Livelihood Restoration Plans of the Project Affected Persons: The Case of Standard Gauge Railway Project in Tanzania ()
1. Background Information
Livelihood restoration of the Project Affected Persons (PAPs) is a challenge in implementation of development projects when the resource base is affected (Baviskar, Sinha, & Philip, 2006; Jenkins et al., 2006; Yu et al., 2006; Yukiko et al., 2006) . To address this challenge, Livelihood Restoration Plans (LRPs) are prepared within a framework requirement of the International Financial Institutions (ADB, 2009; EBRD, 2016; IFC, 2019, 2012; World Bank, 2019, 2013a, 2013b) . However, the status of implementation of the prepared LRPs to restore livelihood of the PAPs is not known (ERM, 2019; Georgia, 2014; Kabra, 2018; MPL, 2017; Noi, 2011; Zeinullina, 2018) .
Development projects, in most cases, are implemented on land that is owned and/or used by people for residence and/or livelihood activities. Thus, there is a close relationship between development projects and livelihoods of the PAPs as the former impacts on the later. However, development projects are inevitable for socio-economic development of the countries. These development projects are such as Standard Gauge Railway (SGR) Projects (Vogelsberger & Militschenko, 2019) , Road Projects (Zeinullina, 2018) , Hydropower Projects (Georgia, 2014; MPL, 2017; Noi, 2011) and Renewable Energy Projects (Kabra, 2018) . It also includes conservation of the natural environment (Baviskar, Sinha, & Philip, 2006; Jenkins et al., 2006; Yu et al., 2006; Yukiko et al., 2006) . The issue of livelihood restoration of the PAPs should be considered in land acquisition for development projects (IFC, 2012) .
The term livelihood has many definitions. Krishna (2007) defined livelihood as a means of living and sustenance. IFC (2012, 2019) defined livelihood as the full range of means or activities that individuals, families and communities utilize for making a living. Hajdu (2006) and Noi (2011) also defined livelihood as the capabilities, assets and activities that are required as a means of living to maintain living standards and quality of life. Also, Evans (2002) defined livelihood as jobs with wages and housing that make for a healthful habitat without degrading the environment. With this definition, urban and rural areas should provide livelihoods and quality of life for its citizens in ways that preserve the quality of the environment (Evans, 2002; UN, 2007) . Thus, how people interact with the resources of their natural environment for the purpose of obtaining a livelihood without degrading the natural environment should be given high consideration (Ingold, 2000; UN, 2007) . This study has considered the IFC (2012, 2019) definition as well as the resources (livelihood resource base) with which people can enhance their livelihood activities and enjoy their lives (Morse & McNamara, 2013) .
Livelihood consists of a number of activities. They are such as business, farming (agriculture), livestock keeping, fishing, mining, hunting and gathering as well as collection of firewood, herbs, timber and other plant materials (Amit, Bhandari, & Kundu, 2014; Bauer, 2006; Hajdu, 2006; UN, 2007; Usner, 2009; Virchow & Braun, 2001) . Livelihood as reported by Roy (2005) and Usner (2009) , also constitute workers such as the industrial workers, agricultural workers, government workers, community workers, social workers, artworks and crafts. Out of all these ranges of livelihood activities, farming remains to be the main source of livelihood for people in developing countries (Biswas & Saha, 2014; Ghosh & Bhandari, 2014; UN, 2007) . Farming depends on cultivation land as the resource base while livestock keeping depends on grazing land. Fishing depends on water bodies like lakes and rivers as the resource base whereas collection of firewood, herbs, timber and other plant materials depends on forest as the resource base (Amit, Bhandari, & Kundu, 2014; Bauer, 2006; Hajdu, 2006; Virchow & Braun, 2001) .
Livelihood restoration becomes a challenge when the resource base is affected in rural areas (Yu et al., 2006; Yukiko et al., 2006) and urban areas (Baviskar, Sinha, & Philip, 2006; Jenkins et al., 2006) . This is due to the fact that in some countries, people are chased away from their livelihood resource base without or with little compensation due to the idea of natural conservation or implementation of development projects. These people who might depend on resource use for their survival are denied user rights and thus, being impoverished (Hajdu, 2006) .
Besides, most of the livelihood activities are undertaken by women (Krishna, 2007; Makura-Paradza, 2010; Roy, 2005) . However, they are marginalized and more vulnerable (Krishna, 2007) . When examining vulnerability of women in livelihood restoration, the vulnerability concept, according to Makura-Paradza (2010) , unravels how women experience the threats to land access and livelihood restoration. The same unveil uncertainty brought about by pressures on the communal or family land resource and how women manage threats brought by land acquisition, mortality, morbidity and mobility. Vulnerability therefore, is defined as a high exposure to risk, shocks and stress and difficulty coping with each of them. Shocks can destroy assets or force people to dispose them in order to cope. Thus, shocks may undermine livelihoods in ways that increases vulnerability of the affected persons and result in impoverishment and powerlessness (Makura-Paradza, 2010) . Households face a variety of risks in livelihood restoration and different people at different stages of their lives manage risks and uncertainty differently. Spreading risk across a variety of activities allows a diverse response to uncertain events of livelihood restoration. However, the ability to spread risks over a variety of livelihood activities depends on access and control over resources of which women are more vulnerable (Makura-Paradza, 2010) .
Furthermore, some of the livelihood restoration activities are not sustainable. Sustainable Livelihoods as a concept was developed in 1990’s and has become widely used by bilateral and multilateral agencies, national and international institutions (Hajdu, 2006; UN, 2007) . Sustainable livelihood implies livelihood activities undertaken by both, rural and urban households that stays longer and does not damage the future of the next generation or restrict their livelihood choices (Krishna, 2007; Morse & McNamara, 2013) . It also implies livelihood activities that do not destroy the natural environment (UN, 2007) . Thus, it has been emphasized by IFC (2019) for creation of sustainable livelihood activities. To secure sustainable livelihoods, it needs creation of economic and income-generating activities that provides employment and increases the incomes of the population for the today and future generation (Evans, 2002; Ianbykh, 2001; IFC, 2019) . Furthermore, access to land for all is the main source of sustainable livelihood (Peeters et al., 2009) .
When focusing on implementation of LRPs that are prepared within a framework requirement of the IFIs, the status on livelihood restoration to the PAPs is not known. Some of them includes the LRP for the SGR Lot 1 Project in Tanzania that was prepared according to the requirements of the International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standard 5 (ERM, 2019) and the LRP for the Renewable Energy Project in Central India that was prepared within a framework of the safeguard standards of a multilateral development bank (Kabra, 2018) . Also include LRP for the Adjaristsqali Hydropower Project in Georgia, funded by the Asian Development Bank, the plan was prepared according to the requirements of the IFC Performance Standard 5 (Georgia, 2014) . Others include LRP for the Gulpur Hydropower Project in Pakistan, funded by the Asian Development Bank, the plan was prepared according to the requirements of the IFC Performance Standard 5 and reviewed against ADB’s Safeguard Policy Statement Safeguard Requirement 2 (MPL, 2017) . Also, the Resettlement, Livelihoods and Ethnic Minorities Development Program (RLDP) for the Trung Son Hydropower Project in Vietnam, funded by the World Bank, the plan was prepared within a framework of the World Bank’s Safeguard Policies for Indigenous Peoples (OP 4.10) and for Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12) (Noi, 2011) . Moreover, the LRP for the Kapshagai-Kurty Road Project in Kazakhstan, funded by the European Bank, was prepared according to the Performance Requirements of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Zeinullina, 2018) .
Despite of the existing gap of information on implementation of LRP to restore the livelihood of the PAPs, previous researchers have not often conducted the empirical studies to examine livelihood restoration of the PAPs. This literature gap necessitated carrying out a study on livelihood restoration of the PAPs, with the main purpose of generating an empirical knowledge that could inform the pathway for LRP improvements by a) reviewing literatures governing land acquisition, compensation, resettlement planning and livelihood restoration of the PAPs, and b) identifying the affected households, livelihood resource base, and activities along the Standard Gauge Railway Project and c) exploring the restoration livelihood activities proposed by the restoration plan and initiated by the project affected Persons.
2. Research Methodology
The study used qualitative research approach with case study being used for in-depth investigation to provide useful and detailed information on the ground as well as the use of secondary information from similar research studies through literature review. The use of case study in research is also supported by Hancock and Algozzine (2006) as well as McGloin and McLeod (2010) so-as-to answer the what (what has been done) and the how (how has been done) research questions. The SGR Lot 1 Project in Tanzania that covers three Regions, namely Dar es Salaam (Ilala and Ubungo Municipal Councils), Pwani (Kisarawe and Kibaha District Councils) and Morogoro (Morogoro Municipal Council, Morogoro and Mvomero District Councils) was selected as a case study to find-out the livelihood restoration of the PAPs. Within this case study area, a total of 2799 Project Affected Households and 3035 Project Affected Properties were identified in 2019.
Data collection in this study involved documentary review and interviews. Darlington and Scott (2002) , Given (2008) , Patton (2002) and Seidman (2006) also support the use of documentary review and interviews in research. Thus, extensive literature review was conducted to cover the IFC-PS documents as well as national and international legal documents governing land acquisition, compensation, resettlement planning and livelihood restoration of the PAPs. Furthermore, the review covered valuation reports as well as review of RAP and LRP of the SGR Lot 1 Project in Tanzania.
Interviews were conducted with PAPs for collection of information on how they restored their livelihood activities. It also included elders and government leaders that are more knowledgeable concerning the prepared RAP and LRP for the purpose of obtaining more information about resettlement and livelihood restoration of the PAPs in the project area.
Content analysis, which is part of qualitative data analysis methods was used to analyse qualitative data obtained from documentary review and interviews of which the collected data were grouped according to the contents of the data collection questions for the purpose of classification, summarization and tabulation. Furthermore, descriptive analysis was used to analyse quantitative data and presented in a form of tables and charts.
3. Results and Discussions
3.1. Affected Livelihood Resource Base
The resource base of the affected livelihood activities along the SGR Lot 1 Project is land that comprises of houses, plots, farms as well as forest reserve and village land. As it was pointed-out by Baviskar, Sinha and Philip (2006) , Jenkins et al. (2006) , Yu et al. (2006) and Yukiko et al. (2006) , there is a challenge on livelihood restoration of the PAPs when the resource base is affected. Table 1 shows the summary of the affected livelihood resource base in the project area.
When examining houses, the most affected district is Ilala Municipal Council whereby 50.32% of all affected houses in the project are located. When examining plots, the most affected district is Morogoro Municipal Council whereby 60.68% of all affected plots are located. Baviskar, Sinha and Philip (2006) and Jenkins et al. (2006) gave an attention of the resource base in urban areas to be focused for livelihood restoration, as the case of Ilala and Morogoro Municipal Councils.
With respect to farms, the most affected districts are Kibaha and Morogoro District Councils where 47.39% and 32.17% of all the affected farms are located. When examining forest reserve and village land as the livelihood resource base, the most affected district is Morogoro District Council that consists 57.14% of the affected forest reserves and village land. Yu et al. (2006) and Yukiko et al. (2006) gave an attention of the resource base in rural areas to be focused for livelihood restoration, as the case of Kibaha and Morogoro District Councils. Figure 1 shows the affected livelihood resource base in the project area.
![]()
Table 1. Summary of the affected livelihood resource base.
Source: Fieldwork, 2019.
![]()
Figure 1. The affected livelihood resource base in the project. Source: Fieldwork, 2019.
The affected houses are used for residential, commercial, commercial residential and animal husbandry. Thus, the means of living and sustenance of the PAPs, as defined by Krishna (2007) were shaken for livelihood restoration. More than 50% of the affected houses in the project area are used for residential that requires resettlement. Commercial residential is the second most affected use in Ilala Municipal Council and Kibaha District Council. The situation was different in Morogoro District Council where the second most affected was animal husbandry, mainly keeping of cows, goats and poultry. Figure 2 shows the use of the affected houses.
3.2. Affected Livelihood Activities
In urban areas (Municipal Councils), the main affected livelihood activities are commercial and commercial residential. The affected houses were used for residence and rent of which the latter was used for income generation. They were also used, partly or the whole house, for commercial activities. Commercial was carried out for income generation to earn a living for those who do business, either the owner or tenant. They include shops, kiosks and food stall. Therefore, as it was explained by Baviskar, Sinha and Philip (2006) and Jenkins et al. (2006) , the urban related livelihood activities should be considered in preparation of the LRPs.
In rural areas (District Councils), the main affected livelihood activities are farming, harvesting of forest products and grazing. Farming was the most common livelihood activity that was observed in all villages within the project area. Arable land and the climate are suitable to support different kinds of crops, including seasonal crops such as cereal and leguminous crops; and perennial crops such as mango, cashew and coconut trees. In Ruvu for instance, farming is carried out within the flood plain of Ruvu River. The flood plain is wet throughout the year and it has sufficient ground water for irrigation. Crops grown are horticultural crops such as onions, tomatoes, okras, sweet pepper and egg plants as well as paddy cultivation. The affected livelihood activities in the aforementioned rural areas without restoration impoverish the rural dwellers who depend on them for their survivals, as it was pointed-out by Hajdu (2006) . Furthermore, Biswas and Saha (2014) , Ghosh and Bhandari (2014) and UN (2007) explains that farming is the main livelihood activity in developing countries, including Tanzania. Thus, LRPs should provide a focus on restoration of farming activities in the affected District Councils.
Harvesting of forest products such as firewood was a livelihood activity of villagers in Visegese Village that borders Pugu Forest Reserve in Kisarawe District Council. Also, harvesting of forest products such as firewood was a livelihood activity of villagers in Mnemela Kibaoni and Soga Villages that borders Mpiji (Ruvu South Forest) while collection of firewood and grazing were livelihood activities of villagers in Mizuguni Village around Mizuguni Village Land. In Morogoro District Council, villagers around Kidugalo, Ngerengere and Muhungamkola Forests such as Kidugalo, Sinyaulime, Kinonko, Muhungamkola and Mikese Villages use the areas for collection of firewood as well as grazing. Thus, to a certain extent, the affected Forest Reserves and Village Lands have affected the villagers’ livelihood activities. As it was pointed-out by Amit, Bhandari and Kundu (2014) , Bauer (2006) , Hajdu (2006) , and Virchow and Braun (2001) , forest is a resource base of which when it is affected, as the case of the aforementioned villages, all people who depends on them for various livelihood activities
![]()
Figure 2. Use of the affected houses in the project. Source: Fieldwork, 2019.
are also affected. Without restoration of the affected livelihood activities might result to impoverish the affected rural dwellers, as it was suggested by Hajdu (2006) .
3.3. Restoration of Livelihood Activities Proposed by the Livelihood Restoration Plan
Restoration of the affected livelihood activities proposed by the LRP consists of five initial livelihood restoration programmes that were to be implemented before and immediately after payment of compensation. These five initial programmes were to be implemented at the total of USD. 1,570,000 are:
• Financial Literacy Training to the PAPs (USD. 70,000);
• Access to Replacement Land and Security of Tenure (USD. 705,000);
• Land Preparation and Enhancing Agricultural Land Productivity (USD.635,000);
• Livestock Mobility and Access to Water Sources (USD. 50,000); and
• Business Entrepreneurship and Vocational Training (USD. 160,000).
Financial literacy training was geared to PAPs before payment of compensation. This training was intended to avoid divert of compensation funds from its intended purpose to short-term consumptions that would lead to long-term hardship and impoverishment. Training sessions were intended to include basic numeracy and literacy skills; money management and budgeting; and savings and cash management. The proposed budget for financial literacy training was USD. 70,000 only. However, the intended training deviated from the needs of the PAPs. The needs of PAPs are not how to spend money, it is how to restore the affected livelihood activities.
Explicitly, training of the PAPs deviated from how to restore housing and business activities in urban areas as was explained by Baviskar, Sinha and Philip (2006) and Jenkins et al. (2006) that mostly affected PAPs in Ilala and Morogoro Municipal Councils. Training also deviated from how to restore farming as the main livelihood activity in rural areas as was explained by Biswas and Saha, (2014) , Ghosh and Bhandari (2014) and UN (2007) that mostly affected PAPs in Kibaha and Morogoro District Councils. Also, the training deviated from how to restore the use of forest products as was explained by Amit, Bhandari and Kundu (2014) , Bauer (2006) , Hajdu (2006) and Virchow and Braun (2001) that mostly affected PAPs in Kibaha and Morogoro District Councils.
Access to replacement land and security of tenure was focused to the vulnerable group, mainly women whose land ownership rights are often undercut by customary laws favoring male inheritance of land. Legal land tenure through Land Access and Security of Tenure Program was intended to help women and other vulnerable groups by providing livelihood security associated with land-based livelihoods. Other benefits include improved access to credit, thus exposing them to opportunities to invest in productivity-enhancing technologies that may reduce their workload and increase long-term livelihood security. Furthermore, in-order to prevent gender-based compensation distribution, dual land titling and ownership between spouses was proposed to empower women to be involved at a higher level within the household’s decision-making hierarchy. Replacement land was planned to be provided in the form of a surveyed plots/farms with title deeds. The proposed budget for access to replacement land and security of tenure was USD.705,000 only.
The focus to women as the most vulnerable group is also supported by Krishna (2007) and Makura-Paradza (2010) . However, the prepared LRP in the project area did not assist women as a vulnerable group in access to replacement land and security of tenure.
Land preparation and enhancing agricultural land productivity was intended for improvement of farming (agriculture) as the main livelihood activity of the PAPs in the project area. There are five measures that were proposed for land preparation and enhancing land productivity. Firstly, the government through district agricultural officers was required to provide agricultural inputs such as fertilizer; training on appropriate fertilizer application; and training on improved soil management techniques including the production of organic compost and cover crops as a way to enhance long-term fertility. Secondly, to ensure the long-term sustainability of livelihood activities on the replaced agricultural land and reduced agricultural land for those who have yet to replace their agricultural land, the government through district agricultural officers was required to provide trainings on improved agricultural practices such as organic farming techniques and climate smart agriculture in order to increase production in a way that does not deplete the natural resource base. Thirdly, cultivation of high yield crops by provision of improved seed varieties of commonly cultivated staple, non-staple, and horticultural crops with the advice of district agricultural extension services. Fourthly, intensification of production through improved seeds combined with fertilizer and training on long-term soil fertility was expected to benefit economically vulnerable households who often seek opportunities for agricultural labour and thus are not able to invest efforts on their own fields. Fifthly, improved storage techniques and access to markets. The proposed budget for land preparation and enhancing agricultural land productivity for the PAPs was $635,000 only.
Livestock mobility and access to water sources was intended for indigenous pastoralists mainly the Maasai and Barabaig whose land used for livestock grazing and water sources was affected by the project through fragmented or mobility restricted by the construction of the Project. Apart from construction of underpasses for livestock crossing along the SGR alignment that could enable livestock to continue access to water sources and grazing areas, it was proposed to improve grazing-land through the establishment of forage and fodder trees. The proposed budget for livestock mobility and access to water sources was $50,000 only.
Business entrepreneurship and vocational training was intended for PAPs whose business forms a major component of livelihood activities. Improvement of this livelihood activity was through government support by providing training to help build entrepreneurship skills so that impacted persons do not just re-establish but also enhance business activities in order to capitalize on new markets brought about by the development of the project. These trainings were proposed to be designed in a way to complement the compensation provided to formal and informal business owners as well as to develop entrepreneurial skills to PAPs in order to diversify their livelihoods. The proposed budget to broaden access to business entrepreneurship and vocational training for small and medium-sized enterprises, with a focus on women and youth was $160,000 only.
However, the proposed LRP that consists of five initial livelihood restoration programmes for restoration of livelihood activities at the total cost of USD. 1,570,000 through financial literacy training to the PAPs; access to replacement land and security of tenure; land preparation and enhancing agricultural land productivity; livestock mobility and access to water sources; and business entrepreneurship and vocational training was not realized. Instead, PAPs by using their own local knowledge initiated their own ways of livelihood restoration within their local environments.
3.4. Restoration of Housing and Livelihood Activities Initiated by the Project Affected Persons
The PAPs found their own initiatives for resettlement and restoration of the affected livelihood activities within a framework of their local environments. These initiatives that were implemented by PAPs after payment of compensation involved four main activities. They are relocation of plots and houses; restoration of commercial activities; relocation of farms; and continued harvesting of forest products and grazing.
PAPs Initiatives on Relocation of Plots and Houses
PAPs were paid full and fair compensation with respect to their land (plots) and existing developments on land (houses). Without LRP, PAPs used the paid compensation funds to buy plots according to their preferences and built improved residential houses compared to the houses they had prior to land acquisition and compensation. The vulnerable group, mainly women and elders were adequately considered in compensation without discrimination, which is one of the main concerns in other countries as reported by Krishna (2007) and Makura-Paradza (2010) . Representative woman, adult and elder PAPs have been considered for illustration purposes.
A woman PAP who was living alone in a small house without her family members due to poverty and social discrimination had managed to buy a big plot within the same village, Mizuguni Village in Kibaha District Council, and built a big house after being paid compensation in 2019. Due to this initiative, she got support from other family members for finishing the house and start living with her family. The PAP being a woman, this shows that compensation, resettlement and livelihood restoration within the framework of local environment did not discriminate women as one of the vulnerable groups as reported by ERM (2019) , Krishna (2007) and Makura-Paradza (2010) . Furthermore, as it was reported by Peeters et al. (2009) that access to land for all is the main source of sustainable livelihood, this argument confirms that the restored livelihood activities within a framework of local environment was sustainable.
An adult PAP after being paid compensation in 2019, he managed to buy a plot within the same village, Magindu Village in Kibaha District Council, and built a new improved house for resettlement and livelihood restoration within the framework of local environment. This shows that compensation paid in the SGR Project was adequate to restore livelihood of the PAPs that was not considered in other countries as reported by Baviskar, Sinha and Philip (2006) .
An elder PAP after being paid compensation in 2019, he managed to buy a plot within the same village, Kinonko Village in Morogoro District Council and built a new improved house together with a shop. This shows chat compensation paid enabled PAPs to restore their livelihood activities within a framework of local environment. The PAP being an elder, this shows that compensation and livelihood restoration did not discriminate elders as one of the vulnerable groups.
PAPs Initiatives on Restoration of Commercial Activities
Without LRP, PAPs managed to relocate their business activities in the same localities for continuity of the commercial activities within a framework of local environment. These commercial activities include retail shops and food store. Continuity of these business activities ensured their sustainability as recommended by Krishna (2007) and Morse and McNamara (2013) . Relocation of business activities in the same localities creates sustainable livelihood opportunities as was emphasized by IFC (2019) . Furthermore, business activities, as reported by Bauer (2006) and UN (2007) , is one of the main livelihood activities. Thus, restoration of business activities enhanced the PAPs livelihood sustainability.
PAPs Initiatives on Relocation of Farms
PAPs were paid full and fair compensation with respect to their land (farms) and existing developments on land (crops). This enabled PAPs to restore their farming activities with assistance of Village Councils. For sustainability of farming as livelihood activities, it was recommended by Krishna (2007) and Morse and McNamara (2013) that it should not neither damage the environment nor damage the future of the next generation or restrict their livelihood choices. Thus, for sustainability of farming as a livelihood activity, Village Councils in Morogoro and Kibaha District Councils provided village lands within a framework of local environment for restoration of farming activities without destruction of the natural environment. Also, the Village Councils ensured access to land by all PAPs without discrimination of age and sex, such as elders and women. For instance, the Kinonko Village Government in Morogoro District Council, as well as Magindu Village and Mizuguni Village in Kibaha District Council prepared land and made farms available to PAPs for continuity of farming as their livelihood activities. Furthermore, extension officers employed by the government at Ward levels are available in the villages to provide assistance to PAPs for cultivation of high yield crops without destruction of the natural environment.
Continued Harvesting of Forest Products and Grazing
The SGR Contractor, YAPI Merkezi, constructed underpass to ensure villagers bordering Pugu Forest Reserve, such as Visegese Village in Kisarawe District Council and villagers bordering Mpiji (Ruvu South Forest) such as Mnemela Kibaoni and Soga Villages; and Mizuguni Village nearby Mizuguni Village Land in Kibaha District Council continue their livelihood activities without obstructions. These livelihood activities include harvesting of forest products such as firewood as well a bee keeping. Furthermore, underpasses were constructed to ensure villagers nearby Kidugalo, Ngerengere and Muhungamkola Forests such as Kidugalo, Sinyaulime, Kinonko, Muhungamkola and Mikese Villages in Morogoro District Council have access for collection of firewood as well as grazing. Thus, the available Forest Reserves and Village Lands along the SGR corridor are still used by villagers for their livelihood activities.
4. Conclusion and Recommendations
The study aimed at identifying the affected households, livelihood resources base and exploring the livelihood initiatives proposed by the LRPs and those initiated by the affected persons. The study identifies that, majority of the affected livelihood activities in urban centres are commercial activities which include shops, kiosks and food staffs. The affected livelihood activities in villages were found to be mostly farming, harvesting of forests products and grazing. The proposed restoration of livelihood activities by the LRPs were financial literacy training to PAPs before payment of compensation, taking into account vulnerable group in access to replacement land and security of tenure, land preparation and enhancing agricultural land productivity, business entrepreneurship and vocational training, and livestock mobility and access to water sources. However, the initiated livelihood activities by the project affected persons were relocation of plots and houses, restoration of commercial activities, relocation of Farms, and continued harvesting of forest products and grazing.
Conclusively, the preparation of LRPs within a framework requirement of the IFIs for livelihood restoration of the PAPs without integration of the local environments is not practicable. People have local knowledge on how to restore their livelihood activities within a framework of local environments. This study has underscored that a framework of the local environments is a key to restoration of the livelihood of people whose land are acquired for development projects. This can be achieved with recommendations for PAPs to be paid full, fair and prompt compensation; the affected vulnerable groups to be involved in livelihood restorations; and the restoration of livelihood activities should be sustainable.
a) Full, fair and prompt compensation to project affected persons
Full, fair and prompt compensation is recommended to be paid to the PAPs according to the national laws and regulations governing land acquisition, compensation and resettlement. This will enable PAPs to buy replacement land (plots and farms) according to their preferences within a framework of their local environment and restore their livelihood activities. With reference to the case study, payment of full and fair compensation enabled PAPs to restore their livelihood activities through relocation of plots and houses, restoration of commercial activities and relocation of farms.
b) Accounting for vulnerable group in livelihood restoration
The affected vulnerable group that mostly consists of women and elders should be involved in livelihood restoration without discrimination. With reference to the case study, women and elders were considered in payment of compensation and they managed to restore their housing and livelihood activities within a framework of their local environment.
c) Accounting for sustainable livelihood activities in livelihood restoration plans
Restoration of livelihood activities should not be just livelihood activities; it has to be focused on sustainable livelihood activities that do not destroy the natural environment and those that do not damage the future of the next generation. The activities should stay long and thus, meet the daily requirement of the affected households and improves their living standards and quality of life.