Complaint > Productive Infrastructure Program - Request II: Caracol Industrial Park (MICI)

Filing: Complaint

...compensation was issued in 2012 and 2013, as detailed in Table 2. ii. Table 2: 2012 and 2013 compensation 2012 and 2013 compensation Additional comments 2012 and 2013 lost harvest and lost food As well as replicating earlier flaws in the security: We understand that most (if not all) calculation of 2011 compensation, this round of families received additional compensation comp...

Complaint > Productive Infrastructure Program - Request II: Caracol Industrial Park (MICI)

Appraisal: Assessment Report Public Disclosure

...Compensation Plan that envisaged a land for land compensation option for the affected farmers. Despite being the preferred option, the materialization of the land for land solution was not ultimately possible. As a result, a cash compensation for the loss of land, combined with temporary compensations for food security and loss of income, were disbursed. The last disbursement of cash compensation was made in 2014, having been initiated on September 2011. Additionally, the Plan comprised differen...

Complaint > Productive Infrastructure Program - Request II: Caracol Industrial Park (MICI)

Management Response: Management Response

...compensation to do an evaluation/audit. The letter focused on the resettlement and more specifically on the compensation calculations, the number of affected families and the compensation amounts, the choice of compensation (land for land versus cash for land), and consultation with the natural leaders.19 2.2 A meeting between ActionAid Haiti, the CPVTC, the AREDE, the UTE and the IDB was held on the 5th of May 2016 to go over the information request...

Complaint > Productive Infrastructure Program - Request II: Caracol Industrial Park (MICI)

Dispute Resolution: Consultation Phase Report Public Disclosure

...compensation payments were not commensurate with the losses they incurred as a result of their displacement. They point out that the provision of cash compensation was not sustainable and did not enable them to restore their livelihoods. In particular, they assert that the compensation failed to take account of the increased cost of living stemming from the PIC’s location in the area and the value of the investments made in the land they had been f...