Rural Landless Project Ending Report - UN-HABITAT Pakistan

Table of ContentsAcknowledgementExecutive SummaryMap of Target AreaAbbreviationsChapter 1: Introduction ………………………………………………………………………… 1Chapter 2: Implementation Strategy …………………………………………………………. 3Chapter 3: Land Verification Unit …………………………………………………………….. 8Chapter 4: Grievance Redress Committee ………………………………………………….. 18Chapter 5:Survey on status of Construction of Houses on new land bythe beneficiaries …………………………………………………………………… 21Chapter 6: Extremely Vulnerable Families …………………………………………………... 25Chapter 7: Case Studies ……………………………… ………………………………………… 27Chapter 8: Land Information Management System ………………………………………… 33Chapter 9: Geological Survey of Pakistan …………………………………………………… 36Challenges ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 38Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 40Annex:A. Project TeamB. Certificate of EntitlementC. LIMS Report

AcknowledgementThis End of Project Report would not have been possible without the vision, initiative and efforts of Mr.Siamak Moghaddam, Country Programme Manager, UN HABITAT Pakistan.We are also grateful to Mr. Saqib Sharif, Mr. Muhammad Kaleem Akram, Ms. Saba Hanif and Ms. LubnaYaqoob for providing institutional and technical support to the project team members throughout thereporting period and their contribution in this report as well. The Country Team wishes to express theirgratitude to the entire field team for undertaking this herculean task efficiently and effectively. Specialthanks to all IT Assistants for their invaluable assistance.We appreciate the patronage and ownership shown by DFID, Boards of Revenue (AJK and Pukhtoonkhwa)and all the stakeholders in successful implementation of the project activities.We are also thankful to Mr. Inamullah for his feedback on the report and we appreciate Mr. JanMeeuwissen’s guidance in highlighting the impact of the project.Lastly, we would like to thank Brig (R) Akhtar Javed Warraich, DG Planning-I, ERRA for his wise counciland support.This progress report covers the period from July 2008 to May, 2010 and it is hoped that this end of projectreport will benefit the stakeholders to take appropriate measures to address the issues identified in thisreport and will help the policy makers to replicate/customize it in any future post disaster interventions.Zahid Nasim Khattak

Executive SummaryThe 8 th October 2005 earthquake was the most debilitating natural disaster in Pakistan’s history. AzadJammu and Kashmir (AJK) and the eastern Districts of the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) recentlynamed as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) bore the full force of the earthquake in terms of numbers of liveslost, injuries sustained, and destruction of infrastructure and economic assets. In addition to the enormoushuman toll, the earthquake and its aftermath posed a huge cost for the Government of Pakistan (GoP).Vulnerable groups, mainly women and children living in inaccessible mountain areas with low levels ofincome and service provision, have borne the brunt of the earthquake's impact. To rebuild the destroyedinfrastructure in the affected areas and implement large-scale reconstruction and rehabilitationprogrammes, the GoP established the Earthquake Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Authority (ERRA)which is a body dedicated to solely coordinate and oversee the rebuilding of the earthquake affected areas.The earthquake caused massive destruction, death, injury and displacement in Northern Pakistan. 73,338people lost their lives, 69,412 were seriously injured. The earthquake destroyed or seriously damaged over600,000 houses rendering nearly 3.5 million people homeless. The earthquake caused the physicaldisappearance of land due to landslides and flooding. It was roughly estimated by the district and provincialgovernments that approximately 10,000 families had lost the land on which they had their home and nowthey have no place available to rebuild their houses.Along with development of other elements of infrastructure, USAID provided funds as budgetary support toGovernment of Pakistan to address the issue of landlessness and relocation of residents of highlyhazardous areas to safer zones. ERRA developed a policy of Rural Landless Programme with the technicalassistance of civil society actors aimed to provide financial assistance to families who lost their land due tothe earthquake enabling the affected families to purchase safer land and subsequently constructearthquake resistant houses. Utilizing its global settlement expertise, GoP assigned the implementation ofprogramme to United Nations Human Settlement Programme (UN-HABITAT). UN-HABITAT accepted thischallenging task with a mission to help the effectively bereaved populations of earthquake affected areaswith the financial support of DFID.This was termed as Phase I for landless people started in July 2007 and concluded on May 15, 2008.During this period, 8,750 applications were received and processed as per policy. After due verification,1,730 landless families qualified the criteria for entitlement of Rs.75,000 each and these were provided withsafe piece of at least 5 marlas land through ‘One Window Operations’ (The marla is a traditional unit ofarea in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. The marla was standardized under British rule to be equal to thesquare rod, or 272.25 square feet, 30.25 square yards, or 25.2929 square metres. A 5 marla residential plotis equal to 125 metre square plot or 151.25 square yard plot). Land Verification Units (LVUs) and GrievanceRedress Committees (GRCs) were established at six most affected tehsils, i.e. Mansehra, Balakot,Muzaffarabad, Pattika, Hattian and Bagh.Rejection of over 80% applications was systematically analyzed and it was learnt that most of theapplicants filed their grievances due to their geographical location on highly hazardous areas and it wastheir assessment that they can become landless as a result of fresh jolts, landslides, flash floods, soilerosions or due to other rapid climatic variations. This lead to the development and promulgation of a newand more comprehensive policy envisaging the problems faced by the residents of highly hazardous areas

who were prone to severe loss, either loss of lives or material destruction, in case of happening of a newcatastrophe.Meticulous consultations and brainstorming sessions were held at the forum of ‘Programme SteeringCommittee’ chaired by ERRA, Phase II of the programme started in July 2008 under virtually landlesspolicy specifically designed to facilitate relocation of vulnerable families living on highly hazardous areas.The programme set up established for Phase I was again made operational and it was successfully utilizedfor the execution of activities under Phase II. The procedures and processes were modified according tothe local needs of the affected people. In this phase 39,379 applications were processed and out of these12,625 families qualified the set criteria and each of them was given the land compensation of Rs.75,000.During the first phase Land Verification Units verified the cases through spot check whereas; in the secondphase, the Geological Survey of Pakistan (GSP), a department of federal government, was mandated toconduct surveys of the houses of all applicants. The Boards of Revenue of AJK and KPK were activelyinvolved for verification from revenue record. This appeared to be a unique partnership which wastechnically supported by the UN-HABITAT but the ownership of programme was exercised by theGovernment at every stage of this programme. The identification of beneficiaries by the GSP, release offunds by ERRA and Federal Ministry of Finance and disbursement of funds by the Boards of Revenue andLocal District Governments through National Bank of Pakistan, these all government entities played asignificant role in collaboration with UN-HABITAT.This is a matter of deep gratification for UN-HABITAT that the helpless landless families were supporteddue to this stimulating intervention and they became land owners once again despite critical post disastersituation. Moreover, the residents of highly hazardous areas were also given an equal opportunity forrelocation to safer places. Social protection of the vulnerables was addressed effectively as they weregiven special preference and resultantly, out of the total 14, 355 beneficiary families, 15% ExtremelyVulnerables (widows, orphans, elderly without care and disabled due to earthquake) were splendidlyempowered with the ownership of land.Transparency was ensured by distributing land grants through a remarkable mechanism of One WindowOperations which was globally appreciated. The beneficiaries of programme simultaneously obtainedhousing subsidy from ERRA’s Rural Housing Sector for reconstruction of houses. This programme ensuredgender equality and helped in empowerment of women especially the daughters of direct beneficiaries asthe land was mutated in the name of all family members and eventually 45% of the total co-owners werefemales. The sustainability of the programme was also ensured as the newly purchased land could not besold for a period of at least five years with effect from the date of mutation.The rejected applicants were given an opportunity to lodge complaints against the decision at GrievanceRedress Committees (GRC) at each Tehsil and a number of complaints were reconsidered for financialassistance based on the merit of the case in line with the policy parameters.A sincere effort has been made in the form of this report to outline the overall procedures including theaccountability mechanisms adopted in the implementation of Rural Landless Programme. The reportattempts to elaborate the process of grievance handling, while giving a snapshot of the achievements of theprogramme altogether with the challenges and lessons learnt for future replication and up scaling in yearsto come and in similar calamity situations around the globe.

Map of Target Area

ABBREVIATIONSACAJKCMOCNICCoECOTCPMCPTDCDCODDODFIDDGDSAERRAEVFsF&BFAQFHHForm-AForm-BForm-CForm-DForm-EForm-FForm-GGISGoPGPSGRCGSPHRIECITKPKLIMSLVUM&EMBRMISMNAMOUMPANADRAAssistant CommissionerAzad Jammu & KashmirCamp Management OrganizationComputerized National Identity CardCertificate of EntitlementCountry Office TeamCountry Programme ManagerCountry Programme TeamDeputy CommissionerDistrict Co-ordination OfficerDistrict Disbursement OfficerDepartment of International DevelopmentDirector GeneralDaily Subsistence AllowanceEarthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation AuthorityExtremely Vulnerable FamiliesFood and BeveragesFrequently Asked QuestionsFemale Headed House HoldApplication FormAffidavitPower of AttorneyLetter of EntitlementSeller’s InformationRejection Letter by LVUAppeal to DC/DCOGeological Information SystemGovernment of PakistanGlobal Positioning SystemGrievance Redress CommitteeGeological Survey of PakistanHuman ResourceInformation Education CommunicationInformation TechnologyKhyber PakhtoonkhwaLand Information Management SystemLand Verification UnitsMonitoring and EvaluationMember Board of RevenueManagement Information SystemMember National AssemblyMemorandum of UnderstandingMember Provincial AssemblyNational Database and Registration Authority

NICNWFPOWOPAKPCRPERRAPIOPOPWDRLLROSERRASMSMBRUCUSAIDXMLNational Identity CardNorth West Frontier ProvinceOne Window OperationPakistani Administered KashmirProject Completion ReportProvincial Earthquake Reconstruction and RehabilitationAuthorityPublic Information OfficePartner OrganizationsPerson with DisabilityRural LandlessRevenue OfficerState Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation AuthoritySocial MobiliserSenior Member Board of RevenueUnion CouncilUnited States Agency for International DevelopmentExtensible Markup Language

Chapter 1: IntroductionThis is Project Completion Report (PCR) of USAID/DFID funded ERRA’s Programme for VirtuallyLandless People.The period of the project was from July 22, 2008 to May 31, 2010. This report presents:• An Overview of the Reporting Period• Output-Wise ProgressBackground:Following the 8 th October 2005 earthquake that devastated Northern Pakistan, the EarthquakeReconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority (ERRA) of the Government of the Islamic Republic ofPakistan, adopted an owner-driven approach for the post earthquake rural housing reconstruction.As a result of the Earthquake large land-slides and flooding, approximately 10,000 families wererendered landless, specifically loss of land for rebuilding their homes. ERRA through an extensiveconsultation decided to provide financial assistance of Rs. 75,000 (flat rate) to each virtuallylandless families enabling them purchase a plot of 5 Marla land for the reconstruction of their homeon safe land. UN-HABITAT assisted the Revenue Department of Azad Jammu and Kashmir andKhyber Pakhtoonkhwa (KPK) Province with the Rural Landless Project. The Project also supportedERRA and the Governments of AJK and KPK in implementing this policy.A view of physical disappearance of landChikar Lake, formed due to land slidingPolicy decisionsOn May 15 th , 2008 the Rural Landless project ended its Phase I, at the end of the project time1,730 families have become owners/co-owners of new land to build safer homes.The project’s Phase I only focused on landless families who had completely lost land as result ofthe earthquake. Those who lived on high hazardous land, which is defined as those who lived onland which is not completely destroyed were not included in the Phase I of the project.On 8 th May 2008 Landless Steering Committee approved extending the rural landless project toinclude those who live on high hazardous land in the rural landless project. Phase II of the projectincluded those who were living on high hazardous land and owned land prior to the earthquake.1

ERRA continued to use its existing structures to avoid duplication and to facilitate swiftimplementation of the virtually landless policy Phase II. These structures were:oooState Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority (SERRA) in AJK andProvincial Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority (PERRA) in KPKprovided overall coordination with the respective state and provincial governments.Federal funds for financial assistance provided by USAID for the virtually landlessfamily were channelized through Senior Member Board of Revenue (AJK) and MemberBoard of Revenue (KPK) with a formal intimation to SERRA and PERRA thus followingthe same procedures as other financial assistance programmes (housing and livelihoodgrants) provided by ERRA.ERRA Gender Advisors provided support to address gender issues related to land andto the ERRA virtually landless policy.At District level, ERRA legal aid centers provided legal assistance and protection to thelandless/virtually landless in general and the vulnerables landless in particular.Revenue Department Officers were the main actors in relation with policy issues. Virtuallylandless policy is an extension of Rural Landless Policy, the same policy decisions had beenincorporated which are as follows:• GSP verified resident families of Highly Hazardous Areas due to earthquake that wereentitled for the financial assistance.• The potential beneficiaries were residents of GSP declared High Hazardous areasoutside the urban areas of Bagh, Rawalakot, Muzaffarabad, Balakot and Mansehracities.• The financial assistance was only for the purchase of land. In case the price of theland exceeded the amount of financial assistance, the difference was to be borne bythe beneficiary.• The disbursement of the financial assistance has been carried out in an efficient andtransparent manner to ensure that the target beneficiary family receives the assistanceand actually purchases the land.• Vulnerable families were provided assistance by prioritizing them where possible.The existing administrative framework for land administration and the well documented records inPakistan and AJK greatly facilitated the process of addressing the landless issues as result of theearthquake; In relation to land administration, by and large the legislative and administrativeframework of KPK and PAK were found similar in nature2

Chapter 2: Implementation StrategyA). Role of UN-HABITAT in implementing the Rural Landless PolicyIn Phase-I of ERRA’s Rural Landless Policy, the local authorities and especially the revenuedepartments were the main stakeholders of the rural landless policy. UN-HABITAT providedsupport for the implementation of the policy through; information management, oversight / supportand Monitoring & Evaluation. In Phase II of Rural Landless Policy (ERRA’s Programme for VirtuallyLandless People) the same arrangement was applied. After the approval of ERRA’s Policy forVirtually Landless People, UN-HABITAT disseminated it widely through a number of networks oforganizations working in the affected areas, reaching out to widest number of potentialbeneficiaries.After the approval of the policy, training and sensitization/orientations of various tiers ofgovernment followed immediately at State/Provincial/District/Tehsil /Union Council levels.Simultaneously UN-HABITAT continuously provided feedback to government officials and otherstakeholders. Furthermore, ERRA was regularly evaluating and monitoring the implementationprocess for progress and any emerging issues; the monitoring team was regularly reporting ERRAon the progress of the project.B). Communication StrategyUN-HABITAT’s Public Information Office (PIO) also floated existing public information campaign inthe affected areas for the programme, it remained the hub for the information campaign for theproject. HABITAT launched the information campaign and disseminated the information products tothe potential target audience in the affected areas through 26 housing partner organizations andprotection cluster partners in the affected areas. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) booklets inUrdu/English were developed and disseminated among all stakeholders including the districtadministrations in the affected areas.Additionally reader-friendly posters about the rural landless project were disseminated as well. Intotal 17 different information products were published for Phase II that were complemented throughradio shows and other broadcasts. The cases of Extremely Vulnerable Families (EVFs) were givenspecial focus and priority and UN-HABITAT/ERRA’s Partner Organizations (POs) operating atUnion Council level also provided information and facilitation support to the potential beneficiaries’.C). Sub Committee on LandlessThe Sub-Committee on Landless was also actively providing its input in phase II as well andsupported the joint efforts of ERRA, UN-HABITAT and the Revenue Departments of KPK and AJK.D). Staff for ProjectTo effectively run the project UN-HABITAT recruited staff for six Land Verification Units (LVU) andGrievance Redress Committees (GRCs). These Land Verification Units (LVUs) and GrievanceRedress Committees (GRCs) were located at Muzaffarabad, Hattian, Pattika/Neelum, Bagh,Balakot and Mansehra.3

E). Establishment of Land Verification Units (LVUs) & Grievance Redress Committees(GRCs)• The LVUs and GRCs at all six locations were made functional, as they were already fullyequipped during phase I.• The recruited staff members were stationed at respective LVUs and GRCs, aftercomprehensive training/orientation sessions and they started working from August 1, 2008.• The field teams comprised of 17 Revenue Representatives, 17 Admin Assistants, 6 FinanceAssistants, 11 IT Assistants and 7 Social Mobilisers. These teams were providing services tothe community through service delivery points (LVUs and GRCs) at six Tehsils of AJK andKPK.• The LVUs and GRCs were also supported by DC/DCO, AC/DDO, Sub Judges, Tehsildars,Gardawars, Nazirs and Patwaris as government counterparts (all of these officials were paidstipends as Food & Beverage Allowance for their contribution in the processes)F). Information Campaign• An Information Officer was dedicatedly responsible for allcommunication and information activities and issues. TheInformation Officer in close coordination with ERRA andCountry Office Team (COT) conducted orientation sessions toall stakeholders, kept liaison with print and electronic media,managed all matters related to information dissemination(printing, distribution of IEC products, holding pressconferences etc).• The following information products had been developed/printedand disseminated among concerned stakeholders/potential beneficiaries.Information ProductsDisseminatedS. No. Item Quantity1 Posters 279752 Flyers 85003 FAQ's 50004 Forms 14000G). Orientation Sessions/ Meetings/ Press Conferences:• A total of 214 orientation/training sessions were conducted at all locations with stakeholders:beneficiaries at community level and implementing stakeholders at Tehsil/District levels ondifferent aspects of the landless policy. Partner Organizations, elected representatives, districtgovernment officials and senior government officials were also invited to attend thesesessions.4

Table Showing Orientation/Training Sessions ConductedOrientation/Training/MeetingNo.Staff Training Orientation 5IT Training/Orientation 2Govt. Officials Orientation/Meetings 45Nazim/Elected Member Orientation 9Cluster Meetings (Housing, SP, GCM etc) 11Outreach to community 136Field Orientations 2Press Conferences 4Total 214• Project Officer from ERRA supported the RLL programme by responding to the queries raisedby parliamentarians through briefings to the parliamentarians, Federal and Provincial Ministers,Ombudsman’s Secretariat and public accountability institutions for redressal of complaints byaggrieved. The officer was also responsible for approval/ transfers of Government funds torespective Revenue Departments.H). Legal Consultations• Expert land advisor was involved in the formulation of thepolicy as member of the team and provided his expert opinionon issues that rose.• In the regular Steering Committee meetings legal andadministrative aspects of the project were reviewed to identifyproblems and suggested simple but appropriate solutions whileremaining in the existing legal and administrative frameworks;furthermore suggestions made for changes in order to refineprocedures, mechanisms and policies that were to be adopted.I). Social Mobilization• Social mobilization remained a crucial corner stone in theproject implementation; a seven member team of SocialMobilisers was constantly engaged for social mobilization of thetarget communities.• The team was responsible to sensitize the communities on thepolicy and their legal entitlements covered by the said policy.• The team also was responsible for distribution of Letters ofEntitlement among the potential beneficiaries at their doorsteps.J). Institutional Capacity Building• This programme was headed by DC/DCO at the district level; AC/DDO were the Chairpersonsof GRCs and Tehsildars were Chairpersons of LVUs at Tehsil level.• In order to strengthen the institutional capacity of ERRA, Board of Revenue (AJK) andGeological Survey of Pakistan (GSP), three personnel were seconded to these organizations5

• A Project Officer was full time facilitating ERRA bymaintaining close coordination and liaison with all thestakeholders especially between ERRA, UN HABITAT, GSPand Board of Revenues of AJK and KPK.• An Administrative Officer was facilitating Board of Revenue(AJK) by maintaining close coordination with the stakeholdersrunning flow of funds to respective districts after beingreceived from ERRA.• An IT Assistant was assisting GSP for survey related mattersby maintaining close coordination and liaison with ERRA, UN HABITAT and Land VerificationUnits in AJK and KPK.K). Capacity Building of Project Personnel• Training awareness sessions and project managementworkshops were conducted for the staff personnel on regularbasis. This included five Orientation Trainings and projectmanagement sessions and two sessions for the ITManagement team.L). Geological Information System• A GIS expert/consultant was engaged to review GSP surveydata and provides feedback to ERRA, UN HABITAT and GSP.M). Land Information Management System (LIMS)• An MIS Officer managed the software (LIMS) and monitoredits efficiency.• Eleven members of IT field team were supervised by an ITOfficer on assuring data quality and its management.N). Procedure for Grants Management• Once the IT Officer finalised the list of approved beneficiaries,the Project Assistant had to issue Letters of Entitlement in favour of these beneficiaries.• The Country Office Team had to release the final list to the concerned LVU for furtherdistribution among the beneficiaries.• Financial Request for release of funds was generated and submitted to ERRA for transfer offunds to the Boards of Revenue.• The Project Officer had to follow up at ERRA and ensured that funds were released to therespective accounts of Board of Revenue (AJK and KPK), in 10 working days.• On receipt at the Board of Revenue, the amounts were transferred to the concerned bankaccounts of the respective DC/DCO• The cheques amounting to Rs. 75,000/- were then distributed among each beneficiary familyduring One Window Operation.• All LVUs maintained bank statements records of DC/DCO and reported it to ProgrammeManager of UN HABITAT, this information after checking its authenticity was communicated toERRA.6

O). F& B Allowance to Government Officials• In AJK and KPK, DC/DCO, AC/DDO, Teshildars, Gardawars andPatwaris were paid monthly Food and Beverages (F&B)allowance for their services during the process.• In AJK Sub Judges and Nazirs (Helpers of Sub Judges) were alsopaid monthly F&B allowance for their services during the process;in AJK land registration authority lies with the judiciary.P). Monitoring and Evaluation• Two Monitoring Officers (one each at Mansehra andMuzaffarabad) were seconded to ERRA for Monitoring andEvaluation of the project activities. These Monitoring Officersconducted field visits regularly and reported the progress toProject Officer Social Protection (ERRA).• Two Assistant Project Coordinators (one each at Mansehra andMuzaffarabad) managed and monitored the field activities.• The Country Office Team (COT) comprising of ProgrammeManager, IT Officer and Project Assistant visited all the units bi-monthly during course ofprogramme.Q). Country Office Team (COT)• Under the supervision of Programme Manager the COTcomprised of MIS Officer, IT Officer, Programme Associate andProject Assistant. The COT was responsible for overallmanagement of the project.• The team ensured effective and efficient project implementationunder the parameters set in ERRA’s Virtually Landless Policy.They also maintained close coordination with all the stakeholdersand members of the Steering Committee• The team also was responsible to review the progress of all the field units and seconded staffmembers.R). Country Programme Team (CPT)• Under the overall supervision of Country Programme Manager,the CPT provided the necessary administrative and financialsupport to the project. The team comprised of representativesfrom admin, finance, HR and procurement units of UN HABITAT.7

Chapter 3: Land Verification UnitThe project was designed to support the existing government departments in implementing theprogramme. The revenue department has been strengthened through establishment of theLand Verification Unit (LUV). Additional staff was provided to the Tehsildar office forundertaking the programme’s objectives and activities.Likewise In the Phase-I, the Patwari was required to come to the Tehsildars office to completeall the record verification in the presence of the Land Verification Unit staff. Thus the traditionalpractice of the beneficiary directly going to Patwari was changed to ensure transparency.1. Composition of Land Verification Unit (LVU)Chairperson: TehsildarFull Time Staff• Revenue Officer• Finance Assistant• Admin Assistant• IT Assistant• Civil Society Representative• ERRA Social Protection / Gender CoordinatorIn locations where huge number of applications was received such as Balakot, Muzaffarabad,Pattika and Hattian, more staff were deputed (two additional Revenue Officers each with AdminAssistants as support staff).1.1 Scope of Work (LVU)• To register the families living in highly hazardous areas• To provide all necessary forms and assist applicants in filling the forms and otherapplication procedure.• To verify applications as per policy/rules.• To update and maintain database on families classified living on hazardous land• To provide information on the financial assistance process of Hazardous Land Policy.• To report to SMBR (AJK) & (KPK) through Deputy Commissioner (AJK) and DistrictCoordination Officer (KPK).8

1.2 The ProcessGroup-A (Under taken In phase-II):In phase-II the process was further sub-divided into Group-A and Group-B.A). Registration• All the GSP verified families were informed throughpostal mail to visit the LVU and get themselvesregistered.• All the LVUs submitted their work plans to the COTand the Tehsildar. The GSP verified families of theconcerned patwar circle and were invited on aparticular date to the LVU. The same day, the relevantpatwari (along with his record) was ensured to beavailable .• The GSP listed head of the family to visit the LVU, the Revenue Officer used to verifyher/his name through GSP list. A Traffic Form was filled for the potential beneficiary,particulars were verified from NADRA database and LIMS database.B). NADRA Verification (V1)• The IT Assistant used to check NADRA records toverify applicant’s CNIC number, ERRA Rural HousingMOU number and the number of tranches receivedunder ERRA Rural Housing Programme. It was alsoverified from the record of first phase whether thefamily benefited from land grant in the first phase ornot to avoid duplication of payment. Once the status ofthe applicants housing subsidy was confirmed then,her/his application was to be handed over to theRevenue Officer to determine her/his ownership of the said property.C). Revenue Record Verification (V2)• After clearance from NADRA/LIMS verification, theRevenue Officer of LVU along with patwari would verifyapplicant’s ownership from the revenue records. In caseher/his ownership was proved and it was establishedthat s/he does not own more than 5 marlas of safe landother than the land on which her/his house existed inthe same patwar circle; s/he was qualified for fillingForms A, B and C for registration.• The Land Verification Unit use to sign a Form (three signatories) that the revenuerecord check has been completed.9

D). Filling of Forms:• The Land Verification Unit staff member used to fillforms A (application form), B (affidavit) and C (power ofattorney).• Form C used to be signed by the Patwari, RevenueOfficer and Civil Society Representative ascertaining thatownership has been proven and this family does not ownany other piece of land of 5 marlas or more in the samepatwar circle.• The applicant was asked to:1. Attest form B by a local councilor2. Complete the signing formality on Form C byhis/her family members.3. Submit both the forms within three days to therelevant LVU4. After submission, the applicant would receive areceipt for future reference.5. After completing forms B & C, the submittedforms will be entered into Land InformationManagement System (LIMS) along with form A,by the IT Assistant.E). Issuance of Form D (Certificate of Entitlement) and Form E (Seller’sinformation)• Once the verifications were complete the applicant wasissued a Form-D i.e. Certificate of Entitlement (CoE) bythe LVU. Along with CoE, the potential beneficiary wasalso issued Form-E i.e. Form for Seller’s information.• The verified affectee was asked to submit the details ofseller through Form-E after finalizing the purchasenegotiations for a safe piece of land of at least 5 Marla’s• The CoE holder was informed through a list displayed atthe Land Verification Unit office premises.• Social mobilizers were involved in informing the beneficiaries at village level.• After submission of Form-E, the beneficiary was invited by the Land Verification Unit toparticipate in the One Window Operation on a specified date at a specified location,along with the seller, two witnesses and the family members.F). Submission of Request for Financial Assistance to ERRA for Release of Funds• The Land Verification Unit use to send a list of verifiedbeneficiaries to the COT.• The data was re-verified through Land InformationManagement System• A request for financial release use to be generatedthrough Land Information Management System by COTand forwarded to ERRA Social Protection for release of10

funds against each beneficiary’s name.• ERRA used to release the funds to Member Board of Revenue (KPK) /Senior MemberBoard of Revenue (AJK)’s bank accounts, the funds were remitted from their accountto the relevant DC/DCO’s bank accounts• The relevant DC/DCO use to prepare cheques in the name of the beneficiaries• The relevant bank branch would nominated officials for mobile bank facilities at theOne Window Operation site• The bank officials prepared cheques amounting to Rs. 75,000/- in the name of thebeneficiary.G). One Window Operation• The Land Verification Unit would inform the seller, buyer,patwari, tehsildar, and concerned branch of National Bankof Pakistan to be present at the designated place.• The DC/DCO would issue cheque in favour of the buyerand deliver it to the beneficiary in the presence ofmembers of the Land Verification Units.• The buyer would receive the cheque get it encashedthrough the mobile bank team and he/she pays the saleprice to the seller in the presence of all stakeholders. Buyer is expected to pay theamount over and above the flat rate approved by thepolicy for the purchase of the land. .• The sale transaction was announced in the presence ofall stakeholders• The Tehsildar/patwari registered the sale deed andmutated the said land in favour of the buyer and all hisfamily members as stated in the power of attorney• The transaction was recorded with a photograph and acopy of the certificate is given to the buyer/seller, onecopy is retained at Land Verification Unit and one copy goes to COT for the record.H). Rejected applications and Redressal Mechanism• When an applicant was rejected by the LVU due to the ownership/multiple khasraissues the applicant was to be informed by post and the list of rejected applicants wasalso displayed on notice board of Land Verification Unit.• The rejected applicants were able to appeal through Form-F (Grievance RedressForm) along with the letter of rejection. As per approved policy appeals were timebarred as they had to be registered with GRC within two weeks of receiving rejectionnotification,• However, if an applicant was rejected by the LVU on the basis of receipt of land grantin the first phase of Rural Landless Project, s/he did not have the right to appealthrough Form F.11

Group-B (WALK INS)A). Registration• Those families which were not included in the Geological Surey of Pakistan (GSP) listand still believed that they were habitants of highly hazardous area were expected tovisit the respective LVUs. They were categorized into two categories i.e. Category Aand Category B as follows:• Category A: included the residents of those areas where GSP has conducted surveybut the claimants were left out of the physical survey of houses..• Category B: included the residents of those areas where GSP has not yet conductedany survey, but the claimants thought that their houses should have been surveyed byGSP.• The potential applicants on highly hazardous zones were interviewed by the LVU staff.The applicant needed to submit supported documents such as photographic evidence,letter from councilor/notable of her/his area.• The applicants used to be briefed about Hazardous Land Policy and the parameters ofqualification.• The Land Verification Unit staff member filled in Traffic Form for the applicant andher/his evidence was attached with the filled in traffic form and it was kept according tothe categories.B). Category A• In case of Category A, after Traffic Form filling, the Revenue Officer would decidewhether to refer the case to GRC by filling Referral Form or not.• Referral Form filled was forwarded to GRC.• The GRC collected and filed the Referral Forms village-wise.• When the number of Referral Forms from one particular village/area exceeded 20forms, the GRC would send the record to UN-HABITAT Country Office for onwardsubmission to ERRA with a request for a visit to GRC by GSP’s representative.• ERRA in turn would send the data to GSP and asks them to send their representativeto GRC within seven days of their instructions.• GSP representative use to inform the GRC through UN-HABITAT Head Office abouther/his visit itinerary.• The GRC had to inform the claimants to visit GRC on the day of GSP’srepresentative’s visit.• The GSP representative along with Revenue Officer GRC and a Social Mobilizerlistened to the grievances of the claimants.• The GSP representative was supposed to technically convince the claimants abouttheir non inclusion in GSP lists; if convinced their forms are filed at GRC. However, ifthe claimants convince GSP’s representative, her/his name was included in a list byGSP representative.• GSP representative had to submit the list to ERRA, for approval for conducting surveyof the houses/area of these claimants.• If ERRA agreed to conduct survey, they had to officially intimate GSP to send theirsurvey team to that particular area.• GSP’s team use to conduct the survey and submit a final list of identified HighlyHazardous resident families to ERRA.12

• ERRA use to send the GSP verified list to UN-HABITAT Country Office for invitingresidents of high hazardous areas to relevant LVU for further processing.Further processing is same as mentioned above in Group-A (GSP LISTS ONLY), from Ato HC). Category B• In case of Category B, after Traffic Form filling, the forms were filled at LVU on villagewise.• When the number of Traffic Forms from one particular village/area exceeded 20 forms,the LVU would send the record to UN-HABITAT Country Office for onward submissionto ERRA with a request to conduct survey of that particular village/area.• ERRA in turn sends the data to GSP and asks them to conduct survey accordingly.• GSP’s team would conduct the survey and will submit a final list of identified HighHazardous resident families to ERRA among the claimants.• ERRA use to send the GSP verified list to UN-HABITAT Head Office for invitingresidents of high hazardous areas to relevant LVU for further processing.Further processing is same as mentioned above in Group-A (GSP LISTS ONLY), from Ato HSPECIAL PHASE (EVFs)• In this phase all ERRA identified and verified EVFs were entertained.• ERRA use to verifiy landless EVFs in registered camps and repatriated EVFs wereinvited through invitation notice to visit the relevant LVU for registration.• The Land Verification Unit staff member use to fill in Form A (application form), B(affidavit) and C (power of attorney) for the EVF.• The applicant were asked to:o Get attestation on Form B by a local counciloro Complete the signing formality on Form C by his/her family members.o Submit both the forms within three working days to the relevant LVUo After submission, the applicant would receive a receipt for futurereference.o After completing forms B & C, the submitted forms were entered into LandInformation Management System (LIMS) along with form A• The particulars submitted were checked with NADRA records in order to verifyapplicant’s CNIC number, ERRA Rural Housing MOU number and the number oftranches received under the ERRA rural housing programme. It was also verifiedwhether the applicant had received land grant in the first phase or not from LIMSdatabase; as in case of first phase the case of the beneficiary use to be rejected. Oncethe status of the applicants housing subsidy is known, her/his application is handedover to the Revenue Officer to determine her/his ownership of the said property.• After clearance from NADRA/LIMS verification, the Revenue Officer (LVU) along withpatwari checked applicant’s ownership from the revenue records. In case it is ensuredthat s/he does not own more than 5 marlas of safe land other than the land on which13

I). Progressher/his house exists in the same patwar circle; s/he was qualified for Letter ofEntitlement.• In case it is proven from the revenue record that s/he owns more than 5 marlas of safeland the case use to be rejected and if the EVF was not in agreement with the decisionhe/she could submit her/his complaint to GRC against LVUs decision, by using FormF.Establishment of Land Verification Units:During Phase-I of RLL Programme, all the LVUs were fully equipped, with the inception of thesecond phase these units were re-opened and made functional at all locations. Most of these unitswere inside the premises of Tehsildar’s offices. Unfortunately due to shortage of office space UN-HABITAT had to quickly find more office space to accommodate increased staff members and toensure to provide free of rent premises since there was no budget for rental accommodation. Inthis phase IT facility was upgraded at Mansehra (which was supporting LVU Mansehra andBalakot, simultaneously), whereas, in Pattika and Hattian owe to very slow internet connectivity ITteam had to visit LVU Muzaffarabad for data entry.Progress of all LVUs:In 2008 ERRA provided lists of 4,161 resident families of high hazardous areas verified by GSPand the LVUs, the project was tasked to register them and process their cases according to thepolicy parameters i.e. adopting verification procedures. All the lists were sorted out according to thegeographical area of residence and the relevant LVUs were provided the data to chalk out theirwork plans accordingly.In this phase it had been decided to make registration process more focused and effective to savetime. Therefore, the work plans were based on the assumption that a group of at least 50 cases ofthe same patwar circle to be invited on a particular date and the tehsildars were asked to ensurepresence of patwari of the same patwar circle on that date for revenue record verification on spot.Later on ERRA used to provide GSP verified lists to UN HABITAT on regular basis for revenueverification and subsequent processing of the cases.A) GSP Listed Consolidated ProgressOverall during the reporting period, all six registered 35,111 traffic applications, out of which LVU’sinvited 13,843 families residents of high hazardous areas as declared by GSP, for registrationhowever out of the total, 1,150 applications were rejected after revenue record verification by theLVUs. Out of this total 12,693 cases were approved and 12,625 families have benefitted from theland grant to purchase safe land for construction of house through One Window Operationsconducted at all Tehsils on regular basis. 68 families decided not to avail the land grant due topersonal reasons.14

LVUGSP Listed Consolidated Progress ReportNo. ofNo. of No. ofTotal InvitedApproved RejectedTraffic HHCases CasesFamiliesNo. ofBeneficiariesBagh 6,439 6,439 1,910 73 1,907Balakot 10,149 4,045 3,835 210 3,809Hattian 4,370 1,990 1,651 339 1,647Mansehra 756 318 247 71 236Muzaffarabad 4,831 2,151 1,875 276 1,862Pattika 8,566 3,356 3,175 181 3,164Total 35,111 13,843 12,693 1,150 12,625B) ERRA’s EVFs Listed Consolidated ProgressOut of 490 identified EVFs, 292 have been entertained, however 40% (198 EVF) have not yetvisited LVU, due to the reason that they have repatriated from the camps to their point of origin,however it seems that most of them have migrated from their point of origin as well, therefore, theydid not receive invitation notices, Camp Management Organization (CMO) was intimated to locatethem but they were not traced therein. Our Social Mobilizers also tried to find them in the adjoiningvillages to their point of origin. Out of 292 registered EVF cases, 227 families were awarded Lettersof Entitlement, whereas, 65 cases were rejected after revenue verification at LVUs; 214 familiesavailed land grant through One Window Operations.C) Walk-Ins Survey ProgressThe second phase of registration commenced from September 1, 2008, when the LVUs startedentertaining walk-ins. By the deadline of November 30, 2008, a total of 27,480 claimants wereregistered as walk-ins by all the LVUs, out of which 70% (19,289 claimants) were Category B(Areas not surveyed yet), remaining 8,191 cases were Category A. The data of all cases washanded over to GSP and on the basis of which they work plan their survey activities.Walk-Ins Survey ProgressS. No. TehsilNo. oftrafficformsfilledCategories ofApplicationsCAT A CAT B1 Bagh 5,176 0 5,1762 Balakot 8,425 3,279 5,1463 Dhirkot 139 0 1394 Haveli 54 0 545 Hattian 2,812 1,610 1,2026 Mansehra 499 243 2567 Muzaffarabad 3,301 1,475 1,8268 Neelum 1285 861 4249 Pattika 5,789 723 5,066Total 27,480 8,191 19,28915

D). Status of Relationship among the Co-owners of newly purchased landAs a result of One Window Operations 12,625 families have become land owners, the break-up ofthe co-owners shows that 54% co-owners are male and 46% are females. Sons (32%) anddaughters (25%) are the major beneficiaries followed by Male Principal Owner (21%) and wives ofthe applicants (18%).E). Month-wise progress of distribution of land grants through One Window OperationsBar Chart Showing Monthly Progress of One Window Operations16

ERRA's Programme for Virtually Landless PeopleMonth-wise Progress StatusS.No. MonthTotalBeneficiariesRemarks1 Jul-08 0 From July 22, 2008, this phase was launched2 Aug-08 0 Invitation letters sent to the potential beneficiaries and registration3 Sep-08 250 Most of the events were conducted after September 25, 20084 Oct-08 628 All funds consumed in this month5 Nov-08 787 All funds consumed in this month6 Dec-08 556 All funds consumed in this month7 Jan-09 571 All funds consumed in this month8 Feb-09 778 All funds consumed in this month9 Mar-09 912 All funds consumed in this month10 Apr-09 787 All funds consumed in this month11 May-09 345 Due to shortage of funds planned One Window Operations could not be conducted12 Jun-09 259 Due to shortage of funds planned One Window Operations could not be conducted13 Jul-09 228 Due to shortage of funds planned One Window Operations could not be conducted14 Aug-09 42 Due to shortage of funds planned One Window Operations could not be conducted15 Sep-09 774 All funds consumed in this month16 Oct-09 0 USAID suspended One Window Operations17 Nov-09 1,041 All funds consumed in this month18 Dec-09 1166 Monthly target achieved19 Jan-10 12 The Project resumed from January 25,201020 Feb-10 644 All funds consumed in this month21 Mar-10 758 All funds consumed in this month22 Apr-10 315 Due to shortage of funds planned One Window Operations could not be conducted23 May-10 1,754 All funds consumed in this monthTotal 12,62517

Chapter 4: Grievance Redress Committee (GRC)To address grievances of rejected applicants, six Grievance Redress Committees (GRCs) wereestablished in the target areas adjacent to LVUs to maintain transparency and to facilitate theaggrieved to her/his satisfaction.1. Composition of Grievance Redress CommitteeChairperson: District Disbursement Officer (KPK), Assistant Commissioner (AJK)Staff:• A Revenue Officer• Admin Assistant• Representative from Civil Society• Representative from Geological Survey of Pakistan2. Scope of Work• To receive, record and decide upon any complaint / representation made with regardsto the preparation of the list of highly hazardous land residents.• To decide matters related to the process of disbursement of financial assistance.• To ensuring enforcement of legal rights such as inheritance, mutations and transferdeeds for all in general and vulnerable in particular.• To maintain Category A Referral Forms referred by LVU.• To submit record of Referral Forms to UN-HABITAT Country Office involving GSPRepresentative for hearing grievances of claimants.• To facilitate GSP representative during hearing procedure3. The Process• Only an applicant rejected by LVU could apply to the GRC using form F.• Using form F, (available at LVU). In Form F the aggrieved person’s version wasrecorded in detail.• The applicant within two weeks had to file a complaint to the GRC and GRC heard thecase of complainant.• The GRC had to refer to the files of the concerned LVU regarding the case.• The GRC had to call any other person, if deems necessary, to decide the matter. TheGRC could summon any witness (Patwari/LVU team Member) or revenue record fortransparency.• Decisions were taken unanimously or by majority within GRC.• The GRC could hold its sessions at any place in the Tehsil.• The GRC used to decide an application within a period of 4 weeks of its submission.• The GRC used to give a copy of the decision to the complainant within 3 days of theannouncement of decision.• A register for entry of registered complaints was maintained at each GRC.• A Peshi Register was also maintained at each GRC, indicating date wise cases fixedfor hearing.18

Progress• Daily/Weekly/Monthly progress reports were submitted to the Country Office forinclusion in LIMS database.• The GRC collected and filed the Referral Forms villages-wise.• When the number of Referral Forms from one particular village/area used to exceeds20 forms, the GRC had to send the record to UN-HABITAT Country Office for onwardsubmission to ERRA with a request for a visit of GSP’s representative.• ERRA in turn had to send the data to GSP and ask them to send their representativeto GRC within seven days of their instructions.• GSP representative had to inform the concerned GRC through UN-HABITAT CountryOffice about her/his visit itinerary.• The GRC use to inform the claimants to visit GRC on the day of GSP’srepresentative’s visit.• The GSP representative along with Revenue Officer GRC and a Social Mobilizerlistened to the grievances of the claimants.• The GSP representative had to technically convince the claimants about their noninclusion in GSP lists.• GSP representative had to get approval of ERRA for conducting survey of thehouses/area of GRC claimants.• ERRA officially had to intimate GSP to send their survey team to that particular area.• GSP’s team conducted the survey and use to submit a final list of identified HighlyHazardous resident families to ERRA.• ERRA use to send verified list to UN-HABITAT Country Office for inviting residents ofhighly hazardous areas to concerned LVU for further processing4. Appeals• Aggrieved who felt that the Grievance Redress Committees did not settle theircomplaint in satisfactory manner could appeal to DC/DCO by using Form G.• The appeal had to be filed by the aggrieved in writing within one week of thecommunication of the decision of concerned Grievance Redress Committee.Establishment of Grievance Redress Committee:Since in the first phase all the GRCs were equipped, with the inception of the second phase theseunits were opened and made functional at six locations. All units worked efficiently under thechairmanship of Assistant Commissioners (PAK) / District Disbursement Officer (KPK), andaddresses grievance applications.Out of rejected cases 3,253, 80% (2,588 cases) lodged their complaints GRCs. Out of which 64%(1,646 grievances) have been approved by GRC whereas 36% (943 grievances) have beenrejected.19

Progress of GRCsS.NoName of GRCNo. ofRejectedCasesForm FAppliedApprovedby GRCRejectedby GRC1 Bagh 317 287 204 832 Balakot 235 108 22 873 Hattian 839 586 386 2004 Mansehra 83 26 0 265 Muzzaffarabad 701 563 377 1866 Pattika 1,078 1,018 657 361Total 3,253 2,588 1,646 943Out of 943 rejected cases by the GRCs 25% (223 families) have lodged appeals to DC/DCO, out ofwhich 74% (172 families) appeals were approved by the competent authority and 26% (61 families)appeals have been rejected. However, out of 61 rejected cases only 15 cases have been filed inthe civil courts.Table Showing Processing of Appeals by Respective DCs/DCOsS. No. LocationNo. of AppealsReceivedNo. of ApprovedAppealsNo. of RejectedAppeals1 Bagh 9 9 02 Balakot 2 2 03 Hattian 138 89 494 Mansehra 12 12 05 Muzaffarabad 44 32 126 Pattika 28 28 0Total 233 172 6120

Chapter 5: Survey on status of Construction of Houses on New Landby the BeneficiariesBackground:During the consultative process between ERRA and UN HABITAT it was decided that to evaluateERRA’s Programme for Virtually Landless People and to determine the status of construction onnewly purchased land by the beneficiaries of land grant of Rs. 75,000/-. A door to door inspectionsurvey was conducted in the all affected tehsils and to decide the future course of action, on thebasis of survey findings.Objectives:Objective 1: To determine the status of construction of houses on safe land purchased by thelandless through ERRA’s land grant.Objective 2: To determine the status of housing grant subsidy received by the beneficiaries ofERRA’s Rural Landless Programme.Implementation of SurveyThe survey was conducted by UN HABITAT’s team from June 2, 2009 to July 10, 2009. The 35members’ survey team comprised of an IT Officer, Project Assistant, IT Assistant, SocialMobilisers, Admin Assistants and IT Assistants organized the survey successfully supported by thefield teams which covered 11 Tehsils of KPK and AJK.A questionnaire was developed with the help of the legal advisors and shared with ERRA forapproval, after its approval, the Country Team conducted two days training workshop for all thesurvey team members at Muzzaffarabad on June 20-21, 2009. An Instruction Manual on SurveyForm and the database was developed with the support of our IT Team to ensure uniformity in dataretrieval from the field, under the supervision of Database Officer. The Country team played asresource for the event, GIS expert of UN HABITAT imparted technical training on the use of GlobalPositioning System (GPS), where as the Survey Coordinator along with facilitators impartedtraining on the survey methodology and Instruction Manual on Survey Form.The survey started on June 2, 2009 simultaneously at all locations. After three days of testing ofsurvey questionnaire, it was improved on the basis of the feedback from the enumerators. The settarget was to approach 7000 beneficiaries of (both phases) to be covered during the survey period.However, it was realized that all the 39 days were not sufficient to survey, because of scatteredpopulation over the mountainous areas of KPK and AJK, mostly were inaccessible, Secondly thebeneficiaries had purchased land in different villages other than their origin of village. As theenumerators had to visit both the locations (i.e. old house and the new house on the landpurchased under ERRA’s rural landless programme) of the beneficiaries to take coordinates andretrieve required data from both the locations; hence the target of 7,000 families meant 14,000visits.On June 24, 2009 the survey activity was evaluated during Mid Term Evaluation exercise, in whichthe entire team participated and in this interactive workshop the processes were improved andquarries were addressed.21

AnalysisSample: Due to a number of internal and external factors and limited time duration out of the totalnumber of beneficiaries (7,616 families till that time), 40% families (3,112 families) were surveyedby the survey teams.1. Overall Construction Status:The result shows that out of (3,112 families) the total surveyed families most of them (77% / 2,399families) have not started construction of their houses on new land. Out of 23% (707 families) whohave started work on the new land, 48% (341 families) have completed construction of theirhouses, 28% (198 families) have plinth level construction, 12% (91 families) have lintel levelconstruction and 10% (71 families) have roof level construction.2. Phase-wise Construction Status:Out of the total number of beneficiaries of Phase-I 1730 families), 735 families (42%) weresurveyed. Out of 735 families, 339 families (46%) had not started construction, whereas, 185families (25%) had completed the construction of their houses on the new land. 133 families (18%)had plinth level construction, 45 families (5%) had lintel level construction and 33 families (4%)had roof level construction.Out of the total number of beneficiaries of Phase-II (5886 families), 2,377 families (39%) weresurveyed. Out of 2,377 families, 2,066 families (86%) had not started construction, whereas, 158families (6%) had completed construction of their houses on the new land. 66 families (2%) hadplinth level construction, 49 families (2%) had lintel level construction and 38 families (1%) hadroof level construction.3. Interested to Build House:2446 families (78%) were interested to build houses on the new land; however, out of which 2335families (75%) could not start work due to shortage of funds, among them 92 families (3%) wereheaded by vulnerables, 62 families (2%) had not signed Housing MOU, hence were not eligible forhousing grant. 22% were not interested to build houses on the newly purchased land.4. Housing Grant Subsidy2468 families (79%) had received second tranche, whereas, 2363 families (75%) had received thefirst tranche, 1943 families (62%) had received the third tranche, 1665 families (53 %) had receivedthe fourth tranche and only 169 families (5%) had received no money.Status Housing Grant SubsidiaryTranche Amount Families %ageTranche‐I 25,000 2335 75%Tranche‐II 75,000 2468 79%Tranche‐III 25,000 1943 62%Tranche‐IV 50,000 1665 53%No Tranche 0 169 5%22

5. VulnerabilityOut of the total sample size of 3,112 families surveyed, 40% (1252 families) 32% (329 families) areheaded by elderly without care(60 year age and more, 13% (167 families) are widows, 4% (53families) are headed by Persons with Disabilities (PWD) and 1% are orphans.6. Inspection AgencyHousing Inspection was only conducted of 501 families (16%).. Out of which 251 families (50%)were inspected by PPAF, 38% were inspected by UNHABITAT and 6% were inspected byPakistan Army.7. MOU Verification2,849 families (91%) had signed housing MOUs, only 242 families (7%) were found without anMOU8. Type of Construction576 families (18%) out of the total sample size, 3,398 families (58%) had used blocks inconstruction of their houses and 72 families (29%) had used timber in the construction of theirhouses.9. Verification of Houses1,659 houses (53%) were identified by the neighbors, 1,339 houses (43%) were identified by thesocial mobilizers of UNHABITAT and 101 houses (3%) were identified by VRC (VillageReconstruction Centers)10. Type of HazardAs per GSP assessment, 1,804 (43%) were under the threat of land sliding, 1,149 houses (25%)were threatened by rock fall, 545 houses were (12%) were located at steep slopes, 425 houses(9%) were threatened by edge failure, 321 houses (7%) were threatened by under cutting, 2%(112 houses) are threatened by nullah-cutting and 2% (100 houses) are threatened by flash floods.Challenges Faced During Survey• Movement to the field from LVU was very time consuming as the major roads in AJK wereunder construction, with heavy machinery blocking traffic for hours.• Clearing and passing through Army security check points were also time consuming as theyhad to check the documents and the vehicles thoroughly on the way to target areas.• Almost 95% of the beneficiaries had constructed/repaired their houses nearby to their originaladdresses and they had spent housing grant subsidy on previous houses and now they wereout of funds for construction of their house at newly purchased piece of land.• Due to absence of family head or male member of the family at the time of survey takinginterview/information was sometimes quite difficult; as mostly they move to lower grounds inthe months the survey was conducted.• It was also found out that during registration process beneficiaries gave their UC name as theirvillage address; it became difficult to locate majority of them.23

• Scattered population and difficulties in identification of actual spots.• Lack of interest shown by the community members e.g. in Dandar, Keth Sarish, Satbani,(Balakot) etc because the community thinks that they will not receive further assistance forconstruction of houses.• In few cases beneficiaries jointly purchased land due to which the team faced difficulties intaking coordinates for each beneficiaries separatelyConclusion• Most of the families (78%) are interested to build houses on the new land but due to lack offunds they are not able to construct.• 25% have not received the first tranche, 21% have not received the second tranche and 5 %)had not received no tranche under the rural housing programme. 47% families have notreceived the fourth tranche whereas, 38% had not received the third tranche of housing grantsubsidy• 242 families (7%) had no MOU.• 198 families (28%) have plinth level construction, 12% (91 families) have lintel levelconstruction and 10% (71 families) have roof level construction.• Out of 3,112 families surveyed only 10% (341 families) have shifted to new houses, whereas,the rest are living in their previous houses located in highly hazardous zone.• From the data it is observed that the new land is away from the previous house in almost 95%cases, as local patwaris were well aware of the situation in the area and they never acceptedmutation of the land in GSP declared hazardous area.• 75% have received Tranche-1, 79% have received Tranche-II, 62% have received Tranche-IIIand 53% families have received Tranche-IV. All these tranches were received on the basis ofMOU of the previous house and mostly this money has been spent on the old house. However,there are some families who saved the tranches and later used the money on the new houseon the new land.• The issue of high percentage (22%) of families not interested to build a new house on thenewly purchased land the consequences for the programme; was shared with ERRA's legalwing. However, if they are issued MOU for tranches most of them may show their interest inreconstruction on the new land.Recommendations• Re-tranching of housing grant subsidy through inspection modality is recommended for allthose families who are interested to build their houses on newly purchased land and thosefamilies who have stopped construction work due to shortage of funds.• MOUs shall be issued to those families who don’t possess MOU.[Note: These recommendations had been shared with ERRA. ERRA rejected the suggestion of retranching forreconstruction of new house but anyway the provision of land to vulnerable families is a landmark success.]24

Chapter 6: Extremely Vulnerable Families (EVFs)Vulnerable families had been categories as follows:‣ Landless due to earthquake 2005‣ Widow/Female Headed Household (FHH),‣ Elderly without care‣ Orphan‣ Persons with Disabilities (PWDs)Under the policy the specific needs of vulnerable groups were facilitated through the partnerorganizations and Social Protection Coordination meetings. In these weekly meetings the specificneeds of the most vulnerable groups were assessed and issues were identified, such as landentitlement, access to land and capacity to purchase land etc. The inclusion of the social protectioncoordinator in the Land Verification Unit team ensured at district level that vulnerable families havebeen facilitated. Partner organizations through village reconstruction committees also accessedvulnerable families.The policy ensures that the mutation of the newly acquired land is in the name of all the familymembers, which includes husband, wife, and dependent children. Orphans were representedthrough guardian for processing of their application as principal applicant with land mutation is inorphan’s name.Progress:In this phase, (Extremely Vulnerable Families) EVFs were categorized into two categories, ERRA’sverified vulnerable families and EVFs included in GSP’s lists of residents of high hazardous areas.A). ERRA’s Verified EVFs:Out of total 490 EVFs cases of 292 were processed, however 40% (198 EVF) never visited LVU,due to the reason that they have repatriated from the camps to other places, Camp ManagementOrganization (CMO) also applied efforts to locate them but this was merely done. Our SocialMobilisers also tried to find maximum IDPS in the adjoining villages to their point of origin. Out of292 registered EVF cases, 227 families benefited through One Window Operations, whereas, 65cases have been rejected after revenue verification at LVUs.Table showing Progress of LVUs regarding ERRA’s Verified EVFsNo. ofInvitedHHFamiliesNo.ofFormFilledNo. ofApprovedCasesNo. ofRejectedCasesNo OfOneWindowOperationsLVU NameBagh 4 4 3 1 3Balakot 39 39 27 12 26Hattian 37 31 16 15 16Mansehra 0 0 0 0 0MZD 386 195 164 31 155Pattika 24 23 17 6 14Total 490 292 227 65 21425

Out of the total 214 registered EVFs 47% are widows, 20% are elderly, 20% are disabled, 10% aremedical cases and 3% are orphans.A). GSP Listed EVFs:A total of 2,699 EVFs benefited from land grant, out of which 63% were elderly (60 years plus),30% were widows, 2% were orphans, 4% were disabled and 1% were medical cases.Table showing Progress of GSP Listed EVFsS.No.LocationType of VulnerabilityWidow Elderly Orphan Disabled Medical Total1 Bagh 107 283 7 7 2 4062 Balakot 322 585 3 41 1 9523 Hattian 75 212 15 15 2 3194 Mansehra 9 31 0 1 0 415 Muzzaffarabad 147 150 16 42 13 3686 Pattika 146 451 5 8 3 613Total 806 1,712 46 114 21 2,69926

Chapter 7: Case StudiesA). Azad Bara (District Bagh): A Journey from Landless to LandownerBackground: Azad Bara is a remote and far flung villager of Tehsil Bagh. It is situated near Line ofControl .This area is not only prone to natural disasters like avalanches, landslides and rock fallsbut it is also affected by the cross fire between Indian and Pakistani forces, a large part of this areais mined as well. Due to heavy snow fall the whole area remains covered with snow fromDecember to June. Resultantly, the whole village remains cut off from the entire world for sixmonths in winters. According to the residents of Azad Bara village, prior to Earthquake of October2005, there were 363 families (extended) were living in the village.Due to non availability of basic facilities such as roads, health and education facilities etc, thepopulation of the village was living very difficult life. There was neither any road nor any otherfacility of basic life. During the earthquake, maximum area was badly damaged, 8 people died and30 got injured. All the mud houses collapsed and the residents of the village were compelled torelocate to safer areas.Azad Bara earthquake affected community still living in camp Tehsil BaghSoon after the earthquake, with the help of Pakistani Army, the affected population was shifted torefugee’s camp situated in District Bagh. These camps were established by the governmentaccommodate earthquake affected families. The camps were managed and supervised by CampManagement Office (CMO) under the supervision of the Commissioner. The families who havebeen shifted in these camps were provided temporary shelter, food and other necessary items bythe government as well as non governmental organizations.Initially the camps were over burdened but gradually most of the families who have enoughresources and safe land shifted to their permanent residences. Still a large number of the affecteeswere unable to go back to their permanent locations because some of them have lost their landdue to landslide and some of them had highly hazardous of land where they could not constructtheir houses.After the closure of these camps people of Azad Bara once again found themselves helpless. Inaddition, the owner of the camp-land also forced them to vacate his land .However, after severalmeetings with the owner of camp’s land it was decided that each family will pay 300 per month tothe owner as rent and since 2008 these affected families are used to pay rent out of their ownresources.During ERRA’s Landless Project Phase I; these families submitted their applications to LVU Baghwhich were rejected because they were not fulfilling the policy criteria at that time.27

Community of Azad Bara being briefed about RLL-II policyWhen the second phase of ERRA’s Project for Virtually Landless people was launched, a targetedawareness campaign was started in the earthquake affected areas of AJK and KPK. As soon asthe project was launched in Bagh, these affected people were approached and briefed about theproject criteria as well as about the role of UN-HABITAT, ERRA, GSP and Revenue Departmentfor the implementation of the project Phase-II.After persistent efforts of Senior Member Board of Revenue(Azad Jammu and Kashmir) and UN-HABITAT LandlessSteering Committee agreed to facilitate the residents of KhalsaSarkar (crown land); and requested Geological Survey ofPakistan (GSP) to conduct survey of these areas. In the monthof December 2008, GSP conducted a survey of Azad Bara anddeclared 227 families as the residents of highly hazardous area.Soon after this survey the Land Verification Unit (LVU) Bagh sent invitation notices to thesefamilies to visit LVU Bagh and submit their applications. The LVU team after revenue verificationdeclared all 227 families as the potential beneficiaries of land grant under ERRA’s VirtuallyLandless Project and Letters of Entitlement (LoE) were awarded to them with the advice to submitbuyer/seller information within the given time period. The people of Azad Bara wanted to purchaseof land where they can live altogether. This emerged as a big challenge for these families becausethe land holdings in AJK are very less. In the last week of January 2009, LVU Bagh distributedcertificates of entitlement among these families but due to the unavailability of big piece of landthey could not arrange any seller who can sell his land to these families. In addition, the localpeople of Bagh were not selling their land to these families because they have shown theirconcerns regarding the collective relocation and resettlement of theses families in their area.Therefore, it resulted delay in submission of seller information and affected LVU progress badly.However, when the issue of unavailability of land was brought into the notice of UN-HABITAT,realizing the sensitivity of the issue, two more social mobilizers were relocated to Bagh to resolvethis issue. Therefore, several meetings were arranged with the notables and government officials inorder to discuss the issue and find the solution.Community of Azad Bara being mobilized to purchase safe land28

On March 13, 2009 UN-HABITAT team had a meeting with the community of Azad Bara.Beneficiaries were of the view that land is unavailable, but the main reason for the delay was thatthey wanted to purchase land collectively and wanted to settle down at one place. Some of themwere of the view that government should help them in the provision of land. Community membersagreed to get land in small groups wherever it was available. The result of the meeting was fruitfulcommunity members submitted seller information and submitted all the required documents ofnewly purchased land at LVU Bagh. Soon after this negotiation, the Land Verification Unit Baghannounced the dates for One Window Operation in which all the stakeholders invited and themutation process was completed as per policy criteria. On this occasion, after a long suffering anddifficulties the people of Azad Bara once again became the owner of safe land. These earthquakeaffected families have purchased land in village Jaglari, Islam Nagar and Nar Sher Ali Khan.The Tehsildar of Bagh, “This is the prime responsibility of any government to protect thelives of its people, therefore, government, by knowing the fact could not leave these peopleat the mercy of any calamity”. added, “This issue always remained a big challenge for thegovernment but now we are pleased and pay thanks to USAID, DFID, ERRA, UN HABITATand all the stakeholders who have really done a great job”. Regarding future challenges hesaid, “In near future we also have great challenges such as availability of road, water andsanitation and provision of emergency shelter to the beneficiaries of Azad Bara.”A beautiful view of newly purchased land at UC Jaglari Tehsil BaghMr. Sulaiman Khan, 61 year old (Ex member Local Council, Azad Bara Village) explained thesufferings and miseries of his life a follows, “We suffered a lot. There was a life threat as long,our lives, property and livelihood were at risk but there was no other option except toprepare ourselves to fight with these hurdles.”He further said that community had to fight with two different enemies all the time-one was Indianarmy and the second was natural calamities like avalanches, rock fall and land slide. He furthersaid that they had to remain inside through-out the winter season. The city was not approachable.Therefore, in order to buy goods, they were used to shear all these things before the winter. Whenit was asked that how they feel after becoming the owner of new piece of land which is much betterthan their previous land?He said, “Though we can not forget our old place, trees and meadows but after getting newpiece of land we are very happy and even our children are happier because now be able tolead a prosperous and peaceful life.” He said that entire community of Azad Bara he is thankfulto DFID, USAID, ERRA, UN-HABITAT, Revenue Department and all the stake-holders who haveprovided them a safe piece of land. He was of the view that now they want to settle their families29

on newly purchased land but there are some problems and requested to all the humanitarianagencies and government to provide road, water and shelter.He said, “This is our humble request to the government and other organizations to provideus road, shelter and remaining tranches of housing grant so that we can start constructionof our houses on newly purchased land. Without the support of government and otheragencies it is not possible for us to construct our houses.”Walayat Jan & Bishara Begum while sharing their experiencesOut of 227 cases of Azad Bara 14 female head of house hold got land ownership. Walayat Jan, 65,widow of Ali Hussain is the resident of Azad Bara. The distinction of ERRA’s Programme forVirtually Landless People is that women are also getting the land ownership rights through thisProgramme. She faced the same problems and challenges as the rest of the community. She wasof the view that their sufferings increased more after the earthquake 2005.She said “I can-not count the sufferings which we have faced before and after theearthquake especially our females suffered a lot. There was no basic health unit therefore;in case of any emergency our females were at the mercy of circumstances especially duringdelivery days and many married women died during birth of child. I am happy that I havebecome land owner and I will construct earthquake resistant house for my family”Another beneficiary Ms. Bishara Begum 23 year old also explained her experiences and sharedher views about newly purchased land. She said that “I am thankful to ERRA, UN HABITAT andthe donors for providing me the opportunity to buy safe land to construct a safe home formy family”.“It was a surprise for me!!”.Name of Beneficiary: Zulaikha BibiVillage Name: DakhanUnion Council: PanjkotDistrict Name: MuzaffarabadZulaikha Bibi lost her husband Abdul Rasheed and her youngest son in the earthquake. Before theearthquake her husband’s land was more than four kanals and they all were living a very happylife. She had some cattle whereas her husband was running a shop in his village.30

Zulaikha had a small house; made of stone and mud. OnOctober 8, 2008, her house was damaged and cattle diedduring this disaster. She also got severe injuries at thattragic day and became helpless. She spent more than twoweeks at a temporary place with the rest of the community.While explaining about the damages and loses of October8 th , 2008 she said, “I have almost seen angel of death inmy village and the helplessness of the people of myvillage who were crying for their beloved ones whohave gone away forever….”Due to aftershocks and constant rainfall, a large number of the area became highly hazardous anddue to this the whole community migrated from the land where they had been living since birthtowards some safer places. “We spent more than 10 days without any help because the onlykatcha road which also got completely damaged.” said Zulaikha.Through the aid provided by the army, the bereaved family gotsome blankets, food and tents after a week. Few days after theinitial response from the NGOs/INGOs, a large number of thefamilies started migration towards Muzzaffarabad andRosalinda for better opportunities and facilities.Zulaikha with her kids remained in her village and did not leaveher village because Zulaikha and her younger daughter wereinjured and could not walk easily. “I did not leave my villagebecause I could not go away from the graves of my husband and son,” said Zulaikha.They had to face another difficulty and that was winter. Zulaikha built a temporary shelter as wellas they had to collect timber for fuel and food for winter season. For winter season they had toprepare themselves otherwise they could face another calamity as well. She said “By the grace ofAlmighty Allah we safely passed the winter though we faced many difficulties but now theyall seem very minor,”Zulaikha got first tranche from rural housing grant and Rs.200,000 for death claims of her husbandand son. She had spent that entire amount and failed to build a house for her kids.“Unfortunately, I had spent all that amount because I do not have enough financialresources”, said Zulaikha.In the month of August 2008, she received a letter from ERRAin which she was declared as the resident of highly hazardousarea and was advised to report at LVU Pattika for registration.She said, “It was very much surprising for me”.As it was mentioned in the notice, she visited at LVU Pattikawhere her form was filled. After revenue verification and othernecessary actions, she was issued letter of entitlement (LOE).After receiving LOE, she started searching for a safer piece of land where she can build a smallhouse for her kids. Soon she got land in the adjoining village and informed the Land VerificationUnit Pattika (LVU).31

On September 25 th she got cheque of Rs.75,000 through One Window Operation and became thebeneficiary of ERRA’s Programme for Virtually Landless People Phase II. Later on, she startedthe construction of new house at newly purchased safe land.“An opportunity for Virtually Landless People”Muhammad Anwar Khan, a resident of village Nainan Tehsil Hattian District Muzzaffarabad, was amason by profession and earning a sufficient income for his family before earthquake. 8 th Oct 2005earthquake destroyed the physical structure of Hattian in general and village Nainan in particular.According to the words of Muhammad Anwar Khan;‘As a result of this fatal earthquake, I got ruined and lost my property of 12 kanals due to theland sliding whereas no safe land left to reconstruct the house for my family’.He added that before earthquake he was living happily with his 9 family members, his father, 4daughters, 2 sons and his wife. He lost his 2 daughters due to this drastic earthquake. He furthersaid that his family was completely helpless after the earthquake and all the family members spentsome nights without shelter and food. After three days, the rescue workers approached andprovided food to all the affectees of Nainan village. Later on the affectees were shifted to a tentvillage where the life turned very difficult during winters without enough protection.In 2008, Muhammad Anwar Khan learnt about “ERRA’s Rural Landless Programme (Phase II) forvirtually landless people”. Then he received an intimation letter by Land Verification Unit (LVU),Hattian asking him to register his case for land compensation. After going through a verycomprehensive process of verification by Revenue Staff, a technical team of Geological Survey ofPakistan visited his place for geological assessment. After clearance by the geologists, he pursuedfor purchase of a suitable piece of land. LVU declared him a deserving affectee and completeddocumentation procedures which were required to mutate the land. Finally, Muhammad Anwarpurchased a safe piece of land of 5 Marlas through “One Window Operation” held on November03, 2009.After achieving the piece of land, he applied for housing compensation and availed Rs.125,000/- sofar under ERRA’s Rural Housing Programme. He has built his earthquake resistant house at safeplace in Nainan village and is living happily with his family. Muhammad Anwar is satisfied now andhe is looking forward to have a better life in future.32

Chapter 8: Land Information Management System (LIMS)Landless Information Management system (LIMS) is web based monitoring system used forinformation management. LIMS was linked with ERRA’s Rural Housing Financial System andLandless programme Phase-I. For the verification, and avoid any duplications LIMS verifiedindividual applications entered against Phase-1 data. LIMS phase-2 also records information forGRC Referral persons, EVF Families and Walk-in Persons.LIMS is a unique system for the revenue department in the affected areas, details of each LandVerification Unit visitor is recorded. On the basis of trending, suggestions are forwarded to Countryoffice, Islamabad for Landless Steering Committee’s consideration. For example the father and soncases and hazardous land issues came up for review and consideration. Traffic per location wasalso captured and accordingly support to Land Verification Unit could be provided and planned.For the purpose of web based reporting a powerful tool Microsoft SQL Server Reporting Serviceswas used. Seagate Crystal Reports 10, 11 are also used as reporting tools. Seagate CrystalReports is third party software which is specially used for powerful, critical, graphical & complexweb based reporting. LIMS can provide graphical representation of these reports as well.Different Types of Reports Generated from LIMS• LIMS Update Report ( At every time user can get updated )• Applications Submission LVU wise Report.• System Dashboard (Summary of the System)• Applications Submission Users wise Report.• LIMS Monitoring & Tracking Report• Detail of GSP Approved / Rejected Applicants• Invitation Letters for GSP Approved Persons• Rejection Letters for GSP Rejected Persons• Live Monitoring & Tracking Report at any time• Revenue Verification.• Applications Gender disaggregated Report.• Detail of EVF Report• EVF with Gender disaggregated Report.• Detail of NADRA Rejected• Detail of NADRA Approved• Detail of Certificate of Entitlement• DG Financial Disbursement Request• Summary of Financial Request• Grievance Redress Committee Monitoring & Tracking Report• Grievance Redress Committee Decision Report (Decision Wise)• Detail of Seller Information• Detail of One Window Operation• XML file of One Window Operation• Detail of One Window Operation Results• Detail of Appeal Form Decision Wise33

LIMS can generate reports on daily, weekly, monthly and yearly basis, besides these reports perLVU wise, state/province wise and or UC wise can also be obtained. The LMIS bi weekly reportwas sent to the followings:Why LIMS?1. ERRA2. Senior Member Board of Revenue3. SERRA/PERRA4. UN-HABITAT5. District AdministrationThe purpose of Landless Information Management System (LIMS) was to:• Collect, process and store the application procedures from registration (Phase-I and Phase II)One Window Operation based on the Rural Landless policy.• Electronic and physical verification of each application.• Develop a web-based secure centralized database to capture process and prepare reports onthe progress of financial assistance to the earthquake affected people.• Tracking, monitoring production of reports on progress of project, real time anytime, anywhere.New Features in LIMSLIMS was developed in-house during implementation of Phase-I. To accommodate the policy forphase II, several changes were introduced in the design of the system that further triggeredchanges in functionality of the system. Some major functions of LIMS plus are outlined as follows:• Initially a desktop application was developed but later on it was converted into online webbased system with centralized database.• Forms A, B, and C also went through many changes at many stages, after these forms werestarted practically filling in the LVU.• NADRA automatic verification feature was added into the software, which checked a certainForms automatically as and when it is entered. However at a later stage manual NADRA checkwas also added to the system for transparency.• LIMS in the beginning did not have any information of the housing cash grant received by theapplicant. Information on the tranches received by the applicant was also added into thesystem.• Business process diagram was replaced with financial disbursement request as per ERRA’spolicy.• There was a provision for applicants to apply with old National Identity Card (NIC), but later onit was decided to entertain people with computerized NIC only.• One window module was a simple desktop application but after some time it was designed intoa four steps procedure. After the completion of all steps the beneficiary was provided with acopy of the certificate in PDF format with details of buyer, sellers, and witness etc.• After one window operation was completed for a particular, the entire information wasuploaded into LIMS, thus making the entire data available online within 24 hours.• A new module was developed in LIMS for Phase II, with the help of which daily traffic control ateach LVU was controlled and monitored.• There had been many changes made in form F and G for the Phase-II.34

• GSP was providing list of potential beneficiaries and hazardous land information based on theirsurvey. LIMS plus was modified accordingly to accommodate these changes in the verificationprocess i.e. make use of GSP lists for applicant verification.• A simple Form had also been designed for the applicants to submit their claims at GrievancesRedresses Committee.• V3 Checklist for 3rd tranche functionality was added in LIMS and spot verification picturesuploading facility was also added.• LIMS had also been modified to keep records of different categories of vulnerabilities and alsogenerated sheets/data details based on their type.• LIMS was designed to capture offline data for One Window Operations in remote villages, butlater it was decided to conduct all the One Window Operations at LVU level. As a resultgenerator was never used during the OWO.Major Shortcomings• Due to rapid implementation of the phase II for Virtually Landless people, there was very littletime for System analysis; as a result several changes were made at a later stage along withthe changes in the policy and operation of the project.• LIMS was developed in-house; there were no precedence of similar system developmentavailable that could have been a model for the team. As a result the developers often lackeddirection, but eventually got it right based on the demand of the project.• Virtual Landless project experienced different internet connectivity issues in all the LVU/GRC.Some LVU/GRC required new internet connections from the local internet service providers.• Due to lack of communication between MIS and the operation team of project, data entry wasslow at the beginning but later on with proper guidance and management situation improved atthe later stages of the project.• Frequent changes in reporting and data entry requirements delayed the work• The Virtual Landless Policy was reviewed regularly and was implemented on the basis ofdecision of Landless steering committee & feedback by the lessons learnt field team. It was acritical challenge for the team to incorporate the changes in LIMS and keep reporting at thesame time.Achievements and Lesson Learnt• With proper support and guidance a complicated information management system can bedeveloped in- house.• The MIS team for LIMS learnt various web based reporting techniques during theimplementation of LIMS. This knowledge was an asset for the Hazardous project.• LIMS was designed with online and offline capability. Successful implementation of 69 OneWindow Operations, in phase one of the project, created hands on experiences for ITassistants in the field. In many cases IT assistants along with LVU staff conducted OneWindow Operation without any support from MIS unit.• Interactions with Revenue officers gave an opportunity to the MIS team to understand the Landregistration system in the country.• Most of the reports and data requests were delivered on time. This was a key achievement ofthe project which is being followed for the phase II.• LIMS created awareness among the state/provincial governments and ERRA about effectivehow an online information management system affectively helps government to assist ruralcommunity in a transparent and effective way.35

Chapter 9: Geological Survey of Pakistan (GSP)Geological Survey of Pakistan (GSP) provides basic and impartial geo-scientific informationnecessary to explore, and conserve the country's natural resources and their related eco-systems.GSP was mandated under ERRA’s Programme for Virtually Landless People to conduct surveys ofhazardous areas of AJK and KPK to identify residents of high hazardous areas. The list of GSPdeclared residents of high hazardous areas was shared with UN HABITAT through ERRA forrevenue record verification at LVUs to access land grant through One Window Operations.The families which were not included in the list of GSP identified affectees and thought that theyare residents of high hazardous area visited the LVUs were dealt with into two categories of walkinsi.e. Category A and Category B (process mentioned in Chapter 3: Land Verification Unit):The Process• Data of all applicants of the areas mentioned in the work plan was shared with GSP.• GSP in consultation with Landless Department of UN HABITAT use to prepare work-plansto conduct survey of the hazardous areas to identify residents of highly hazardous areas.• The Deputy Commissioner/ District Coordination Officer of the relevant district and theLVU/GRC staff were intimated about the visit of GSP the officer to make the necessaryarrangements.• The concerned LVU use to assign one Social Mobiliser and the relevant patwari to workwith GSP officer during the survey period.• GSP officers use to conduct survey of the applicants according to the work planaccompanied by Monitoring Officer of Social Protection ERRA.• After completion of survey, the GSP officer use to submit the data to ERRA for onwardsubmission to UN HABITAT.• UN HABITAT had to provide DSA to the GSP officers on survey visit and arrangetransportation for them.ProgressA). Surveys conducted by GSP for UN HABITAT:GSP has conducted surveys in AJK and KPK as under:• Reconnaissance survey conducted by GSP in December, 2008 (refer the map of targetarea)• GSP conducted survey of category A cases in February 2009.• GSP conducted survey of category A and category B cases of KPK in June, July, 2009.• GSP conducted survey of category A and category B cases of AJK in July, 2009.• GSP conducted survey of category A and category B cases of KPK and AJK inSeptember, 2009.• GSP conducted survey of category A and category B cases of KPK and AJK in February-March, 2010.B). Surveys conducted by GSP for ERRA:GSP conducted surveys in AJK and KPK for ERRA as under:36

• Survey of KPK and AJK in 2008 (6,475 families)• Survey by Senior Member Board of Revenue (AJK) list of affectees living in Athmuqam,Dhirkot and Haveli where no LVU was established (4,462 families)• Survey of District Nazim Mansehra (KPK) list of affectees in August 2009 (856 families)Overall Progress:GSP conducted spot surveys of all 39,379 applicants in AJK and KPK out of which theydeclared 13,843 families as residents of highly hazardous areas.37

Challenges• The institutional capacity and lack of manpower of GSP resulted in delays inconducting surveys which created public displeasure with the progress of LVUs. Therewas delay on numerous occasions by the GSP officers in submission of verified lists ofapplicants to ERRA, which delayed the verification processes as well.• The walk-in applications came from a scattered and across a large area. The harshterrain and scattered population was a challenge for the GSP teams, verification visitstook a considerable amount of time. The terrain of the cases was difficult in most of theinstances: The applicants came from high altitude areas, and many were inaccessibleby transport; as a result the teams had to trek the mountains to reach the spot; onaverage the distance between each case was 2-3 km.• Bad weather: As the target areas tend to be in high altitude locations, rain and snowfallmade it more difficult to conduct surveys. In some areas these spots were completelyinaccessible for several months of the year.• Political interference: In AJK and KPK, the local Nazims, Members of NationalAssembly (MNA) and Members of Provincial Assembly (MPA), members of communitywho were influential, often tried to influence the Land Verification Unit staff membersto entertain non-deserving cases.• Fake claims: Almost 70% of the applicants were rejected due to submitting fakeclaims; this resulted in spending verifications time on highly unlikely cases.• Revenue officials were overburdened with workload: the involvement of key revenueofficials was critical for this policy. The Tehsildars, Patwaris had to actively participatein Land Verification Unit work, however it was not always the case due to their existingofficial commitments.• Baseline Data for landless claims: The GSP teams after survey informed all thesurveyed households that they had been declared high hazardous and they willreceive the land grant through their relevant LVUs. It resulted in extra burden of workfor the LVU/GRC staff as they had to entertain visitors claiming that they have beendeclared as beneficiaries by GSP officers.• Time for ERRA to process financial release request to SMBR: on average a requestfrom UN-HABITAT to ERRA to release funds for One Window Operations was 10days; in case of delays in this process work plans for scheduled One WindowOperations were postponed in the months of May 2009, June 2009, July 2009, August2009 and April 2010. Due to the same problem the monthly targets of disbursement ofland grant among beneficiaries were badly affected and it also resulted in increase inthe workload in the subsequent months.• In the month of October 2009, no One Window Operations could be conducted asUSAID suspended disbursement of land grant due to some internal reasons.• Size of Land Verification Unit team: Keeping in view the scope of activities the LandVerification Unit had to undertake, meet, interview and orient all visitors to the LandVerification Unit, conduct verification processes and basic administrative duties, thesize of Land Verification Unit team was quite small.• At all stations a large number of claimants visited the Land Verification Units, due tothe space constraints at the Land Verification Unit, the traffic was overwhelming.• The LVU staff had an increase in their workload by the numerous activities they havebeen tasked to undertake. On average the Retired Revenue Officer had to interviewbeneficiaries, write his report, discuss with the revenue officials, develop and plan workplans for physical inspection of sites, while the Admin Assistant had to support himalong with the IT Assistant to maintain the office records and correspondence in order.38

• Coordinating and ensuring the availability of the Tehsildar/Patwari for each inspectionsite was challenging.• LVU teams at many occasion had to stay at the field for a full working week to clearcases in certain areas. Especially in cases of Pattika (AJK) and Balakot (KPK) wherethe LVU team together with revenue staff had to stay for 7 days in far flung areas.• Another big challenge was to entertain fresh applications that were coming in routineand after announcement through media about the deadline, the numbers of applicantsincreased manifolds. The LVU staff remained busy in interviewing and form filling frommorning continued till late evening.• In AJK a major challenge was faced when the Government transferred mutationpowers from revenue department to judiciary. Revenue department protested againstthis order and went on strike for three weeks. The process of one window suffereddelays, eventually One-Windows Operations scheduled at Pattika, Hattian,Muzzaffarabad and Bagh had to be postponed because revenue department refusedto cooperate whereas judiciary had to take charge.39

Conclusion• 13,843 families have been interviewed and processed through the rural landlessproject in 6 locations; out of which 12,625 families became co-owners of land whichthey bought from land grant through ERRA’s Rural Landless Policy.• More than 27,000 walk-in applications were processed by all the LVUs in just twomonths (October and November, 2008)..• The computerized Land Information Management System has been customized forthis phase and it was utilized by the revenue department and the project personnel.• The program assumed that Land Verification Unit / Grievance Redress Committeestaff would be accommodated within government premises. A significant amount oftime was spent in finding cost free accommodation through the first weeks ofimplementation of program.• As per the policy, physical inspection of the applicant’s location by GSP wasmandatory, the higher number of applications received before the deadline ofNovember 30, 2008 resulted in over burdening of already under capacity organizationof GSP. Due to which surveys were delayed and subsequently GSP failed to submitfinal lists on tine. All such delays affected the progress of LVUs.• ERRA Social Protection as the lead ERRA department for rural landless program wassupported by ERRA rural housing, environment, DG planning and provincial/stateofficials through the steering committee for oversight and policy support/revisionthrough the implementation phase.• The UN-HABITAT rural housing program in AJK had been a considerable support forthe Land Verification Unit for infrastructure/operations management which was notplanned.• The initial planned management team for the rural landless project was insufficient tomeet the project activities for such an extensive program across 6 areas in twolocations i.e. AJK and KPK. A budgetary reallocation readjustment was necessary toincrease field staff support.• Mid course review of project progress: Five exercises were conducted at all locationsand the Head Office as well to review mechanism, procedures and progress.• Mapping of applications and outreach of campaign and project outreach wasconducted: All the targeted areas in the relevant Tehsils were mapped according tonumber of applications received and gaps were identified accordingly.• Reorganization of LVU staff according to needs and traffic: keeping in view heavytraffic at certain LVUs, the staff members from other LVUs with lesser daily traffic wererelocated to Balakot, Hattian and Muzzaffarabad to share the burden of workload.• To properly accelerate the revenue verification process of the approved cases, workplan were prepared at each LVU with the consultation of relevant Patwaris, Tehsildarand ACs. The same work plans were also shared with the DCs/DCOs and SMBR atAJK level, so that they can direct the relevant revenue officials to plan accordingly.• GSP surveys were conducted at 9 tehsils and the LVU staff did their best to facilitatethe GSP officers in all aspects of survey.• Due to heavy caseloads at particular LVU, staff from other locations was relocated tosupport the team to complete the tasks within set deadlines e.g. Mansehra LVU teamwere supporting LVU Balakot, whereas in Muzzaffarabad and Pattika additional LVUstaff consisting of a revenue officer and admin assistant worked with the local teams toclear the caseload.40

• The revenue department’s support remained quite supportive during this period, anddespite their own official engagements, the revenue officials continued to workovertime with LVU/GRC staff to clear the caseload.• A total amount of Rs. 946,875,000 has been disbursed among all the approvedbeneficiaries in phase-II. Altogether in both the phases of ERRA’s Rural LandlessProgramme Rs. 1,076,625,000 were disbursed among the beneficiaries.• After completion of the programme on May 31, 2010; all the units were closed at alllocations. After reconciliation of inventory DFID was requested by UN HABITAT forfuture course of action; DFID agreed to UN HABITAT’s suggestion of handing over ofthe inventory items to Revenue Boards of AJK and KPK, ERRA and few items wereretained by UN HABITAT.• All the official record/files from all locations and GSP were handed over to ERRA.41

Annex-A: The TeamERRA's Programme for Virtually Landless PeopleLIST OF STAFFS.No. Names DesignationsISLAMABAD1 Tariq Masud Legal Land Expert2 Zahid Nasim Khattak Programme Manager3 Saba Hanif Project Assistant4 Saqib Sharif Project Officer/ERRA5 Moeen Akhter Programme Associate6 Muhammad Yousaf Gill MIS Officer7 Muhammad Kaleem Akram IT Officer8 Lubna Yaqoob IT Assistant/GSP9 Col. Farrukh Zaman GIS ExpertBAGH1 Kh. Abdul Samad Revenue Representative (LVU)2 Raja Mohammad Raffique Revenue Representative (LVU)3 Mohammad Siddique Khan Revenue Representative (GRC)4 Mohammad Tashfeen Social Mobilizer5 Ishtiaq Afzal IT Assistant6 Qamar ul Islam Qamar IT Assistant7 Junaid Ahmad Admin Assistant (GRC)8 Waseem Farooq Admin Assistant (LVU)9 Shujat Ali Admin Assistant (LVU)10 Mohammad Akshad Admin Assistant (LVU)11 Shahid Mehmood Finance Assistant12 Mohammad Maroof Khan Office Boy13 Irfan Sherazi Security Guard14 Ayaz Abbasi Security GuardBALAKOT1 Mohammad Iqbal Revenue Representative (LVU)2 Jahan Zeb Khan Revenue Representative (GRC)3 Akhter Zeb Revenue Representative (LVU)4 Shahid Rehman Social Mobilizer5 Ijaz Ahmed Social Mobilizer6 Adil Waseem Admin Assistant (GRC)7 Attique Khalil Butt Admin Assistant (LVU)8 Sajjad Ahmad Admin Assistant (LVU)9 Bilal Ahmed Khan Finance Assistant10 Asad Hussain IT Assistant11 Waheed Akhter IT Assistant42

12 Naheed Sarwar Office Boy13 Mohammad Zaman Security Guard14 Mohammad Sadiq Security GuardHATTIAN1 M. Anwar Khan Revenue Representative (GRC)2 Sahibzada M. Yahya Revenue Representative (LVU)3 A. Qayyoum Khan Niazi Revenue Representative (LVU)4 Tahir Alam Social Mobilizer5 Muhammad Shahid Khan Admin Assistant (GRC)6 Mohammad Ilyas Admin Assistant (LVU)7 Yasir Amin Admin Assistant (LVU)8 Mohammad Naseer Finance Assistant9 Qaiser Latif IT Assistant10 Mohammad Sharafat Office Boy11 Mohammad Wajid Ali Security Guard12 Sajid Naeem Security GuardMANSEHRA1 Zahoor Ahmed Assistant Project Coordinator (KPK)2 Maaz Iqbal Monitoring Officer (KPK)/ERRA3 Mohammaf Ashraf Revenue Representative (LVU)4 Azhar Mahmood Admin Assistant (LVU)5 Mohammad Zaheer Admin Assistant (GRC)6 Shahid Mehmood Qureshi Finance Assistant7 Sardar Shahid IT Assistant8 Imran taj IT Assistant9 Muhammad Bilal Office Boy10 Amir Ejaz Security Guard11 Shahid Mehmod Security GuardMUZZAFFARABAD1 Naseer ud din Gilan Assistant Project Coordinator (AJK)2 Syed Akbar Ali Shah Revenue Representative (LVU)3 Ghulam Nabi Revenue Representative (GRC)4 Mohammad Azam Social Mobilizer5 Mehfooz Ahmad Social Mobilizer6 Mohammad Ayaz Raja Communication Officer7 Nisar Ahmed Monitoring Officer (AJK)/ERRA8 Noor Sultan Admin Officer (SMBR)9 Rafaqat Rasheed Admin Assistant (GRC)10 Asif Jamil Admin Assistant (LVU)11 Ahsan Shabbir Admin Assistant (LVU)12 Maqsood Ahmed Banday Finance Assistant13 Shumlya Rasheed IT Assistant14 Muhammad hanif Office Boy43

15 Muhammad shareef Security Guard16 Malik Ayaz Security GuardPATTIKASardar Muhammad Ayub1 khanRevenue Representative (LVU)2 Sardar Muhammad Aziz Revenue Representative (GRC)3 Seihkh Bashir Ahmed Revenue Representative (LVU)4 Muhammad Asif Social Mobilizer5 Iqbal Ahmed Social Mobilizer6 Imran -ud- din Admin Assistant (LVU)7 Saleem Butt Admin Assistant (GRC)8 Faisal Ahmad Finance Assistant9 Shahzad Hafeez IT Assistant10 Khushmadin IT Assistant11 Miskeen Office Boy12 Muhammad Riaz Security Guard13 Jahangir Ahmed Security Guard44

Annexure-B: Certificate of Entitlement45

Rural Landless Programme was successfully implemented by Earthquake Reconstruction andRehabilitation Authority (ERRA) in collaboration with United Nations Human SettlementProgramme (UN-HABITAT) Pakistan with financial support of United States Agency forInternational Development (USAID) and Department for International Development, UK (DFID) forfinancial assistance to the vulnerable affectees of October 08, 2005 earthquake.UN-HABITAT Pakistan is thankful to Board of Revenue, Azad Government of Jammu and Kashmir,Board of Revenue, Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa and district governments of Mansehra, Muzaffarabad,Bagh and Neelum for keen involvement in execution of programme.August 2010UN-HABITAT Pakistan acknowledges valuable services provided by Geological Survey of Pakistan(GSP), Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources for provision of their assistance foridentification of potential beneficiaries through technical survey of hazardous areas.This report has been prepared, printed and published by UN-HABITAT Pakistan. Copyrights ofreprinting, reproducing, and republishing are reserved with UN-HABITAT Pakistan.United Nations Human Settlements ProgrammeG.P.O. Box 1980, Islamabad ‐ PakistanTel: +92‐51 835 7358, Fax: +92‐51 261 2924info@unhabitat.org.pk, www.unhabitat.org.pk46