* Admissibility date reflects the date the case was officially registered. All other dates pertain to the date in which a stage was completed.
Case Description
The EIB Complaints Mechanism (EIB-CM) received a complaint registered under the case reference SG/E/2023/25 from an individual regarding the Zenata Urban Development Project implemented in the Commune of Ain Harrouda, between Casablanca and Mohammedia in Morocco. The project involves the resettlement of more than 40,000 persons, approximately 70% of whom are low-income people scattered across 17 informal settlements that are to be dismantled under the “Villes sans Bidonvilles”, Morocco’s national programme (the “VSB”).
According to the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) developed for the project, and EIB Environmental and Social Standard 6 on involuntary resettlement, the cut-off date is generally defined to determine the population affected by a project and their eligibility for compensation. The complainant lived in a Zenata beach house (“cabanon)” developed on concessional state land and subject to expropriation and financial compensation. The RAP for the project foresees that, under certain conditions, Project Affected People (PAP) who lived continuously in a cabanon since the cut-off date are offered, as an alternative to the financial compensation, to be reinstalled under the VSB programme at similar conditions than PAP living in the informal settlements.
The complainant claims having lived permanently in the Cabanon area since many years before the cut-off date and expects a residency compensation within the ‘zone de recasement’. However, the complainant and his family members have already withdrawn the financial compensation and the documentation provided by the complainant and the promoter indicate a residency outside the project area after the cut-off date.
The EIB-CM concludes that the verification and decision on eligibility to the resettlement process as an alternative to the financial compensation are under the remit of the promoter and local authorities and that the application by the project of the eligibility criteria related to the permanent residency within the cabanon area prior to the cut-off-date is in line with the criteria’s that were defined for the project, as presented in the RAP. The EIB-CM therefore concludes that, in this precise case, there were no sufficient elements indicating a non-compliance with regards to the applicable regulatory framework that would justify a compliance assessment, and closed the case.
The final reply was issued to the complainant on 26/08/2024.