Gold Standard Local Stakeholder Consultation Report CONTENTS

Transkript

Gold Standard Local Stakeholder Consultation Report
CONTENTS
A. Invitations
1. Invitation tracking table
2. Text of invitations or newspaper ads
B. Meeting
1. Program
2. Non-technical summary
3. Participants
i. list
ii. feedback forms
4. Pictures
5. Outcomes of consultation
i. Minutes of the meeting
ii. Assessment of comments
iii. Revisit sustainable development assessment
iv. Summary of alterations based on comments
C. Sustainable development matrix
1. Own sustainable development assessment
2. Outcome blind exercise stakeholders
3. Consolidated sustainable development matrix
D. Preparation of Stakeholder Feedback Round
Annex 1: Participant list
Annex 2: Feedback forms
SECTION A.
A.1.
Invitations
Invitation tracking table
Category Code
1
Governmental
2
Governmental
3
Military
4
Governmental
5
Military
6
Governmental
7
Military
8
Governmental
9
Governmental
10
Governmental
11
Governmental
12
13
Governmental
Lawyer
14
Governmental
15
Politician
16
Local headman
17
Local headman
18
Local headman
19
Local headman
20
Local headman
21
Local headman
Organisation (if
relevant)
Governer of Karaburun
province appointed by
federal government
Mayor
Head of local armed
force. Naval captain
Federal prosecutor of
Karaburun
Head of rural security
forces
Mayor of Mordugan
Head of Police
Head of agriculture office
(Govt appointed)
Chief of Local forestry
(Govt appointed)
Forest protection Officer
Head of Technical Office
in Karaburun (under
Mayor Office)
City Planner
Lawyer
Environmental protection
member
Head of AKP in
Karaburun (ruling party in
Turkey)
Headman (Muhtar) of
village of Yagla
Headman (Muhtar) of
village of Yoyla
Headman (Muhtar) of
village of Comi Hocasi
Headman (Muhtar) of
Headman (Muhtar) of
Headman (Muhtar) of
Name of
invitee
Way of
invitatio
n
post
Confirmatio
n received?
Y/N
Y
Hamze
Serdar
Yasa
Cemil
Camanak
Ahmet
Celikkol
Erkan
Demir
Ahmet
Cakir
Ali Ihsan
Avci
Erdal
Cakici
Selehattin
Aydin
Özer
Kalabas
Faik Cebel
post
Y
Post
Y
Post
Y
Post
Y
Post
Y
Post
Y
Post
Y
Post
Y
Post
Y
Post
Y
Tülin Aydin
Bahadir
Mete
Meftun
Bulunmaz
Ahmet
Degirmenci
Post
Post
Y
Y
Post
Y
Post
Y
Yusuf Arici
Post
Y
Ali Tokac
Post
Y
Celalettin
Yildirim
Bekir Cevik
Post
Y
Post
Y
Sükrü
Sisman
Hüseyin
Demir
Post
Y
Post
Y
Gold Standard Passport version 2.0 July 2008
Developed by Ecofys, TÜV-SÜD and FIELD
2
22
Local inhabitant
23
Local inhabitant
24
Local inhabitant
25
Local headman
26
Local headman
27
Local headman
28
Local headman
29
Local headman
30
Local inhabitant
31
Technical
32
Technical
33
Governmental
34
Technical
35
NGO
Local person of village of
Halktan
Halktan
Halktan
Headman (Muhtar) of
village of Kucukhohce
Headman (Muhtar) of
village of Kugukhahce
Headman (Muhtar) of
Headman (Muhtar) of
Headman (Muhtar) of
Local person – village of
Yeyla
Chamber of
environmental engineers
Registered office of
meteorology in Izmir
Ministry of Environment
and Forestry
Chamber of Turkish
Engineers and Architects
Society to protect nature
36
37
NGO
NGO
Society to protect nature
WWF Turkey
38
NGO
39
NGO
The Turkish foundation
for combating soil erosion
Greenpeace Akdeniz
Hamza
Tokac
Zafer
Tokac
Mahmet
Sarica
Mehmet
Kayali
Ahmet
Karaca
Hüseysin
Ak
Ömer
Civelek
Mustafa
Albayrak
Mustafa
Senbahar
Neslihan
Yazici
Gul Sirin
Merkez
Ofisi
Aysen
Kaya
Post
Y
Post
Y
Post
Y
Post
Y
Post
Y
Post
Y
Post
Y
Post
Y
Post
Y
Post
N
Post
N
Post
N
Post
N
Post
N
Post
Post
N
N
Post
N
Post
N
3
4
A. 2. Invitation text
The following invitation letter was sent to all attendees:
Dear ladies and gentlemen,
LODOS ELEKTRIK ÜRETIM A. Ş., a fully owned affiliate of ALTO HOLDİNG A.Ş., would
like to invite you to take part in a public consultation meeting concerning the Karaburun
wind farm project, which our company is currently planning. The project aims at
producing electricity from climate friendly and ecologically sound domestic sources. A
more detailed description is provided below.
The meeting will take place on Tuesday, 18th September 2008 at 15:00 at Karaburun
Municipality Meeting Hall. The purpose of the meeting is to present our project to the
public and to give you and everyone interested the opportunity to tell us any
considerations or concerns on our project activity with respect to its ecologic, social and
economic effects.
Generating electricity from wind resources contributes to reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions. Thus, we want to generate so-called “carbon credits” for our project. To assure
a high quality of the carbon credits we chose to apply the so-called Gold Standard for our
project. This standard was developed by international environmental and development
NGOs and focuses on a significant positive effect of climate protection projects on
sustainable development in the host country.
If you wish to give comments but cannot attend the meeting, you may contact us by calling
us, sending an e-mail, a fax or a letter. The respective contact data is provided below. If
you would like to come to the meeting, please confirm your attendance. We would be
grateful for any comment you would like to make!
Yours sincerely,
LODOS ELEKTRIK ÜRETIM A. Ş.
Mustafa Ilhan
Bankalar Yanikapi Tenha Sk.
Ucarlar Han. No. 10
34420 Karaköy-Istanbul
E-mail:
Tel.:
Fax:
[email protected]
+90 212 2568-194
+90 212 2568-199
The following invitation posted on the Karaburun village public hall wall:
5
Newspaper announcement
The following invitation appeared on two Turkish newspapers. It was published in the Yeni
Asır newspaper on the 2nd of September 2008 and in the Yeni Cesme newspaper on the
3rd September 2008.
Invitation
LODOS ELEKTRIK ÜRETIM A. Ş. invites all interested people to join us in a meeting
which will take place on Thursday, 18th September 2008, at 15:00 at the Karaburun
Municipality meeting hall to discuss the Karaburun wind farm project which we are
currently planning. The purpose of the meeting is to give you the opportunity to get
information about our project and give comments or tell us your concerns, as the case may
be. For further questions please call 0212-2568194.
We welcome your attendance
LODOS ELEKTRIK ÜRETIM A. Ş.
6
Yeni Asir
7
Yeni Cesme
8
SECTION B.
Meeting
B. 1. Agenda of the meeting
A. Opening of the meeting
B. Explanation of the project
C. Questions for clarification about project explanation
D. Sustainable development assessment
E. Discussion on monitoring sustainable development
F. Closure of the meeting
B. 2. Non-technical summary
LODOS ELEKTRIK ÜRETIM A. Ş., a fully owned affiliate of ALTO HOLDİNG A.Ş.,
intends to erect and operate a wind farm in the area Yaylaköy village in Karaburun district
in the province of Izmir in Turkey. The wind farm shall consist of 60 wind turbines of the
type Enercon E-82 with a capacity of 2 MW each, amounting to a total capacity of
120 MW and a projected annual generation of approximately 324 GWh/a.
The project location is very remote with only very small villages in the surrounding. The
area is located in the north of the Karaburun peninsula and is characterised mainly as
mountain land with only scarce vegetation of ilex and pine forest.
Erection of the wind farm is scheduled to start in July 2010. The first electricity will be fedin to the Turkish grid in the same year. It is expected that 2012 will be the first year in
which the above mentioned expected annual generation is fully reached.
The power production license for the project has been obtained from the Energy Market
Regulatory Authority (EMRA or EPDK in Turkish) in May 2008. Also, by decision of the
Turkish Ministry of Environment and Forestry, the Karaburun wind farm project was
released from the duty to perform an Environmental Impact Assessment.
The project significantly contributes to the further dissemination of renewable energy
resources in Turkey. This is important given the fact that notwithstanding Turkey’s very
favourable wind conditions, this power source still represents a negligible fraction of total
generation.
Contribution to sustainable development
Building a wind farm will contribute to a sustainable expansion path of the Turkish energy
system, as it serves the steadily growing electricity demand in an environmentally suitable
way. The project will contribute to dissemination of state-of-the-art new renewable energy
technology. This helps strengthening those pillars of Turkish energy supply that are
based on ecologically sound and domestically sourced technology.
9
No significant negative ecological impacts can be expected from the proposed project
activity. Rather, there will be essential positive effects, as highly polluting electricity
generation technologies will be displaced by the project. This refers not only to
greenhouse gases but also to other local air pollutants (such us SO2, NOx etc).
As for social impacts, significant positive employment effects are expected especially
during the construction and installation period, not only directly in terms of temporary
construction worker employment, but as well indirectly. In fact, material supplies such as
foundations, cables and access roads will be locally sourced so that the project will also
contribute to employment of external supplier companies. Operation and maintenance of
the wind farm will have positive job effects, too. The experiences with operating a wind
farm in Turkey will help building capacity and know-how on state-of-the-art renewable
energy technology.
B. 3. Participants
i. List of participants
The complete and original list in Turkish language is attached in Annex 1. Find below the
English translation of the blank form which was distributed during the meeting.
Participant list stakeholder consultation for Karaburun wind farm project
Date and time: Thursday, 18th September 2008, 15:00
Location: Belediye Toplanti Salonu, Karaburun village, Izmir province
Please see Annex 1 for the full list.
10
Comments accompanying Annex 1
Instead of translating every single entry to the participant list, a short summary of the
attendants list is provided below in order to show the tyoe of the audience which attended
the meeting.
Altogether 45 people attended the meeting, of which 9 are women. Amongst the
attendants were
a) local representatives of political parties AK and CHP
b) local press representatives
c) local villagers from Tayakadin, Karaburun, and Ödemis
d) representatives of Karaburun mayoralty
e) headman of Yaylaköy village and mayor of Karaburun
Unfortunately, none of the invited representatives of local environmental organisations
were present, because of unavailability of dedicated personnel and lack of involvement of
local NGOs in carbon credit generating projects. Nevertheless, we consider the number
of attendants as a sign of intense public interest in the project and think that due to the
high participation of private local inhabitants the meeting can be considered as very
representative.
ii. Evaluation forms
The table below represents the general template of the evaluation form which was
handed out to each of the attendants during the meeting. Two filled evaluation forms in
Turkish language are attached as Annex 2 in order to provide an example of the answers
that were received. A complete summary of the comments received via these forms is
shown and assessed in section B.5.ii. below.
Name
What is your impression of the meeting?
What do you like about the project?
What do you not like about the project?
Signature
B. 4. Pictures
11
12
B. 5. Outcome of consultation
i. Minutes of the meeting
The meeting started almost in time at 15:09. The mayor of Karaburun opened the
meeting and introduced Mr. Mustafa Ilhan, who is responsible at LODOS for the project.
Mr. Ilhan welcomed the audience and expressed the wish to get information and
comments from the attendants to improve the planned project activity. He then introduced
Mr. Mustafa Burc, a consultant for LODOS on this project who was going to conduct the
meeting together with Mr. Ilhan. Several attendants shortly introduced themselves. After
a short explanation of the project design based on the non technical summary the
attendants were asked for comments.
The attendants then asked questions and initiated an intensive discussion of the project.
Questions on general project design:
Technical questions focused on the actual area used by the project, on the data sources
for the wind yield estimation, and on the connection to transmission lines. The area
covered by the project is about 20 cadastres. An explanation of the procedure of the wind
measurements with measurement masts on three different locations and in different
heights (10m, 20m, 30m) was given. Connection point will be Urla, where the project will
be connected to the Çeşme-Alaçatı-Uzundere transmission line. High voltage overhead
transmission lines (380kV) from the project will be installed at a height of 12 meters.
The wish to connect Karaburun town directly to the project was expressed by the mayor.
However, this very likely to be impossible, as connection issues are based on the
decision of the grid operator and the local energy provider. The influence of the project
developer is minimal.
13
Environmental questions:
Several attendants expressed some concerns about impairment of landscape,
disturbances for animals and birds, effects on animal husbandry, and tree logging. Some
of these concerns were based on experiences with other projects, like e.g. olive tree
logging at a pond project at Eğlenhoca. All these comments are listed, assessed, and
answered to in detail in section B.5.ii. below.
Further questions:
One attendant mentioned a planned barrage project in the area and asked if it interfered
with the wind farm project, but the mayor of Karaburun could clarify, that there is no
mutual influence between the projects and the barrage project will be outside the wind
farm project’s boundaries. As there was a mentioning of the relatively high amount of
temporary local demand for workers during the construction phase of the project while
most of the young people stemming from Karaburun peninsula have moved to Izmir, the
mayor of Karaburun offered to initiate a cooperation between the mayoralty, the Yaylaköy
village head office and Lodos for training local young people to enable them to work for
the project.
During the meeting, blank forms of the sustainability matrix were distributed to the
attendants. Indicators were shortly explained and discussed. The attendants then
documented their assessment by scoring each indicator on the forms.
At the end of the meeting, the evaluation forms were filled in by several attendants.
Mustafa Ilhan thanked everyone for coming and for giving comments and closed the
meeting at 17:30.
ii. Assessment of comments
Stakeholder Comment
Assessment
Oral comments during the meeting
The Karaburun mayoralty This comment is to be
should get a share of the taken seriously, as the
revenues obtained by the claim of the local
administration to some
project
shares of the revenue
of a project is based on
social and distributional
issues.
Trees should be planted
around the project site to
This comment is very
important for the
Response to comment
All land use rights for the
project have already been
paid for by the project
developer. This comment will
be considered by the board of
Alto Holding. LODOS has
already considered spending
a certain amount of money to
support the Karaburun
municipality football team.
LODOS has already bought
20 pair of football shoes
(1.620,40 YTL) for the players
The wind farm layout is very
carefully prepared in terms of
14
offset logging occurring
due to the project
project as it is relevant
for its sustainability
effects.
There is a danger that
the whole landscape will
be filled with wind
turbines
This comment
addresses the
landscape effects
which are relevant part
of the ecological
sustainability of the
project.
Precautions should be
taken to prevent negative
effects on animal
husbandry
This is a very important
concern, as it is highly
relevant for social
project.
animals and birds could
be affected
This concern is very
important and highly
relevant for ecologic
sustainability.
ecological criteria and
especially with respect to
logging of trees. Most of the
turbines will be located on
ridges which are mostly not
covered by any vegetation.
Where vegetation exists, a
special type of tree grows
there called maki and very
few of these tree will be cut.
This is because the overall
area covered by the turbines
is 1200 m2 (20m2 for each
foundation times 60 turbines)
and turbines will not be
fenced (hence minimising the
area occupied by turbines).
Nevertheless, the logging of
trees will be carefully
monitored during the
construction phase, so that
suitable offset actions are
undertaken. For example
olive tree planting along the
turbine road sides and around
the wind farm control building
will be considered.
As the project area is very
remote and the project is very
far away from any settlement
on the peninsula, serious
negative effect in terms of
visibility of the turbines and of
disturbance effects to the
landscape are not expected.
As the landscape is anyway
very mountainous, the visual
effect will even be less.
Wind farm layout has been
designed very carefully with
respect to the issue of animal
husbandry. No grassland nor
agricultural land will be
affected by the project.
When preparing the
application for relief from the
duty to perform an EIA, the
project area was carefully
15
examined by the project
developer in terms of
ecological impacts. As
turbines are of 2 MW each
and located in a wide area
there is much less risk of
collision with birds compared
to smaller turbines very next
to each other.
Comments from the evaluation forms
The acceptance of the
Advantages for the
village are not really clear project by the local
community is an
to understand
important indicator for
social sustainability of
the project.
If the project would affect
or cover agricultural land
or grassland, it would be
negative for village
people
Turbines erected at the
borders of Tayakadin
village will cause a
problem to the villagers.
This concern is highly
important both in
ecological and in social
terms.
The project should be
financed through equity
rather than loans.
Although we take this
concern seriously, the
means of financing of
the project are to be
decided by the project
developer and its
sponsor as to ensure
the financial viability of
the project.
The project is very good,
ecologically sound, and
should be implemented
as soon as possible.
The project design is
This is highly
important, as visibility
disturbances and
shadow casting are
severe disturbances.
It is important for any
It is emphasized, that the
project draws labour demand
into the region which is
heavily characterised by
migration to the cities,
especially Izmir. Although
most of it temporary, the job
creation can lead to income,
training and know how
building.
It was secured during the
project design, that none of
the mentioned feared
negative effects will occur.
The turbine which is located
closest to Tayakadin is in a
distance of roughly 700m
from the village boundary.
This distance is high enough
to assure that no negative
effects will occur.
The project developer
believes that it is sensible to
use credit capital for
implementing renewable
energy projects. It reduces
risk, forces the project
developer to have someone
to check the project design
from an outside perspective,
and it is economically more
attractive.
The project developer is very
grateful for the support
expressed by the attendants.
The project developer puts all
16
project development
activity to take care
that results are as
close to plans as
possible
This is important as it
addresses core issues
of ecological
sustainability.
good, but I hope that
implementation and
operation will also be
successful
The exclusion from EIA
obligations is
problematic.
roads will be harmed
during transportation of
material and parts to the
construction site
This is important, as it
concerns social and
economic
sustainability.
The project developer
must secure forestation
activities to account for
tree losses due to
logging
If the project area would
cover protected areas,
that would be very
negative
This is important, see
above.
Very important
comment, as it is highly
important with respect
to ecological
project.
the efforts to construct and
implement the wind farm on
time
The relief from the EIA for
wind farm projects is defined
in Turkish law. The project
developer has prepared the
application for EIA relief very
carefully and has taken into
account the biosphere at and
around the project location.
It is in the project developer’s
own vital interest to avoid any
harm to the roads used
because the very same roads
will be of important use during
the whole operation time of
the wind farm. Access to the
wind farm and each single
turbine must be safe, quick
and easy to assure optimal
performance. the project
developer will use any roads
carefully and help repair any
damage which might occur.
See above.
Before applying for relief from
performing EIA, it was clearly
proven that no protected area
is anywhere near the project
site.
Comments on the meeting itself
Finally, all the attendants were asked to answer the question “What is your impression of
the meeting?” (referring to the stakeholder meeting that they have just attended to) . The
received comments are basically positive. Two attendants emphasized that questions
were answered in a good way. Five attendants expressed their impression that the
meeting delivered valuable information to the audience. However, one attendant
expressed the wish to have been shown a map of the project locations while another one
would have preferred the use of more modern presentation methods like projector or PC
slide show. Another attendant mentioned it would have been better to conduct the
17
meeting in Yaylaköy village, which is the closest settlement to the wind farm. Lodos has
considered these concerns. More graphical information material will be sent to the
attendants like maps etc. so that they can get a better and more concrete picture of the
wind farm layout.
18
iii. Revisit sustainability assessment
Yes
No
Are you going to revisit the sustainable
development assessment?
Give reasoning behind decision.
Although there have been several concerns about the project, the project developer is deeply convinced that
all of them have been appropriately and carefully addressed. Most of the risks mentioned have been
remedied by a diligent project design. Wherever risks remain, suitable mitigation and offset measures are at
hand to be applied if necessary. Concluding, it is believed that the project contributes to sustainable
development in the project region as well as in Turkey in general.
This is also reflected in the outcome of the blind exercise on sustainable development which will be discussed
below in section C.
iv. Summary of alterations based on comments
The basic project design will not change. However, there will be mainly two issues to be considered during
the further progress of the project:
First, Lodos will seriously consider tree planting as a potential mitigation and offset measure for any tree
logging which may occur during construction.
Secondly, will evaluate other possible beneficial actions which can be undertaken for the community and
discuss these with the municipality, taking into account that at present some social actions such as support to
the local football team are already undertaken. Lodos.
SECTION C.
C.1.
Sustainable Development Matrix
Own sustainable development matrix
Indicator
Air quality
Water quality
and quantity
Mitigation
measure
Relevance to achieving
MDG
Chosen parameter and explanation
Preliminary
score
MDG 7 target A
“Integrate the principles
of sustainable
development into country
policies and programmes
and reverse the loss of
environmental resources”
Turkey’s 2005 MDG
report of mentions air
pollution as one issue in
this context.
MDG 7 target C “Halve,
by 2015, the proportion of
people without
sustainable access to
safe drinking water and
basic sanitation.”
Parameters: Sulphur and nitric oxid
emissions from fossil fuel power
plants (FFPPs) as compared to the
project’s emissions. Explanation:
FFPPs representing a main part of
the baseline pose severe risks related
to these parameters as compared to
the project.
+
Parameters: Amounts of discharged
cooling water and warming of
waterbodies due to the operation of
FFPPs; amount of process water
leakages from FFPPs.
Explanation: FFPPs representing a
main part of the baseline pose severe
risks related to these parameters as
compared to the project.
+
19
Soil condition
MDG 7 target A. MDG
“Proportion of land area
covered by forest” is an
official MDG indicator.
Lower space intensity of
WPPs as compared to
FFPPs means lower risk
of tree-cutting and land
use change.
MDG 7 target A.
Although MDG report
does not refer to these
pollutants, we still
consider them as
relevant for the “loss of
environmental
resources”.
Other
pollutants
Parameters: Waste produced by
FFPPs, area covered by FFPPs in
relation to their average power
production.
+
Parameters: Emissions of harmful
heavy metals due to the operation of
FFPPs.
+
Biodiversity
Quality of
employment
Livelihood of
the poor
Access to
affordable
and clean
energy
services
Human and
institutional
capacity
Quantitative
employment
and income
generation
Balance of
payments
and
investment
0
0
Implementation and
application
of suitable
safety
protocols
by
company
responsible
for erection
of the wind
farm
0
0
0
MDG 1 target B: Achieve
full and productive
employment and decent
work for all, including
women and young people
MDG 8 target A:
“Develop further an open,
rule-based, predictable,
non-discriminatory
trading and financial
system”
Explanation: Improving
balance of payments and
reducing import
Parameter: Wages paid to
employees.
Explanation: WPP electricity
generation is commonly deemed
more labour intensive than power
generation from FFPPs. So, the
parameter seems a good indicator for
the welfare effects of the project.
Parameter: Amount and cost of
Natural Gas necessary to be imported
to produce the same amount of
electricity as the project.
Explanation: Expansion of electricity
generation capacity in Turkey
significantly relies on natural gas
imports, so with the above mentioned
parameter we can measure the
+
+
20
dependency strengthens
Turkey’s position in the
international trading and
financial system
project’s positive impact on reducing
import dependency and on foreign
currency savings and thus on balance
of payments..
Technology
transfer and
technological
self-reliance
+
Comments accompanying own sustainable development matrix
Wherever the score is 0, the project developer assesses that no significant change will be made
with respect to the respective indicator when comparing the project to the baseline. As for the
indicator “Technology transfer and technological self-reliance” it was hard to define a parameter to
measure or at least demonstrate the positive effect of the project. Still, the project developer
believes that due to the introduction of wind energy technology a good effect in this respect will be
generated.
C.2.
Outcome Blind sustainable development exercise
Indicator
Mitigation measure
Chosen parameter
and explanation
Score given by stakeholders
Gold Standard
indicators of
sustainable
development.
If relevant copy
mitigation measure
from "do no harm" –
table, or include
mitigation measure
used to neutralise a
score of ‘–‘
Defined by project
developer
Negative impact:
score ‘-‘ in case negative impact
is not fully mitigated
score 0 in case impact is planned
to be fully mitigated
No change in impact: score 0
Positive impact:
score ‘+’
Air quality
+ (13 times)
Water quality and
quantity
+ (12 times)
Soil condition
+ (11 times)
0 (twice)
Other pollutants
+ (10 times)
0 (once)
0 (3 times)
Biodiversity
Quality of
employment
Livelihood of the poor
Access to affordable
and clean energy
Plant new trees to
offset tree logging
effects during
construction.
Implementation and
application of suitable
safety protocols by
company responsible
for erection of the wind
farm
+ (4 times)
0 (7 times);
- (twice)
+ (seven times)
0 (6 times)
+ (11 times)
0 (twice)
+ (13 times)
21
services
Human and
institutional capacity
Quantitative
employment and
income generation
Balance of payments
and investment
Technology transfer
and technological
self-reliance
+ (11 times)
0 (once)
- (once)
+ (12 times)
0 (once)
+ (10 times)
0 (3 times)
+ (13 times)
Comments resulting from the blind sustainable development exercise
During the meeting, blank forms of sustainability matrix were distributed to the attendants. 14 of these forms
were returned, of which one was not filled in with scores.
As can be seen, the blind exercise has resulted in clear majorities for a positive score for nearly almost all
indicators except for two:
“Biodiversity” effects of the project where scored rather neutral than positive, even one negative score was
given.
Effects on “quality of employment” where scored almost as often “neutral” as “positive”.
A single negative score on “Human and institutional capacity” should be mentioned, too.
Analysis of difference between own sustainable development table and the one resulting from the
blind exercise with stakeholders. Explanation of way of consolidation.
As for the environmental section of the matrix, the assessment is rather alike, whereas it should be
mentioned, that there is one single negative score on “Biodiversity” which will have to be taken into account
during further project progress.
The social sustainability section was assessed clearly more positively by the audience than by the project
developer. The deviations for each indicator separately:
“Livelihood of the poor”: The deviation of the blind exercise score from teh project developer’s score is due to
the fact that there was a misunderstanding about the poverty definition. The attendants have focused in their
assessment on the fact that there will be of course some positive income effects, as labour will be demanded
and jobs will be created at least temporarily. But the indicator clearly focuses on absolute poverty in terms of
e.g. a daily per capita income of 1US-$ etc.
“Access to affordable and clean energy services”: The attendants misunderstood the meaning of the indicator
and just focused on the “cleanness” of wind energy in terms of environmental harm. But the indicator actually
focuses on issues like rural electrification rates and avoidance of unhealthy effects in the context of energy
use like e.g. inside cooking with wood stoves posing risks of respiratory illness etc.
“Human and institutional capacity”: The one negative score for the indicator is difficult to interpret. The project
developer will reach the person who gave this score and find out about the reasons behind this score. the
outcome of this discussion will be documented in the report on the stakeholder feedback round, and if an
important concern will be noted then a respective mitigation measure and project design modification will be
formulated.
In the techno-economic section the scoring of the meeting again corresponds with the scoring of the project
developer.
Consolidation will take place in just deciding upon which scoring should be taken for final scores in cases
where scoring between the two matrixes is not equal and justify this decision with appropriate arguments. This
will be done in the respective section of the final SD matrix below.
22
C.3.
Consolidated sustainable development matrix
Indicator
Mitigation
measure
Air quality
Water quality
and quantity
Soil condition
Relevance to achieving
MDG
Chosen parameter and explanation
Preliminary
score
MDG 7 target A
“Integrate the principles
of sustainable
development into country
policies and programmes
and reverse the loss of
environmental resources”
Turkey’s 2005 MDG
report of mentions air
pollution as one issue in
this context.
MDG 7 target C “Halve,
by 2015, the proportion of
people without
sustainable access to
safe drinking water and
basic sanitation.”
Parameters: Sulphur and nitric oxid
emissions from fossil fuel power
plants (FFPPs) as compared to the
project’s emissions. Explanation:
FFPPs representing a main part of
the baseline pose severe risks related
to these parameters as compared to
the project.
+
Parameters: Amounts of discharged
cooling water and warming of
waterbodies due to the operation of
FFPPs; amount of process water
leakages from FFPPs.
Parameters: Waste produced by
FFPPs, area covered by FFPPs in
relation to their average power
production.
+
Parameters: Emissions of harmful
heavy metals due to the operation of
FFPPs.
+
MDG 7 target A. MDG
“Proportion of land area
covered by forest” is an
official MDG indicator.
Lower space intensity of
WPPs as compared to
FFPPs means lower risk
of tree-cutting and land
use change.
MDG 7 target A.
Although MDG report
does not refer to these
pollutants, we still
consider them as
relevant for the “loss of
environmental
resources”.
Other
pollutants
Biodiversity
Quality of
employment
+
0
Implementation and
application
of suitable
safety
protocols
by
company
responsible
for erection
of the wind
farm
Livelihood of
the poor
0
0
23
Access to
affordable
and clean
energy
services
Human and
institutional
capacity
Quantitative
employment
and income
generation
Balance of
payments
and
investment
Technology
transfer and
technological
self-reliance
0
0
MDG 1 target B: Achieve
full and productive
employment and decent
work for all, including
women and young people
MDG 8 target A:
“Develop further an open,
rule-based, predictable,
non-discriminatory
trading and financial
system”
Explanation: Improving
balance of payments and
reducing import
dependency strengthens
Turkey’s position in the
international trading and
financial system
Parameter: Wages paid to
employees.
Explanation: WPP electricity
generation is commonly deemed
more labour intensive than power
generation from FFPPs. So, the
parameter seems a good indicator for
the welfare effects of the project.
Parameter: Amount and cost of
Natural Gas necessary to be imported
to produce the same amount of
electricity as the project.
Explanation: Expansion of electricity
generation capacity in Turkey
significantly relies on natural gas
imports, so with the above mentioned
parameter we can measure the
project’s positive impact on reducing
import dependency and on foreign
currency savings and thus on balance
of payments.
German manufactured ENERCON
turbines will be imported to Turkey
due to this project, so significant
foreign technology transfer will occur
thanks to this project. .
+
+
+
Justification choices, data source and provision of references
Air quality
Water quality and
quantity
Soil condition
Other pollutants
Biodiversity
Source: Regulation of Air Quality Control (Official Journal 19269; 02.11.1986;
Annex 8 lists A and B); scoring was confirmed by the blind exercise at the LSC
meeting
Source: Regulation of Water Pollution Control (Official Journal: 25687, 31.12.2004;
table 9.3); scoring was confirmed by the blind exercise at the LSC meeting
Source: Regulation of Soil Pollution Control (Official Journal 25831; 31.05.2005;
Annex 1A); scoring was confirmed by the blind exercise at the LSC meeting
Source: Regulation of Hazardous Wastes Control (Official Journal 25722;
14.03.2005; Annex 7 section 10); scoring was confirmed by the blind exercise at
the LSC meeting
Although the blind exercise has resulted in one negative score out of 13 scores, the
project developer’s assessment is that the score should be neutral. This si because
the risk to biodiversity posed by the fossil fuel plants that would have been used in
the baseline scenario instead of the proposed project would be just as high as the
ones caused by our project. In addition, tree planting is added as l mitigation
measure by the project developer for possible tree losses due to logging caused by
constructing access roads and transmission lines or due to turbine erection
activities. With this, the project developer believes that any possible negative
effects to biodiversity can be neutralised. Also, the care with which the project
developer has assessed the biosphere around the project location before applying
for relief from EIA obligations and the positive decision of the ministry on this
24
Quality of
employment
Livelihood of the poor
Access to affordable
and clean energy
services
Human and
institutional capacity
Quantitative
employment and
income generation
Balance of payments
and investment
Technology transfer
and technological
self-reliance
application leads to the same conclusion that no significant harm will be done by
the project activity to animals, birds, and plants.
As for all typical parameters concerning this indicator like access to collective
bargaining and forming of associations etc. the legal framework in Turkey
guarantees that employees will have good and suitable work whether they work for
our project or for power plants representing the baseline scenario. As for further
incentives like training and education etc. the situation in the companies
representing the baseline scenario cannot be judged. So, although we aim for
being an outstanding employer in terms of thisit was decided to keep a neutral
score, although there has been a significant amount of positive scores during the
blind exercise.
Our project clearly is no poverty alleviation project in terms of providing better
access to health care, sanitation, food etc. Although there are some positive
income effects, this project is not linked to absolute poverty in terms of the poverty
line of 1$ a day income. And , income effects are accounted for below at the
indicator “quantity of employment”. Concluding, the initial neutral score is
maintained.
Turkey has an almost 100% electrification rate, no additional household will be
connected to the grid because of this project. Concluding, no change as compared
to the reference scenario can be seen. Thus the neutral score is maintained
despite the positive assessment at the blind exercise.
No change with respect to gender equality, improved primary education, or
empowerment of discriminated parts of the population can be identified for the
project. There might be an effect on awareness on ecologic issues, but this seems
impossible to measure, so the initial neutral score is maintained notwithstanding
the positive assessment at the blind exercise.
Wind energy is more labour intensive than conventional electricity production. The
assessment has been confirmed by the outcome of the blind exercise during the
LSC meeting.
Relevant data source: National electricity generation and transmission statistics.
Our positive assessment has been confirmed by the outcome of the blind exercise
at the LSC meeting.
Relevant data source: the contract to be signed with ENERCON, the provider of
turbines for this project.
SECTION D. Preparation of Stakeholder Feedback Round
Besides preparing this report in English language and uploading it to the GS registry
together with further documentation on the project this report will be translated into
Turkish and provided to the attendants of the meeting and to the stakeholders that were
invited but who did not attend the meeting.
Most of the attendants left some contact data and most of them have access to the
internet, so the general way of providing the report will be to provide it on a website and
inform the attendants about how to download it. In cases a download is impossible, we
printed versions will be sent by post upon respective request by the stakeholder.
25
Annex 1: Participant list
26
27
28
29
30
Annex 2: Feedback forms
31
32
33

Gold Standard Local Stakeholder Consultation Report CONTENTS

Transkript

Benzer belgeler

Student Transport Card (İ stanbulkart)

Ticari vize - VFS Global

PDF - Amnesty International

Demande de visa Schengen

Elektronik Vizesi - E

Elektronik Vizesi

Authorization Form

APPLICATION FOR TEV-SINGA FULLY FUNDED PHD AWARD

STAKEHOLDERS IN US HIGHER EDUCATION: AN