy more financial security than the roamers and scavengers; • Many of them are skilled at using recycling machines, i.e., paper or cloth shredders; • They tend to be older than the roamers and scavengers; and • They prefer to sort in the safety of dealers’ enclosed courtyards.

7.2.1 Summary of FGD Information

The young boys who attended the FGD in May 2009 at a waste depot near the Laydown Area included:

• Mena, a young Christian boy, who works for Alaa, a waste dealer; • Mostafa, brother and employee of Ayman, a waste dealer; and • Islam, who works for Mahmoud, a waste dealer.

The three young boys who provided the following information:

32 CID Report: Survey of Livelihoods of Informal Waste Workers in Mostorod, Qalyoubia, page 14. 33 CID Report: Survey of Livelihoods of Informal Waste Workers in Mostorod, Qalyoubia, pages 24‐25. 34 CID Report: Survey of Livelihoods of Informal Waste Workers in Mostorod, Qalyoubia, pages 24‐25.


• The boy collectors, (ages 12‐13 years old) collect from the Laydown Area for small amounts of time during the day. They are not stopped by security. However, they do not go ‘deep into the area for fear of being stopped by security’ and the possibility of snakes.

• They spend up to three hours per day sorting/collecting at various sites after attending school in the mornings;

• Their sense of time keeping was vague (usually responded with exaggerated lengths) but did confirm that they go to 3‐4 other sites with sacks during their 2‐3 hour collecting sessions.

• They reported that there are typically nine boys total who roam or scavenge in the area; • The collectors and sorters will continue to live with waste dealers and go to school in Mostorod

during the week, returning home to communities outside the Laydown Area on weekends after ERC fences the area.35

• After ERC fences the site, they will collect at the waste dump site just behind Amal City. Other possible sites to collect waste are vacant sites close to the roamers’ homes in areas outside the Laydown Area, the vacant plot near the police station, and/or around large bins located on the streets;

• They may possibly return to places where they used to sort/collect in the past outside the area such as: “Osman dumpsite”, “Saryaqos Pasha Farm”, Arab El Hessn and El Khosos 36.

In addition to the three boys, the dealers also sent three youth, residents of the nearby communities, including:

• Mostafa; • Mohamed; and • Mahmoud (who is both dealer and collector/sorter.)

The youth provided the following information:

• The three male youth sorters/collectors (late teens, early twenties) no longer collect from the Laydown Area because they are prevented by ESCO’s security;

• The youth go to other places (Elzawya,) for waste collection at night because it’s cooler and the streets in that area are lighted. (The Laydown Area communities are dark at night.) The trip can take up to two hours each way;

• They admitted that they spend more time collecting than they did pre‐November 2008 to find valuable waste. They visit 4‐5 sites/night.

• The extra time spent finding waste was considered as social networking time.

• During the day, they sleep, meet with friends and eat. They say they have no time for football/organised recreation;

• They make LE 20‐50 /day from waste collected from all the sites they visit after they pay expenses of renting a donkey/cart from Laydown Area waste dealers to whom they sell their collected waste. They pay 10 ‐15 LE for the donkey/cart (with food).

• They are satisfied with their jobs because they earn more money than if they worked in a regular trade; they have no interest in vocational training.

35 The concept of apprenticeship is a well‐established Egyptian practice and allowed under Egyptian Labor Law, Chapter 3, Article 99 which

sets the age of apprenticeship as no younger than 12 years old. 36 Garbage Based Livelihoods Questionnaire, section four


• The youth sorters/collectors stated (May 2009) that pre‐November 2008 they were part of a ‘large number’ (undefined) of waste sorters/collectors who were mostly from communities outside the Laydown Area collecting waste dumped in the Laydown Area by factories such as the glass factory;

• It was more convenient to work on the Laydown Area before the posting of the ESCO guards as they didn't have to rent a donkey/cart to go to other areas;

• Before November 2008 they made the same amount of money (LE 20‐50/day) as they do currently.

• Their work is impacted by the trip to the new collection sites. They affirmed that loss of time did not bother them (although they had stated it was inconvenient renting donkey carts, but the cost was recovered by access to better quality/higher value waste from elsewhere).

7.2.2 Potential ERC Impact and Livelihood Support/Community Development Discussions

• The sorters/collectors reiterated they were happy with their lives/community. They did not want to learn a new skill because they made good money from waste‐based activities; the youth collectors previously had skilled jobs, which they quit to earn more as waste collectors;

• They are concerned with potential blockage of the road that leads to their houses;

• They would like the current road paved for improved access and less dust; and

• They would like ERC to consider the dangers to the community (particularly children) of disturbing possible snakes when ERC clears the Laydown Area.

7.2.3 CID Consultations with Boy/Youth Roamers/Sorters

In the subsequent June‐July 2009 CID social investigations, the boy/youth sorters and collectors stated the following:

• They were involved in the waste industry because they had learned it from their parents or older brothers. The intergenerational aspect of learning the trade is a key feature of roamers becoming dealers one day;

• The sorters employed by the dealer will continue their work after ERC fences the Laydown Area; • They would like to learn more about the recycling process if it would help them to get more money

from collected waste; • Courses in simple math would be helpful in order to know if dealers were negotiating honestly with

them; and • They would like to acquire skills that would help them to be dealers in the future.

7.3 Livelihood Enhancements for Sorters/Collectors

While previous ERC studies discussed alternatives to waste‐based livelihoods, recent investigations have shown that the boy/youth sorters and collectors have no wish to learn new trades as the waste‐based business is the most profitable for them. As early as 2008, the possibility of livelihood alternatives was assessed qualitatively and in a participatory manner with sorters and collectors through the relevant checklist of questions. But the majority of respondents stated if access to the Laydown for sorting/collecting was stopped, they would go somewhere else or would ‘wander around where waste is found.’ The June‐July 2009 investigations confirmed that all public areas are open to any roamers. As waste has now become abundant on the streets of Cairo due to the inefficiency of the municipal collection services, the livelihoods of roamers and scavengers are not affected by any one particular spot or site. The


July 2009 study discovered that the site teeming with the most valuable waste in the vicinity was only a few kilometers southwest of El Kattawi, although the youth roamers often go to farther neighborhoods with well‐lighted streets to collect in the cooler, evening hours.37 The collectors stated that they now depend upon that site for the bulk of their waste. They also purchase waste (with money advanced from their dealers) at the weekly established markets of nearby Bahtim and Mostorod and from local housewives. The main street of El Kattawi, adjacent to the Laydown Area, is another abundant source of recyclables. After ERC fences the Laydown Area for use, these waste pooling sites and the markets will continue to provide a plentiful supply of materials. The materials they collect and take to the depots will be sorted by the young men and women who work for the dealer and whose livelihoods will continue without disruption.

A more significant determinant of livelihoods is the ability of roamers to form a relationship with a middleman or depot where they can sell their collected waste. Dealers offer protection, support, and stability in the often unscrupulous world of waste collection. However, the dealers can exact a price for their services by taking advantage of the young collectors who often do not possess the mathematical skills and business acumen to negotiate effectively. Therefore, an enhancement of greatest benefit to the roamers and child scavengers would be courses in basic mathematics, simple measurements, and calculations to enable them to deal confidently with dealers and wholesalers. Additionally, course offerings could include information about the most profitable recyclables, the waste supply chain, and acquiring the skills to become dealers. Basic instruction in hygiene and first aid will be provided to enable the collectors and sorters to handle waste safely.38

The boy/youth collectors and sorters will be kept apprised of ERC’s vocational training initiatives; however, it is doubtful that few of the youth will elect to attend the courses. Of greater benefit will be alternative, non‐formal educational course offerings, delivered from a convenient point near the Laydown Area waste depots, which would increase their recycling skills. As they see the benefit of acquiring math to negotiate with dealers/wholesalers and business management skills to become dealers, the need/desire to learn to read or to acquire a new vocation may naturally result. But in the initial Project stages, ERC’s community activities will focus on equipping the boy/youth collectors and sorters with the skills to facilitate their chosen livelihoods in waste collection.

7.4 Focus Group Discussion with Waste Dealers

Using the FGD checklist (Appendices 7.1 and 7.2), one FGD was conducted (at the end of the Time Study on November 11, 2008) with waste dealers who live in El Amal City/Ezbet Shaker.

Box 2: The Mo’allemeen ‐ Waste Dealers in the Laydown Area39

The mo’allemeen (singular: mo’allem) are a critical link in the informal waste supply chain. They serve as middlemen or intermediaries who collect recyclable waste at their depots and then sell it to the larger wholesalers. Their ability to accumulate capital and to acquire sufficient space to store large quantities of recoverable enabled the transition from Sarriha to dealer.

Depots are sometimes small shops that house the recyclables, or may simply be a piece of land, fenced or unfenced, where sorting and storing of the recyclables take place. Some middlemen hire several Sarriha, whom they supervise, to work exclusively for them, while

37 FGD, May 2009, with Youth Roamers. 38 Discussed more fully in Impact Mitigation Actions, Section 12. 39 CID Report: Survey of Livelihoods of Informal Waste Workers in Mostorod, Qalyoubia, page 24.


others may not employ Sarriha at all, instead dealing with the self‐employed Sarriha or scavengers who approach them to sell their accumulated recyclables on a daily basis. The depots around the Laydown Area all employ Sarriha who work directly for the mo’allem. The mo’allemeen sell directly to recycling workshops and recycling enterprises.

The eight dealers near the Laydown Area own small to medium depots. They sell to waste wholesalers mainly in Ezbet el Nakhl, the second largest garbage collectors’ neighbourhood in Cairo and within a few kilometres of the Laydown Area east of the Ismailia Canal. Two additional small depots are managed by dealers who are transitioning from being roamers to depot owners. The dealers employ an average of five young men and women to sort the collected waste.

The middleman/depot for which the roamers work in the Laydown Area typically specializes in one or two types of recyclables. Their means of transportation are usually donkey‐pulled carts or small pick‐up trucks. The mo’allem has one or several depots where storage of the recyclables takes place until dealers of large‐scale warehouses (outside the Laydown Area communities) buy the recyclables, priced by the ton. A large‐scale middleman may have as many as 5 to 40 Sarriha, and a few donkey pulled carts. However, in the Laydown Area, dealers employ an average of 4‐6 Sarriha each. Early in the morning, the middleman organizes his crew and lends each a sum of money (between LE 200‐300 per day) to purchase recyclables from the waste generators, i.e., residents in low income neighborhoods or commercial/industrial establishments.

The middlemen track their depot’s finances, watching the waste market carefully. When prices plunged during the recent financial crisis, those dealers who had sufficient cash were able to stockpile recyclables while others were forced to sell short. Dealers of large‐scale depots may continue unregistered, but over time the hidden costs and risks of managing unregistered businesses are too high, driving the dealers to formalize their businesses.

The FGD included 8 dealers out of the reported ‘20 waste dealers’ who are residents in communities near the Laydown Area. ‘Near’ was further defined during the May 2009 surveys as Bahtim. On May 11, 2009, ERC consultants conducted a second FGD with people involved in waste‐based businesses at the work site of Om Mohamed (“Mother of Mohamed”) who operates an upholstery stuffing factory bordering the Laydown Area. The four men and one woman represented those dealers who were willing to come to a low‐key meeting.

Table 7.1: Waste-Based Dealers FGD, May 11, 2009

Name Business 1 Mahmoud Abdel‐Sattar Small garbage dealer 2 Ayman Fawzy Small garbage dealer 3 Mona Ahmed (Ayman’s mother) Small garbage dealer 4 Alaa Refaa Small garbage dealer 5 Mostafa Abu Mohamed Operator of an upholstery recycling operation


Additional consultations were conducted in June‐July 2009 to obtain additional information about the waste‐based dealers operating near the Laydown Area. Ten dealers who operate waste depots around the Laydown Area were interviewed. A list of all respondents is in Appendix 7.3.

Figure 7.2: Location of Laydown Area Depots (More details of each depot are included in Appendix 7.3)40

Map Key:

1: Depot not specializing in one item 6: Cartons 2: Depot not specializing in one item 7. Cartons 3: Hard Plastics 8. Depot not specializing in one item 4: Cardboard cartons 9. Small emerging depot 5: Cloth 10. Small emerging depot

7.5 Summary of Focus Group Discussions with Area Waste Dealers

The dealers who operate waste depots in the vicinity of the Laydown Area share the following common features:

• Depots surrounding the Laydown Area have established relationships with larger wholesalers;

• The volume of recyclables brought in by the roamers (Sarriha) differs from one day to the next, depending on many factors described further in the study;

• They extend credit to the Sarriha who collect for them;

• Wholesalers located in El Khosos control the small depots around the Laydown Area by advancing them credit and supplying the large sacks in order to eliminate competition from new wholesalers;

• They typically specialize in processing one or two types of recyclables;

• When one waste pooling site dries up, they send their roamers to other nearby sites;

• Their income fluctuates due to the market value of recyclable waste on a given day; not access to waste pooling sites.

40 CID Report: Survey of Livelihoods of Informal Waste Workers in Mostorod, Qalyoubia, page 10.

AmalCity

1 2 3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10


• Their work is informal, unregistered, and unregulated; • They employ 4‐5 roamers to collect waste and an additional 2‐8 boys/girls to sort the waste; • They possess business acumen but few formal skills which enable them to transact business most

profitably; and • They face harassment from unscrupulous wholesalers and law enforcement officials;

Findings from the 2009 FGDs with waste dealers who operate near the Laydown Area include:

• Although they knew ESCO owned the land, the dealers believed their presence prevented “murderers and all kind of criminals from inhabiting it.”

• They were unable to confirm when the north side of the Laydown Area was first used as a dumping and sorting site.

• The pioneer of the waste business in the Laydown Area is called Hajj Fawzi Abou Ayman, who built his house El Amal City in 1992 or 1993. He is now one of the ‘chief’ waste dealers in Mostorod.41 Although not confirmed in the November 2008 FGD, it appeared that the Amal City/Ezbet Shaker communities grew up around the waste based businesses established around 15 years ago.

• Dealers prefer waste‐based livelihoods because they are more financially rewarding than previous vocations practiced;

• The majority of their waste (90%) did not come from the Laydown Area;

• Most of the participants stated that prior to dealing in waste that were either involved in criminal activities or in other less profitable aspects of the waste businesses, such as collection, sorting and transporting waste for others.

• The percentage of waste that the dealers bought from sorters and collectors from the Laydown Area was stated as “little” and not a substantial part of their overall income.

• The amount spent to purchase Laydown Area waste from the boy collectors who live with them (four of the waste dealers had 2‐3 boy sorters/collectors living with them during the week) was estimated by the dealers to be around LE 3.5/day.

• Moreover, the waste dealers stated that resale value is usually estimated, negotiated and agreed on with the waste wholesaler after the sorting/collecting process and thus prices varied.

• Although an accurate daily estimate of value of waste was difficult to provide due to daily changes in market price of different types of waste and also the chance nature of the business, i.e., the value of waste collected per day could change on a day‐to‐day basis as much as 50%, they confirmed that the collectors earn LE 20‐40/day from waste collected from all the sites they visit.

• In the July 2009 study, the waste pool at the Laydown Area was described by dealers as “poor.”

7.6 Livelihood Alternatives to Waste Dealing

In November 2008 during the discussion of livelihood alternatives to waste dealing, participants proposed:

• The provision of employment, i.e., access to job opportunities with ERC. The Laydown Area residents engaged in waste businesses stated that ERC should hire them and provide a social security scheme. They believe that the Company will need ‘vast numbers of workers and laborers,

41 However, they heard (unconfirmed) that some people had started waste businesses in the local community 30 years before he started

(early sixties).


especially for security’ but they also suggested they can work in the areas of ‘metal knocking’, driving and cleaning; and

• ERC ‘clean up’ the area.

In the May‐July 2009 social investigations, waste dealers reiterated that they did not wish to change their livelihoods. Even if employed by ERC, they would continue their waste‐based activities.

As the waste depots which border the Laydown Area will not be disrupted by ERC’s use of the Laydown Area, no livelihood alternatives for waste dealers are proposed. But as Laydown Area community residents, the dealers will have access to all ERC community development activities. The dealers may also participate in the same non‐formal educational courses offered to collectors and sorters, i.e. basic mathematics, the recycling process. Courses in small business management, focusing on waste‐based industries, will additionally be offered. As with all community members, the dealers may choose to participate in other vocational training courses sponsored by ERC.

7.7 Waste Supply Chain

As a result of the consultations with Laydown Area residents involved in WBBs, an understanding of the complex waste supply chain emerged. Although informal, WBBs represent a well organized, time‐honored tradition that efficiently recycles Cairo’s waste. Groups in the chain which are represented at the Laydown Area are indicated in the flow chart below in green.


Table 7.3: The Waste Supply Chain in the Laydown Area42

8 Other User Groups

Residents crossing the Laydown Area were part of the Time Survey in March‐April 2009; however, an additional FGD in 2009 was not considered necessary as impacts had been identified and confirmed in the 2009 Time Survey.

For over a year FGDs and interviews were undertaken with Laydown Area residents using the FGD’ guide when group meetings were not possible during day time hours because of residents’ employment.43 Due to security concerns, night meetings were not possible and hence the individual interview approach was adopted. Topics discussed during the meetings included:

42 CID Report: Survey of Livelihoods of Informal Waste Workers in Mostorod, Qalyoubia, page 30. 43 Surveys and Consultations with non‐waste‐based PAPs are recorded in the ESIA, Vol. 2.

Waste Generators: Housewives, restaurants, businesses.

Markets of Bahtim, Mostorod where recyclables are sold

Free Waste found on streets, vacant plots, and in municipal collection

Independent Roamers: Collectors who do not work for specific dealer but collect waste regularly.

Roamers Tied to Dealers: Employed by a dealer who supplies the capital to buy waste daily as well as the necessary tools of the trade.

Scavengers: independent collectors who collect waste casually to sell directly to dealers.

Dealers: operate waste depots

Sorters: Employed by a dealer to sort the waste collected by the roamers.

Waste Wholesalers

Recycling Workshops

Factories


• Types of non‐waste livelihood use of the Laydown Area’s North and South Plots;

• Types of domestic waste dumped and reasons for dumping at the North Plot;

• Whether such activities can be undertaken somewhere else, and if yes where, and if no, why not;

• Preferences and suggestions of alternatives to Laydown Area use;

• Specific problems of living near the dump site; and

• Laydown Area community members’ suggestions to solve these problems.

For the majority of residents of the neighboring communities there is no economic value of the Laydown Area. In fact, most believe there would be increased economic value to residents if the Laydown Area were ‘cleaned up’. Most residents (45 out of 69 families) do not support or even want the waste businesses in the area. However, many stated social values of using the Laydown, specifically access across the South Plot and domestic dumping.

8.1 Types of NonWaste Based Livelihood Use of Laydown Area

Non‐waste based use of the Laydown Area by nearby residents includes:

• Dumping/burning household and organic waste, including car tires, plastic. Small amounts of household waste are dumped, usually in small plastic bags; larger amounts are burned;

• Recreation (specifically football playing);

• Drying of washed materials, i.e., plastic sacks (one person);

8.2 Night Time User Groups

To gain an understanding of night time use of the Laydown Area, sorters/collectors who used the Laydown Area at night before the new ESCO guards stopped night work and residents who live in the houses bordering the North Plot were questioned in the March‐May 2009 surveys about the change. The degree to which night time sorting/collecting was a significant livelihood or was a transient activity to meet a drug addiction could not be ascertained. The consensus, after a year of different types of consultation inclusive of the communities in close proximity to the Laydown Area, i.e., 69 households, plus users from outside the directly impacted zone, is that ‘sorters who come in the daylight time do it to buy small amounts of food for the family; the criminals are the ones who came at night’.

In its study of the Laydown Area’s waste‐based uses, CID Consulting confirmed that nearby residents reported that illicit activities such as prostitution and drug use still occurred whenever the participants could evade the guards. Because of the perceived high crime level of the area, sorters preferred working in the enclosed yards of the nearby depots. No one claimed to collect at night because the area was not lighted.

An interesting aside is that even the CID surveyors, all of whom had waste‐based backgrounds, were reluctant to go into the Laydown Area at night to observe activities, a testament to the perceived danger on the vacant, darkened plots.

8.3 Alternatives for Laydown Area Use

Participants from the communities near the Laydown Area not involved in waste dealing/waste based businesses were not interested in discussing livelihood alternatives for the sorters/collectors and waste


dealers. Nevertheless, when probed on alternatives of relocation of dumping and sorting activities, residents who live near the Laydown Area were more responsive and expressed, without reservation, a ‘not in my backyard attitude’ and that waste‐based business can ‘take place in any other place’. It was repeatedly stated in FGDs that: “it is better to practice it away from residential areas”; “sorters shall seek other places, and they must know some”. Furthermore, a number of options for alternative sites for waste disposal were suggested by the residents who live near the Laydown Area namely:

• “The government should find an alternative dumping site, even if out in the desert;

• The city district council is responsible for letting the Area become a dumpsite,44 and thus is responsible to find an alternative site for anyone using it;

• The waste sorters/collectors can find an alternative site themselves, if their livelihood is disrupted, they ought to and will find one;

• There are many other places to dump and collect waste like “the farm” which is located on the Ring road or behind Ezbet Shaker; and

• No other place should be proposed. Sorters/collectors follow waste wherever it is, and they can easily find another spot if the Area is fenced off in the future.”

Residents from communities near the Laydown Area agreed on a number of problems resulting from living near a dumpsite in their individual and focus group discussions. These are:

• Offensive view of accumulated waste and discharged sanitation;

• Embarrassment and psychological stress due to polluted physical environment;

• Bad odors and insects resulting from waste piles and sanitation discharge;

• Smoke and air pollution due to burning car tires, plastic and wire;

• Air pollution born diseases, especially allergy and respiratory problems;

• Noise of trucks dumping heavy waste at night (pre‐November 2008 FGD);

• Crime rates related to the nature of activities taking place on the Laydown Plots in general (pre‐ November 2008 FGD); and

• High rates of insecurity and continuous threat of safety, especially at night (pre‐November 2008 FGD).

Despite these problems, the residents from communities near the Laydown Area stated several advantages of having open access to the Laydown Area although they all agreed it would be best to fence and ‘clean up’ the Plots.

8.4 Prioritized Concerns of Residents from Nearby Communities

Social investigations among the residents who live near the Laydown Area about personal and family social uses of the Laydown Plots, i.e., the importance of these uses or social benefits of having open access and what alternative plans should be, reached a general consensus.

First Priority Use ‐ Access Across and Around the Laydown Plots:

44 This is not accurate – it is noted, however, as an opinion of respondents.


Most important to all respondents is the use of the South Plot as a shortcut to access the areas around it and the main route from the area. They all stated that the routes inside and around the Plot are the only exits and entrances to and between the local residential areas, especially important being access to Ismailia Road, Road 25 and Mostorod. Furthermore there are concerns that the traffic from the Project will block the roads that run outside to the Laydown Area and cause accidents. These concerns seem valid given the findings of the Time Study Traffic Surveys.

Second Priority Use ‐ Domestic Waste Dumping/Disposal: Of second importance for most residents who live in the nearby communities, except those of Amal City/Ezbet Shaker, is the use of the North Plot to dump and/or burn household waste. In Ezbet Shaker, there is a door‐to‐door municipal collection system. However, as with many parts of Cairo, respondents confirmed that collection around the Laydown Area is erratic. So when the collector does not come regularly, residents dump [and often burn] their household waste on the Plot.

Proposed alternatives revolve around the provision of an adequate household collection system. These include:

• ‘Enforcing’ the city council to provide a domestic waste system by installing large covered bins on the corners of the streets in the communities of the Laydown Area, and ensure that council trucks collect waste from these bins regularly (at least twice a week);

• Under the city council’s supervision ‘apply a door‐to‐door’ domestic waste collection system on a regular basis;

• ‘Use another dumpsite in the neighborhood’ (alternatives were not suggested); and

• Dump in the Ismailia Canal.

Residents did not regard it as ERC’s responsibility to provide domestic waste dumping alternatives. However, it was suggested that ERC ‘Complain to the city council to enforce a collection system’.

Third Priority Use Domestic Sewerage Disposal: The third most significant social function/use of the Laydown of importance to residents from surrounding communities is discharging sanitation (waste water/sewerage) on the Plots. Since the local community lacks a functional sanitation network, residents discharge waste water and other sewerage onto the Laydown Area.

Residents from the communities bordering the Laydown Area believed that the Project will need infrastructure, and since the Laydown Area communities lack sewerage infrastructure, they expect that the sewerage situation will be improved through the Project lease of the Laydown Area. This issue is perceived as a potential positive impact of the Project as residents from the nearby communities who participated in the focus group discussions were all in favor of fencing and cleaning up the Laydown Plot to avoid dumping domestic and waste burning and to prevent ‘criminal’ and other anti‐social activities. This expectation needs effective monitoring and skilled consultation management as ERC will not be linked to the municipal system.

Fourth Priority Use ‐ Recreation: The fourth most significant social function/value of the Laydown Area according to respondents’ statements is that children and youth use the comparatively cleaner South Plot for entertainment (sport) activities, especially young men and male teenagers who use the site for football games. Respondents did not suggest any alternatives for the footballers as, when probed, it was regarded as not ERC’s responsibility.


ERC will be addressing the above raised issues when using the Laydown Area. Residents also stated that the positive benefits/social value of ERC improving the physical environment of the Laydown Area can be summarized as:

• Protection (fencing) of the Laydown Area would result in the ‘control of fires’ on the Plot and thus improved the environment (air quality);

• Improvement of general image of the community;

• Improvement of health conditions from bad air, smells, bad water, rotting rubbish etc;

• Increased feeling of security; and

• ‘Elevation of pride and self confidence’.

An economic benefit area expected by Laydown Area resident participants (stressed particularly by the men) from ERC’s Laydown Area use is the increase of financial value of their land/residences.

9. ANOMALIES IN DATA COLLECTION

During the second Time Study in March‐April 2009 and the completion of the CID Consulting Study in July 2009, several anomalies from previously collected data were identified.

9.1 Estimation of Time

• Frequency of use of Laydown Area for livelihood asset (waste collected): Respondents consistently stated “daily”. A “Daily” visit to the Laydown was verified to mean an actual visit rate of 1 or 2 times a week. However, as the survey was not supervised by the Social Scientist in the field, this anomaly was not identified until the data was received by the Social Scientist. The March‐April 2009 Time Study verification and FGD cross checks revealed a consistent ‘over claim’ of around 5‐6 more visits per week by each respondent. This exaggeration was confirmed by the waste dealers consulted in May 2009 who agreed the results of the March‐April Time Study;

• Average time spent on site: In March‐April 2009 it was recorded that the time sorters/collectors had spent sorting/collecting on the Laydown Area averages 24 minutes (in May 2009 FGD – this was confirmed). In the November 2008 survey the average time spent at the Laydown Area was claimed as around 4.5 hours. In March 2009 it was revealed that the November 2008 enumerators recorded the time as stated by the respondents many of whom have little understanding of time units; none of whom were observed to have watches.45 For the second Time Study the enumerators were taught both to observe and time the Laydown Area visitors and compare that timing with what was stated by the respondents. This revealed the degree of data anomaly to be an exaggeration of approximately 4 hours.

9.2 Traffic through Site

The November 2008 count included those going around the Laydown Area and did not disaggregate those going across. Although data on traffic going around the Laydown Area is important for the traffic impact issues it did not give a true picture of those using the access path across the Laydown Area which presented a confusing/skewed picture, i.e., an exaggeration of traffic across the Laydown Plots. The data of 45 The March‐April 2009 enumerators were trained in basic anthropological ‘applied observation’ techniques to verify such statements, i.e.

in this case, while they recorded the respondents’ stated time at Laydown collecting, the enumerators also timed the exact time not only to obtain exact time for the March‐April 2009 but to obtain an understanding of by how much the respondents overstate time spent at Laydown in order to interpret the statements made by the respondents in November 2008.


those going across the Laydown Access Route as recorded in the March 2009‐April 2009 survey is detailed in Appendices 9.1 and 6.2 with summary Table 9.1 below.

Table 9.1 Traffic Recorded Using the Laydown Area’s Access Route Day Light Time Study, March 24‐April 7, 2009 Total Numbers of Different Types of Traffic Average/day

Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon

Cars 2 0 0.13 0.00 Trucks 0 0 0.00 0.00 Carriages 4 2 0.27 0.13 Motorcycles 26 22 1.73 1.47 Bicycles 40 92 2.67 6.13 Toktoks 2 0 0.13 0.00 Pedestrians 884 953 58.93 63.53

The second Time Study revealed that the significance of livelihood dependency of sorter/collectors that sporadically use the Laydown Area actually recorded/measured in March‐April 2009 was less than that claimed in November 2008. The May 2009 FGD confirmed that prior to November 2008, there was night time sorting / collecting on the Laydown Plots but this had stopped. The collectors consequently moved to more profitable dumping sites as the waste dumped at the Laydown had plummeted due to ESCO’s guard policy and the surrounding factories’ directives for waste dumping at the nearby official legal dump site.

9.3 Territorial Rights to Waste Pooling Sites

In the November 2008 FGD with waste dealers when asked about business alternatives, they stated that ‘options are very limited’. They believed that even ‘if vacant land would be available somewhere else, they will not be able to access it, as it is habitually specified to other dealers.’ It is believed that this ‘will definitely create vast problems and conflict of interests among waste business dealers. It is also unprofessional and unacceptable to do this anyway, and they ought not.’ ERC surveyors interpreted these statements as assertions that waste could only be collected from sites that “belonged”, albeit informally, to designated dealers.

However in the July 2009 social investigations, continued questioning about territorial rights by surveyors with waste‐industry backgrounds led to the understanding that the statements above referred to waste depots – not waste collection sites. Dealers could not take over another dealer’s depot (the place where recyclables are collected, sorted and readied for sale to wholesalers), even if that “depot” were only a vacant plot of land. However, waste could be collected from any public site. The dealers described their options as “very limited” because they were referring to their actual depots which they could not afford to lose. ERC’s presence at the Laydown Area will not affect the functioning of the waste depots.

9.4 Identification of Laydown Area User Groups

An additional discrepancy between earlier investigations and the June‐July 2009 study conducted by CID was the identification of the different Laydown Area waste‐based user groups. In previous studies, waste‐based users were divided into two principal categories: collectors/sorters and dealers. Further investigation revealed that collectors/sorters should have been divided more appropriately into three distinct groups: scavengers, roamers, and sorters. The “scavengers”, typically although not exclusively young boys, sporadically wander from one waste pooling site to another in search of waste that can be


weighed and sold at any conveniently nearby depot. The “roamers” are generally male youth (although occasionally an adult is still a roamer) attached to a dealer who runs a depot. The dealer usually advances cash each morning to the roamer to buy valuable waste and the sacks to carry it. At the end of the day, the roamers take their collected waste to the dealers to settle their accounts. “Sorters” are employed by dealers to organize the waste inside the depot. Sorters receive a weekly salary based on the amount of waste the dealer sells each week to wholesalers. While females are culturally precluded from collecting waste, they do work in the depots as sorters. As the dealers’ waste depots will not be disturbed by ERC’s activities on the Laydown Area plots, the livelihoods of the sorters they employ will also not be impacted.46

10. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

10.1 Introduction

The legal framework of ERC’s Resettlement Assessment describes the laws, decrees, policies and regulations relevant to the resettlement activities associated with the Project. For the purpose of this Laydown Area Resettlement Assessment, only the policies applicable to social/economic displacement will be discussed as no relocation or resettlement activities are involved.

The applicable standard for ERC is the International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standard 5: Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement. The World Bank Operational Policy 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement defines the purpose of a resettlement policy framework as, “to clarify resettlement principles, organizational arrangements, and design criteria to be applied to subprojects to be prepared during project implementation”. Thus ERC’s resettlement/impact investigations identified key issues and vulnerabilities, and strategies for proceeding to manage the social/economic displacement issues consistent with Egyptian and WBG/IFC guidelines.

10.2 International Standards

While seeking to comply with any applicable Egyptian legal requirements, the overarching frame of reference for ERC’s resettlement investigation is the Equator Principles and the associated policies, directives and guidelines of the World Bank Group (WBG). The key documents with reference to involuntary resettlement are:

• IFC Performance Standard 5 on Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement; • IFC Guidance Notes: Performance Standard 5 (updated 31 July 2007); • IFC Handbook for Preparing a Resettlement Action Plan (2002 – WGB guide book update 2007); • World Bank Operational Policy 4.12 (OP 4.12) on Involuntary Resettlement; and • World Bank Procedure 4.12 (BP 4.12) on Involuntary Resettlement.

The Equator Principles: Adopted in June 2003, the Equator Principles are a voluntary set of guidelines based on the environmental and social policies of the World Bank and the IFC for managing environmental and social issues in project finance lending. Initially applied to investments with capital costs above US$ 50 million, this was recently revised to cover costs above US$10 million. With over 60 financial institutions having adopted the Principles, it is estimated that the Principles now cover approximately 80% of global project lending.47

46 CID’s Report: Survey of the Livelihoods of Informal Waste Workers in Mostorod, Qalyoubia, page 19. 47 The 10 principles are as follows:

1. Review and categorisation 2. Social and Environmental Assessment 3. Applicable Social and Environmental Standards


Equator Principle 3: Applicable Social and Environmental Standards state that: “For projects located in non‐OECD countries … the Assessment will refer to the then applicable IFC Performance Standards … and the then applicable Industry Specific EHS Guidelines (“EHS Guidelines”) … The Assessment will establish satisfaction the project's overall compliance with, or justified deviation from, the respective Performance Standards and EHS Guidelines.”

In relation to resettlement, the applicable standard is Performance Standard 5: Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement.48

IFC Performance Standard 5 on Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement: In April 2006, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) launched its revised Social and Environmental Policy and Performance Standards49 to form the basis for its own lending criteria as well as those of the Equator Principles’ institutions. These performance standards place emphasis on the establishment of management systems and the continuous management of social and environmental issues. They define the clients’ roles and responsibilities for managing their projects and the requirements for receiving and retaining lenders’ support. Eight performance standards (PS) underpin the new policy. These are:

PS 1: Social and Environmental Assessment and Management Systems; PS 2: Labor and Working Conditions; PS 3: Pollution Prevention and Abatement; PS 4: Community Health and Safety; PS 5: Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement; PS 6: Conservation of Biodiversity and Sustainable Natural Resource Management; PS 7: Indigenous Peoples; and PS 8: Cultural Heritage.

Performance Standard 5 addresses involuntary resettlement and builds on earlier World Bank Group policies and directives (particularly Operational Policy 4.12). PS 5 seeks to provide a framework for the responsible and transparent management of involuntary resettlement and economic displacement.

The results of ERC’s impact investigations confirm that ERC’s activity on the Laydown Area involves minimal social/ economic displacement which can be mitigated through its Social Management Plan (SMP.)

10.3 Egyptian Regulations

Many countries have legislation and policies governing land expropriation and compensation for affected assets. However, policy governing resettlement/displacement is often poorly defined. In Egypt there is no legal reference to any specific measures for addressing involuntary resettlement and/or social/economic displacement. Thus, while complying with Egyptian legal requirements, the overarching frame of reference for the resettlement process is provided by the Equator Principles and the associated policies, directives and guidelines of the World Bank Group (WBG as described above.

4. Action Plan and Management System 5. Consultation and Disclosure 6. Grievance Mechanism 7. Independent review 8. Covenants 9. Independent Monitoring and Reporting 10. EFPI annual reporting

48 Applicable guidelines are the IFC Guidance Notes: Performance Standard 5 (updated 31 July 2007) and the IFC Handbook for Preparing a Resettlement Action Plan.

49 www.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/Content/PerformanceStandards.


10.4 Gaps between International and Egyptian Laws and Regulations

In order to appreciate which guiding rules, laws and regulations may be applicable to ERC’s Laydown Area site, detailed comparison between Egyptian Laws and International Standards for Involuntary Resettlement that ERC’s lenders agreed to follow (April 2008) is detailed in Appendix 10.1.

A summary of the comparisons between International and Egyptian laws and regulations (Appendix 10.1) most pertinent to the potential access (socio‐economic) displacement at the Laydown Area includes:

(i) Impact Assessment: Economic and social impact assessment of involuntary resettlement is clearly required under IFC guidelines. There is no legal reference to it in any Egyptian law or regulation. (The assessment was achieved by SIA Team May‐June 2008 with 100% of the 69 households in the Laydown Area completing the questionnaire and/or attending FGDs.)

(ii) Required measures for involuntary resettlement: IFC guidelines refer to a resettlement plan or Resettlement Policy Framework with specific measures to address impacts and ensure that displaced persons are informed, consulted and promptly compensated. There are no legal references to specific measures in Egyptian laws and regulations, i.e. consultation with PAPs.

(iii) Eligibility for benefits: Persons eligible for benefits are identified in both regulations by carrying out a census covering all affected persons as soon as it is recognized that the land is needed for a project and will require resettlement including livelihood resettlement. (Full baseline of Laydown Area residents, including waste collectors/sorters/dealers from the Laydown Area nearby communities was achieved June 2008 with Detailed Measurement Surveys including FGD negotiations and social investigations continuing until July 2009.)

(v) Valuation of compensation: IFC guidelines require an adequate replacement cost that is based not only on market value of equal land, but also takes into account loss of livelihoods and productive assets, as well as loss of access to social and public services. In Egyptian laws and regulations on the other hand, compensation (and not replacement cost) is evaluated according to market value at the time of acquisition, where the entity requesting acquisition deposits the amount of determined compensation within a period not exceeding a month. Owners and property holders are then informed about eviction in a maximum time of five months. (As there are no structures at the Laydown Area which are defined by Egyptian law as ‘real property’, valuation will apply to livelihood loss only. Valuation of loss of livelihoods can only be possible if there is reliable baseline data and mechanisms in place to identify and verify actual PAPs and income derived from waste‐based activities. Thus ERC’s investigations focused on determining the extent of social and/or economic displacement of Laydown Area users. Results of the surveys indicate negligible social/economic loss which does not require compensation.)

(vi) Grievance Mechanisms: IFC guidelines require a clear plan for grievance redress mechanisms to ensure that any potential conflicts or grievances within or between affected communities will be resolved. Egyptian laws and regulations allow concerned owners and property holders the right to object to the information contained in such lists within 30 days from the date of posting and publishing the lists and information of the expropriated properties. The objection is usually related to the amount of compensation being not fair. Aggrieved people would, however, remain free to open a court case without having registered their grievance with this first‐tier mechanism. In the meantime, Egypt court cases are known to require long periods of time before settlements can be reached. (ERC finalized its Grievance Mechanism in November 2008 and followed with


training of the Community Liaison Officers in its implementation. The Grievance Mechanism will be activated sixty days prior to financial close.)

11 IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION

11.1 Impacted Groups ERC’s social investigations, spanning sixteen months, clarified and expanded the groups identified in the initial ESIA impact consultations, May – June 2008. The following groups have subsequently been identified as having the potential to be impacted by ERC’s activities in the Laydown Area:

a) Domestic (household) waste dumpers, residing in communities near the Laydown Area;50

b) The Abd El Maqsoud farming family that owns the strip of agricultural land which divides the Laydown Area into two plots;

c) Roamers (predominantly young boys/youth from nearby Laydown Area communities) who collect and sell waste to nearby waste depots;

d) Scavengers, generally young boys, who casually collect waste to sell to the closest waste depot;

e) Sorters, both males and females, who sort the waste that has been brought to the waste depots;

f) Depot dealers (residents of the communities near the Laydown Area) who operate from waste depots bordering the Laydown Area;

g) Residents from nearby communities who also use the site for access and sport/recreation;

h) Other social users, e.g., one individual interviewed maintained he used the site to dry plastic which he cleans in another area;

i) Collectors/sorters (from communities outside the Laydown Area) who sell to waste dealers who operate waste depots near the Laydown Area; and

j) Commercial waste dumpers who evade the guards to dump construction rubble without authorization.

11.2 Negative Impacts

The impact investigations identified a number of potentially negative impacts upon the Laydown Area communities’ residents which will require mitigation. These include:

• Access routes: Concerns were first raised by residents to the north of the Laydown Area (Amal City) in May 2008 and reiterated in April‐March 2009 about the fencing that will mark the north boundary of the Laydown Area. The concern is that the fencing might block access to the informal road that runs along the north edge of the site from east to west. The informal road is a crucial access point for local communities as it links them to the Ismailia Canal transport routes and 25th Street in El‐Kattawi.

• Agricultural land: The Abd El Maqsoud agricultural land located in the middle of the site could be negatively affected by dust and/or loss of access.

50 Residents from nearby communities who disposed of HH waste on the plot confirmed they had been dumping on the Laydown Area since

they moved to the area. The few domestic waste dumpers interviewed confirmed this by stating proximity of the Plot to their place of residence and shops but also stressed the lack of HH/domestic waste collection system as the main reason for dumping waste at the Laydown Area.


• Dust: The preparation of the Laydown Area and increased traffic to and from the site will raise the dust level within local communities.

• Loss of Solid Waste Disposal Area: When the site is fenced, local communities will be unable to dispose of household and organic waste on the site.

• Loss of Economic Activity of Roamers and Scavengers: The livelihoods of roamers and scavengers have the potential of being affected when the site is fenced.

• Loss of Economic Activity of Sorters: Sorters who work for waste dealers in Laydown Area communities have the potential of livelihood impact.

• Loss of Economic Activity of Owners of Waste Depots: The livelihoods of the owners of the waste depots bordering the Laydown Area have the potential of being impacted.

• Loss of Community Informal Use of the Site: When the site is fenced, youth will no longer be able to access the site for recreation, i.e. football games.

11.3 Positive Impacts

The impact investigations also revealed that ERC’s temporary use of the Laydown Area by ERC will have several positive impacts, including:

• Increased Community Participation in Laydown Area activities: By engaging an organization with experience in dealing with communities dependent upon WBB, ERC will increase the participation of residents in Laydown Area activities. Whether these activities will lead to the development of a community‐based organization is yet to be determined as certain legal and governmental regulations, as well as cultural appropriateness must be considered; however, the Laydown Area communities, in working with the organization ERC has engaged, will have a voice in deciding which activities they would prefer to have implemented.

• Improved Cleanliness and Safety at the Laydown Area: The ESCO land will be cleared of rubbish before ERC takes possession thus creating a positive environmental impact for local communities. Security will be further improved by lighting and guard posts at entry points that ERC will provide;

• Improve access roads and post traffic wardens at site access in the interest of safety.

• Training and Employment: The positive impact of paving the roads and restoring the footpath through the Laydown Area will be further heightened by employing residents from the nearby communities to upgrade roads and training them for traffic safety jobs;

• Increased vocational skills and/or livelihood development through participation in ERC’s Community Development programs;

• Increased sense of wellbeing, health and safety through additional security and lighted paths as well as general clean up of the area;

• Increased economic value of Property for rent and sale due to clean up of area; and

• Positive environmental impacts: ERC’s operations will reduce by 29.1% the amount of SO2 currently emitted in Egypt from burning sulfur–containing fuels (fuel oil and diesel)

A Summary of the Impact Assessment with Proposed Mitigation Activities is presented in Table 11.1 below.


Table 11.1 Project Impacts at Laydown Area and Proposed Mitigation (From Impact Consultations and Analysis May, 2008 to July 2009) Impact Category

Impact/Aspect Valued Receptor Nature (+/‐)

Proposed Mitigation/SMP Means to Enhance Positive Impacts

Access to Decision Making could increase the inclusion or marginalisation of vulnerable or excluded groups depending on the Projects’ stakeholder engagement strategy

Individuals, community groups, local government, the Project

Positive or negative

Effective stakeholder engagement as outlined in PCDP; Engage an NGO or CBO with experience in developing programs for individuals/communities dependent upon waste industries to interact with residents to identify appropriate community activities and programs.

Community Organizations and Local Institutions Representative Community Organisations.

Support to or marginalisation of local community organisations

Community Groups/NGOs & CBO members

Positive or negative

Effective stakeholder engagement as outlined in PCDP; Engage an NGO or CBO with experience in developing programs for individuals/communities dependent upon waste industries to interact with residents to identify appropriate community activities and programs.

Social Space Use of Laydown as space for recreation

Youth who play football on site

Negative Offer activities through the community development program that attract youth.

Electricity infrastructure in Laydown Area potentially impacted by fencing of Laydown Area

Amal City residents Negative Timely avoidance or relocation of community electricity cable

Expectations about installation of sewerage and water infrastructure in Laydown Area could lead to social risk if expectations are not managed.

Residents of communities near the Laydown Area and farmers

Negative Manage community expectations through stakeholder engagement/ PCDP

Social Services and Infrastructure

Transport infrastructure, including roads and public transport could be overloaded

Residents in affected communities, other road users, Project workers

Negative Transport and worker transport plan. Driver training; Signage at Laydown entrance and main road turn off; Road paving and maintenance


Impact Category



Access routes for pedestrians, donkey carts and cars could be blocked by fencing and road use by construction vehicles in the Laydown Area

Laydown Area residents, other pedestrians and carts using routes across and around Laydown Area

Negative

Fencing of Laydown site to provide for pedestrian access through the middle. Providing demarcated pedestrian access on Laydown Area access roads to Ismailia Canal with signage.

Solid waste disposal services may be overloaded, or illegal dumping of waste may move to new sites near the Laydown Area when the existing informal (illegal) dump site is fenced.

Residents near Laydown Area.

Negative

Support to municipal waste services at Laydown Area if grievances are raised in relation to waste collection. Liaise with municipal collection service to explore options for waste collection, i.e., provision of community waste receptacles.

In‐migration could disrupt local culture and the in migration of single male workers could cause social problems and affect social cohesion.

Men and Women who live in communities near Laydown Area

Negative Preferential hiring of local workers Train workers in Code of Conduct and Good Neighbour Policy Monitor community relations and apply grievance process.

Socio‐ Demographic

Social inclusion could be affected by differential access to Project benefits and decision‐making.

Vulnerable groups Negative

PCDP Implementation Promote equal opportunities in Project employment Ensure fair and transparent process for selection of employees/skills trainees for Laydown Area and for Community Development Projects.

Community economic development. Generation of earnings; investment in local economy and realization of economic multipliers

Local businesses economies

Positive Consult community leaders and civil society when making community development agreements

Economic Environment

Regional and local economic development could result from increased income for local workers and increased demand for local goods and services

Regional and local economies

Positive Consult community leaders and civil society when making economic development agreements


Impact Category



Cost of goods and services including housing could increase, making them more profitable but less affordable to local people due to ERC’s clean up of the Laydown Area

Local residents and businesses

Positive/ negative

No mitigation

Loss of Access to reusable waste

Residents of Laydown Area communities who causally collect usable waste whenever available.

Negative (low)

Verified in FGD in July 2009 study as negligible because valuable waste is not found on the Laydown Area plots. Sites with more valuable waste are located nearby. Other nearby waste pooling sites, including the main street of El‐Kattawi, exist within 2 KM from the Laydown Area from which residents can find recyclable waste.

Access to Project employment for local people, including women and unskilled people, in order to fulfil community expectations

Local employment opportunity

Positive/ negative

Fair and transparent employment policies; Local advertising of vacancies or roll out of information as identified in May 2008 FGD; Compile names of local workers and input into ERC database.

End of Laydown use could result in unemployment for Laydown workers both at the end of the construction period/end of the end Laydown use

Laydown workers Negative

Liaison with industrial employers in the area to fill any vacancies they have with ERC employees. Liaise with Qalyoubia / Cairo Governorate offices and the Ministry of Labour to register employees in their employment databases.

Skills development for Project employees/ potential employees could increase their long term employability with other enterprises

Local Residents, Refinery workers and Regional Industry

Positive Laydown skills training plan to be developed and implemented.

Employment and Livelihoods

Waste dealers at Laydown Area could be negatively impacted by reduced access to informal dumpsite.

Waste collectors, dealers and fertiliser agent

Negative

Waste dealers reported that their income is impacted by market fluctuations and not access to the Laydown Area. The waste depots bordering the Laydown Area will not be affected by ERC’s activities. However, ERC plans to Include dealers near the Laydown Area in training programs to develop recycling and business management skills in order to negotiate more effectively and professionally with waste warehouses to which their waste is sold. Dealers will be kept informed of vocational training programs in the event they wish to start another vocation.


Impact Category



Laydown Area Waste Sorters could be negatively impacted by reduced access to informal dumpsite.

Laydown Area Sorters Negative

Since the waste depots bordering the Laydown Area will not be affected by ERC’s activities, the livelihoods of the sorters they employ will also not be affected. However, because some of the sorters are women and youth, and as such are particularly vulnerable, they will be targeted for programs specifically designed for people engaged in WBBs. ERC will engage NGOs, CBOs, or other private institutions with experience in developing social programs for people involved in WBBs to explore the programs that will be most beneficial to this group. ERC also plans to include all interested sorters in training programs to develop recycling and business management skills in order to negotiate more effectively and professionally with waste warehouses to which their sorted waste is sold. Sorters will be kept informed of vocational training programs in the event they wish to start another vocation.

Waste Collectors from Outside the Laydown Area could be negatively impacted by reduced access to informal dumpsite.

Waste Collectors from outside Laydown Area

Negative

Numbers of outside collectors declined significantly after ESCO guard posting, apparently moving on to nearby waste pooling sites with more valuable waste. Not determined, but indicators point to use of site at night for drug use and other illicit activities by outside collectors. ERC’s fencing and lighting of the site and posting of guards will curtail these activities thus increasing the Area’s security.

Dust could impact farmers at the Laydown Area

Farmers and waste workers /business

Negative Traffic dust management measures. Monitoring impacts on farmer’s livelihood.


Impact Category



Youth/Children Roamers / Scavengers could be negatively impacted by reduced access to informal dumpsite.

Youth/Children Roamers/ Scavengers

Negative

A reliable baseline of the number of collectors and the value of collected waste from the Laydown Area prior to the posting of the ESCO guards around the site in November 2008 cannot be established. Anecdotal evidence collected by ERC researchers indicates that the Laydown Area had once been frequented by a number of waste collectors although the number began to dwindle after November 2008. ERC’s social investigations have confirmed that following the ESCO guard posting and blocked access, the value of waste deposited on the Laydown Area declined significantly which led the roamers and scavengers to move to alternate waste pooling sites, such as those located within 2 KM of the Laydown Area, which yielded equally collectable materials51. Although the value of the Laydown Area waste pool has declined significantly, there is evidence that the income of roamers and scavengers has not been affected: • Youth roamers that participated in focus groups reported earning approximately the same amount each day by visiting nearby profitable waste pooling sites (approximately LE 20‐50/day).52

• Dealers reported that fluctuations in their income were due to daily market prices of recyclable materials and not access to a specific waste pooling site.

However, since roamers and scavengers are generally young boys, they are quite vulnerable. Some of the roamers work and live as apprentices with the waste dealers during the week, going to school and collecting at odd times. Scavengers, usually younger than roamers and unattached to a dealer, drift from one site to another, collecting only when they have a need or find valuable waste.

51 “CID’s Survey of Livelihoods of Informal Waste Workers in Mostorod”, page 14. 52 Dealers estimated that the average daily income of roamers was approximately LE 20‐40/day.


Impact Category



(Continued from Previous Page) Youth/Children Roamers / Scavengers could be negatively impacted by reduced access to informal dumpsite.

Youth/Children Roamers/ Scavengers

Negative

In order to address the specific needs of this vulnerable group, ERC will engage an NGO, private institution or other CBO with experience in dealing with children involved in WBBs to offer appropriate programs. One activity ERC is currently exploring is engaging a company with extensive WBB experience to conduct workshops in recycling more safely, efficiently and productively, managing small businesses, and courses in basic math and Arabic (literacy). These types of non‐traditional educational programs have proven successful in reaching children who collect garbage in other areas in Egypt. Involvement in these informal courses designed to facilitate their waste‐based livelihood often leads to improvement in the children’s participation and interest in their public schools.53

Local Waste‐Dependent businesses, i.e., smelters, upholstery stuffing manufacturers, may be impacted by loss of access to site.

Laydown Area smelters and upholstery stuffing manufacturers

Negative No mitigation required as materials used in businesses are bought from factories and not collected from Laydown Area.

Social Conflict may arise from tensions between community members and Project workers if workers are not Laydown residents

Residents near the Laydown Area

Negative Worker training in Code of Conduct and Good Neighbour Policy. Effective stakeholder engagement/PCDP activities.

Local environment could be affected by Project noise and dust of traffic

Residents near the Laydown Area, especially children, businesses in the community

Negative

Construction noise and dust management measures (sheeting, ground wetting and traffic plan including road upgrade). Control over working hours for noisy work.

Quality of Life/ Social Conflict

Cleaner environment and reduction of crime in Laydown Area due to fencing off of the area and security measures

Residents near the Laydown Area

Positive Fencing, lighting and security at Laydown Area

Youth Apprentices may experience hardship Youth apprentices Negative Although ERC will not disrupt the apprenticeship arrangement

53 “CID’s Survey of Livelihoods of Informal Waste Workers in Mostorod”, pages 37‐38.


Impact Category



in living away from their homes during the week.

who reside with waste dealers during the week

between the youth and dealers, ERC will offer programs through its Community Relations Center to provide athletic programs and educational support for the youth apprentices. ERC will also explore the possibility of providing the dealers with items such as additional mattresses, household furnishings or school supplies to enable them to support the youth in their care. ERC will liaise with organizations that have implemented similar programs for apprenticed youth to determine the most effective and beneficial programs.

Health impacts due to clean up of site

Residents near the Laydown Area, especially the health vulnerable

Positive N/A Health Impacts

Injury caused by traffic accidents or stress due to traffic jams and noise

Residents near the Laydown Area, road users

Negative HSE and Traffic Plan. Road Safety Campaign. First Aid Training.

Injury / Health Impacts due to dealing daily with waste.

Individuals engaged in WBB

Negative Provide courses in basic hygiene and first aid to promote safe handling of waste.


12 IMPACT MITIGATION PLANS

12.1 Impact Avoidance Alternatives

There are at present no proposed alternatives to the Laydown Area for the Project use as there is no land of sufficient size in the proximity of the Project site and the total area in the Laydown Area will be fully utilized by ERC’s contractor.

The key impact issue is access. In terms of the strip of farmland, this will not be impacted by the Project as the Laydown Area is divided into two distinct, unconnected plots of land and the access to the farmland at either end will remain as it is currently. With regard to other access routes, alternatives are being provided, details of which are provided below.

Relocation of livelihoods for resident waste dealers and sorters is not required as no economic loss has been identified. For collectors, it has not been possible to determine their number before ESCO’s guard policy change. However, it is important to note that this change was confirmed in May 2009 as an impact resulting from new staffing at ESCO and not the action or directive of ERC. Of those collectors that have since been recorded, livelihood dependency on the Laydown Area has been agreed as insignificant/negligible (May 2009 FGDs – confirmation of survey findings and agreements with two groups of sorters/collectors and with waste dealers and the July 2009 WBB study). Nonetheless, to address the minor social and economic loss, the following impact mitigation plans are recommended.

12.2 Livelihood and Common Property Resources Impact Mitigation Plans

The summary of investigations, Resettlement Mapping (March‐April 2008), Impact Consultations and Socio‐Economic and Health Baseline surveys (May‐June 2008), as well as the November 2008 – May 2009 Resettlement Detailed Measurement Surveys, showed that Laydown residents’ expressed needs were:

1. Access Improvement (including road upgrades);

2. Clean Environment; 3. Increased Security; 4. Employment;

5. Sanitation (Household Waste Disposal); 6. Youth Club; 7. Hospital /Clinic; 8. Post Office; and 9. Fire Station.

When ERC takes use of the Laydown Area and before it starts to fence it, the first three of the above expressed needs will be addressed. Employment will be addressed when Project activity begins following Financial Close. In addition the Detailed Measurement Surveys and Impact findings presented in the loss entitlement framework, show that the minor losses which may result from Laydown Area use by ERC are:

• Access Issues across the South Plot and around the whole Laydown Area;

• Negligible livelihood displacement such as small scale waste‐based livelihood; and

• Social Space/Community Resources (specifically youth recreation/football, South Plot and sanitation/domestic waste disposal, North and South Plot).

ERC will undertake the specific actions to mitigate any loss resulting from ERC’s use of the Laydown Area.

IMPACT MITIGATION 1: MAINTAINING ACCESS


Potential Impacts and Rational for Impact Mitigation Plan:

• Access routes for pedestrians, donkey carts and cars could be blocked by fencing of the Laydown Plots and by the road used by construction vehicles into the Laydown Area;

• Access to the agricultural land belonging to the Abd El Maqsoud family may be blocked;

• Transport infrastructure, including roads and public transport could be overloaded;

• Health Impacts due to increased noise, dust, accident risk from poor access and increased incidence of traffic/large trucks.

Proposed Access Resettlement Compensation and Impact Mitigation:

• Providing a pathway for pedestrian and small vehicles (bikes) access through the middle of the Laydown Area, i.e., along the border between the South Plot and the farmland; access to farming land will be maintained;

• Paving, upgrading and maintaining roads from the main road to the Laydown Area site;

• Transport and worker transport plan which includes training for drivers on Laydown Area particular traffic issues;

• Good vehicle maintenance to reduce accident risk; and

• Signage at Laydown entrance and main road turn off with safety awareness raising program for Laydown Area communities.

Figure 12.1: Plan of Laydown Area Access Route Restoration and Improvement

Currently, an informal foot path cuts through the South Plot of the Laydown Area. ERC proposes to provide an upgraded access route through the South Plot. The paved route would be sufficiently

Ezbet Shaker

Proposed Access Route through Laydown Area for pedestrians and bicycles.

Egress / Exit to Access Route

Concrete, lighted wall

Fenced wall

Ezbet Shaker

Amal City


wide (2m width) to accommodate people, bikes and/or motorcycles. Therefore, pedestrians and cyclists would retain their short cut and have protection from vehicular traffic. The Abd El Maqsoud family’s access to their agricultural land will be maintained.

Upgrading the main road leading into the Laydown Area and paving the pedestrian transit path will facilitate access to both the communities bordering the Laydown Area and the farm land. The walls surrounding the Laydown Area plots will be constructed of concrete. Lights will top the concrete wall, providing a more secure, lighted route for community residents to cross the Laydown Area at night. A repeatedly expressed need during the Community Needs Assessment FGD and Impact FGD was secure night time access. This proposed plan meets the requested/expressed need as well as meeting restoration loss compliance.

Residents from the neighboring communities will be invited to be included in the construction of the concrete wall bordering the access route in order to provide an improved quality of life as requested and expected by the residents. ERC will support Laydown Area youth who wish to decorate the wall with murals as a community youth activity.

In addition, ERC will provide a Traffic Management Plan, which includes Driver Safety training and high level vehicle maintenance, to ensure that Project vehicles operate safely around the Laydown Area. Signage will alert residents and users to entry and exit points and the potential to encounter large trucks. This information will also be distributed to the communities in an advanced, timely and appropriate manner targeting vulnerable groups such as children and will be inclusive of the illiterate. Employee work shifts will be scheduled to start and end at times different from neighboring factories in order not to overload the roads during morning and evening rush hours. ERC will ensure all safety precautions are monitored, i.e., speed control, use of seat belts, and no use of mobile phones by its truck and other vehicle drivers.

IMPACT MITIGATION 2: Supporting Skills and Livelihood Development Programs

Potential Impacts of Loss: Waste collectors/sorters and dealers will not be impacted by the use of the Laydown Area as alternative waste pooling sites with a plentiful supply of recyclable materials are located nearby. However, the children and youth who are involved in waste‐based activities are especially vulnerable because of the nature of WBBs. The unstable, tenuous nature of the WBBs offers little livelihood stability. As such, individuals involved in WBBs could benefit from vocational training programs and/or non‐traditional courses in safe and profitable waste collection which would either increase their WBB skills or enable them to access alternative livelihoods.

Proposed Compensation and Impact Mitigation:

Waste collectors / sorters have stated repeatedly in FGDs and social studies that they are satisfied with their waste‐based livelihood which will not be adversely impacted by ERC’s use of the Laydown Area. The collectors will continue to collect waste from various waste pooling sites in the vicinity, buy from local markets, and sell to local dealers. The sorters will continue to work for the dealers. However, since many of the scavengers and roamers are children or youth, ERC will develop programs adapted to their specific needs. ERC will liaise with NGOs and institutions with experience in dealing with children / youth involved in WBBS to offer alternative, informal educational programs which will allow the children and youth to continue earning money while learning valuable skills. Topics included in the non‐formal schools would include:


• Recycling efficiently and more profitably; • Numeracy and literacy programs designed to facilitate an understanding of waste valuation; • Small business management skills to enable collectors to transition to dealers; and • Basic hygienic standards.

Involvement in the informal, non‐traditional courses could motivate the children/youth to take better advantage of their formal education opportunities. The informal courses will also provide opportunities for the children/youth to consider alternative livelihoods they had not previously thought possible.

Since the majority of the collectors and sorters are young boys and youth, they will also be informed of athletic and youth activities offered through ERC’s community development programs.

The youth and older collectors and sorters do not have as much capital invested in their livelihoods as the dealers; therefore, they indicated in 2009 FGD that they would be interested in vocational training to obtain skills to access other employment opportunities. ERC will inform them of all Project‐sponsored vocational training programs.

To provide employment opportunities for the collectors/sorters who are old enough to be employed by the Project, ERC will target them for any suitable employment opportunities. Including:

• Waste collection; • Debris clearance with particular care to remove snakes in appropriate/safe manner54; • Rehabilitation or re‐routing of roads; • Construction of the restored and upgraded access route.

Waste dealers who operate from depots around the Laydown Area have stated emphatically that they do not want to leave their lucrative livelihood. Their waste depots will continue to operate without disruption. However, as community residents, the dealers will have access to the programs offered to waste collectors/sorters and to all additional vocational training/livelihood development programs.

Apprentices: Since several of the waste depots have engaged youth apprentices, ERC will explore options to improve the quality of life for the young boys. This could include athletic/social activities sponsored by the Community Relations Center or provision of school supplies or clothes the apprentices require. The dealers could also be provided with additional home furnishes such as mattresses and dishes to enable them to take better care of their charges. ERC will liaise with organization who have implemented similar programs for apprenticed youth to determine the most effective and beneficial programs.

IMPACT MITIGATION 3: FACILITATING HOUSEHOLD WASTE DISPOSAL

Potential Impact and Rationale for Proposed Mitigation: Lack of sewerage/sanitation systems compels residents from bordering communities to dump and/or burn solid waste onto the Laydown site. When operational, the site will no longer be accessible for waste disposal. Household waste disposal sites, including areas for burning of household and local business waste will be lost when the existing informal (unauthorized) dump site is fenced.

Proposed Impact Mitigation: ERC will build on the relationship established with the local Government and continue the negotiations initiated with the Mostorod Governor in May 2008

54 In Egypt there is a long tradition of communities of Refai (snake catchers) who can be engaged to safely collect snakes.


regarding support for municipal waste services at the Laydown Area; for example, discussions on establishing scheduled waste collection and/or collection points.

ERC will explore alternative methods of waste disposal with the local governor, e.g. to collect neighbourhood waste at regularly scheduled times each week and/or providing an alternative incinerating facility to burn waste.

Preliminary discussions with local government leaders have revealed a willingness to offer alternative sites for domestic waste dumping if ERC provided waste collection bins. This could become a recycling centre and thus used by those local collectors that are most vulnerable, i.e. those who use collected waste for their own home use. Providing collection bins would support the source segregation campaign as part of the national recycling campaign recently approved by Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Local Development for the greater Cairo area. The campaign supports separating organic waste from non‐organic waste in each household. The waste would then be similarly segregated in the large community dumpsters, thus allowing only recyclable waste to be collected and sorted. The organic waste would be sold by either individuals or the community to compost centers.

IMPACT MITIGATION 4: IMPROVING QUALITY OF LIFE: ENVIRONMENT AND SECURITY

Potential Positive Impact: When the Laydown Area Plots are cleared, there will be a cleaner environment and reduction of the reportedly associated crime in the Laydown Area due to fencing the area and security measures such as lighting and trained guards.

Proposed Positive Impact Enhancement:

• Mitigation measures for cleaning along the sides of the roads to keep the area clean and clear of dumping will improve the community as well as keeping the access for Project‐related vehicles clear;

• Provide lighted access route through the Laydown Area and on walls surrounding the area; and

• Provide security guards 24/7 around the Laydown perimeter.

Rationale for Proposed Quality of Life/Security Enhancement with Framework Plan: In FGDs, residents near the Laydown Area frequently reported ‘criminal’ activities took place in the Laydown Area at night, including drug use and theft. Although discussions, post November 2008, have reported that much of this night time activity has stopped, there remain security concerns among nearby residents of going out at night. Providing lights around the Area’s perimeter and a lighted access route through the middle of the Area (South Plot) will contribute to enhancing security and a sense of security. Also, the continual presence around the site’s perimeter of ERC or its Contractors’ security guards will be an additional protection. Thus the Laydown Area communities’ residents will have an enhanced quality of life and their key expressed need will be met (clean and safe environment). The security guards will be trained according to code of conduct set out in ERC’s Good Neighbour Policy.

IMPACT MITIGATION: OFFERING ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

In addition to managing the mitigation of the resettlement and social impacts of the Project at the Laydown Area, ERC will make voluntary contributions towards Community activities in consultation with residents to ensure that they reflect their community development needs and priorities. ERC will


support Community Development Initiatives such as: (a) skills development to equip residents of Laydown Area communities (b( youth and athletic programs, and (c) improvement of the local environment so the Project’s Laydown Area workers operate in a healthy and safe environment. Community Development supported by ERC will be funded through a dedicated Community Development Budget with details of Community Development Projects identified post financial close.

13. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Impact Mitigation activities at the Laydown Area, other than vocational training, will begin at the same time as financial close, currently anticipated to be the end of 2009. Vocational training has already begun, but will focus more directly on inclusion of residents from the Laydown Area. As all Project dates are contingent upon financial close which has yet to be determined, only a tentative timetable for implementation of Impact Mitigation Activities can be provided.

Activity Proposed time Vocational Training for Laydown Area community members

Beginning 4th Quarter 2009

Identify NGOs or other organizations that can deliver livelihood improvement programs, i.e., health, safety workshops to Laydown Area communities’ residents.

60 days prior to financial close.

Engage “snake catcher” to rid area of snakes. After financial close before cleaning of Area begins.

Begin cleaning Laydown Area After financial close; 2 months duration Fencing of entire Laydown Area Site After financial close; 3‐4 months duration. Pave road from main road to Laydown Area site After financial close; 3‐4 months. Install road signage Upon completion of road describe above. Construct access path through Laydown Area After financial close; 3‐4 months duration. Install lighting on wall of access route After financial close; 3‐4 months duration. Liaise with municipal waste collectors to facilitate waste collection in Area

One month prior to known financial close date.

Initiate dust control measures Upon beginning of construction activity in Area.

Implement Traffic Management Plan Upon completion of road leading to Area. Locate space for a Community Development Office or Center

After financial close; 1‐2 months duration.

Refurbish Community Relations Center After financial close; 3‐4 months duration. Liaise with NGO to begin offering livelihood improvement programs for young boys/youth collectors

After completion of Community Relations Center; begin within first year of construction phase.

Liaise with NGO to offer basic health and hygiene courses


Liaise with NGOs/CBO to offer small business management courses


Identify a source which would provide more information about the government’s waste source segregation campaign.



14. PARTICIPATION AND CONSULTATION

14.1 Objectives of Stakeholder Consultation

In the context of the Impact Mitigation Plan, public participation includes both information dissemination and consultation and collaborative forms of decision‐making and participation. Dissemination refers to transfer of information from the Project to community members. Consultation, on the other hand, refers to the joint discussion between the Project representatives and the community members in order to transfer information and share ideas. Public participation is an ongoing process throughout Project construction and operation ‐ not a singular event. The level of information which is disseminated or the issues on which consultation takes place vary with the progress of the Project’s stages.

Specific objectives of the consultations are:

• To share fully the information about the proposed Project, its components and its activities with all Laydown Area residents and users;

• To obtain information about the needs and priorities of the residents and users as well as information about their reactions to proposed policies and activities;

• To obtain the cooperation and participation of residents and users in activities required to be undertaken for resettlement planning and implementation;

• To ensure transparency in Project activities; • To establish a clear, easily accessible grievance procedure; and • To facilitate and assist residents and users’ participation in Project‐sponsored activities.

14.2 Public Participation during Resettlement Assessment

Laydown Area communities’ residents were consulted numerous times during the initial baseline study and subsequent resettlement assessment. The investigations, explained in Section 4.3.4, include:

• Baseline census, health, socio‐economic surveys: Mar‐May 2008

• Initial impact consultations with nearby communities’ residents: May 2008

• Public Hearing Aug 2008

• First DMS of Laydown Area User Groups, including catch interviews: Nov., 2008

• Focus Group Discussions with residents, waste‐based businesses: Nov., 2008

• Second DMS of Laydown Area User Groups, including catch interviews: Mar‐Apr 2009

• Focus Group discussions with collectors/sorters/dealers: May 2009

• Individual consultations with residents involved in waste‐based businesses: June‐July 2009


Additionally, ERC distributed Arabic versions of both its Project leaflet and the ESIA Non‐Technical Summary and posted both on the ERC website: www.ercegypt.com.

14.3 Consultations during Impact Mitigation Implementation

ERC’s approach to delivery of its impact mitigation plans is through consultation with local stakeholders, and in particular through developing partnerships with and providing support to local civil society organizations, NGOs and local government. ERC’s Community Relations Manager and Community Liaison Officers are playing a key role in consulting on Community Development interventions by:

• Seeking advice from local Government and livelihoods and business leaders in the Project Area;

• Serving as liaison with NGOs to invest in synergies of activities and shared priorities which may evolve. However, given the level of capacity of local NGOs, ERC may need to support local NGOs first by providing training in Project planning and management;

• Identification of needs and coordination for other Community Development opportunities which might be raised by community members or become apparent from personal observation/involvement; and

• Disseminating information to the communities regarding the status and progress of the Project according to IFC’s safeguard policies.

15. ERC’S GRIEVANCE MECHANISM

15.1 Introduction

As required by IFC guidelines, ERC has established a Grievance Mechanism which can be used by community members who feel impacts have not been properly addressed / mitigated. In order to make the Grievance Mechanism more accessible to residents of the Laydown Area, ERC has plans to establish a Community Relations Center in the vicinity of the South Plot. The Public Grievance Form (Table 9.1) will be used to record all grievances which will then be entered into the Consultation Database.

The Grievance Mechanism, presented in detail in ESIA Vol. 3 includes:

• ERC’s institutional arrangements; • Procedures for recording and processing grievances; • Mechanisms for adjudicating grievances and appealing judgments; and • A schedule, with deadlines, for all steps in the grievance redresses process.

ERC is working actively to prevent grievances through managing Project impacts and through pre‐emptive community liaison activities designed to anticipate and address potential issues before they become grievances. However, ERC’s Grievance Mechanism is the process by which people affected by the Project can bring their comments, concerns and grievances to the CLOs and the ERC management team. The Grievance Mechanism has been produced in a culturally appropriate manner. ERC’s Grievance process is outlined in the ESIA which specifies the Grievance Mechanisms:

• Purpose • Scope and target group


• Procedure • Management structures and tracking • Monitoring and reporting

The Grievance Mechanism will also be posted on the ERC Website (www.ercegypt.com) 60 days prior to financial close.

15.2 Management and Tracking of Grievances

The rollout of the Grievance Mechanism to community members will be the responsibility of the C/CSR Manager and Community Relations Team. Explanations of the process to community members will be led by CLOs guided by the full time Community Relations Manager. The Community Relations Team will undertake further consultation immediately post‐financial close to ensure that the Grievance Mechanism is made available to the public in a culturally appropriate manner. Specific challenges to be addressed during this testing, trial and training period will be to ensure that:

• The Grievance Mechanism is accessible to illiterate community members; • The Grievance Mechanism is publicised using culturally relevant and inclusive media; • The Grievance Mechanism is accessible for local, national and international stakeholders; • Community members are aware that they can use the Grievance Mechanism without

retribution; and • Grievances can be lodged without danger of retribution in practice, given that some Project

affected stakeholders are reliant on informal livelihoods, and that some grievances may be lodged by workers against contractors who are their employers.

A Grievance Database System has been activated. This database has been designed to make it possible to track individual grievances, giving each grievance a relevant ‘owner’ within ERC and to trigger deadlines for progress on grievance communications and resolution as specified in the grievance process. The Grievance Database specifies where/when grievances have been resolved and a statement of satisfaction signed by the complainant. Where it has not been possible to resolve grievances to the satisfaction of both parties, this is specified in the database, and unresolved grievances can be assessed during third party monitoring/ audit.

15.3 Monitoring and Reporting of Grievances

The implementation of the Grievance Mechanism will be subject to third party monitoring to ensure that ERC is performing effectively in its commitments to resolving community grievances. This monitoring will be undertaken by the lender’s independent Consultation Specialists. Third party monitors of the Grievance Mechanism will be provided with access to the Grievance database to audit performance. ERC's C/CSR Manager will report on performance in closing out grievances, i.e., the number of grievances resolved within agreed time frames, as part of the Quarterly and Annual Public Reports. A Grievance Mechanism Leaflet for ERC is drafted below but will be updated during the testing, trialing and training periods in 2009 as will the draft Grievance Form (see Tables 15.1, 15.2 and 15.3).

http://www.ercegypt.com/�


Table 15.1: Information on ERC’s Grievance Process

INFORMATION ON ERC’S GRIEVANCE PROCESS

The Egyptian Refining Company (ERC) has been established to upgrade the existing Cairo Oil Refinery Company (CORC) with additional product processing units. ERC will further process products from the CORC refinery to produce high‐quality petroleum products essential to Cairo and Upper Egypt consumers. This Project, which is to be located in the Mostorod District in the Qalyoubia Governorate, 40 km outside Cairo, will be built within the existing Mostorod Petroleum Complex. The facility will be in the CORC site near Arab El Hessn and Atef. During construction ERC will also use a construction storage site at ESCO El Ramla. The purpose of this Grievance Mechanism is to ensure that anyone with a grievance or concern about the Project can communicate it to ERC and get feedback from ERC on how the concern will be addressed. WHAT KINDS OF GRIEVANCES CAN I RAISE? Anyone, including community members, the staff of ERC and its contractors, can raise a grievance with ERC if the person believes that the Project is having a negative effect on the community, nation, the environment or quality of life. Examples of grievances could include:

• Concerns about the environmental impact of the Project, locally, nationally and internationally;

• Project impacts on your quality of life, such as traffic problems, dust and noise; • Project impacts on your livelihood and employment activities; • Health and safety problems related to the Project; • Failure to comply with standards or legal obligations; • Improper behaviour by Project staff; and • Financial malpractice, impropriety or fraud.

ERC will investigate all grievances that are submitted. If ERC finds that a grievance is not related to ERC activities (for example if the problem relates to one of the other industries operating in the industrial site at Mostorod) or if the Project is in compliance with the Egyptian and International Standards, ERC will explain this to you in writing. If ERC finds that the subject of the grievance is a result of ERC activities and does not comply with ERC’s Environmental and Social commitments, we will investigate the issue and contact you to suggest and agree on appropriate mitigation measures.


Table 15.2: D

HOW TO REPORT A GRIEVANCE

ERC has a number of ways of receiving your grievances. You can:

• Fill out the attached Grievance Form and send it to the address on the form, or drop it off with a Community Liaison Officer (CLO) or at the Community Relations Office.

• Call the Community Relations Office: 016‐663‐4365 or fax: 016‐663‐8990. • Contact one of the Community Liaison Officers in person or on the phone to lodge a verbal

grievance. The CLO will then fill out a form for you to ensure that your grievance is tracked. • Phone ERC’s toll free line: 0800‐700‐0000.

• Communicate a Grievance through the ERC website (www.ercegypt.com). FOLLOW UP Unless a CLO is able to deal with your grievance immediately, ERC will go through the following steps to deal with it.

• When we get your grievance form or are notified verbally of your grievance, we will nominate a member of ERC staff to investigate.

• We will acknowledge your grievance by letter (posted or dropped off in person by a CLO) within 15 days of receiving the grievance or by email if appropriate. This letter will name your contact person at ERC, and give a reference number for your grievance.

• We will then investigate your grievance and may need to contact you in order to do this. When we have completed this investigation we will contact you with the findings of our investigation and our proposed response. We will aim to contact you within 30 days of you lodging your grievance.

• If you are happy with the investigation and ERC’s proposed response, we will ask you to sign a statement to this effect.

• If you are not happy with the investigation or response, we will discuss options with you for dealing with the grievance and attempt to agree a response. If we are unable to agree on a response to the grievance, you may have the issue assessed by an independent third party.

CONFIDENTIALITY AND ANONYMITY If you ask ERC to keep your identity confidential in relation to your grievance, we will ensure that your name and details are known only to the grievance investigation team and are not shared with other ERC employees or management, Contractors, or people or organisations outside ERC. If it is not possible for ERC to resolve the grievance without revealing your identity (e.g. if you need to give evidence in court), ERC will contact you to ask you how you prefer to address this situation. If you wish to raise a grievance anonymously you may do so, and ERC will investigate the grievance. However, in this case ERC will not be able to contact you to discuss the results of our investigation and our proposed mitigation measures.

http://communicate/�


Table 15.3: Draft of ERC’s Grievance Form to be translated into Arabic and Trialed / Updated before Financial Closure ERC PUBLIC GRIEVANCE FORM

CONTACT INFORMATION NAME: ____________________________________________________ GENDER: Male Female ADDRESS: _____________________________ TELEPHONE: _____________ EMAIL: ___________________ AREA: El Khosos El Karatsa Arab El Hessn Atef Ezbet Naguib El Katawy Amal City

Other _____________ AFFILIATION: Community Resident NGO Local Business Community‐Based Organization Local Government National Government If with an Organization, Organization’s Name: ____________________________________________________________ Position in Organization: _____________________________________________________________________________ DESCRIPTION OF GRIEVANCE When relevant, please provide specific names, dates, and locations of incidents. What is your suggested resolution for the grievance? ____________________________ ________________________________________ Signature Date How to Get This Form to ERC:

• By Post: Egyptian Refining Company, 14 Refaa Street, Dokki, Giza, Egypt • You may call ERC to deliver your message over the phone. • You may also return the form personally to an ERC Community Relations Centre.


Figure 15.4. The Grievance Process Summarized

16 MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Due to the fluidity of waste‐based activities, the economic and social situation of the Laydown Area will be periodically monitored to include monitoring/assessments of the delivery and uptake of livelihood alternatives of this group, with assessments to report on/provide guidance on implementation of community development initiatives negotiated. There will also be continous monitoring by effective and ongoing consultations as part of ERC’s Grievance Mechanism. These consultations will be inclusive of managing expectations that local residents have of ERC when it uses the Laydown Area.

16.1 ERC’s Monitoring and Evaluation Plan For Monitoring and Evaluation of impact mitigation implementation, according to agreed commitments, ERC’s Community Relations Team (CRT) is to implement the agreed plans effectively and on schedule and to address grievances in a timely manner. The CRT will manage the Grievance Mechanism. The grievance database IT infrastructure for effective monitoring was activated in


January 2009 for coordinating with ERC management to respond to community grievances/concerns as they arise. Effective monitoring will also ensure that the Grievance Mechanism is functioning effectively within agreed resolution timeframes and that there is a mechanism for applying lessons learned and that feedback to stakeholders is actually delivered. This will be evaluated and reported on a quarterly basis and be subject to third party audits. The Community Relations Manager is responsible for leading the day‐to‐day consultation process with the communities (supported by the Community Liaison Officers) and with various Project stakeholders. The Community Relations Manager, working with the Government Relations Manager, has established the Community Relations Office at CORC and together they provide the monitoring infrastructure, government approvals and other support, as required, to implement ERC’s monitoring of agreed Laydown Area activities. The position descriptions of the CRT detailing roles and responsibilities are summarized in the ESMP, Chapter 12, Vol. 3 of the ESIA.

16.2 Laydown Area Monitoring and Evaluation Monitoring of the Laydown Area commitment activities includes monitoring of Public Consultation and Disclosure aspects before and during construction in the Laydown Area. Additionally, it includes monitoring training opportunities, life skills development, and ERC’s implementation of site improvement plans, e.g., lighting, access routes. Although activities in the area will not start until after financial close, the ERC team will maintain communicative relationships with the area’s community residents established by the CRM and GRM. It is important to maintain these good relations while ensuring residents have access to full disclosure of Project updates that may impact them. Table 16.1 below identifies a number of indicators to monitor the effectiveness of the Laydown Area Compensation activities in accordance with the social science commitments, before, during, and after the Project’s construction phase. Table 16.1 Proposed Indicators for Monitoring Laydown Area Compensation Activities

1 Laydown Area Activities

1.1 Timely implementation of all ERC’s security/improvement plans for the Laydown Area, i.e. lighting, footpath, posting of guards

1.2 Level of inclusion of residents near the Laydown Area in Project‐sponsored training programs.

1.3 Level of inclusion of residents near the Laydown Area in Project‐sponsored life skills development programs.

1.4 Level of inclusion of residents near the Laydown Area in all other Project‐sponsored activities.

1.5 Level of inclusion of residents near the Laydown Area in Project employment.

1.6 Level of inclusion of collectors/sorters near the Laydown Area in Project‐sponsored training programs.

1.7 Level of inclusion of collectors/sorters near the Laydown Area in Project‐sponsored life skills development programs.

1.8 Level of inclusion of collectors/sorters near the Laydown Area in all other Project‐sponsored activities.

1.9 Level of inclusion of collectors/sorters near the Laydown Area in Project employment.

1.10 Level of inclusion of waste dealers near the Laydown Area in Project‐sponsored training programs.


1 Laydown Area Activities

1.11 Level of inclusion of waste dealers near the Laydown Area in Project‐sponsored life skills development programs.

1.12 Level of inclusion of waste dealers near the Laydown Area in all other Project‐sponsored activities.

1.13 Level of inclusion of waste dealers near the Laydown Area in Project employment. 2 Laydown Area Consultation Activities 2.1 Location & date of consultations: accessibility of venues and timeliness 2.2 Types of events: methods and tools used and their effectiveness 2.3 Who attended, did it include the intended audience/stakeholders? 2.4 How many attendees have been recorded at meetings? 2.5 Specific topics of consultations 2.6 Level of participation in the consultation process, including vulnerable persons. 2.7 Comments received at consultation about Project‐sponsored activities and by whom. 2.8 Any comments received on Laydown Area activities, positive or negative 2.9 Number and type of community visits/consultations by CRM/CLOs. 2.10 Types of grievances, level of complaints, responses and related indicators.

2.11 Frequency and type of follow up consultations with residents after implementation of Project activities.

3 Disclosures and Information Dissemination

3.1 Types of Consultations, i.e. individual, group, FGD. 3.2 Frequency of information disclosures.

3.2 Location of disclosures, e.g., NGO office, Community Committee meeting rooms, Community Development office or site notice boards, website.

3.4 Positive or negative comments received on disclosure materials.

4 Community Relations Office

4.1 Number of visitors from Laydown Area communities to Community Relations Office. 4.2 Implementation organization: staff and system changes.

16.3 Monitoring and Evaluation Reporting The indicators of the Laydown Area activities will be modified and utilized according to specific requirements before and throughout construction and into operations as required. Additional indicators will also be developed as necessary. ERC will keep and assess monitoring data regularly according to timings specified in the Environmental and Social Management Plan. Consultation monitoring is to be undertaken internally, is continuous and will primarily be the responsibility of the CR Team. Monitoring data of consultations is formally collated on a quarterly basis by the C/CSR Manager with the environmental and social scientists providing evaluation analysis and lessons learned. Details of the way forward are produced with the whole CRT in a participatory manner. Results will be presented in the quarterly Environmental and Social Performance Reports. Annual evaluation/audit reports will then be developed by ERC, posted on the Project’s website in Arabic and English, and made available in Arabic (in the Community Relations Offices and the ERC Offices in central Cairo).


17 BUDGET

Construction activity on the Laydown Area Plots will be undertaken by ERC‘s contractor who will make the site viable for equipment storage and fabrication. The contractor will also be responsible for providing the paved, lighted access through the Laydown Area. The following table indicates the estimated budget the Contractor has provided for work to be done in the Laydown Area.

Activity Description Cost Site Cleaning Cleaning and proper removal of all rubble

to an official dump site. LE 2,000,000

Fencing 3,000 meters of fencing around the Laydown Area’s two plots.

LE 3,000,000 – 4,000,000 (Price is dependent upon the usability of portions of the existing fence.)

Road Paving/Leveling

7,200 square meters of road pavement (from the Ismailia Canal Road to the Laydown Area, then north to Amal City, and west along the northern fence of the Laydown Area) and 1,200 sq. meters of paved walkway.

LE 2,000,000

Lighting Lights on walls around the Laydown Area LE 900,000 TOTAL LE 7,900,000 – LE 8,900,000

Community Development activities will be undertaken at ERC’s expense. The tentative budget for these activities in 2010 is provided below.

Activity Description Cost Training Training in areas relevant to waste‐based

industries. Courses would include: basic math and Arabic (literacy), recycling, first aid and basic hygiene, small business management, waste sector‐specific course. NGOs, CBOs and/or private organizations will be engaged to deliver services.

LE 250,000

Snake removal Traditional snake catchers engaged to “bag” snakes in the area for later release in the desert.

LE 20,000

Waste collection facilitation

Providing bins for municipal collection services.

LE 25,000

TOTAL LE 295,000


APPENDIX 1.1 Glossary of Resettlement Terminology Applicable to ERC Resettlement Investigations

Compensation Payment in cash or in kind for an asset or a resource that is acquired or affected by a project at the time the asset needs to be replaced.

Cut‐off date

Date of completion of the census and assets inventory of persons affected by the project. Persons occupying the Project Area after the cut‐off date are not eligible for compensation and/or resettlement assistance. Similarly, fixed assets (such as built structures, crops) established after the date of completion of the assets inventory, or an alternative mutually agreed on date, will not be compensated.

Economic displacement Loss of income streams or means of livelihood caused by land acquisition or obstructed access to resources (land, water) resulting from the construction or operation of a project or its associated facilities.

Involuntary resettlement Resettlement is involuntary when it occurs without the informed consent of the displaced persons or if they give their consent without having the power to refuse resettlement.

Land expropriation Process whereby a public authority, usually in return for compensation, requires a person, household, or community to relinquish rights to land that it occupies or otherwise uses.

OP 4.12 The World Bank Group (WBG) Operation Policy (OP) and Bank Procedure (BP) on Involuntary Resettlement. These policy and procedure papers embody the basic principles and procedures that underlie IFC’s approach to involuntary resettlement.

Physical displacement Loss of shelter and assets resulting from the acquisition of land associated with a project that requires the affected person(s) to move to another location.

Project affected household

All members of a household, whether related or not, operating as a single economic unit, who are affected by a project.

Project affected person (PAP)

Any person who, as a result of the implementation of a project, loses the right to own, use, or otherwise benefit from a built structure, land (residential, agricultural, or pasture), annual or perennial crops and trees, or any other fixed or moveable asset, either in full or in part, permanently or temporarily.

Replacement Cost The rate of compensation for lost assets must be calculated at full replacement cost, that is, the market value of the assets plus transaction costs.

Resettlement Action Plan (RAP)

The document in which a project sponsor or other responsible entity specifies the procedures that it will follow and the actions that it will take to mitigate adverse effects, compensate losses, and provide development benefits to persons and communities affected by an investment project.

Resettlement assistance

Support provided to people who are physically displaced by a project. Assistance may include transportation, food, shelter, and social services that are provided to affected people during their relocation. Assistance may also include cash allowances that compensate affected people for the inconvenience associated with resettlement and defray the expenses of a transition to a new locale, such as moving expenses and lost work days.

Resettlement Policy Framework

A resettlement policy framework is required for projects with subprojects or multiple components that cannot be identified before project approval. This instrument may also be appropriate where there are valid reasons for delaying the implementation of the resettlement, provided that the implementing party provides an appropriate and concrete commitment for its future implementation. The policy framework should be consistent with the principles and objectives of OP 4.12.

Stakeholders Any and all individuals, groups, organizations, and institutions interested in and potentially affected by a project or having the ability to influence a project.

Vulnerable groups People who by virtue of gender, ethnicity, age, physical or mental disability, economic disadvantage, or social status may be more adversely affected by resettlement than others and who may be limited in their ability to claim or take advantage of resettlement assistance and related development benefits.


Appendix 3.1: May‐June 2008 Socio‐Economic Household Baseline Questionnaire

Egyptian Refining Company ERC Serial

Area: 1- Arab El Hessn 2- El Karatssa 3 - Naguib 4 – Laydown ( )

Social Study of Petroleum Refinery in Mostorod Household HH Questionnaire

Name of Respondent: ………………………………………….. Name of Field Controller: …………………………………….

Address: ………………………………………………………….. Name of Desk Controller: ……………………………………..

Name of Surveyor: ……………………………………………… Name of Entrant: ………………………………………………..

Date: /05/ 2008 Date of Entry: /05/ 2008

May 2008 Information in this questionnaire is confidential and will only be used for social research purposes


Section one: Population and Demographic Characteristics

All HH members 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 Code of family member

Name Full names of all HH members beginning with the head of HH

Residence 1. Present residents 2. Absent resident 3. Non resident (if 3 go to next member)

Sex 1. Male 2. Female

Age Completed years only

Relation to head of HH 1- Head of HH 2- Spouse 3- Son/daughter 4- Parents 5- Other relation

Place of birth 0- Same area 1- Rural 2- Urban 3- Frontier 4- Other

Duration of residence Full years only

Place of previous residence 0- NA 1- Rural 2- Urban 3- Frontier 4- Other

Marital status 1- Underage 2- Never married 3- Married 4- Divorced

1 2 3 4 5 6


Section two: Education All HH members

6 years and above 10 years and above 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 Code of family member

Formal schooling 1- No, never 2- Yes, not completed 3- Yes, currently studying 4- Yes, completed

Informal education 1. No, never 2. Yes, not completed 3. Yes, currently studying 4- Yes, completed

Level of education (Completed level) 1. Primary 2. Preparatory 3- Secondary 4- University

Professional training & skills 1- yes 2- No

Type of training 1- Computer/typing 2- Administrative 3- Languages 4- Security 5- Construction 6- Mechanics 7- Welding/metals 8- Carpentry 9- Driving 10- Other

1 2 3


Section three: Employment and livelihoods Only HH members 10 years and above

3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 3.08 3.09 Code of family member

Work status 1- Working now 2- worked before 3- Seeking first job 4- Student 5- Dependent 6- Housewife 7- Income recipient/ retiree 8- Economically inactive

Occupation

Type of Work 1. Self employed/ independent 2. Wage earner 3- Family business

Type of economic activity 1- Industrial 2- Agricultural 3- Commercial 4- Service 5- Handicraft 6- Fishing 7- Other

Employment status 1- Permanent 2- Temporary 3- Seasonal 4- Occasional

Mode of payment 1- Per day 2- Per week 3- Per month 4- Per piece

Estimated wage per month

Duration of un employment For how long have you been unemployed/ looking for work

Reasons for not working 1- Lack of skills for available jobs 2- Cannot find work 3- Cannot find suitable work

1 2


Section four: Health conditions (conducted in scoping phase only, HCI conducts health baseline in May-June 2008 surveys) All HH members

4.01 4.02 4.03 4.04 4.05 4.06 4.07 4.08 Most three common diseases in the area (Head of HH only)

Code of family member

Have you been sick during the last month

Type of illness 1. Cold/flue 2. Fever 3. Diarrhoea/ Vomiting 4- Colic pain 5- Respiratory 6- Eye infection 7- Other

Duration of illness (Total duration in days)

Have you consulted a medical provider 1- Yes, PHU 2- Yes, P hospital 3- Yes, private clinic 4- Yes, traditional 5- None

Reasons for not consulting 1- Not available 2- Not necessary 3- Too costly 4- Too far 5- Other

Disability 1- Seeing 2- Hearing 3- Speaking 4- Mobility 5- Mental 6- Other

Child vaccination (Only children less than 2 years) 1- Yes totally 2- Yes, partially 3- No, not at all

1- Digestive 2- Chronic 3- Kidney/liver failure 4- Cancer 5- Respiratory 6- Eye infections 7- HIV/Aids 7- Other

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

1 2


Section five: Economic environment 5.01 5.02 5.03 5.04 5.05 Type of dwelling 1- Apartment in a building 2- Brick built house 3- Other

Tenure status 1- Owned 2- Rented 3- Occupied rent free 4- Other

Water supply 1- Piped water inside dwelling 2- Piped water outside dwelling 3- Manual water pump 4- Tanker supply/water vendor 5- Other

Toilet facility 1- Pit latrine 2- Water borne system (WC) 3- Toilet facility outside dwelling 4- Other

Sanitation 1- Public network 2- Trench/Septic tank 3- Other

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 5.06 5.07 5.08 5.09

Facilities owned by the HH

Cooking fuel 1- Electricity 2- Gas 3- Kerosene 4- Fire wood 5- Other

Lighting fuel 1- Electricity 2- Gas 3- Kerosene 4- Torch/oil lamp/candle 5- Other

Waste disposal 1- Collected 2- Public containers on the street 3- Dumped on the street 4- Dumped in the canal/drain 5- Burned 6- Other

( ) ( ) ( )

1- Television 2- Oven 3- Refrigerator 4- Satellite dish 5- Cell phone 6- Computer 7- Air conditioner 8- Private car 9- Motorcycle

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )


Section six: Income and expenditure 6.01 6.02 6.03 HH income sources (More than one response)

Main income source (Use codes from previous column)

Total HH monthly income

1- Salary 2- Agricultural enterprise 3- Non Agricultural enterprise 4- Savings’ interests 5- Real estate revenues 6- Pension 7- Regular donations (charity, begging…etc) 8- Irregular donations (charity, begging…etc) 9- Other

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

6.04 6.05 Item Monthly expenditures Yearly expenditures

1. Food 2. Cigarettes and drinks 3. Housing (rent/water/electricity) 4. Furniture and equipments 5. Health care and services 6. Transportation and communication 7. Education 8. Recreation 9. Social ceremonies 10. Clothes, shoes…..etc 11. Maintenance (home. Equipments…..etc) 12. Other

Total Expenditures


Section seven: Residents’ expectations In your opinion, if a new petroleum refinery is opened in this area, what kind of effect will such a project have on local residents here? 7.01 7.02 7.03 Environmental

Employment Economy

1- Degradation 2- No significant changes 3- Local improvements 4- Don’t know 5- Other

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

1- More employment opportunities for locals 2- More employment opportunities for nationals 3- No changes regarding employment opportunities 4- Don’t know 5- Other

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

1- Boom in the economy 2- Improvements in people’s quality of life 3- No significant changes 4- Don’t know 5- Other

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

7.04 Do you have any other comments to add in this regard? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...........


Appendix 3.2 : Income‐Generating Activities’ Questionnaire Egyptian Refining Company ERC

Serial

Area: 1- Arab El Hessn 2- El Karatssa 3 - Naguib 4 - Laydown ( )

Social Study of Petroleum Refinery in Mostorod Income Generating Activities IGAs Questionnaire

(Community level) Name of IGA Manger: ………………………..….. Name of Field Controller: ………………

Address: ……………………………………………. Name of Desk Controller: ……………...

Name of Surveyor: ………………………………... Name of Entrant: …………………………

Date: / 5/ 2008 Date of Entry: / 5/ 2008

May 2008

Information in this questionnaire is confidential and will only be used for social research purposes

1- Type of activity: ………………………………………………………………………………....... 2- The year of establishment: …………………………………………………………………….... 3- Status of activity

1. Branch of a company ( ) 2. Individual enterprise ( ) 3. Family enterprise ( ) 4. Cooperative ( ) 5. NGO ( )

4- Legal status: 1. Registered/licensed ( ) 2. Not registered/licensed ( )

5- Current number of employees ( ) 6- Main type of produce/goods/services: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7- Place of production

1. Purpose built or hired unit ( ) 2. Same as the place of residence ( ) 3. No specific place ( ) 4. Other ( )

In your opinion, if a new petroleum refinery is opened in this area, what kind of effect will such a project have on your income generating activity here? 8- Environmental

1. Degradation ( ) 2. No significant changes ( ) 3. Local improvements ( ) 4. Don’t know ( ) 5. Other ( )


9- Employment 1. More employment opportunities for locals ( ) 2. More employment opportunities for nationals ( ) 3. No changes regarding employment opportunities ( ) 4. Don’t know ( ) 5. Other ( )

10- National economy

1. Boom in the economy ( ) 2. Improvements in people’s quality of life ( ) 3. No significant changes ( ) 4. Don’t know ( ) 5. Other ( )

11- Do you have any other comments to add on positive or negative impacts of the project on your business?


Appendix 3.3: Social Service and infrastructure Questionnaire Egyptian Refining Company ERC

Serial

Area: 1- Arab El Hessn 2- El Karatssa 3 - Naguib 4 - Laydown ( )

Social Study of Petroleum Refinery in Mostorod

Infrastructure and Social Services’ Questionnaire (Community level)

Name of Key Informant: …………………………………………..

Name of Surveyor: …………………………………………………

Name of Controller: ………………………………………………..

Date: / 5/ 2008

2008


Information in this questionnaire is confidential and will only be used for social research purposes

Social Service Number Social Infrastructure Yes No

Police Unit Land Line Service

Mosque Cell Phone Network

Church Electricity Network

Health Service Number Potable Water Network

Hospital Sanitation Network

Health Unit Postal Service

Dentistry Internet Service

Public Clinic

Private Clinic

Pharmacy

Educational Service Number Other Services Number

Nursery/Kindergarten Youth Centres

Primary School Oriental Café

Preparatory School Cafeteria

Secondary School Fire Engines

Institutes Cemeteries

Training Centres NGOs/CBOs


Public Libraries


Appendix 5.1: Egyptian Penal Code. Law 58/1937 Article 115 Any public employee who overtakes agricultural land or empty land or buildings that belong to an endowment or to any of the parties set forth in Article 119 by cultivating, planting, building, occupying or benefiting from it in any way or facilitate for others to do so in any way will be punished by prison if this plot belongs to the party that he works for or deals with by virtue of his position. The penalty is permanent or temporary hard labor if this crime is clearly associated with forgery. The criminal will be judged in all cases with resulting penalty to resign from his position with loss of status and the stolen plot with any building or plantation will be returned as is or after the removal of anything on it on the expense of the perpetrator. In addition, the perpetrator will be charged a fee equal to whatever benefit he derived from use of the land or buildings but not less than five hundred pounds. Arabic:

فى المبينة الجهات إلحدى أو خيرى لوقف مملوآة مبان أو ءفضا أرض أو زراعية أرض على تعدى عام موظف آل

بأية لغيره ذلك سهل أو صورة بأية بها إنتفع أو شغلها أو بها إنشاءات إقامة أو غرسها أو بزراعتها وذلك 119 المادة العقوبة وتكون ، لهعم بحكم بها يتصل جهة أو بها يعمل التى الجهة يتبع العقار ذلك آان متى بالسجن يعاقب طريقة .التجزئة اليقبل ارتباطا مزور محرر إستعمال أو تزوير بجريمة الجريمة إرتبطت إذا الموقتة أو المؤبدة الشاقة األشغال مبان من عليه يكون بما المغتصب العقار ويرد صفته زوال أو وظيفته من بالعزل األحوال جميع فى الجانى على ويحكم

تقل أال على منفعة من عليه ماعاد لقيمة مساوية وبغرامة نفقته على األشياء تلك من عليه ما إزالة مع برده أو غراس أو .جنيه خمسمائة عن

Additional Egyptian laws regarding unauthorized dumping of trash include: Law 38 for the year 1967 on Public Cleanness Article 1: It is forbidden to put garbage, trash, waste or dirty water in places other than those that the local council determined. Article 2. . . and those who own any vacant lot, whether fenced or not, must remove any piles of dust or garbage and must maintain its cleanness.


Appendix 6.1: Social Study of Waste Based Livelihoods in Mostorod (ERC LAYDOWN AREA)

Network and Time Study

Name of Surveyor: ………………………………………………

Name of Entrant: ………………………………………………..

Time of Survey: ..................................................................

Collector/Sorter or Waste Dumper……………………………………

Date of Survey: / / 2008 Date of Entry: / / 2008

Laydown Area Livelihoods Questionnaire ‐ If interview cannot be obtained the survey sheet will be completed by applied observation to achieve number of collectors/disposers, age, sex, basic activity/process and time study information. Willing/unwillingness of interview will indicate degree of sensitivity APPLIED OBSERVATION QUESTIONNAIRE NUMBER

INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE NUMBER

Information in this questionnaire is confidential and will only be used for social research purposes for the ERC


1A) Information on Waste Collecter/Waste Disposer – Quantitative

Name of Respondent

Place of Residence (give name of your community and distance from Laydown)

Sex

Age

Place of birth

Number of HH members dependent on this Livelihood

Laydown Activity (can be more than one)

Do other members of your HH come to the Laydown for waste collection/disposal

Occupations (s) Do you have other occupations or is waste business the only occupation

a) Male b) Female

a) Same area b) Rural c) Urban d) Frontier e) Other

a) Disposing waste b) Sorting waste c) Collecting waste d) Recycling e) Other

a) Yes b) No c) If yes who? Brother/sister/father/mother/aunt/uncle/ cousin/other

a) Only occupation b) Other occupations

1B) Information on Waste Collecter/Waste Disposer - Qualitative 1Bi) Why do you come to the Laydown Area? ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1Bii) Are there any social reasons for coming to the Laydown Area? Yes/No. If yes please explain ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2A) Process and Time Study – Quantitative

Type(s) of Waste Collected

How long have you been using the Laydown Area for Waste Collecting/Disposal?

Frequency of Activity –Collection/Dumping, sorting

Start Time

End Time

Total Time Spent at Laydown

Appliances/Tools Used

Where do you sort the waste?

Where do you take the Waste? Give name and distance from Laydown

Transport used

a) Cardboard/paper b) Metal c) Clothes d) Plastic e) Foodstuffs f) Construction

a) For more than a year b) For a year c) For six months or more d) For less than six months e) For a month f) For less than a month

a) Once per day b) Once per week c) Once per month d) Occasional

a) Large sacks b) Small bags c) Boxes d) Hammers e) Other

a) On the Laydown Plot b) In Laydown community c) Elsewhere in Mostorod d) Elsewhere in Cairo

a) Truck b) Donkey Cart c) Car d) Bicycle e) Public transport f) Walk


waste/bricks g) Other

g) If more than a year give number o years

(less than 5 times/year)

g) Other

2B) Process and Time Study - Qualitative 2Bi) Did you collect waste before using the Laydown Area/or do you collect waste from elsewhere? Yes/No. 2Bii) If yes explain where you collected or sorted rubbish before you started using the Laydown and why did you stop using this place and start using the Laydown ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2Biii) If yes explain where you dumped rubbish before you started using the Laydown and why did you stop using this place and start using the Laydown Area as a dumpsite ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2Biv) Please give more detail on how you use the waste. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3A) Livelihood Significance – Quantitative Use of Waste (more than one use can be circled)

Income from Selling Waste Where/to whom do you sell the waste?

Value of using Waste at Home? How dependent is your HH or business on this activity

a) To sell b) Recycling to be used for other purposes c) Use at Home d) Other

a) Average/day b) Average/week c) Average/month

a) High Value b) Some value c) Only a little value

a) Very b) Moderate dependency c) Not very dependent

3B) Livelihood Significance – Qualitative 3Bi) Explain why and how waste is used at home ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................


........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3Bii) Explain why you think it is of high value/some value/only a little value ……………………………………………………………………………………..……………………… ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3Biii) Who buys the waste and why? ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4) Livelihood Alternatives 4A) If You could not dump waste at the Laydown area where would you dump it? ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 B) If you could not use the Laydown Area for collecting waste what will you do/where will you go? ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 C) If you could not use the Laydown area for sorting/recycling waste what will you do/where will you go? ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4D) Do you have any ideas/preferences for collecting waste elsewhere if the Laydown area was closed? ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5) General Observations ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................


Appendix 6.2: Time Study Results – Sorters/Collectors (October – November 2008)

Place of residence of respondent

Only/ other economic activity

Frequency Economic value per day LE Date of Laydown visit

El Qobba Only Daily 15 29.10.08 El Kattawi Only Monthly 13 (90/7) 29.10.08 Mostorod Only Daily 20 29.10.08 El Amal Only Weekly 20 29.10.08 Same area Only Weekly 10 (70/7) 29.10.08 Mostorod Only Daily 40 29.10.08 Ezbet Mansour Only Daily 20 30.10.08 Bahteem Other Weekly 15 30.10.08 El Kattawi Only Monthly 9 (60/7) 30.10.08 El Kattawi Only Daily 25 30.10.08 El Kattawi Only Daily 20 30.10.08 El Kattawi Only Daily 20 31.10.08 Ezbet Shaker Only Daily 15 31.10.08 Shobra Only Daily 15 01.11.08 Same area Only Daily 20 01.11.08 El Qanatter Only Daily 15 01.11.08 Shobra Only Twice a week 21 (150/7) 01.11.08 Ezbet Shaker Other Weekly Used at home to light oven fire 01.11.08 Ezbet Shaker Other Weekly Used at home to light oven fire 01.11.08 El Kattawi Only Daily 20 02.11.08 Bahteem Only Daily 20 (140/7) 02.11.08 El Qanatter Only Daily 20 02.11.08 Mostorod Only Daily 20 02.11.08 Same area Only Weekly 20 02.11.08 El Kattawi Only Daily 15 02.11.08 Ezbet Shaker Only Daily 15 02.11.08 Shobra Only Daily 3 (800/264) 02.11.08 Mostorod Only Daily 40 03.11.08 El Kattawi Only Weekly 19 (130/7) 03.11.08 El Kattawi Only Daily 40 05.11.08 Same area Only Daily 20 05.11.08 Same area Other Daily 20 06.11.08 El Kattawi Only Weekly 9 (60/7) 06.11.08 El Amal Only Daily 30 06.11.08 El Kattawi Only Weekly 17 (120/7) 07.11.08 El Amal Only Weekly 21 (150/7) 08.11.08 El Amal Only Daily 25 08.11.08 Ezbet Mansour Only Daily 15 09.11.08 Shobra Only Weekly 10 (70/7) 09.11.08 El Kattawi Only Daily 20 11.11.08 El Qanatter Only Weekly 4 12.11.08 El Amal Only Daily 15 12.11.08



Sorters and Collectors, Laydown Area Residents (March-April 2009) Place of residence of respondents

Only / other economic activity

Frequency Economic value per day ( LE ) Date of Laydown visit

El Kattawi Only Daily 6 24/3/2009 El Kattawi Only Daily 10 26/3/2009 El Kattawi Only weekly 13 27/3/2009 El Kattawi Only Daily 10 30/3/2009 El Kattawi Only Daily 10 30/3/2009 El Kattawi Other Weekly 3 3/4/2009 El Nozha st from 25 st – El Kattawi

Other Weekly 3.5 4/4/2009

El Kattawi Only Daily 20 24/3/2009 El Kattawi Only Daily 15 25/3/2009 El Kattawi Other Weekly 1.5 27/3/2009 Sorters and Collectors, Non-Residents (March-April 2009)

Place of residence Only / other economic activity

Frequency Economic value per day (LE) Date of Laydown visit

Ezbet El Ward - Mostorod

Only Daily 26 26/3/2009

Ezbet Rostom Only Daily 15 26/3/2009 Ezbet Rostom Only Daily 15 26/3/2009 Ezbet Shaker Only Weekly 3.5 2/4/2009



Appendix 7.1: Socio‐Economic Focus Group Discussion Guideline

Egyptian Refining Company ERC

Social Study of Petroleum Refinery in Mostorod Focus Group Discussion FGD Guide

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- − Give an introduction and background on the project and rationale of the socio economic study − Take names, ages and occupations of all participants 1- Qualitative assessment of the baseline situation (briefly)

• Main environmental and socio economic characteristics of the area • Main general problems in the area • Main health and environmental problems in the area • Main local development challenges in the area

2- Discussion on impacts (thoroughly)

• For the impacts in the table, below, ask: − How do they think the impact could affect them/ others? − Do they think the management/mitigation measures will be effective? − Do they propose any other management/mitigation measures?

Potential Impacts

Possible Management/ Mitigation

Employment Construction contractors will employ 6000 possibly more ERC will employ 600 permanent staff.

• ERC will give preference to hiring locally if they have correct skills.

• A skills audit ERC be conducted. • Advertise jobs in local communities – e.g. in Community

Development Centres • ERC will use a fair and transparent recruitment procedure to

avoid nepotism? • Monitoring of contractor recruitment practices.

Construction Nuisance Construction noise and dust could affect residents and businesses.

• Have rules that no loud work happens at night • Wetting the site, access roads to reduce dust. • At El Karatssa – build a high wall to project from nuisances

such as noise and dust • Construction Storage Area – they will backfill the land to

make a hard surface so less dust and garbage removed. Will leave access route through middle, fenced off.

Environment Impacts As explained earlier ERC will remove polluting chemicals from the fuel produced. Also ERC will help to modernise CORC equipment to improve its water effluents and emissions.

• ERC will meet Egyptian European/ World Bank standards • Environmental monitoring (checked by an international

environmental consultant). • ERC will support Community Health Monitoring

Waste Management

• Waste will be transferred to official dumps outside the project area.

Type of group

Area: 1- Arab El Hessn 2- El Karatssa 3- Naguib 4- Laydown ( )


Impacts on North Site The North site will be close to two communities (El Karatssa and Naguib) with schools, businesses and apartments

Show North site detailed layout map • ERC will arrange facilities in the site to have the least active

equipment next to the community. • El Karatssa – between community wall and safety wall

minimum 10 metres. Between safety wall and nearest equipment more than 10 metres. The safety wall will be at least as high as the neighbouring community buildings.

• Naguib - the old access road will NOT be used during

construction. During operations it may only be used for passenger cars NOT by heavy vehicles or buses. There will be permanent equipment constructed in this site – it may only be used for storing tools and small equipment.

Transport The project will have an impact on traffic – construction vehicles (average 31 truck trips a day but 100s during peak constriction) and employees travelling to the sites.

• ERC and construction contractors will provide buses for staff.

• ERC and contractors will only allow management staff to travel to work by car? And only allow parking on ERC site.

• The ERC shifts will be different from CORC shifts to avoid everyone arriving and leaving at once.

• ERC will train drivers in a road safety campaign to avoid dangers for pedestrians/ businesses on the transport corridor.

• ERC and construction vehicles will be tested for exhaust emission standards and noise?

• ERC provide clear road signs and improve site entrances. • (Arab el Hessn) ERC will hire community safety officers to

supervise traffic at site entry and assist pedestrian/ community traffic

Resettlement

• No houses will be resettled apart from those households living inside the CORC site.

3- Discussion on communications

• Who do they think would be a good spokesperson to speak to the Project on their behalf? • What do they think is the best way for ERC to raise awareness in the community about the Project/ give out

project information? • Which groups might be hard to reach with information (e.g. illiterate)? How could we best reach these groups? • What would be the easiest way for them to contact the Project/ lodge a complaint?

4- Final overview question Ask them what they think are the most important things that need to be done for their community/ quality of life to improve? 5- Any additional comments or suggestions?




Appendix 7.2: Social Study of Waste‐Based Livelihoods in Mostorod (ERC Laydown Area)

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION WITH RESIDENTS – CHECKLIST

Name of Surveyor: ……………………………………………… Name of Entrant: ………………………………………………..

Time of Consultations: ...............................................................

No of attendees Male Female

Date of Survey: / / 2008 Date of Entry: / / 2008

1a) Do you use the Laydown Area/dump site for any social or economic purposes? 1b) What purposes? 1c) Can you do these activities anywhere else? 1d) If so where? 1e) If not, why not? 2 a) Do any other members of your family use the Laydown Area/dump site for any social or economic purposes? 2b) What purposes? 2c) Can they do these activities anywhere else? 2d) If so where? 2e) If not why not? 3a) Do you or your family dump your HH waste at the Laydown Area/dump site? 3b) What type of waste? 3c) Why do you/your family dump it here? 3d) If the Laydown was closed what would you/your family do? 3e) Do you have any ideas what should be done in this regard? 4a) Are there any problems in Living near to a dump site? 4b) Do you want the Laydown Area/dump site cleaned up? 4c) If yes why? 4d) If no why not?


Appendix 7.3: Laydown Area Waste Depots Identified in July 2009 WBB Study conducted by CID.

No. Depot’s Profile Area of specialization Number of Sarriiha

(Roamers) Number of Sorters

Equipment and tools

Estimated volume collected in tons per

week

1 Operated by Amr and his brother who have the capacity to buy and accumulate large volumes of recyclables. Financially secure, he buys from the small depots in the Laydown Area to compensate for shortage in a specific item to meet urgent demands by wholesalers.

This depot is not specialized in one item, but deals in: carton, iron, tin, aluminum, copper, plastics bags, soft plastics, PET.

About 5‐7 They recover recyclables from Bahteem, Mostorod, and Shubra El Kheima.

About 10 workers: 4 (females & 5 males)

About five donkey‐pulled carts Large sacks (Gonya) A scale

Carton: 7 Iron: 1 Tin: 0.5 Plastic bags:0.5 Soft plastics (PVC) : 0.5 Remaining items are much fewer and sold in kilos not in tons.

2 Operated by Mo’alem Ashraf, who is a substantial trader in terms of financial capability to buy large volumes of recyclables. (Ashraf is one of the main suppliers of one of the CID surveyors.) He runs a workshop of soft plastics (PVC) for processing & recycling activities in Shubra El Kheima. He also buys from the small depots in the Laydown Area to compensate for shortages in specific items to meet urgent demands by wholesalers.

Ashraf buys all types of recyclables.

About 8 roamers recover from EL Kattawi (public waste pooling sites and piles of waste in streets), in addition to nearby neighborhoods, such as Bahtim, Mostorod, and El Khosos

About 7‐8 sorters: ( 4‐5 females & 3 males)

Four donkey‐ pulled carts Large sacks (Gonya) A scale

PVC: 1 ton Carton: 6‐7 Sacks: 2 ‐3 Iron: 0.8 – 1 Tin: 1 Plastic bags: 0 .8 – 1.00 Mixed plastics: 1

3 It is a small depot, run by Emaira. He was not willing to talk to our surveyors, though they were introduced as traders. This is because he sells most of his recyclables to Amr, so he forwards new traders to him. He apparently started as a Sarriih, as he himself still roams and recovers recyclables, with the assistance his son.

He deals in everything, but focuses on hard plastics.

About 3 2 2 donkey‐ pulled carts A scale

Hard plastics: 2‐3 PET: 0.5 Carton: 3 ‐4 About 100 kilos only of soft plastics, tin, yogurt


plastics, and iron

No. Depot’s Profile Area of specialization Number of Sarriiha

(Roamers) Number of Sorters

Equipment and tools

Estimated volume collected in tons per

week

4 This depot specializes in carton collection only. It is a family‐owned business, as he and his sons work in this depot. He recovers from El Kattawi, Bahteem, and some residential parts of the ring road. He was very reluctant to speak to surveyors.

Carton only 1‐2 including the owner of this depot who apparently started this business as a Sarriih too.

2‐3 One donkey‐ pulled cart

Carton: 3

5 This is not a typical depot, but a small workshop/ factory for cloth and rug grinding. It is run by Abu Sayed. He recovers white and mixed colored rugs and cloth from clothing factories and other external traders.

It specializes in cloth only. - 6‐8 workers Cloth grinder machine

Output is ground cloth , but no quantities disclosed

6 This is a small depot; specializes in carton only, and is run by the dealer and his son, as a family–owned business. They recover from El Kattawi, specifically waste pooling sites, local workshops and small factories, and other commercial areas.

Carton only 2 3 ( 2 males & 1 female)

One donkey‐ pulled cart A scale Big sacks (Gonya)

About 3 tons of carton per week

7 A small depot for carton collection located in a small vacant area. He collects carton mainly from factories out of El Kattawi.

Carton only 2 Sarriiha 2 workers One donkey‐ pulled cart Big sacks (Gonya)

2 tons of carton per week

8 This depot is run from a house, but uses a vacant lot seemingly allocated for another house, which has not been constructed yet. He refused to sell his soft plastics to new traders, as he is obliged to sell to a famous wholesaler called Galal Abu Hadida, located between El Kattawi and Bahtim, as the latter extends him credit.

Collects all types of recyclables

4 Sarriiha They recover from Bahtim, Mostorod, Shubra El Kheima

4 workers (family members)

3 donkey‐ pulled carts A scale Big sacks

Carton: 2 Iron:0.2 Soft plastics: 0.1 Plastic bags: 0.3 Tin: 0.25



Appendix 9.1: Traffic Recorded Going Across the Laydown Area’s Access Route In Day Light Time Study, 24 March‐7 April 2009

Morning

24‐Mar

25‐Mar

26‐Mar

27‐Mar

28‐Mar

29‐Mar

30‐Mar

31‐Mar

1‐Apr

2‐Apr

3‐Apr

4‐Apr

5‐Apr

6‐Apr

7‐Apr

Sum Average

cars 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0.13Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00Carriages 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0.27Motorcycles 2 2 1 1 3 1 1 3 2 2 0 1 2 4 1 26 1.73bicycles 1 3 2 3 2 4 5 1 7 2 2 0 6 0 2 40 2.67Toktok 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.13Pedestrians 15 70 63 49 63 75 68 65 69 69 43 61 54 63 57 884 58.93 Afternoon

24‐Mar

25‐Mar

26‐Mar

27‐Mar

28‐Mar

29‐Mar

30‐Mar

31‐Mar

1‐Apr

2‐Apr

3‐Apr

4‐Apr

5‐Apr

6‐Apr

7‐Apr

Sum Average

Cars 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00Carriages 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.13Motorcycles 1 1 2 0 2 1 2 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 1 22 1.47bicycles 8 3 8 5 4 7 10 8 8 8 1 7 5 6 4 92 6.13Toktok 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00Pedestrians 59 74 89 51 60 62 71 65 60 76 48 49 55 62 72 953 63.53


APPENDIX 10.1: Comparison between Egyptian Laws and International Standards for Involuntary Resettlement Egyptian Laws International GuidelinesEgypt’s Law 10/1990 mandates the Egyptian General Survey Authority EGSA to handle property acquisition at the central level together with other ministries or local governmental bodies. The executing agency is responsible for paying the compensation to affected groups through EGSA or under its supervision, offering alternative resettlement options. The law presents detailed procedures for acquisition, compensation and grievance methods. No legal reference to economic and social assessment of impacts resulting of involuntary resettlement in Egyptian laws and regulations.

World Bank Operational Policy 4.12 ‐ Involuntary Resettlement This policy covers direct economic and social impacts that both result from Bank‐assisted investment projects and are caused by: (a) the involuntary taking of land resulting in: (i) relocation or loss of shelter; (ii) loss of assets or access to assets; or (iii) loss of income sources or means of livelihood, whether or not the affected persons must move to another location; or (b) The involuntary restriction of access to legally designated parks and protected areas resulting in adverse impacts on the livelihoods of the displaced persons.

Required measures for involuntary resettlement No legal reference to any specific measures for addressing involuntary resettlement in Egyptian laws and regulations.

World Bank Operational Policy 4.12‐ Involuntary ResettlementTo address the impacts covered under para. 3 (a) of this policy, the borrower prepares a resettlement plan or a resettlement policy framework (see paras. 25‐30) that covers the following: (a) The resettlement plan or resettlement policy framework includes measures to ensure that the displaced persons are: (i) informed about their options and rights pertaining to resettlement; (ii) consulted, offered choices among, and provided with technically and economically feasible resettlement alternatives; and (iii) Provided prompt and effective compensation at full replacement cost for losses of assets attributable directly to the project. (b) If the impacts include physical relocation, the resettlement plan or resettlement policy framework includes measures to ensure that the displaced persons are: (i) provided assistance (such as moving allowances) during relocation; and (ii) Provided with residential housing, or housing sites, or, as required, agricultural sites for which a combination of productive potential, locational advantages, and other factors is at least equivalent to the advantages of the old site. (c) Where necessary to achieve the objectives of the policy, the resettlement plan or resettlement policy framework also includes measures to ensure that displaced persons are: (i) offered support after displacement, for a transition period, based on a reasonable estimate of the time likely to be needed to restore their livelihood and standards of living; and (ii) Provided with development assistance in addition to compensation measures described in paragraph 6(a) (iii), such as land preparation, credit facilities, training, or job opportunities. In projects involving involuntary restriction of access to legally designated parks and protected areas (see para. 3(b)), the nature of restrictions, as well as the type of measures necessary to mitigate adverse impacts, is determined with the participation of the displaced persons during the design and implementation of the project. In such cases, the borrower prepares a process framework acceptable to the Bank, describing the participatory process by which: (a) specific components of the project will be prepared and implemented; (b) the criteria for eligibility of displaced persons will be determined; (c) measures to assist the displaced persons in their efforts to improve their livelihoods, or at least to restore them, in real terms, while maintaining the sustainability of the park or protected area, will be identified; and (d) Potential conflicts involving displaced persons will be resolved. The process framework also includes a description of the arrangements for implementing and monitoring the process. To achieve the objectives of this policy, particular attention is paid to the needs of vulnerable groups among those


displaced, especially those below the poverty line, the landless, the elderly, women and children, indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities, or other displaced persons who may not be protected through national land compensation legislation. Payment of cash compensation for lost assets may be appropriate where: (a) livelihoods are land‐based but the land taken for the project is a small fraction of the affected asset and the residual is economically viable; (b) active markets for land, housing, and labour exist, displaced persons use such markets, and there is sufficient supply of land and housing; or (c) Livelihoods are not land‐based. Cash compensation levels should be sufficient to replace the lost land and other assets at full replacement

Cost in local markets. For impacts covered under para. 3(a) of this policy, the Bank also requires the following: (a) Displaced persons and their communities, and any host communities receiving them, are provided timely and relevant information, consulted on resettlement options, and offered opportunities to participate in planning, implementing, and monitoring resettlement. Appropriate and accessible Grievance Mechanisms are established for these groups. (b) In new resettlement sites or host communities, infrastructure and public services are provided as necessary to improve, restore, or maintain accessibility and levels of service for the displaced persons and host communities. Alternative or similar resources are provided to compensate for the loss of access to community resources (such as fishing areas, grazing areas, fuel, or fodder). (c) Patterns of community organization appropriate to the new circumstances are based on choices made by the displaced persons. To the extent possible, the existing social and cultural institutions of resettlers and any host communities are preserved and resettlers' preferences with respect to relocating in pre‐existing communities and groups are honoured.


Eligibility for benefits

No legal reference to specific criteria of eligibility. However, legal aspects of requisition of property described above comply with IFC criteria.

World Bank Operational Policy 4.12‐ Involuntary Resettlement Upon identification of the need for involuntary resettlement in a project, the borrower carries out a census to identify the persons who will be affected by the project (see the http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/58AA50B14B6BC071852565A30061BEB6/46FC304892280AB785256B19008197F8?OpenDocumentAnnex A, para. 6(a), to determine who will be eligible for assistance, and to discourage inflow of people ineligible for assistance. The borrower also develops a procedure, satisfactory to the Bank, for establishing the criteria by which displaced persons will be deemed eligible for compensation and other resettlement assistance. The procedure includes provisions for meaningful consultations with affected persons and communities, local authorities, and, as appropriate, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and it specifies Grievance Mechanisms. Criteria for Eligibility. Displaced persons may be classified in one of the following three groups: (a) those who have formal legal rights to land (including customary and traditional rights recognized under the laws of the country); (b) those who do not have formal legal rights to land at the time the census begins but have a claim to such land or assets—provided that such claims are recognized under the laws of the country or become recognized through a process identified in the resettlement plan (see http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/58AA50B14B6BC071852565A30061BEB6/46FC304892280AB785256B19008197F8?OpenDocumentAnnex A, para. 7(f)); and (c) Those who have no recognizable legal right or claim to the land they are occupying. Persons covered under para. 15(a) and (b) are provided compensation for the land they lose, and other assistance in accordance with para. 6. Persons covered under para. 15(c) are provided resettlement assistance in lieu of compensation for the land they occupy, and other assistance, as necessary, to achieve the objectives set out in this policy, if they occupy the Project Area prior to a cut‐off date established by the borrower and acceptable to the Bank. Persons who encroach on the area after the cut‐off date are not entitled to compensation or any other form of resettlement assistance. All persons included in para. 15(a), (b), or (c) are provided compensation for loss of assets other than land.

Resettlement Planning, Implementation and Monitoring Law 10/1990, Chapter one, Articles 1‐4, Chapter Two, Articles 5 Procedures start with a declaration of public interest pursuant to a Presidential Decree accompanied with a memorandum on the required project and a complete plan for the project and its buildings. Law 59/1979 and Law 3/1982 provide that the Prime Minister issues the decree. The decree and the accompanying memorandum must be published in the Official Egyptian Gazette. A copy for the public should also be sited in the main offices of the concerned local government unit. Operational steps are explained as: The delegate of the entity in charge of the procedures of acquisition shall immediately upon publication, have the right to access the land which have been resolved as necessary for the public interest works in order to conduct technical and surveying operations, and to set down bordering signs in

World Bank Operational Policy 4.12‐ Involuntary ResettlementTo achieve the objectives of this policy, different planning instruments are used, depending on the type of project: (a) a resettlement plan or abbreviated resettlement plan is required for all operations that entail involuntary resettlement unless otherwise specified (see para. 25 and Annex A); (b) A resettlement policy framework is required for operations referred to in paras. 26‐30 that may entail involuntary resettlement, unless otherwise specified; and 55 (c) A process framework is prepared for projects involving restriction of access in accordance with para. 3(b) (see para. 31). The borrower is responsible for preparing, implementing, and monitoring a resettlement plan, a resettlement policy framework, or a process framework (the "resettlement instruments"), as appropriate, that conform to this policy. The resettlement instrument presents a strategy for achieving the objectives of the policy and covers all aspects of the proposed resettlement. Borrower commitment to, and capacity for, undertaking successful resettlement is a key determinant of Bank involvement in a project. Resettlement planning includes early screening, scoping of key issues, the choice of resettlement instrument, and the information required to prepare the resettlement component or subcomponent. The scope and level of detail of the resettlement instruments vary with the magnitude and complexity of resettlement. In preparing the resettlement component, the borrower draws on appropriate social, technical, and legal expertise and on relevant community‐based organizations

http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/58AA50B14B6BC071852565A30061BEB6/46FC304892280AB785256B19008197F8?OpenDocument�





55 Agreed with Lenders May 2008.

preparation of obtaining necessary information concerning the land or real estate. However, concerned parties (owners) should be informed thereof via confirmed registered mail letter prior to having access to land. The real estate and establishments which have been resolved to be necessary for public interest shall be assessed by a Committee of delegates of the entity in charge of acquisition, and also one officer of the local administration and the cashier. Prior to any assessment of the properties, the date of assessment shall be announced and sited in the main offices of the concerned local government unit, premises of the City Head (Mayor). In addition, all concerned parties shall be informed about the said‐time limit via confirmed registered mail letter. All owners or property holders shall have to attend before the Valuation Committee has started any action. Main actions involve preparing list of properties subject to acquisition, and names and addresses of each owner or property holder. After authenticating this information, committee members as well as owners and property holders shall sign the lists.

and NGOs. The borrower informs potentially displaced persons at an early stage about the resettlement aspects of the project and takes their views into account in project design. The full costs of resettlement activities necessary to achieve the objectives of the project are included in the total costs of the project. The costs of resettlement, like the costs of other project activities, are treated as a charge against the economic benefits of the project; and any net benefits to resettlers (as compared to the "without‐project" circumstances) are added to the benefits stream of the project. Resettlement components or free‐standing resettlement projects need not be economically viable on their own, but they should be cost‐effective. The borrower ensures that the Project Implementation Plan is fully consistent with the resettlement instrument. As a condition of appraisal of projects involving resettlement, the borrower provides the Bank with the relevant draft resettlement instrument which conforms to this policy, and makes it available at a place accessible to displaced persons and local NGOs, in a form, manner, and language that are understandable to them. Once the Bank accepts this instrument as providing an adequate basis for project appraisal, the Bank makes it available to the public through its InfoShop. After the Bank has approved the final resettlement instrument, the Bank and the borrower disclose it again in the same manner. The borrower's obligations to carry out the resettlement instrument and to keep the Bank informed of implementation progress are provided for in the legal agreements for the project. The borrower is responsible for adequate monitoring and evaluation of the activities set forth in the resettlement instrument. The Bank regularly supervises resettlement implementation to determine compliance with the resettlement instrument. Upon completion of the project, the borrower undertakes an assessment to determine whether the objectives of the resettlement instrument have been achieved. The assessment takes into account the baseline conditions and the results of resettlement monitoring. If the assessment reveals that these objectives may not be realized, the borrower should propose follow‐up measures that may serve as the basis for continued Bank supervision, as the Bank deems appropriate (see also BP 4.12, para. 16).

Resettlement Instruments No legal reference to resettlement instruments. Only operational steps are described within Law 10/1990

World Bank Operational Policy 4.12‐ Involuntary Resettlement Resettlement Action Plan Resettlement Policy Framework Process Framework


Valuation of CompensationLaw 10/1990, Chapter Two, Article 6‐7 The value of properties subject to land acquisition for public interest shall be assessed by a Valuation Committee. This committee is formed in each Governorate by a decree from the Minister of Public Works and Water Resources and constitutes of delegates f:rom: ‐ Egyptian General Survey Authority EGSA, chief of committee ‐ Agricultural directorate, member ‐ Housing and Utilities directorate, member ‐ Real Estates’ Taxes Directorate, member Compensation shall be evaluated according to market value at the time of acquisition, where the entity requesting acquisition shall deposit the amount of determined compensation within a period not exceeding one month of the date of issue of the decree to the entity in acquisition charge. Upon owners’ agreement, full or part of compensation can be received in kind. After depositing the compensation, the entity in acquisition charge shall prepare lists with the real estate subject to acquisition, areas, locations, names of owners and property holders, their addresses, and the value of compensations stipulated. These lists and respective maps showing the location of all properties, shall be sited in the head office of the entity in charge, the premises of EGSA at the Governorate capital, and the city or village council for one month. All partners, owners and property holders shall be informed via confirmed registered mail letter. A week prior of this, an announcement shall be published in the official Egyptian Gazette and two daily widespread newspapers including all information about the project and time limits for hanging up the lists and maps. Owners and property holders are then informed about eviction in a maximum time of five months via confirmed registered mail letter.

World Bank Operational Policy 4.12‐ Involuntary Resettlement With regard to land and structures, "replacement cost" is defined as follows: For agricultural land, it is the pre‐project or pre‐displacement, whichever is higher, market value of land of equal productive potential or use, located in the vicinity of the affected land, plus the cost of preparing the land to levels similar to those of the affected land, plus the cost of any registration and transfer taxes. For land in urban areas, it is the pre‐displacement market value of land of equal size and use, with similar or improved public infrastructure facilities and services and located in the vicinity of the affected land, plus the cost of any registration and transfer taxes. For houses and other structures, it is the market cost of the materials to build a replacement structure with an area and quality similar to or better than those of the affected structure, or to repair a partially affected structure, plus the cost of transporting building materials to the construction site, plus the cost of any labour and contractors' fees, plus the cost of any registration and transfer taxes. In determining the replacement cost, depreciation of the asset and the value of salvage materials are not taken into account, nor is the value of benefits to be derived from the project deducted from the valuation of an affected asset. Where domestic law does not meet the standard of compensation at full replacement cost, compensation under domestic law is supplemented by additional measures so as to meet the replacement cost standard. Such additional assistance is distinct from resettlement measures to be provided under other clauses in OP 4.12, para. 6. Provision of health care services, particularly for pregnant women, infants, and the elderly, may be important during and after relocation to prevent increases in morbidity and mortality due to malnutrition, the psychological stress of being uprooted, and the increased risk of disease. Negative impacts that should be anticipated and mitigated include, for rural resettlement, deforestation, overgrazing, soil erosion, sanitation, and pollution; for urban resettlement, projects should address such density‐related issues as transportation capacity and access to potable water, sanitation systems, and health facilities. Experience has shown that local NGOs often provide valuable assistance and ensure viable community participation. OPN 11.03, Management of Cultural Property in Bank‐Financed Projects. If displaced persons lose more than 10% of their productive assets or require physical relocation, the plan also covers a socioeconomic survey and income restoration measures.

Grievance Mechanisms Law 10/1990, Chapter Three, Articles 8‐13 The concerned owners and holders of rights have the right to object to the information contained in such lists within 30 days from the date of posting and publishing the lists and information of the expropriated properties. The objection is made to the main offices of the Acquisition Entity or the administration to which it is attached within the governorate in which the property is located. In case of dispute between several individuals or parties on a single property,

World Bank Operational Policy 4.12‐ Involuntary Resettlement Grievance procedures: Affordable and accessible procedures for third‐party settlement of disputes arising from resettlement; such Grievance Mechanisms should take into account the availability of judicial recourse and community and traditional dispute settlement mechanisms. An abbreviated resettlement plan covers the following minimum elements: Institutional responsibility for implementation and procedures for grievance redress. The resettlement policy framework covers the following elements, consistent with the provisions described in OP 4.12, paras. 2 and 4:


each party should present all evidences or documents that proof his/her rights within the next 90 days from submitting the memorandum of objection/ grievance. In case of failing to submit those required evidences, the grievance would be considered as not submitted. The responsible body for acquisition has the right to request additional documents deemed necessary and define proper period for submitting these documents. Usually these documents include: ‐ Registered contracts ‐ Cadastre registers, to determine source of ownership (or the history of the properties) ‐ Real estate tax registers (the compilation of these registers depended on the cadastre registers) ‐ “Forms of Change,” which enabled the authorities to determine the changes in ownership of each property before the date of completing cadastre. ‐ Any official documents recognizing the rights of the claimers such as court decision "Seha wa Nafaz". The ruling of the Acquisition Entity on the grievance can be appealed to the court of first instance within whose jurisdiction the expropriated property is located. The appeal must be made within 60 days from the date of notifying the concerned parties with the Expropriating Entity’s ruling on their objection. ‐ The Acquisition Entity and the concerned owners and holders of rights have the right within 4 months from the last date on which the lists and other information are posted (1 month after the posting date) to object to the determination of compensation by EGSA before the competent court of first instance. ‐ A list of properties for which no objection or appeal is made shall be prepared. No objection or dispute may thereafter arise with respect to these particular properties. Payment made to the owners and holders of rights in these properties shall be conclusive as to the fulfilment of the Acquisition Entity’s payment obligations. ‐ Non‐objecting concerned persons shall execute and sign transfer of title forms in favour of the Acquisition Entity. For properties for which signed forms cannot be obtained, a ministerial decree declaring such transfer shall be issued in lieu thereof. The signed forms and the ministerial decree shall be deposited with the concerned Real Estate Office. The deposit thereof shall result in the full transfer of title ordinarily associated with a recordation of a deed of sale. The non‐deposit of the executed forms or ministerial decree with the concerned Real Estate Registrar for a period exceeding 2 years from the date of publishing the expropriating decree shall render the decree as null and void with respect to the properties for which the executed forms or the decree have not been deposited. ‐ No objection or appeal shall prevent the property owner or holder of rights therein from collecting the estimated compensation amount. ‐ Under current law and practice, the Government has wide powers in

a description of grievance redress mechanismsWhen a resettlement policy framework is the only document that needs to be submitted as a condition of the loan, the resettlement plan to be submitted as a condition of subproject financing need not include the policy principles, entitlements, and eligibility criteria, organizational arrangements, arrangements for monitoring and evaluation, the framework for participation, and mechanisms for grievance redress set forth in the resettlement policy framework. The subproject‐specific resettlement plan needs to include baseline census and socioeconomic survey information; specific compensation rates and standards; policy entitlements related to any additional impacts identified through the census or survey; description of resettlement sites and programs for improvement or restoration of livelihoods and standards of living; implementation schedule for resettlement activities; and detailed cost estimate. Specifically, the process framework describes participatory processes by which the following activities will be accomplished. Potential conflicts or grievances within or between affected communities will be resolved. The document should describe the process for resolving disputes relating to resource use restrictions that may arise between or among affected communities, and grievances that may arise from members of communities who are dissatisfied with the eligibility criteria, community planning measures, or actual implementation.


determining whether a project is a public interest project. This falls within the full discretion of the Government. Accordingly, objections to an expropriation decree cannot interfere with or limit the Government powers in this respect except where there is a clear misuse or abuse of this right that amount to bad faith on the part of the Government. Allowable objections are usually based on whether the amount of compensation is sufficient or whether the property falls within the area defined under the expropriation decree. ‐ The involvement of right holders usually results in one of the following scenarios with respect to objection procedures: ‐ The holders of rights may object to the amount of compensation in the event that they are of the opinion that the decided amount is not fair and that the title owner has not taken any objection. In such case, the holders of rights may use the right of their debtor (the titleholder) to preserve their interest. ‐ If the holders of rights decide not to object to the amount of compensation on behalf of the titleholder, they effect an attachment of the compensation amount to repay amounts due to them from the titleholders, if any. Additional Comment In Egypt, Court cases are known to require long periods of time before settlements can be reached. It is therefore proposed here to make available a first tier of grievance management mechanisms, which will be taken care of by the Project, and which will provide aggrieved people with an avenue for amicable settlement without necessarily opening a Court case. Aggrieved people would however remain free to open a Court case without having registered their grievance with this first‐tier mechanism.

Documents

ERC LAYDOWN AREA RESETTLEMENT ASSESSMENT · [type text] 2009 erc laydown area resettlement assessment september 2009