Social Monitoring Report Fifth Report August 2016

VIE: Central Mekong Delta Region Connectivity Project Prepared by Romeo Cleto, External Monitor, for the Ministry of Transport, Cuu Long Corporation for Investment, Development and Project Management of Infrastructure and for the Asian Development Bank.

NOTE

In this report, "$" refers to US dollars. This social monitoring report is a document of the borrower. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of ADB's Board of Directors, Management, or staff, and may be preliminary in nature. In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area. Some information have been removed as they fall within exceptions to disclosure specified in paragraph 97,(x) of ADB’s Public Communications Policy (2011).

Fifth Monitoring Report Contract No. 101147-S79596 TA-7822 VIE: Central Mekong Delta Connectivity TA (40255-043)

Monitoring the Status of Resettlement Implementation

Prepared by: Romeo B. Cleto, International Resettlement Specialist August 2016

ii

ABBREVIATIONS ADB - Asian Development Bank AH/AP - Affected household/affected person CIPM - Cuu Long Corporation for Investment, Development and

Project Management CDHLF - Center for the Development of Housing and Land Fund CLFD - Center for Land Fund Development CMDCP - Central Mekong Delta Connectivity Project CP - compensation plan DDIS - Detailed Design Implementation and Support (consultants) DMS - detailed measurement survey EA - executing agency EM - external monitor IRP - Income restoration program MOT - Ministry of Transport PC - People’s Committee ROW - right-of-way RP - resettlement plan RS - relocation site

iii

CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................iii FIGURE .....................................................................................................................................iii I. Background ........................................................................................................................ 1 II. Focus of the fifth monitoring mission: ............................................................................ 2 III. Activities carried out ........................................................................................................ 2 IV. Findings ............................................................................................................................ 3

A. IRP Year 1 assessment-workshops ................................................................................. 3 B. Meeting with Dong Thap CDHLF ..................................................................................... 5 C. Meeting with Can Tho CLFD ........................................................................................... 6 D. Actions taken on the recommendations of the 4th monitoring mission (July 2015) ........... 6 E. Interview of AHs .............................................................................................................16

V. Conclusion and recommendations .................................................................................17 Attachment 1: Mission Itinerary .............................................................................................19 Attachment 2: Key Persons Met ............................................................................................20 Attachment 3: Narrative and Photo-documentation of the Interview of APs ...........................21

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Distribution of IRP Participants by Chosen Activities (Can Tho) ................................... 3 Table 2: Distribution of IRP Participants by Chosen Activities (Dong Thap) ............................... 4 Table 3: Difficulties Encountered by Surveyed AHs in Chosen IRP Activities ............................. 4 Table 4: Actions Taken on the Recommendations of 4th Monitoring Mission .............................. 6 Table 5: Status of Resettlement of AHs Awarded with Plots in Ward 6 RS ................................10

FIGURE Figure 1: Landholdings of 5 HHs at Tan My Interchange Access Ramp ....................................11

1

I. Background

1. On June 28 – July 9, 2016, the external monitor (EM) carried out the fifth monitoring mission of the Central Mekong Delta Connectivity Project (CMDCP), located in Can Tho City and Dong Thap Province, Viet Nam.1 The fifth monitoring mission was carried out bearing in mind the findings and recommendations of the fourth monitoring mission (carried out on July 13-28, 2015) that included the following:

An Binh Commune Interchange:

a. EM suggested that DDIS would monitor that the new compensation rates given to the owners of the affected petrol station were equitably applied to other AHs in An Binh Interchange, regardless of whether or not they already received their compensation previously.

b. During the 27 July 2015 wrap-up meeting, EM suggested to CIPM and DDIS that households with affected paddies be identified and included as AHs and that measures to mitigate their losses would be discussed with them and implemented.

Access to homes at 4 interchanges:

c. The EM suggested that a more extensive discussion with AHs be carried out for the purpose of arriving at a solution acceptable to all concerned.

d. During the wrap-up meeting on 27 July 2015, it was agreed that DDIS would meet with the AHs, following the Project Coordination Committee meeting scheduled in September 2015, to discuss options at solving the issue on access to their properties in the loops. Options at solving the problem on access to properties in the loops were to be discussed in the PCC meeting.

Aversely affected irrigations systems (Component 2)

e. During the 27 July 2015 wrap-up meeting, the EM suggested that DDIS would closely monitor that corrective actions agreed during the 11 June 2015 meeting organized by Lap Vo DPC were indeed implemented and were effective.

Income loss (reduction of area of construction yard at Cao Lanh Bridge)

f. During the wrap-up meeting on 27 July 2015, DDIS consultants said that a revised report on calculating the amounts of assistance to AHs affected by the downsizing of the construction yard would be ready by end of August 2015.

24 relocating AHs in Ward 6 Relocation Site:

g. EM suggested that CLFD and DDIS wouould meet with each AH that were entitled to a plot at Ward 6 Relocation Site to (i) confirm if they already built a replacement house

1 The CMDCP consists of 3 major components: (i) Component 1: from Km 0 to Km 7.800, involving the construction of

the Cao Lanh Cable-stayed Bridge over Tien River, including approach bridges and approach roads; (ii) Component 2: from Km 7.800 to Km 23.450, involving the construction of a 15.45 km road that will connect Component 1 with Component 3; and (iii) Component 3: from Km 23.450 to Km 28.84, involving the construction of Vam Cong Cable-stayed Bridge over Hau River, approach bridges, approach road, and a 1.5 km road that connects the bridge approach road to Highway 80. In addition, the Project requires the setting up of 4 construction yards, one on each approach of the Cao Lanh Bridge and the Vam Cong Bridge. The Ministry of Transport (MOT) is the executing agency (EA), assisted by the Cuu Long Corporation for Investment, Development and Project Management (CIPM) as the implementing agency (IA). Dong Thap Province mobilized the Center for Development of House Land Fund (CDHLF) and Can Tho City the Center for Land Fund Development (CLFD) to assist MOT and CIPM carry out land acquisition. The Detailed Design Implementation and Support (DDIS) consultants provide technical support to CIPM, including the CLFD and CDHLF.

2

elsewhere; (ii) determine the time when they built their replacement house (to compare with the time home plots were awarded to them); (iii) find out if those staying with relatives intend to build a house at the relocation site once access road has been constructed; and (iv) find out if those renting their present residence intend to build on their plots at the RS once access road has been constructed.

Compensation of Mr. Mai Anh Tuan and the heirs of Mr. Nguyen Ngoc Manh (Vinh Trinh):

h. EM suggested that CIPM and DDIS would monitor developments regarding the collection by the 2 AHs of their compensation money.

On all relocation sites:

i. During the wrap-up meeting on 27 July 2015, the EM suggested that CIPM and DDIS, in collaboration with CLFD, would meet with each AH that were entitled to a plot at all relocation sites to (i) confirm if they already built a replacement house elsewhere; and (ii) find out if those staying with relatives or renting a place intend to build a house at the RSs in future.

On VAT in the procurement of animals for the IRP:

j. EM suggested that CIPM would find a way that would unburden AHs from having to pay VAT.

On case of 5 AHs that want project to acquire a bigger part of their properties in Tan My 1:

k. EM suggested that CIPM and DDIS would make a definite position on the design of the road passing along or through the landholdings of the 5. This would then be relayed to CDHLF and the 5 AHs.

II. Focus of the fifth monitoring mission:

2. Other than finding out what actions had been taken by project authorities relative to the recommendations of the fourth monitoring mission, the EM during the fifth monitoring mission wanted to assess whether or not AHs interviewed in previous monitoring missions, regardless of whether or not they participated in year 1 of IRP implementation, have been able to rehabilitate themselves to their pre-displacement condition. An evaluation of the first year of implementation of the IRP was not needed because DDIS consultants were already conducting an evaluation of the same. The evaluation done by DDIS involved fielding of survey questionnaires to IRP participants in year 1 and holding of assessment-workshops among selected participants of year 1 of the IRP.2

III. Activities carried out

3. The EM on 28 June 2016 at 10:00 AM at CIPM discussed with Ms. Hoang Thanh Thuy, Safeguards Specialist of Can Tho-Vam Cong Bridge PM Division, and Mr. Nguyen Danh Nghia, staff of Project Management Division No. 6 (SCCP1), the EM’s itinerary covering the Central Mekong Delta Connectivity Project (CMDCP) and the Southern Coastal Corridor Project 1 (SCCP1).3 The EM explained to Ms. Thuy that he would not be interviewing affected persons

2 Basically, the purpose of the workshop was to discuss the findings of the assessment survey carried out earlier and

to get feedbacks from the participants on gains achieved and difficulties encountered during the first year of implementation of the program. The results of the workshop would assist project authorities make adjustments, as needed, in the implementation of the IRP in year 2.

3 With the concurrence of ADB and CIPM, the EM included SCCP1 in its monitoring mission of the CMDCP because Grant 0095-VIE that funded the services of the EM in a separate contract with CIPM was closing by 30 June 2016. There was no opportunity before this date for the EM to carry out a final monitoring and evaluation mission of SCCP1.

3

(APs) that participated in the first year of implementation of the IRP for CDMCP for the purpose of knowing how they fared in the program. The EM pointed out that DDIS was already doing an assessment of this. He informed Mrs. Thuy that he would be attending the IRP workshops that DDIS was going to hold in Can Tho and Dong Thap starting on 29 June. The EM further explained to Mrs. Thuy that he would check on the present situation of some of the severely affected APs/AHs that the EM interviewed in past monitoring missions. The itinerary of the fifth monitoring mission was likewise confirmed during the kick-off meeting. (See Attachment 1 for the final itinerary of the monitoring mission).

4. The EM on 4 July 2016 met with Dong Thap Center for Housing and Land Fund Development (CDHLF) at its office in Cao Lanh City. The meeting was presided over by Messrs. Le Minh Tri and Vo Van Don, Director and Vice Director of CDHLF, respectively. CDHLF updated the EM on the status of land acquisition and resettlement and agreed to accompany the EM in interviewing selected AH/APs. On 7 July 2016, the EM had a meeting with Can Tho Center for Land Fund Development (CLFD) that was presided over by Mr. Ho Van Man, CLFD Director, and Mr. Nguyen Trung Doan, Vice Chief for Technical Measurement office. CLFD updated the EM on the status of land acquisition and resettlement and agreed to accompany the EM in interviewing selected AH/APs. (See Attachment 2 for the list of key persons met by the mission). The meetings with CDHLF and CLFD were followed by visits to the present residences of severely affected APs that the EM met in previous monitoring missions.

5. A wrap-up meeting was held in the morning of 18 July 2016 at CIPM to discuss the findings and recommendations of the EM. The opinions of CIPM and DDIS resettlement consultants regarding the mission’s findings, shared during the wrap-up meeting, were taken into consideration in the preparation of this report.

IV. Findings

A. IRP Year 1 assessment-workshops 6. One assessment-workshop4 was held on 29 June 2016 in Thoi Thuan Ward People’s Committee (PC) building for Can Tho City. DDIS reported during the workshop that among the 145 eligible AHs, 126 have taken part in year 1 of the IRP, while the remaining 19 AHs would get their IRP support in year 2 of the program. Of the 126 AHs that took part in year 1 of the IRP, 55 took part in agriculture-related activities, 40 in small business activities, and 33 in vocational training activities. Agriculture-related activities started in November 2015, wherein 36 AHs opted to raise cows; 10 AHs opted to grow ornamental and bonsai plants; 6 AHs chose to raise pigs; 2 AHs opted to get farm equipment; and 1 AH chose to raise chickens. Small business activities commenced in May 2015 and they mainly consisted of grocery goods to sell and setting-up café business. Vocational training and related activities started in July 2015 wherein 15 APs chose driving course for B2 driving license (i.e., car driving); 8 APs selected driving course for C driving license (i.e., bus/truck driving); 3 APs each opted for training in body care and masonry; 2 APs attended sewing training course; and 2 APs chose to get equipment.

Table 1: Distribution of IRP Participants by Chosen Activities (Can Tho) Agriculture (out of 74 AHs) Vocational (out of 33 AHs) Small Business (out of 40 AHs)

Activities No. Activities No. No.

Raise cows 36 B2 driving license 15 -

Grow ornamental plants 10 C driving license 8 -

Pig fattening 6 Body care 3 -

Farm equipment 2 Masonry 3 -

4 EM observed that no CIPM personnel attended the assessment-workshops held in Can Tho and Dong Thap.

4

Agriculture (out of 74 AHs) Vocational (out of 33 AHs) Small Business (out of 40 AHs)

Activities No. Activities No. No.

Raise chickens 1 Sewing 2 -

- - Equipment 2 -

Total 55 33 40

7. Two assessment-workshops were held for AHs that participated in IRP year 1 in Dong Thap. One was held on 30 June 2016 in Binh Thanh Commune People’s Committee (PC) building, and another on 1 July 2016 in Tinh Thoi Commune PC building. DDIS reported during the workshops that among the 1,109 eligible AHs in the province, 507 took part in year 1 of the IRP. Of the 507 AHs, 256 took part in small business activities, 238 in agriculture-related activities, and 13 in vocational training activities. Among the 238 AHs that received their agriculture-related IRP packages, 178 opted to raise cows, and 60 AHs chose to raise pigs. Similar to their counterparts in Can Tho City, the 256 AHs that received IRP support for small business consisted mainly of grocery goods to sell and starting café business. Among the 13 APs that took part in vocational training activities, 5 APs chose driving course for B2 driving license, 7 APs selected driving course for C driving license; and 1 AP attended industrial sewing training course.

Table 2: Distribution of IRP Participants by Chosen Activities (Dong Thap) Agriculture (out of 824 AHs) Vocational (out of 13 AHs) Small Business (out of 272 AHs)

Activities No. Activities No. No.

Raise cows 178 B2 driving license 5 -

Pig fattening 60 C driving license 7 -

- - Sewing 1 -

Total 238 13 256

8. Prior to the workshops, DDIS fielded survey questionnaires to selected AHs that participated in year 1 of the IRP. Respondents in the survey included 50 AHs that took part in agriculture activities, 41 AHs in small business, and 21 AHs in vocational training. Eighteen of the AHs that received agriculture support encountered difficulties in their chosen activities, such as livestock received died and no money to buy feeds for the animals. In small business, 11 AHs also encountered difficulties. All 21 AHs that opted for vocational training support were satisfied with the results of their chosen activities; all APs that attended trainings could find jobs.

Table 3: Difficulties Encountered by Surveyed AHs in Chosen IRP Activities Agriculture (out of 50 surveyed AHs) Small Business (out of 41 surveyed AHs)

Problems Encountered DT CT Problems Encountered DT CT

Animals died 1 1 Goods supplied to AHs expensive 1 1

Animals got sick 4 - Lack of customers 1 1

Retarded development of animal 1 - Need additional capital 7 -

Lack of money to buy animal feeds/food 4 -

No land to raise animals 5 -

Lack of technical skill is raising animals 1 -

AP too old to participate in activity - 1

16 9 2

9. The report by DDIS on problems encountered by AHs that participated in year 1 of the IRP was echoed by APs that participated in the assessment-workshops. Participants complained that the cost of goods (for small business) and animals (for raising) from registered suppliers was much higher because of value added tax (VAT) compared to what the same would have cost from informal sources or suppliers. To this, DDIS consultants pointed out that the IRP management boards of Can Tho and Dong Thap have to comply with government procurement rules, explaining further that the APs would encounter little profit from their business activities only during the first cycle of business or production. Meaning, the APs can purchase new stock of goods to sell or

5

animals to farm after they have sold the goods and animals provided by IRP. DDIS consultants also explained to the workshop participants that the procurement procedures of government was one of the reasons why support for the chosen IRP activities of the AHs could not be obtained and delivered to all the AHs at the same time. Eligible suppliers of goods, animals, and vaccines have to be selected through bidding, and the number of eligible suppliers within the project area and neighboring provinces was limited.

10. Workshop participants requested for additional capital for their small business, or additional support to purchase tools for those who attended vocational trainings. (The EM is aware that the IRP has no provision for this). To workshop participants that complained that the animals provided by IRP died, DDIS consultants explained that the matter would be investigated. In the event that it could be established that the animals that died were not in good health at the time of delivery to the AHs (i.e., probably due to stress because of the long trip from the source to the project site), then a replacement animal would be provided.

11. The assessment-workshops ended with a note from DDIS consultants that lessons learnt in year 1 of IRP implementation would guide CIPM and the IRP management in planning year 2 of the IRP better.

B. Meeting with Dong Thap CDHLF 12. The EM on 4 July 2016 met with the Center for the Development of Housing and Land Fund (CDHLF) in Cao Lanh City. Messrs. Luu Minh Tri and Vo Van Don, Director and Vice Director, respectively, presided over the meeting. Highlights of the same are provided below.

a. On Ward 6 RS. Access road to the RS from the main road has been completed. All AHs that signed up to get a plot at the RS received their hand-over papers already. None of the AHs has moved to the RS, however. CDLFH has given notice to the AHs that the Center would provide assistance to them if and when they decide to move to the RS.

b. On the status of land acquisition.5 In CW1A (An Binh Commune), 4 AH that previously refused to be resettled have already received their compensation and handed over their affected properties. One AP has not yet allowed project authorities to dismantle the frontage of its house-cum-shop that is marginally affected by the access ramp of An Binh Interchange. He is asking for an additional VND1.8 billion for the expensive wood paneling used on the wall of his structure. CDHLF said that it was still considering the request of the AP for additional compensation.

Still in An Binh Commune, a certain Mr. Hu is considered as an encroacher on a piece land that he mortgaged earlier with a bank and subsequently lost due to his failure to pay his loan. The bank sold the mortgaged property to Mrs. Nguyen Day Thanh. When the project recovered the property, Mrs. Nguyen Duy Thanh received compensation for the recovered property being the legal owner of the same. However, Mr. Hu rebuilt a house on said property that the project recovered and has even stopped the civil works contractor from working on the property. CDHLF informed the EM that Cao Lanh PC would issue a decision soon to eject Mr. Hu from the subject land.

In CW1C (Tan My Commune), 5 AHs whose landholdings stand to be marginally affected by the access ramp in Tan My Interchange want the project to acquire their entire landholdings. CDHLF informed the EM that the design of the access ramp will be revised and that the landholdings of the 5 would no longer be affected.

5 It was reported in the April 2015 4th monitoring mission that there were still 11 residual resettlement issues, namely,

5 in CW1A (An Binh Commune) and 5 in CW1C (Tan My Commune).

6

c. On the status of cash assistance for households affected by the downsizing of the area of the construction yards in Tinh Thoi and Tan My Communes. CDHLF has found an additional claimant (i.e., a sawmill operator) that is entitled to receive about VND13 million. Consequently, Dong Thap PPC requested CDHLF to review the compensation plan (CP) and to submit a final CP within July 2016.

d. On the case of 2 AHs in An Binh Interchange that require immediate relocation. CDHLF informed the EM that DDIS consultants have already submitted 2 letters to CIPM proposing the immediate relocation of the 2 AHs. However, CIPM merely required the civil works contractor to make an access road for the 2 AHs.

e. On access roads for AHs outside the loops. CDHLF told the EM that the decision on this rests on CIPM.

f. On the removal of demarcations of the safety corridor. CDHLF informed the EM that details regarding the cost for removing demarcations of the safety corridor in the CMDCP area were already with the PPC for decision.

C. Meeting with Can Tho CLFD 13. The EM on 7 July 2016 met with the Center for Land Fund Development (CLFD) in Can Tho City. Messrs. Mr. Ho Van Man, CLFD Director, and Mr. Nguyen Trung Doan, Vice Chief for Technical Measurement office, presided over the meeting. Highlights of the same are provided below.

a. On the status of resettlement. All AHs have received their compensation money already and have handed over their affected landholdings to the civil works contractors.

b. On the relocation sites (RS). CLFD reportedly informed all recipients of plots at the RSs that the market rate of home plots at Long Thanh 2 RS is VND2,970,000/m2, while in Thoi Thuan, the market rate of home plots is VND2,710,000/m2. AHs that have been allocated a plot at the RSs will pay VND1 million less per square meter for their home plots. The AHs have 5 years within which to pay CLFD in full for their home plots. After the 5-year period has lapsed, the AH would pay CLFD for any unpaid balance of the home plots at market rates.

c. On grievances. CLFD informed the EM that there was none.

D. Actions taken on the recommendations of the 4th monitoring mission (July 2015) 14. DDIS consultants prepared a matrix6 (below) summarizing the actions taken concerning the recommendations of the previous monitoring mission. The EM discussed with CIPM and DDIS consultants the responses in the matrix during the wrap-up meeting on 18 July 2016. The EM opted not to discuss the matrix with Ms. Thuy of CIPM during the kick-off meeting on 28 June 2016 because he wanted to first verify the information provided in the matrix during his site visits and in meetings with the land fund centers of Dong Thap Province and Can Tho City.

Table 4: Actions Taken on the Recommendations of 4th Monitoring Mission

Item Recommendations DDIS Status Report as of June 2016

1.

a. An Binh Commune Interchange: EM suggested that DDIS would monitor

that the new compensation rates given to the owners of the affected petrol station were equitably applied to other AHs in An Binh Interchange, regardless of whether or

- This has been monitored. All affected

households (AHs) with affected residential lands near the petrol station received the same rates applied for affected assets at the petrol station. For the ones who were

6 EM did minor edits to the original matrix for the purpose of this report.

7

Item Recommendations DDIS Status Report as of June 2016

2.

not they already received their compensation previously.

During the 27 July 2015 wrap-up meeting,

EM suggested to CIPM and DDIS that households with affected paddies be identified and included as AHs and that measures to mitigate their losses would be discussed with them and implemented.

compensated earlier, additional compensation was provided to them to make up for any shortfall. These people included the 10 AHs affected by both a local project (Cao Lanh Bypass Road) and CMDCP. They received their money by end of 2015. In addition, in June 2016, Dong Thap PPC has agreed in principle to pay additional compensation to 20 households (HHs) affected by the bypass road project (but not affected by the CMDCP) that were compensated some years ago. (See RP Addendum prepared in November 2015 for HHs affected by the Cao Lanh Bypass).

- Two reports on proposed mitigation measures for HHs with land inside the four interchanges (including assistance for HHs with affected agriculture land) had been prepared; the first was in August 2015 and this was discussed during the ADB/DFAT mission in August 2015. Following receipt of ADB/DFAT’s comments, another report was prepared in October 2015. The second report was discussed during the ADB/DFAT review mission in November 2015.

- However, the proposed mitigation measures have not been discussed with the AHs yet (the report recommended consultation with AHs on the proposed mitigation measures) because MOT did not take a decision on any of the 3 mitigation options proposed in the reports. In addition, following ADB/DFAT’s mission in April 2016 and the mission’s suggestion that all landholdings in the interchanges be acquired, further discussion on the 3 proposed mitigation measures have been put on hold pending approval by MOT of a proposal to acquire and clear all landholdings in the 4 interchanges.

3. b. Access to homes at 4 interchanges: The EM suggested that a more extensive

discussion with AHs be carried out for the

- In the preparation of the 2 reports on mitigation measures (see above), extensive consultations were conducted

8

Item Recommendations DDIS Status Report as of June 2016

purpose of arriving at a solution acceptable to all concerned.

During the wrap-up meeting on 27 July 2015, it was agreed that DDIS would meet with the AHs, following the Project Coordination Committee meeting scheduled in September 2015, to discuss options at solving the issue on access to their properties in the loops. Options at solving the problem on access to properties in the loops were to be discussed in the PCC meeting.

with AHs regarding both mitigation measures for AHs with agriculture land and those with homes inside the loops. Access arrangements were proposed in these reports

- Pending MOT decision to clear the loops at the interchanges as requested by CIPM, DDIS is working with contractors to prepare access arrangements for both HHs inside and outside the loops.

- Even if MOT agrees to acquire landholdings inside the interchanges, access arrangement will still be needed for HHs with properties outside the loops. Protective guardrails will be installed at the outer and inner sides of the access ramps of the interchanges (see above-mentioned report).

- These issues were discussed extensively in the last PCC meetings and ADB/DFAT review missions.

4. c. Adversely affected irrigations systems (Component 2)

During the 27 July 2015 wrap-up meeting, the EM suggested that DDIS would closely monitor that corrective actions agreed during the 11 June 2015 meeting organized by Lap Vo DPC were indeed implemented and were effective.

- DDIS (environmental team) followed-up

the irrigation issues, and all complaints have been solved.

- Irrigation canals are no longer obstructed.

5. d. Income loss due to the reduction of the area of the construction yard at Cao Lanh Bridge

During the wrap-up meeting on 27 July 2015, DDIS consultants said that a revised report on calculating the amounts of assistance to AHs affected by the downsizing of the construction yard would be ready by end of August 2015.

- CIPM submitted to ADB/DFAT on 1 February 2016 a report on the Review of Methodology for the Proposed Assistance Due to the Reduction of Area of Tan My and Tinh Thoi Construction Yards. ADB sent official concurrence to this report on 3 March 2016.

- On 10 March 2016 CIPM sent letter No. 588/CIPM-CTVC to Dong Thap PPC requesting PPC to submit to MOT for approval the proposed assistance plan for AHs affected by the reduction in the area of the construction yards.

- CDHLF is still preparing the assistance plan for additional assistance proposed by Lap Vo District. Once finalized, CDHLF will submit the assistance plan to Dong Thap

9

Item Recommendations DDIS Status Report as of June 2016

PPC through DONRE for approval. The total proposed assistance for AHs affected by the downsizing of the construction yards is 556,000,500 VND (equivalent to 25,000 USD).

6. e. 24 relocating AHs at Ward 6 Relocation Site (RS):

EM suggested that CLFD and DDIS would meet with each AH that were entitled to a plot at Ward 6 Relocation Site to (i) confirm if they already built a replacement house elsewhere; (ii) determine the time when they built their replacement house (to compare with the time home plots were awarded to them); (iii) find out if those staying with relatives intend to build a house at the relocation site once access road has been constructed; and (iv) find out if those renting their present residence intend to build on their plots at the RS once access road has been constructed.

- The number of relocated AH is 21, not 24. DDIS met with each AH and collected the information requested (see Table 5).

- Among the 21 AHs, it was found that: (i) 13 have built a new house elsewhere; (ii) 5 are living with their parents; (iii) 1 lives in another unaffected house of the household; (iv) 1 AH is only affected by the partial loss of residential land and its house was not affected; and (v) 1 AH is renting house in Ward 4 in order to be close to his place of work (he works for the government and does not intend to build a house at the RS). Following discussion with various stakeholders, it was agreed that these 21 HH don’t need an extension of their rental allowance.

- The RS was fully completed (including an asphalt access road) in March 2016. It should be pointed out that up to June 2016, no AH has built a house at Ward 6 RS.

- This matter was discussed in Quarterly Report No 7 and No 8.

7. f. Compensation of Mr. Mai Anh Tuan and the heirs of Mr. Nguyen Ngoc Manh in Vinh Trinh Commune:

EM suggested that CIPM and DDIS would monitor developments regarding the collection by the 2 AHs of their compensation money.

- Monitoring was conducted. Payment of compensation to the heirs of Mr. Nguyen Ngoc Manh is in an escrow account at the State Treasury pending resolution of an internal dispute among the heirs.

- An escrow account has been opened at the State Treasury for the uncollected VND20 million compensation of Mr. Mai Anh Tuan. The land of Mr. Tuan, including a portion that is affected by the project, is mortgaged with a bank.

8. g. On all relocation sites: During the wrap-up meeting on 27 July

2015, the EM suggested that CIPM and DDIS, in collaboration with CLFD, would meet with each AH that were entitled to a plot at all relocation sites to (i) confirm if they already built a replacement house

- DDIS and CDHLF monitored this issue in Ward 6 RS only (see above). For the other RS, they are fully serviced and available since 2014.

- To date, only 32 of the 226 AH who received a home plot at the 7 RSs have built a house. 194 AHs have not built on

10

Item Recommendations DDIS Status Report as of June 2016

elsewhere; and (ii) find out if those staying with relatives or renting a place intend to build a house at the RSs in future.

their plots, notwithstanding that they already received their compensation and have handed over their affected lands. Reasons for not building a house on the plots allocated to them at the RS are the following: i) some AHs want to keep the plots as an investment and they plan to sell them in future; ii) some AHs want to keep the plots for their children; iii) some AHs find the plots in the RS too small for their family. Almost all of these AHs have already built a new house elsewhere.

9. h. On the value added tax (VAT) in the procurement of animals for the IRP:

EM suggested that CIPM would find a way that would unburden AHs from having to pay VAT.

- VAT is required by Vietnam regulation; therefore, VAT needs to be included in the price of animals.

- In the MOU following the ADB mission in September 2015 and in the Minutes of the meeting with CLFD Can Tho City, it was clarified that the 10% VAT was incorporated in the amount of support provided to IRP beneficiaries.

10. i. On the case of 5 AHs that want the project to acquire a bigger part of their properties at Tan My Interchange:

EM suggested that CIPM and DDIS would make a definite position on the design of the road passing along or through the landholdings of the 5. This would then be relayed to CDHLF and the 5 AHs.

- The 5 AHs have not yet been compensated and CIPM and DDIS are still waiting from the civil works contractor for the revised design that would spare the properties of the 5 households from being affected. Until now, the contractor has not yet submitted the revised drawings.

- It must be pointed out that only a small portion of the landholdings of the 5 AHs would be affected based on the original design. Moreover, no work has taken place at the location of said properties (see Figure 1).

Table 5: Status of Resettlement of AHs Awarded with Plots in Ward 6 RS

No. Name of AH Head Status

1 Mr. Tran Thị Muoi Built new house 2 km from the construction yard

2 Mr. Huynh Tuong Vân Living with his mother's house, 0.5 km from the construction yard

3 Mr. Nguyen Kim Lan Built new house on remaining land near the construction yard

4 Mr. 'Võ Thi Xoa Built a new house in Ward 4

5 Mr. 'Võ Van Bay Built new house in Tan Tich hamlet, 1 km from the construction yard

6 Mr. 'Tran Trong Nhân He is living in his mother’s house (Van)

7 Mrs. 'Nguyen Thi Vân Built new house on remaining land near the construction yard

8 Mr. Võ Van Ri Built new house on remaining land near the construction yard

9 Mr. Võ Nguyen Quoc Phong Rents a house at Ward 4 close to his work (government). No plan to build on RS.

10 Mr. Võ Van Ty Living in his father's house

11

No. Name of AH Head Status

11 Mrs. Võ Nguyen Ngọc Bích Living in her father's house (Mr. Vo Van Ke)

12 Mr. Vo Van Ke Lives in his other house at 73 Hùng Vuong, Ward 2, Cao Lanh City

13 Mr. Nguyen Van Tha Built new house on the way to Tinh Thoi Commune PC office

14 Mr. Tran Nhut Linh Living in his father's house in Tinh Chau Hamlet

15 Mr. Lý Út Chính Built new house on the way to Tinh Thoi Commune PC office

16 Mr. Lê Quang Hong Building a new house on the way to Tinh Thoi Commune PC office

17 Mr. Ho Dac Minh Built new house on remaining land

18 Mr. Ho Dac Khanh Built new house on remaining land

19 Mr. Nguyen Thi Ngoc Mai Built new house on remaining land

20 Mr. Dang Van Sáu AP has not yet handed over affected land; built new house on remaining land

21 Mrs. Lê Thi Quí Her house is not affected; lost other part of residential land Source: DDIS

Figure 1: Landholdings of 5 HHs at Tan My Interchange Access Ramp

Source: DDIS

15. Following were the views raised by the EM in connection with the preceding matrix and the responses of CIPM and DDIS during the 18 July 2016 wrap-up meeting.

a. On Item 2 re households affected by the disruption of irrigation system. Even without land take, persons or households whose farms inside the loop are or have been affected by the disruption of the flow of irrigation water due to the project are to be considered APs/AHs. They are covered by the project resettlement policy. The issue here is not just measures to “mitigate” or alleviate present and future disruption of irrigation flow, but also to determine income losses, if any, of these APs/AHs due to past and present disruptions. In this regard, the EM would like to know if the two reports that DDIS prepared included mitigation measures to (i) prevent future disruption of the irrigation system in the loops, and (ii) alleviate past and present income losses due to the disruption of the irrigation system.

12

(Response of CIPM/DDIS during the 18 July 2016 wrap-up meeting: Proposals in the 2 reports involved mainly digging of channels for irrigation water. The environment team of DDIS handled any financial claims for damaged crops).

The opening sentence of the second bullet that the “proposed mitigation measures have not been discussed with AH yet” is disturbing. How could have a plan to alleviate the impacts of the project been prepared without going through the process of consultation with those affected? Moreover, this statement is in direct conflict with the opening sentence in the bullet for Item 3 that says “extensive consultations were conducted with AHs regarding both mitigation measures for AHs with agriculture land and those with homes inside the loops”.

(Response of CIPM/DDIS during the 18 July 2016 wrap-up meeting: In 2014, DDIS suggested that all lands in the loops be acquired. PPC agreed, but MOT was not sure about the availability of funds for this. ADB in 2015 requested DDIS to prepare options that included costs on how to address the issues in the loops. Two reports had been prepared in 2015. Option 3 did not require acquisition of agricultural land, but proposed the construction of access roads and provision of financial assistance to affected households for 15 months. This is now academic because of MOT’s unofficial announcement of acquiring all lands in the loops. On 12 June 2016, the Prime Minister visited the 4 loops and agreed to the proposal that the project acquires all lands inside the interchanges).

Because the proposed mitigation measures for AHs in the loops are on hold pending official decision by MOT on whether or not to acquire all properties inside the loops, people’s livelihoods continue to be disrupted resulting to income losses. The EM believes that these people are in a worse situation compared to before the project.

(Response of CIPM/DDIS during the 18 July 2016 wrap-up meeting: Following the conduct of DMS inside the interchanges in 2013, landholders have been anticipating that their lands in the loops would soon be acquired. Some of the landholders have in fact stopped crop production in the loops).

b. On Item 3 re provision of access to properties in the loops. The second bullet in the response matrix that, pending MOT’s decision on the loops, DDIS is working with contractors to prepare access arrangements for both AH inside and outside the loops is open-ended. The statement is NOT time-bound. The EM wants to know when will technical plans for access (i.e., temporary or permanent) be finished; when will access be constructed.

(Response of CIPM/DDIS during the 18 July 2016 wrap-up meeting: At this point in time, there is no compelling reason to build access for lands inside the loops. But there is compelling reason to build access roads for residences outside the loop that stand to be cut-off from the main road once construction of the interchanges is finished. CIPM gave the EM its assurance that before construction of access ramps in the loops is finished, access roads for residences outside the loops would be constructed).

c. On Item 4 regarding affected irrigation systems in Lap Vo District. The response in the matrix briefly states, “All complaints have been solved”. The EM would like to request for additional information on what actions have been taken to resolve the complaints raised by AHs in connection with their affected irrigation systems. DDIS also stated in the matrix “irrigation canals are no longer obstructed”.

The EM would like to believe that the condition of the irrigation systems should be monitored regularly and on a daily basis. Project construction is ongoing; spoils and

13

sand are likely to be carried by run-off water into water channels and may eventually clog or constrict water flow to and from farms.

The EM wants to learn more about the system for monitoring construction works to ensure compliance to project safeguards policy. From what was gathered in the EM’s brief meeting on 5 July with the environment team of DDIS, the environment team monitors construction works for environmental issues “regularly”. But since the project area is simply too big for 2 or 3 personnel, the team can effectively visit each project site once a month only. Ironically, DDIS has site inspectors that cover all project sites on a daily basis. However, the main concern of the site inspectors seems to be engineering aspects only. Thus, unless the environment team receives a complaint from the AHs through CLFD/CDHLF or local officials, and unless the site inspectors tell them anything, the team would only learn about an environmental issue when it gets to see the site (once a month). If this were correctly the case, the response to any environmental issue would always be reactive.

The EM would like to believe that environmental problems arising from civil works are a creeping phenomenon. Sand and dust, including oil and chemicals, gradually accumulate in the surroundings and find their way to water bodies. The adverse effects of this will eventually come to fore when people’s lives are impacted.

A case in point that the EM would like to share is that of AP Mr. Nguyen Hong Chau at Binh Thanh Interchange. The EM learned about the plight of Mr. Chau when he raised an environmental issue during the open forum in the IRP workshop held on 30 June 2016 by CIPM/DDIS in Binh Thanh Commune. The EM on 2 July 2016 visited Mr. Chau at his residence along National Highway 80 inside the loop of Binh Thanh Interchange. The connecting road (i.e., road connecting Cao Lanh Bridge with Vam Cong Bridge) cut through the middle of Mr. Chau’s 3,524 m2 paddy land located behind his 1,399 m2 garden and residential land. 1,000 m2 on the other side of the connecting road and 1,054 m2 adjacent to his garden land are the un-acquired portions of Mr. Chau’s paddy land.

Prior to the project, the 3,524 m2 paddy land of Mr. Chau was being leased to Mrs. Tran Thi Mai for 500 kg of un-milled rice per cropping season. Mrs. Mai used to plant 3 rice crops a year. Following land acquisition in June 2014, Mrs. Mai continued to plant rice on the residual unaffected paddy land of Mr. Chau. The winter crop that year died and the contractor reportedly paid Mrs. Mai for the damaged crop. Mr. Chau did not get any income from that crop. In 2015, Mrs. Mai again failed to pay rent for the leased paddy land because of poor harvest. This year, the paddy land of Mr. Chau is idle. Mr. Chau believes that the on-going construction works have polluted the water that irrigates the farms in the loop. To prove his point, he showed me the sorry unattended situation of his farmland (the portion behind his garden land). He also directed my attention to what appears to be dead fish on a paddy plot close to his land. (See pictures overleaf)

The EM is in no position to validate the allegation of Mr. Chau that construction works have polluted farms in the locality. When told about the alleged pollution, the environment team of DDIS seemed unaware of the situation and was in fact skeptical about the alleged poisoning of fish until the EM showed them a photo of the same. When queried on whether or not the environment team shares information with the social safeguard team and if there is active collaboration between the two, the environment team said NO. The team produces its own quarterly report, and so does the social safeguard team. The environment team said that it is up to CIPM, which collates information sent by the two safeguard teams, to call the attention of any of the two for common concerns.

14

The EM was flabbergasted to hear this, and reminded the environment team that there is a very thin line separating environmental and social concerns especially during project construction. When people’s lives are adversely affected by construction activities of a project, this matter is as much a social safeguard issue as it is an environmental concern.

(Response of CIPM/DDIS during the 18 July 2016 wrap-up meeting: Basically, the response was that unless the AP files a complain, DDIS would not know about any issue).

Mr. Nguyen Hong Chau and wife at their residence

Idle farmland of Mr. Chau

White objects are dead fish

d. On Item 5 re cash assistance to AHs due to the downsizing of 2 construction yards. The information provided in the matrix was unclear if the proposal for cash assistance to the AHs has already reached PPC, or if PPC has yet to receive the proposal from DONRE. What is clear, though, is that this matter has been pending for more than 2 years already. The EM would like to request for clarification on the status of said proposal.

Nguyen Hong Chau

White objects are dead fishWhite objects are dead fishWhite objects are dead fish

Nguyen Hong Chau and wife at their residenceNguyen Hong Chau and wife at their residence

15

(Response of CIPM/DDIS during the 18 July 2016 wrap-up meeting: CDHLF on 8 July 2016 submitted the compensation plan [CP] to PPC. Earlier in November 2015, DDIS prepared a report on the amount of cash assistance to be provided to eligible AHs. ADB in early 2016 concurred with the report. Submission by CDHLF of the CP to PPC has been delayed by the inclusion of an additional AH claimant. PPC is expected to approve the CP soon and to endorse it to MOT. CIPM/DDIS will follow up the matter for any development).

e. On Item 6 and Item 8 re relocation sites. The EM notes that the construction of access road from Cao Lanh City’s main thoroughfare to Ward 6 Relocation Site (RS) had been completed in March 2016. The EM also acknowledges that in 2015 (even before the 4th monitoring mission) CIPM/DDIS got in touch with the 21 AHs that have been allocated plots at Ward 6 RS. All 21 AHs have since 2015 or even earlier resettled elsewhere and none is planning to build at the RS soon. (The names of the 21 AHs are provided in Table 5 of this report). The EM does not like to belabor the matter of additional rental allowance, for it seems that there is really no justification for additional rental allowance. The EM just wants to be clarified on the statement (last sentence of bullet 2 on Item 5) “following discussion with various stakeholders, it was agreed that these 21 HH don’t need and extension of their rental allowance”. Who are the stakeholders being referred to here?

(Response of CIPM/DDIS during the 18 July 2016 wrap-up meeting: CDHLF and local government officials).

Still on the RS, the EM is of the impression that many of the AHs that have been allocated plots at the 7 RSs may not know, or have forgotten, (i) the amount that they have to pay for their plots; and (ii) that they have 5 years following the handover of plots to them to pay for the same. This was what the EM found out in interviews with AHs that have relocated at Thoi Thuan RS. AP Mrs. Cao Thi Nam and AP couple Mr. Vo Thanh Duong and wife Mrs. Nguyen Kim Tuyet (AP Nam and the AP couple are related by marriage and they used to live where Vam Cong Bridge is being built) live on their respective plots at Thoi Thuan RS. None of them knew the cost of their plots and the period within which they should be able to pay for the same.

(Response of CIPM/DDIS during the 18 July 2016 wrap-up meeting: The 2 AHs chose self-relocation. They moved to the RS on their own and bought lands directly from the industrial zone management, the owner of Thoi Thuan RS).

Another AP interviewed at Thoi Thuan RS was Mr. Truong Nhat Van. He came from Vinh Trinh Commune because local officials forbade him to continue building his house on a plot he bought in the commune because of his failure to secure building permit prior to construction (see 4th Monitoring Report). Mr. Van was belatedly allowed to get a plot at Thoi Thuan RS. While he knew the cost of his plot at the RS, he was not aware that he has to pay for it within 5 years. Similar to Mr. Van, another AP who has been awarded a plot at Thoi Thuan RS but who has built a new house across the unfinished house of Mr. Van in Vinh Trinh Commune is Mr. Le Van Hat. He knows the cost of his plot at the RS but is unaware that he has to pay for it in 5 years.

(Response of CIPM/DDIS during the 18 July 2016 wrap-up meeting: AP Mr. Le Van Hat actually sold his plot at the RS even before the interview).

In view of the aforementioned, the EM would like to suggest that CIPM, DDIS, the Land Fund Center of Can Tho and Cao Lanh initiate an information drive regarding the cost and payment period of plots at the 7 RSs. Also, EM would like to suggest that CIPM and DDIS start counseling the 32 AHs that have been awarded a plot at the RSs on what to do in order for them to be able to pay for their respective relocation plots.

16

(Response of CIPM/DDIS during the 18 July 2016 wrap-up meeting: DDIS agreed to make a leaflet for distribution to all AHs that have been allocated a plot of land at the 7 RSs).

f. On Item 9 re VAT. Please clarify what minutes of meeting (i.e., whose meeting) was being referred to by the statement “In the MOU following the ADB mission in September 2015 and in the Minutes prepared for the meeting with CLFD Can Tho City…”

(Response of CIPM/DDIS during the 18 July 2016 wrap-up meeting: MOM 20 August 2015 during ADB/DFAT meeting with Can Tho CLFD).

g. On Item 10 re AHs that want their entire landholdings be acquired by the project. The EM believes that the statement “until now, the contractor has not yet submitted the revised drawings” is hard to accept. We’ve been talking about this for more than a year already. The EM believes that CIPM, acting on behalf of MOT, the project owner, should compel the contractor to submit the revised drawing without further delay.

(Response of CIPM/DDIS during the 18 July 2016 wrap-up meeting: By August the drawing would be submitted to CIPM).

E. Interview of AHs 16. Discussed also during the 18 July 2016 wrap-up meeting were the EM’s findings in his interview of AHs. For the purpose of checking on their present situation, the EM visited APs/AHs interviewed in previous missions. In Can Tho, APs visited were Mr. Le Van Hat, Mr. Truong Nhat Van, Mr. Vo Thanh Duong, and Mrs. Cao Thi Nam. In Dong Thap, APs visited were Mr. Dang Van Sau in Tinh Thoi Commune, Mr. Nguyen Hong Chau at Binh Thanh Interchange, Mrs. Lai in Tan My Commune, Mrs. Tran Thi Tu at Binh Thanh Interchange, and Mr. Nguyen Van Ngoc at Dinh An construction yard. By and large, the present situation of the interviewed APs, including vulnerable APs Mr. Nguyen Van Ngoc, Mrs. Tran Thi Tu, and Mrs. Cao Thi Nam7 is similar, or even better, than their pre-displacement condition. The EM is of the opinion that the rehabilitation of the APs interviewed was made possible by the level of compensation and assistance they received from the government and, more importantly, by the resilience and resolve of the APs to rebuild their disrupted lives. (See Attachment 3 for the narrative and photo-documentation of the interviews of APs).

17. Other than the pollution of paddies in the loop at Binh Thanh Interchange as alleged by AP Mr. Chau, the EM also brought up during the wrap-up meeting the complaint of AP Mr. Le Van Hat. During the interview at their new home in Vinh Trinh Commune, the AP claimed that he has yet to receive his rental allowance of VND1.5 million for 6 months (for the period May to October 2015). The EM suggested during the wrap-up meeting that DDIS conducts a review of all APs/AHs that are eligible to receive rental allowance to ensure that no other AHs are in a similar situation. Also, EM requested CIPM to collaborate with CLFD for the immediate release of the unpaid rental allowance of Mr. Hat.

18. One issue that the EM inadvertently missed discussing with CIPM and DDIS during the wrap-up meeting was that of AP Mrs. Nguyen Thi Lai. The EM interviewed the AP and husband Mr. Nguyen Van Sua at their residence-cum-shop at Cai Chau Market, Tan My Commune. Mrs. Lai claimed that her AP son, Mr. Nguyen Pha Le, in 2014 handed a letter of complaint during one public meeting to somebody whom he assumed was connected with Dong Thap CDHLF. Mr. Le

7 The EM interviewed the following vulnerable APs during the first monitoring mission in July-August 2013: Mr. Nguyen

Van Ngoc, 77 years old in 2013, widower and very poor of Din Anh Commune; Mrs. Tran Thi Tu, 81 years old widow in 2013, landless, and living by herself prior to displacement in Binh Thanh Commune; and Mrs. Cao Thi Nam7, 64 years old in 2013 and woman household head who lived at what now is the location of Vam Cong Bridge.

17

reportedly didn’t get any response from CDHLF. In his complaint letter, he requested that the project acquire the remaining 124 m2 unaffected portion of his garden land because the same was not economically viable anymore. To date, Mr. Le is still waiting for a response from CDHLF regarding his request. In addition, Mrs. Lai also aired her concern that the electric connection to her garden land that comes from the house of Mr. Le on the other side of the approach road to Cao Lanh Bridge would soon be cut permanently after completion of the road. Mrs. Lai claimed that even before the project, there was already an electric line from the house of Mr. Le to her garden land.

V. Conclusion and recommendations

19. The EM is of the opinion that resettlement in Can Tho is basically complete. In Dong Thap, there are still a few resettlement issues that have to be ironed out, particularly at the 4 interchanges. In the interview of APs, the EM is of the opinion that, by and large, their present situation is similar, if not better, than their pre-displacement condition. The EM wants to believe that this was possible because of the level of compensation and assistance provided to the AHs and, more importantly, the resilience of the affected households and their determination to rebuild their disrupted lives. In conclusion, the following are being put forward for consideration of project authorities:

a. In connection with one AH in CW1A (An Binh Commune) that is asking for additional compensation for the frontage of its house-cum-shop that is marginally affected by the access ramp of the interchange, the EM hopes that CDHLF decides on the AP’s request for additional compensation as soon as possible to facilitate the clearing of the right-of-way.

b. Payment without further delay the cash assistance of AHs affected by the downsizing of the area of the construction yards in Tinh Thoi and Tan My Communes.

c. Without further delay, 2 AHs in An Binh Interchange be relocated. d. Removal of demarcations of the safety corridor in the project area is carried out as soon

as possible. e. DDIS ought to improve its environmental and social monitoring activities, bearing in

mind that the adverse impacts of the ongoing construction works on the environment and the lives of the people are a creeping phenomenon. Relatedly, the EM would like to request the social safeguard group to include in its quarterly report the status of any complaints or claims for damages of AHs that occasionally come to fore in connection with the ongoing construction activities.

f. The EM would like to suggest better coordination between the environmental and social safeguard groups of DDIS.

g. CIPM must ensure that access roads for residences outside the loops at the 4 interchanges are constructed prior to the completion of the interchanges.

h. The allegation made by AP Mr. Nguyen Hong Chau regarding the pollution of lands at Binh Thanh Interchange is investigated and appropriate action taken.

i. CIPM and DDIS should launch an information drive for AH that got plots of land in the RSs relative to the cost of plots at the relocation sites and the terms of payment for the same.

j. CIPM should receive within August 2016 the revised drawing of the access ramp in Tan My Interchange that would exclude impacting the landholdings of 5 households.

k. Resolve without further delay the refusal of Mr. Hu in Tinh Thoi Commune to vacate a piece land that he mortgaged with a bank and subsequently lost.

l. CIPM is requested to collaborate with CLFD for the immediate release of the unpaid rental allowance of AP Mr. Le Van Hat of Vinh Trinh Commune. Relatedly, the EM

18

would like to suggest that DDIS conduct a review of all APs/AHs that are eligible to receive rental allowance to ensure that no other AHs are in a similar situation.

m. CDHLF is requested to decide and properly inform AP Mr. Nguyen Pha Le of Tan My Commune regarding his complaint that the project should acquire the remaining 124 m2 unaffected portion of his garden land. Also, CDHLF should ensure electric connection to the garden land of Mrs. Nguyen Thi Lai is not cut even after completion of the project.

20. The next monitoring mission in July 2017 will check on actions taken on the above-mentioned recommendations and on the situation of AHs that are participating in year 2 of the IRP implementation.

19

Attachment 1: Mission Itinerary

Actual Itinerary of 5th External Monitoring Mission (July 28 – July 18, 2016)

Date Time Activities

June 28, Tuesday

8:30 AM Arrived in HCMC (from Manila)

10:00 – 12:00

Met with CIPM PMU staff of CMDCP and SCCP to discuss the objectives and itinerary of the monitoring mission

Afternoon Traveled to Can Tho City

June 29, Wednesday

Morning Attended IRP evaluation workshop in Thoi Thuan Commune

Afternoon Site visit with Pierre of Binh Thanh Interchange and Tan My Interchange; visited DDIS offices in Tan My Commune and Tinh Thoi Commune

June 30, Thursday

Morning Attended IRP evaluation workshop in Binh Thanh Commune

Afternoon Site visit with Pierre of Din Anh Interchange; Binh Thanh Interchange, and An Binh interchange

July 1, Friday Morning Attended IRP evaluation workshop in Tinh Thoi Commune

Afternoon Worked from hotel room on notes and photo-documentation

July 2, Saturday

Morning Interviewed AP Mr. Nguyen Hong Chau at Binh Thanh Interchange; site visit of An Binh Interchange (re-photo of situation there)

Afternoon Interviewed AP Mrs. Nguyen Thi Lai and Mr. Nguyen Van Sua at their home-shop at Cai Chau public market (Tan My Commune)

July 3, Sunday Whole day Report writing from Hotel

July 4, Monday

9:30-11:30

Met with CDHLF to discuss the status of land acquisition and shifting of AHs to the relocation sites, including resolution of outstanding issues, taking off from the findings of the July 2015 fourth external monitoring mission, in addition to issues raised during the ADB/DFAT midterm review mission in April 2016.

Afternoon Visited Tinh Thoi Commune and interviewed AP Dang Van Sau and AP son Dang Van Thu

July 5, Tuesday Whole day

Interviewed APs Mr. Nguyen Van Ngoc and Mrs. Nguyen Thi Om) in Dinh An Commune; interviewed APs Mrs. Tran Thi Thu and Mr. Nguyen Van Long in Binh Thanh Commune; met with environment team of DDIS at their office in Tinh Thoi Commune

July 6, Wednesday

Morning Traveled to Can Tho City

2:00-4:00

Met with CLFD to discuss the status of land acquisition and shifting of AHs to the relocation sites, including the resolution of outstanding issues, taking off from the findings of the July 2015 fourth external monitoring mission, in addition to issues raised during the ADB/DFAT midterm review mission in April 2016.

July 7, Thursday Whole day Interviewed at Thoi Thuan relocation site APs Mrs. Cao Thi Nam, Mr. Vo Thanh Duong, and Mr. Truong Nhat Van; interviewed AP Mr. Le Van Hat in Vinh Trinh Commune

July 8, Friday Whole day Report writing

July 9, Saturday Whole day Report writing

July 10, Sunday Afternoon Monitoring of SCCP

July 18, Monday Morning Wrap-up meeting

20

Attachment 2: Key Persons Met

1. Kick-off meeting at CIPM office on 28 June 2016

- Ms. Hoang Thanh Thuy, Safeguard specialist of Can Tho-Vam Cong Bridges PM Division - Mr. Nguyen Danh Nghia, staff Project Management Division No. 6 (SCCP)

2. Meeting at Dong Thap CDHLF office on 4 July 2016

- Mr. Le Minh Tri, Director of Dong Thap CDHLF - Mr. Vo Van Don, Vice Director of Dong Thap CDHLF - Mr. Bui Thanh Quy, staff (assigned to IRP) - Mr. Nguyen Dong Ha, staff (assigned to IRP) - Mr. Nguyen Cong Hiep, DDIS consultant

3. Meeting at Can Tho City CLFD office on 6 July 2016

- Mr. Ho Van Man, Director, Can Tho CLFD - Mr. Nguyen Trung Doan, Vice Chief for Technical Measurement office, Can Tho CLFD - Mr. Le Nguyen Kim Toai, Can Tho CLFD - Mr. Nguyen Hien Trung (Head of the IRP Agriculture Working Group) - Mr. Bui Duc Minh, Resettlement Specialist Vam Cong Bridge - Mr. Nguyen Cong Hiep, DDIS consultant

4. Wrap-up meeting at CIPM office on 18 July 2016

- Mr. Tran Quang Huy, Manager PMD Cao Lanh Bridge, CIPM - Ms. Hoang Thanh Thuy, Safeguard specialist of Can Tho-Vam Cong Bridges PM Division - Mr. Pierre Arnoux, social development and resettlement specialist, DDIS - Mr. Nguyen Cong Hiep, social development and resettlement specialist, DDIS

21

Attachment 3: Narrative and Photo-documentation of the Interview of APs

Spot where café of AP Mr. Nguyen Hong Chau once stood in front of his house in Binh Thanh Interchange.

Amended red book of the couple showing that 171 m2 had been recovered from their 1,399 m2 garden land.

Mr. Nguyen Hong Chau, 61 years old, lives with his 60 years old wife, a daughter and and a granddaughter. Mr. Chau is a retired District personnel, receiving a monthly pension of VND5 million. Prior to the project, the wife of Mr. Chau had a café in front of their house. The café was in the 171 m2 part of the couple’s 1,399 m2 garden land that the project acquired in 2014. The couple also lost to the project 1,470 m2 of their agricultural land. The couple received a total of VND889,326,897 in compensation in July 2014. In April 2016, they received 6 pigs for fattening from the IRP. Mr. and Mrs. Chau were happy for the amount of compensation paid for their recovered farmland, but were unhappy for the unit rate used for the compensation of their garden land (i.e., VND1,854,000/m2) that was adjacent to Highway 80. They feel that they are worse off than before because they don’t get income from their remaining farmland and they cannot rebuild their café. They plan to sell their remaining properties and relocate elsewhere, but they have yet to find a willing buyer. They recall, however, that in December 2015, DDIS did a DMS of properties inside the interchange loop.

AP Mrs. Nguyen Thi Lai and husband Mr. Nguyen Van Sua at their residence-cum-shop at Cai Chau Market, Tan My Commune

Wife of AP Mr. Nguyen Pha Le in her shop at Cai Chau Market, Tan My Commune

Mrs. Nguyen and husband lost 1,114 m2 of their 4,014 m2 garden land in the on-going construction of the Cao Lanh Bridge in Tan My Commune (Package CW1C). A son, AP Mr. Nguyen Pha Le, also lost 205 m2 of his 329 m2 garden land. The approach to the Cao Lanh Bridge cut through the borders separating the garden lands of Mrs. Lai and Mr. Le. Prior to land recovery, both garden lands were planted to orange. Mrs. Lai’s husband, Mr. Nguyen Van Sua, tended to the 2 garden lands. Mrs. Lai and Mr. Le, who is a

Spot where café of AP

22

public school teacher, opted to get support from the IRP for their existing small businesses. Mrs. Lai received VND10 million worth of fabric for selling in her shop, while Mr. Le received the equivalent of VND16 million worth of merchandise for his wife’s shop. Mrs. Lai could not say if the assistance she received from the IRP has somehow helped improved her income from the shop. Prior to land recovery, Mrs. Lai claimed that her garden land provided her a profit of VND60 to 70 million per year. But profit has gone down to VND20 to 30 million per year following land recovery. She blamed dust pollution caused by construction at Cao Lanh Bridge and road as the reason for the decline in the productivity of her garden land.

Mrs. Lai informed the EM that in 2014 Mr. Le handed a letter of complaint during one public meeting to somebody whom he assumed was connected with Dong Thap CDHLF. Mr. Le reportedly didn’t get any response from CDHLF. In his complaint letter, he requested that the project acquire the remaining 124 m2 unaffected portion of his garden land because the same was not economically viable anymore. To date, Mr. Le is still waiting for a response from CDHLF regarding his request. Mr. Nguyen Ban Sua has since land recovery stopped tending the remaining unaffected garden land of his son, Mr. Le.

Mrs. Lai was also worried that the electric connection to her garden land that comes from the house of son Mr. Le on the other side of the approach road to Cao Lanh Bridge would soon be permanently cut after completion of the road. Mrs. Lai claimed that even before the project, there was already an electric line from the house of Mr. Le to her garden land.

Mr. Dang Van Sau in Tinh Thoi Commune

Ferry boat of Mr. Sau behind his temporary house

A new and bigger motor for the boat

A new propeller shaft for the ferry boat

23

AP Mr. Dang Van Thu, son of Mr. Dang Van Sau

Shop of AP Mr. Dang Van Thu at the dock of the ferry crossing

The EM interviewed AP Mr. Dang Van Sau the first time during the July-August 2013 monitoring mission. He lost to the project his entire house and 400 m2 of residential land, 2,000 m2 of garden land, and a 800 m2 garden land of his deceased mother. On 17 July 2013, Mr. Sau received VND1.8 billion in compensation and allowances from the project. His main livelihood before and after displacement is operating a ferryboat that crosses the Cao Lanh River, in addition to a 2-hectare farmland located in another commune. However, because he is now past 60 years old, MOT did not renew his license to personally steer the ferryboat. In his stead, his son, who is also an AP, Mr. Dang Van Thu (42 years old) is the one steering the ferryboat. Mr. Sau was provided a package worth VND22 million under the IRP. He bought a new and bigger motor and a bigger propeller shaft for his ferryboat. He claims that he earns a profit of VND200,000 a day from operating the ferryboat. His son, Mr. Dang Van Thu, tends to his 2-hectare farm. Mr. Sau told the EM that his income before and after displacement is the same.

Mr. Dan Van Thu lost his house to the project that was located at the bank (i.e., State land) of the Cao Lanh River. He used his compensation of VND120 million to buy a plot and build a new house in the same commune. His main occupations prior to displacement were hire labor and farming (he cultivate the 2-hectare farm of his father in addition to his own 2,000 m2 farmland). His main occupation after displacement is steering the ferryboat of his father. He still farms the 2-hectare land of his father and his own 2,000 m2 farmland. He earns an average of VND150,000 a day from the ferryboat operation. In addition, his wife also runs a café at the dock of the ferryboat, and this gives her an average daily income of VND50,000. Under the IRP, he opted for a package worth VND8 million of pesticides and fertilizers that he will use on his 2,000 m2 farmland and a 1,500 m2 farmland that he is renting for VND3 million a year. Mr. Thu has yet to receive the IRP package, though.

24

House of AP Mr. Nguyen Van Ngoc prior to displacement at the future site of Dinh Anh Commune Construction Yard

House of daughter of Mr. Ngoc, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Chan, prior to displacement at the future site of Dinh Anh Commune Construction Yard

AP Mrs. Nguyen Thi Om and father AP Mr. Nguyen Van Ngoc being interviewed at the home of Mrs. Om.

Weaving machine for making straw mats

AP Mr. Nguyen Van Ngoc helps in house chores

Barefoot AP Mrs. Nguyen Thi Om shows her farm

Mr. Nguyen Van Ngoc, 80 years old, is a widower (wife died in 2012). The EM interviewed him during the July-August 2013 first monitoring mission. Mr. Ngoc in 2012 received more than 200 million VND in compensation, but had spent it all when the wife fell ill. On 30 June 2013, CDHLF distributed a letter to all AHs at Din Anh Commune to hand-over their properties to facilitate the building of the Vam Cong Bridge construction yard (CY). At that time, Mr. Ngoc was living with a 33-year old son who was working in Bin Thanh Company. Adjacent to the house of Mr. Ngoc was the house of a married AP daughter, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Chan. Both Mr. Ngoc and married daughter were each entitled to buy a plot in Dinh Anh Relocation site (RS), but they did not have the money to buy a plot at the RS in spite of 5-year period provided to AHs within which to pay for the same. Mr. Ngoc planned to move to the house of another son also in Din Anh commune since the latter moved to Ho Chi Minh City to work. Married daughter, AP Mrs. Mrs. Nguyen Thi Chan, and husband were to self-relocate.

Following displacement, Mr. Ngoc moved over to the house of a son who goes occasionally to Ho Chi Minh City to work as a contractual laborer. When the son is away, Mr. Ngoc lives with her married AP daughter, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Om. The other married AP daughter of Mr. Ngoc, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Chan, and her husband have since displacement left their jobs at Hiep Thanh Company. Both are now engaged in bulk buying and selling of straw mats. Mrs. Nguyen Thi Chan received from the IRP the equivalent of VND8 million in woven mats to retail in nearby districts and provinces. For his part, Mr. Ngoc received from the IRP the equivalent of VND24 million in woven mats to be traded by AP daughter Mrs. Nguyen Thi Chan

Mrs. Nguyen Thi Om and father AP Mr. Nguyen

25

and husband. Daughter Mrs. Nguyen Thi Chan gives Mr. Ngoc VND1 million a month. During the monitoring mission, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Chan was in Malaysia to visit a daughter who lives there, while her husband was in another province selling mats. Following displacement, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Chan and husband built a new house on a 70-m2 plot of an uncle also in Din Anh commune.

Another daughter of Mr. Ngoc, AP Mrs. Nguyen Thi Om, and her husband lost to the project their 1,800 m2 of paddy land. The AP couple had another 1,500 m2 of farmland in another place in the commune. The AP couple in May 2012 received VND649 million for their recovered land. The couple used part of their compensation money to rent 5,000 m2 of agricultural land near her house for VND8 million per 1,000 m2 per year. The couple plants vegetables on their remaining 1,500 m2 of farmland and on the rented 5,000 m2 of farmland. They plant 4 crops of cucumber and onion in a year. The couple is entitled to the equivalent of VND24 million of assistance from the IRP. They chose fertilizers and pesticides, but these have yet to be delivered to them. AP Mrs. Nguyen Thi Om told the EM that their level of income prior and after displacement is the same.

AP Mrs. Tran Thi Tu in front of her house-sum-shop in July 2013

AP Mrs. Tran Thi Tu being interviewed at her house-sum-shop in July 2013

Café of Mr. Nguyen Van Long in July 2013

Mr. Nguyen Van Long being interviewed in July 2013 at the house-cum-shop of mother, AP Mrs. Tran Thi Tu

Mrs. Tran Thi Tu being interviewed at her house

26

Partially demolished café of Mr. Nguyen Van Long (picture taken in July 2016)

Mrs. Tran Thi Tu and Mr. Nguyen Van Long being interviewed at the café of the latter. Broken lines indicate the construction limit when the access ramp of Bin Thanh Interchange is built.

Spot where the house-cum-shop of Mrs. Tran Thi Tu used to be. Broken lines show where guardrails may have to be built outside the interchange access ramp. The guardrail will block the existing rural road, including what will remain of the café of Mr. Nguyen Van Long. Unless the entrance/exit to the access ramp is adjusted closer to Highway 80, an access road for houses outside the loop and connection of the rural road to Highway 80 might require the acquisition of the remaining lot on which the downsized café of Mr. Nguyen Van Long. Actually, the café might as well close when the guardrail is constructed.

The partially demolished café-cum-house of Mr. Nguyen Van Long. Power lines indicate the construction limit (i.e., area to be cleared of all obstructions) when the access ramp of Binh Thanh Interchange is constructed. Broken lines show up to where the café of Mr. Nguyen Van Long has to be demolished.

AP Mrs. Tran Thi Tu, 81 years old when first interviewed in July 2013, is a widow living with a young daughter of Mr. Nguyen Van Long. During the second interview in July 2016, Mrs. Tu informed that at the latter part of 2014 she received her compensation of VND160 million, inclusive of VND45 million to self-relocate. Mrs. Tu told the EM that she was not happy with the amount of compensation that she received for her house-cum-shop. She reportedly handed-over the recovered property in early 2015. (It will be recalled in the first monitoring mission in July 2013 that the plot on which Mrs. Tu’s house-cum-shop stood was the subject of a court case between Mrs. Tu and the daughter-in-law of a deceased relative. The court subsequently ruled in favor of the daughter-in-law of the deceased relative). Mrs. Tu likewise received the

The partially demolished café

27

equivalent of VND8 million in goods for selling at Mr. Long’s cafe. She now resides with Mr. Nguyen Van Long and is totally dependent on her son.

AP Mr. Nguyen Van Long, 42 years old when first interviewed in July 2013, lost 203 m2 of his plot and on which his café is located. During the second interview in July 2016, he told the EM that he and wife in 2014 received VND520 million for the recovered land and café; he has not yet totally demolished the café pending the start of construction of the access ramp of Binh Thanh Interchange. Mr. Long also said that he received from the IRP the equivalent of VND16 million in purified water jugs and cases of bottled beer for his café. He rues the fact that because many of his neighbors reportedly relocated, he has less customers and thus a reduced income of VND100,000 per day. Mr. Long is satisfied with the level of compensation he received for the café. However, he laments that the unit rate used for his recovered land was for garden land, which was the official classification of the land as per Mr. Long’s red book.

Mr. Long and wife are a bit lucky, though. In 2012, they bought a 250 m2 of land along Highway 80 a few kilometers from their present house-cum-café. The plot is beside a factory, and Mr. Long and wife built a café that also serves breakfast. The couple was able to pay in full the cost of the plot after they received their compensation from the CMDCP.

AP Mrs. Cao Thi Nam (woman-headed AH) in July 2013 when first interviewed where Vam Cong Bridge construction yard (CY) is presently located.

House of Mrs. Cao Thi Nam (land belonged to a relative, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Hanh)

New house of Mrs. Cao Thi Nam at Thoi Thuan RS

AP Mrs. Cao Thi Nam being interviewed in July 2016

AP Mrs. Cao Thi Nam, 67 years old and a widow (husband died a few years before the project), remembers receiving in 2012 VND210 million in compensation, in addition to VND30 million cash assistance to self-relocation. She was received her 100 m2 (5 m X 20 m) plot at Thoi Thuan RS sometime in 2013, but built her new house at the RS in 2014 only. The RS is about a kilometer away from her previous place of

Mrs. Cao Thi Nam (woman-headed AH)

28

residence. Her new house cost VND200 million, and a contractor son built it for her. She did not know the cost of her home plot at the RS until she was told during the interview that it was VND2.7 million/m2. She told the EM that she got another plot at the RS, but has not plans as yet as to what to do with it.

Mrs. Nam was given a package worth VND8 million from the IRP for vocational training for a B2 driving license (for cars). A son used the IRP vocational training package. The main source of income of Mr. Nam before and after project displacement comes from land rent for her 2 ha farmland. A daughter rents the land for VND40 million per year. Presently, she shares her home with a soldier son and his wife, who works in a nearby factory. Mr. Nam is satisfied with her present situation.

Café and house of AP Mr. Vo Thanh Duong and wife Mrs. Nguyen Kim Tuyet

New house of AP Mr. Vo Thanh Duong and wife Mrs. Nguyen Kim Tuyet at Thoi Thuan RS

Mrs. Nguyen Kim Tuyet after the interview

Gated garden of Mrs. Nguyen Kim Tuyet

AP Mr. Vo Thanh Duong and wife Mrs. Nguyen Kim Tuyet lost a house and a café at what presently is the Vam Cong Bridge construction yard (CY). In 2012, they received VND210 million in compensation, in addition to a cash assistance of VND30 million to self-relocate. The couple likewise received from the IRP a vocational training package worth VND8 million in industrial sewing. A married daughter attended the training and is now sewing from her house. In 2013, Mr. Vo Thanh Duong and Mrs. Nguyen Kim Tuyet got 2 plots at Thoi Thuan RS. They demolished their former home in 2014 and rented a house during the construction of their new house. The couple spent VND400 million on their new house that Mrs. Tuyet said came from their compensation and savings. Mrs. Tuyet informed the EM that she did not know the cost of her plots at the RS and that she had to pay for them within 5 years.

Before displacement, the main source of income of Mr. Vo Thanh Duong and Mrs. Nguyen Kim Tuyet came from their café which was gave them a daily income of VND300,000. From the time of displacement until recently, Mrs. Tuyet worked in the canteen of a daughter at a vocational school. The canteen’s contract with the school has ended. Mrs. Tuyet is presently looking for a school where she herself could

29

run a canteen. The current members of the household are the couple, Mr. Vo Thanh Duong and Mrs. Nguyen Kim Tuyet, and a single daughter who is a teacher in a kindergarten school. Three married children who live with their own families help Mr. Vo Thanh Duong and Mrs. Nguyen Kim Tuyet financially. Mrs. Tuyet told the EM that she is very happy of her present situation; especially since her other relatives from Vam Cong Bridge CY also live in the same RS. Mr. Duong is the brother of the husband of AP Mrs. Cao Thi Nam, and the husband of AP Mrs. Nguyen Thi Hanh.

A look from the road at the house of Mr. Truong Nhat Van at Vinh Trinh Commune in January 2015 third monitoring mission

Mr. Truong Nhat Van in his house during the January 2015 third monitoring mission

The unfinished replacement house of Mr. Truong Nhat Van in Vinh Trinh Commune during the January 2015 third monitoring mission

Present (July 2016) situation of the unfinished house of Mr. Truong Nhat Van in Vinh Trinh Commune

30

New house of AP Mr. Truong Nhat Van at Thoi Thuan RS

Mr. Truong Nhat Van and wife in front of their new house

Side view of the new house of Mr. Truong Nhat Van and wife

A look inside the new house of Mr. Truong Nhat Van. Standing in front is a grandson.

It will be recalled during the January 2015 third monitoring mission that AP Mr. Truong Nhat Van sought the help the EM because Vinh Trinh Commune PC stopped him from building a replacement of his house that was affected by the project. He had no problem with the amount of compensation and allowance that he got. He received his compensation in the amount of VND 563,867,288 as early as December 2012 for his house and land. In January 2015, Mr. Van was 65 years old and his wife was 66 years old. Due to their age and the fact that they relied primarily from a married daughter who also lives in the village for financial support, the couple opted to self-relocate within the village instead of having to move to a relocation site. Mr. Van in September 2014 was able to buy an 84 m2 of garden land in commune. However, he commenced building the foundations of his new house on the land he purchased without first securing a permit from commune authorities. He was subsequently forbidden to continue work on his new house because he failed to comply with a new zoning regulation.

CLFD was able to help Mr. Van get a 90 m2 of home plot at Thoi Thuan RS. He told the EM that CLFD provided him rental allowance for 6 months following the demolition of his house in the second quarter of 2015. His new house at the RS needed 2 months only to build at the cost of VND200 million. He and wife, along with an unmarried son and a grandson, have been living in the new house since the last quarter of 2015. Mr. Van said that he used his compensation money in building his new house. He is aware that the unit cost of the home plot at the RS is VND2.7 million/m2. He did not know, however, that he has to pay for the plot within 5 years.

His married daughter in Vinh Trinh Commune still provides Mr. Van VND500,000 monthly financial support. In addition, Mr. Van receives a monthly insurance pension of VND500,000. Also, his unmarried son who lives with the household and who works as a security guard earns a monthly income of VND3 million. Mr. Van said that he has no plans yet on how to pay for the home plot at the RS. Mr. Van seemed happy and averred that he felt better than before his relocation to Thoi Thuan RS.

Mr. Van received from the IRP the equivalent of VND8 million for small business. He sold or consumed all the goods, however.

31

New house of AP Mr. Le Van Hat in Vinh Trinh Commune

AP Mr. Le Van Hat in front of his new house. Behind are goods that the wife sells under the IRP.

AP couple Mr. Le Van Hat (54 years old) and Mrs. Dao Thi Phuong (51 years old) lost their house and land in Vinh Trinh Commune. They received their compensation of VND180 million in the summer of 2014. The couple’s recovered land was 57 m2 only. However, they wanted the project to also pay for the part of the house that extended into a creek; CLFD did not approve what they wished for. The couple received a 90 m2 of plot at Thoi Thuan RS. Mr. Hat told the EM that the unit cost of his plot was VND2.7 million/m2. He said that he did not know that he had to pay for it within 5 years. (Mr. Hat played innocent during the interview; the EM learned later during the wrap-up meeting that Mr. Hat already sold the plot at the RS). The AP couple bought for VND 250 million a 244 m2 of land in Vinh Trinh adjacent to the plots bought by other self-relocated AHs in the commune. The couple demolished their house in May 2015 and rented a house in town for 6 months. Construction of their new house started in October 2015 and was finished in December 2015. The 3-bedroom house cost VND250 million. Mr. Hat said that they had to take a loan of VND120 million from a sister, while the rest of the money used in the construction of the house came from their compensation from the project. The EM learned during the interview in the presence of CLFD staff that the AP couple was not provided their rental allowance of VND1.5 million/month for 6 months.

The primary occupation of Mr. Hat before and after displacement is the same – a primary school teacher that gives him a monthly income of VND8 million. The wife tends to the house, but has recently been a package of groceries worth VND8 million from the IRP. Mrs. Dao Thi Phuong earns VND10,000 from running her small business and she thinks that the business is sustainable. Other than the couple, there are 4 other persons living with the household: an unmarried son in high school, and a married daughter along with her husband and daughter. The married daughter is a kindergarten schoolteacher, while the son-in-law works in a government office.

Mr. Hat was not happy with the amount of compensation he got for the recovered land. He wanted the project to also pay for the part of the creek on which he extended his affected house. Other than this, he believes that his situation is much better than before displacement.