Zenata Urban Development

Complaint

The complainant had been residing in a former public service house located within the Zenata Urban Development Project area in Morocco. Although the house was originally allocated to a public employee (a family member), the complainant continued to live there after the employee’s retirement in 2005, without rights to the property. In 2023, a court issued an eviction order. The complainant argued for inclusion in the project’s resettlement programme, citing long-term residence and similar treatment granted to other groups.

Work Performed

The EIB Complaints Mechanism (EIB-CM) reviewed the case through document analysis, interviews, and consultations with the project promoter (SAZ) and local authorities. The Mechanism assessed the complainant’s eligibility under the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) and EIB Environmental and Social Standard 6 on involuntary resettlement. It also examined the legal status of the complainant’s occupancy and the project’s obligations in the event of eviction.

Although the complainant was not formally eligible under the RAP’s resettlement programme (due to absence of property or use rights), the EIB-CM found that they had resided in the project area before the cut-off date and therefore qualified as a Project-Affected Person (PAP) under the RAP and under Standard 6 (see paragraph 33 and 34). This entitles them to:

• Resettlement assistance,
• Compensation for improvements made to the property,
• Support to restore livelihoods.

The final decision on resettlement, compensation or assistance lies with local authorities. The project promoter referred the case to the Prefectural Committee and resettlement solution, or assistance is still envisaged.

The Mechanism also reviewed the project’s approach to eviction. Standard 6 requires that evictions be avoided where possible, and if unavoidable, they must be justified, proportionate, and preceded by advance notice and mitigation measures. Although a court ordered the complainant’s eviction, the eviction had not been executed yet and the promoter committed to informing the EIB in advance if eviction becomes necessary.

This commitment was formalised in a corrective action plan developed by the promoter following earlier findings of non-compliance identified by the EIB-CM in previous investigations into the Zenata project (see conclusions reports for cases SG/E/2021/08 Zenata Urban Development and SG/E/2022/11A, 11C, and 18 Zenata Urban Development). The plan includes an agreed action to ensure that any future evictions are communicated to the Bank and handled in line with Standard 6.

Conclusion and outcome

The EIB-CM concluded that the project is following EIB Environmental and Social Standard 6 and that no maladministration by the Bank was identified. The case was closed through a simplified procedure. The EIB-CM issued a suggestion for improvement to the Bank, so that it:

1. Monitors the risk of forced eviction and ensure that any such action is preceded by appropriate notification and mitigation measures.
2. Follows up on the Prefectural Committee’s decision regarding the complainant’s potential access to the resettlement programme, compensation for improvements, and/or livelihood restoration support.

Monitoring

The EIB-CM will monitor the Bank’s implementation of the suggestion issued in this case as part of its ongoing follow-up of the Zenata project compliance cases referred above.